Excuse the title, it is the name of the diet! I read this article on the tube this morning and it left me silently fuming: A craving for meat is a weighty issue | Metro.co.uk Stuff like: This demonstartes that the authors knowledge of nutrition is sorely lacking, especially when paired with: Which ignores a lot of evidence about what in meat causes those diseases, plus the dangers of following a purely vegan diet as they seem to suggest.
lol... 1: Pick a smallish/weak (but notoriously sexy) celebrity 2: Say that you wont even reach his skinny size 3: Convince readers that they don't care 4: Brainwash some more 5: ????? 6: Profit!!!
I can vouch for this. I had a 400g steak for my lunch today and lately I've been squatting till I can barely walk up stairs. Oh wait, that wasn't the point the article wanted to make? :evil:
"Protein can make us fat." What an idiot. There is only one law of dieting & weight loss people need to know about: No matter what you eat, if you burn off more calories than you consume, you will lose weight. If this fact was drilled into kids during school then maybe we wouldn't have a nation of fad lovers gullible enough to buy trash written by veggie warriors like Freedman and Barnouin.
This seems to make more of a case for protein in the diet over carbs, ignore the stuff about soy, it's more about the protein and how your body proccess it and how satiated we feel after eating it. The media just seized on the Soya Sausage bit, meat sausages can be full of rusk too. http://www.medindia.net/news/Spice-Up-Your-Diet-With-Soya-Sausages-53014-1.htm http://news.scotsman.com/health/Don39t-be-a-silly-sausage.5364021.jp
The government should make it law for signs saying this to be placed in the dieting section of every bookshop!
So I've been taking this biology class recently, and it's fascinating in terms of learning about biochemistry of different food particles. Lipids, or fats, are fatty acids (hydrocarbons) that bond to the glycogen molecule, which has 3 sites for bonding fatty acids. Each fatty acid can be saturated or unsaturated. In a saturated fat molecule, it has hydrogen molecules bonded to each site. In an unsaturated fat molecule, it has double bonds between carbons, so that hydrogen molecules can't bond to each site, like this: Saturated fat: | H H H H H H | | | | | | | OH-C - C - C - C -C - C - H | | | | | | | | H H H H H H Unsaturated fat: | H H H H H H | | | | | | | OH-C - C = C = C -C - C - H | | | | | | | H H H H H So the main real difference is higher bond energy in the saturated fat, making it a more efficient mechanism for energy storage. It also means that saturated fats are solid at room temperature, and unsaturated fats are liquid, the theory being that saturated fats gum up arteries more.
"Oh, let's take the most vulnerable part of the audience possible and throw a load of crap at them" Good effort, morons :'(
Ohhhhh yes. This thing. I was in the bookstore with a few hours to kill the other day, and I saw their book for men sitting there. I picked it up, and was totally shocked at how utterly full of garbage it is. I was with them on the whole quitting smoking/excessive drinking part, but as soon as they made their argument for not eating meat they lost me. Now, I used to be a vegetarian, and so I shouldn't be THAT hard to convince about why we should/should not eat meat, but their argument is garbage. Firstly, they insist on calling meat "rotting animal carcass", which really isn't true. It gets worse though. They tell you to imagine the biggest, baddest predators out there, like lions and tigers. Those animals have giant claws and meat tearing teeth, and can easily take down large animals as prey for their dinner. Then, they say, look at yourself: short, useless fingernails, small teeth, and almost zero speed or strength compared to just about any animal we eat as meat. Could you kill one with your bare hands and eat it raw? No. Our highly developed brains have allowed us to develop tools and strategies for hunting animals and preparing meat that we would never have had in the wild, and therefore eating meat is not a natural thing for humans to do. What utter BS. I'm sorry, but if this kind of misinformation can spread in a best-selling book, there is something seriously wrong with the western education system. Humans don't have big claws and teeth because we don't need them. Where lions and tigers have "chosen" to evolve them as tools for hunting, we have "chosen" to evolve sophisticated brains that allow us to build our own tools. Humans in the wild were definitely tool-users, and we evolved from a whole lineage of intermediate tool users between us and our primate ancestors. These intermediates would have been less and less dependent on tools and more dependent on physical characteristics the farther back down the genetic tree you go; humans have evolved over millions of years of tool-use to no longer require the same physical equipment other predators do. Spears, axes, and knives are our claws and teeth, and the use of fire for cooking aids our digestive system. Evolutionarily speaking, there is no reason for us to have claws AND use tools...it would be a waste of biological energy. Obviously the authors of this book didn't pay attention in biology class. Or they're too stupid to understand. Or they don't care, and are just being controversially trendy to make a buck in the bestseller market. I'm going to guess it's a combination of all three.
There is a lot of evidence for meat causing illnesses mainly because of the protein in it. Look up the China Study, biggest nutritional study ever.
Man.. come on... seriously. You keep referring to this China Study... the biggest nutritional study ever. Would you mind actually posting a link to it if you've studied it so in depth then it should be no problem. You are beginning to sound like the anti-milk anti-meat agenda poster boy... judging by your profile pic... it could very well be on target.
Specifically the protein found in meat, or all protein in general? (And why, regardless of your answer?) And once again - got a link to this Chnia study?
Illnesses related to the consumption of protein (such as cancers of the digestive tract) have more to do with the cooking method than the meat itself. For example, deep fried chicken can increase your odds of developing bowel cancer whereas steamed skinless chicken doesn't increase the odds at all. This is because carcinogens (cancer causing toxins) are released when any type of meat is cooked at temperatures exceeding 400 degrees farenheit. Chemicals called heterocyclic amines (HCAs) are formed when amino acids from the meat and creatine (a chemical found in muscles) are cooked at high temperatures. HCAs are known as carcinogens in animals. The focus should not be on avoiding meat, but cooking it in a healthy way.
There is also some evidence to suggest that lean, grass fed animals are a better source for meat than fattier, intensively farmed, grain fed animals, as we more are adapted to lean protein sources (due to our hunter-gatherer roots). Generally it is much more complicated than just saying 'meat is bad for you'. Many people who suffer from allegedly meat-induced illnesses eat highly processed meat, lots of processed carbs (and other processed foods), relatively little vegetables or fruit and don't do much exercise.
Which, sadly, the authors of that godawful book seem to think is everyone and anyone who eats meat! These people must work with some dodgy equation... Eye catching title + pseudo science x gullible audience = Amazon.com top ten list.
Elastin is only found in connective tissues, i.e. animal products. Human DNA codes for two forms of elastase. We are evolved to eat meat - the fat profile of wild animals compared to feedlot beef, pork etc is another matter, but suffice to say animal proteins are not harmful. End of.
If I can be slightly facile here for a moment, we're made of meat. Surely that alone qualifies it to be one of the best food sorces availble to us?
You are what you eat, and all that. Though if I was what I eat, I'd be a Big Mac and chocolate 'shake on legs!
