They say meat prices are rising. I was in Costco today and bought a ribeye roast for $12.50/lb. and beef eye of round for $3.50/lb. That’s relatively the same price I’ve been paying for awhile. Either it hasn’t hit here yet or it isn’t happening.
About one in three U.S. adults say they’re spending more on groceries than they were at the start of 2021, according to a Morning Consult survey of 2,200 U.S. adults conducted May 17 to 19 for Bloomberg News. Red meat was the ingredient cited most often for its higher prices, with chicken right behind.
Jane Brody of the New York Times has it right when she calls out obesity and Type-2 diabetes for being high risk factors for severe cases of COVID-19. This has been known since almost the beginning of the pandemic. What she doesn’t get right unnecessarily blaming meat.
Of course, in recent decades many of the policies of the department Mr. Vilsack now heads have contributed mightily to Americans’ access to inexpensive foods that flesh out their bones with unwholesome calories and undermine their health. Two telling examples: The government subsidizes the production of both soybeans and corn, most of which is used to feed livestock.
Not only does livestock production make a major contribution to global warming, much of its output ends up as inexpensive, often highly processed fast foods that can prompt people to overeat and raise their risk of developing heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and kidney disease. But there are no subsidies for the kinds of fruits and vegetables that can counter the disorders that render people more vulnerable to the coronavirus.
It’s not meat that is the problem here. It’s the highly processed foods, sugars, and other excessive carbohydrates that we pump into our bodies. She does talk about the rest of the bad things in the average person’s diet later in the column. But I think those things should have been mentioned first because beef, chicken, and pork will not cause a person to become obese.
I ran across this video from the World Economic Forum regarding meat. The article is about climate change and that is a separate argument from the fake meat they are pushing.
The fake meat will be made using plant material. They never give the nutritional information but it seems to me it would be full of carbohydrates which is the opposite of what people want to eat on a ketogenic diet.
I just don’t see how something so ultra-processed and synthetic can be good for anyone.
While plants have many of the same nutrients found in meat the human body doesn’t seem to absorb them efficiently. And vitamins like B12 aren’t found in plants at all and have to be supplemented if you’re on a vegan diet. To make matters even worse on a mainly vegetable diet is that you have to eat tons of plant based material in order to equal the same amount of nutrients in a small amount of meat. This is why people on a plant based diet have to eat so many times throughout the day. They find themselves famished after just a couple of hours.
The implications for cognitive health are huge. There is a clear, but underappreciated link between meat and the mind, says Charlotte Neumann, a pediatrician at the University of California, Los Angeles, who has studied meat eating in Africa and India for the past three decades. Deficiencies in the micronutrients found in meat have been linked with brain-related disorders, including low IQ, autism, depression and dementia. Iron is crucial for the growth and branching of neurons while in the womb; zinc is found in high concentrations in the hippocampus, a crucial region for learning and memory; vitamin B12 maintains the sheaths that protect nerves; and omega-3 fatty acids such as docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) help to keep neurons alive and to regulate inflammation.
Another day another bad study. Either the article is written poorly or this study is utter garbage. How can you take a 24 hour eating period and extrapolate that out 15 years and assume people kept eating the same way over 15 years?
In the study, researchers asked more than 37,000 adults in the United States what they ate in the course of a 24-hour period in 1999 then followed them for 15 years.
Each week it seems we get a new study on the effects of eating meat. Last week meat is great and this week meat is crap. Who knows what to believe anymore!!
What I do know is that I’m not going to put much stock in a study that uses diaries to record what people eat over 30 days and then finds out their health 30 years later. There is no way the researchers know what these people did between the time they ate meat and how they lived their lives over 30 years. Not only that but people don’t accurately remember what they ate or how much, even when they tell the truth.
The research has several limitations. A major one was that it was based on a self-assessment of what participants ate over a month at the start of the project, so any changes they made to their diets over the years were not taken into account. Participants were followed for a median of 19 years.
Nina Teicholz wrote an op-ed in the LA Times today that talks about the new analysis of scientific studies surrounding red meat and how there is no conclusive evidence, one way or the other, as to red meat’s benefit or harm. It’s important reading because it highlights what is prevalent in all science lately. The attempt to shout down the voices of those that don’t agree with the current “consensus”.
The answer is that many of the nation’s official nutrition recommendations — including the idea that red meat is a killer — have been based on a type of weak science that experts have unfortunately become accustomed to relying upon. Now that iffy science is being questioned. At stake are deeply entrenched ideas about healthy eating and trustworthy nutrition guidelines, and with many scientists invested professionally, and even financially, in the status quo, the fight over the science won’t be pretty.