The Meat and Butter Diet

[Guest guest]

The Meat and Butter Diet

 

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-meat-and-butter-

diet.html

 

 

This post is part of an on-going review of the recommendations of

celebrity doctor Joseph Mercola, M.D. D.O. For an overview, see

Monday's post.

 

Keep in mind, I am not arguing that a vegan diet is healthier or

will lead to a longer life compared to someone who eats a small

amount of animal products, such as a little fish or organic eggs in

their diet

 

But I am arguing that as the amount of animal products increases in

a diet-style forcing natural plant foods off the plate to become a

smaller percentage of total caloric intake, the modern diseases that

kill over 80 percent

of Americans (heart disease, stroke, cancer, diabetes) will occur in

greater and greater likelihood in every genetic type.

 

My review of over 60,000 articles in the scientific literature

supports the conclusion

that animal products if consumed should be held to a maximum of ten

percent of total caloric intake, reduced from 40 percent in America

today and certainly significantly reduced from 60 percent on the

Zone

and South Beach diets and 80 percent of total caloric intake on the

Atkins type diets, and somewhere in between these level on Dr.

Mercola's high protein type diet. Dr. Mercola's recommendation are

somewhat similar to the Weston Price Foundation, another group that

advocates a diet rich in meats based on distorted science and old

scientific views that have been disproven by the preponderance of

the evidence. The

difference is that the Weston Price Foundation does not use a

questionnaire to determine if you are the type that deserves a diet

rich in high saturated fat animal products, they just teach that

everybody is healthier eating a diet chock full of animal products.

 

Dr. Mercola and the Weston Price Foundation flood the internet with

their saturated fat is good for you message. They produce articles

with supposedly scientific references that either quote the same

bunch of people (each other), ignore a ton of modern reputable

research, or distort what was said in the study, claiming saturated

fat is okay and not related to heart disease. They all use the same

distorted logic that

it is the consumption of trans fats that are responsible for heart

attacks, not saturated fats. They didn't inform the reader that the

reason trans fats are bad is because they have been processed to

saturate their carbon bonds so they behave in the body as saturated

fats. Because trans fats are bad or worse, does not make saturated

fats good.

 

It is similar to the twisted logic of the Weston Price crowd who

present the work of this dentist who traveled around the world

showing that populations who did not eat processed foods had good

teeth, to argue that because some of these cultures ate lots of

animal products that must mean diets rich in animal products are

good.

 

Because processed foods, sugar, corn syrup and white flour are bad,

does not make a diet high in animal products lifespan promoting.

Weston Price used some very short-lived people as examples of good

health, just because their teeth looked good. Fortunately, we know

more today than we did in the early 1900's. We know which foods

contain the full spectrum of nutrients that

resist aging and we know that the diseases that afflict modern

civilization are not the consequence of aging; they are the

consequence of nutritional ignorance.

 

And we also know that saturated fat raises cholesterol and is an

important cause of heart disease, but not the only

cause. Too bad so much nutritional ignorance is promoted on the

internet, in books and in the media, it only leads to more people

being confused.

 

Quoting Dr. Mercola's website:

 

Some of you might be watching your weight and be rather hesitant to

add butter into your diet. Have no fear. About 15% of the fatty

acids in butter are of the short and medium chain variety which are

NOT stored as fat in the body, but are used by the vital organs for

energy.

 

Once you get into these high zones of animal product intake there is

no genetic type that is not going to have their health damaged by

such a high consumption of animal products. There is an overwhelming

amount of evidence in the scientific literature to support this

(about 1500 references alone in my book, Eat To Live), but that is

just the tip of the iceberg.

 

Dr. Mercola's comments on the studies linking meat to colon

cancer is to protect yourself with high quality grass-fed beef or

high quality butter. I remember once a patient told me that they

can't get lung cancer because they use high quality tobacco, farmed

without pesticides, that's a good one!

 

People who are fixated to their rigid views, especially addicts will

look to rationalize their behavior even if the excuse can't

withstand scientific scrutiny. Dr. Mercola has to overlooks all the

data that

shows that it is not merely the barbequing of meat, processed or

commercial meats that are linked to heart attack and cancer it is

other important features that are also present in grass-feed beef.

 

Let's review a few of these scientific studies on colon cancer to

illustrate:

 

Chao A. Thun JT. Connell CJ. Et al. Meat Consumption and Risk of

Colorectal Cancer JAMA. 2005;293:172-182.

 

This study concludes that examining meat consumption over many years

prior to the diagnosis of cancer illustrates that prolonged high

consumption of red and processed meat increases (more than doubles)

the risk of colon cancer. In this study even two to three ounces of

red meat or processed meats a day increase risks significantly.

 

Sesink AL; Termont DS; Kleibeuker JH; Van der Meer R Red meat and

colon cancer: dietary haem-induced colonic cytotoxicity and

epithelial hyperproliferation are inhibited by

calcium.Carcinogenesis. 2001;

22(10):1653-9

 

Hughes R; Cross AJ; Pollock JR; Bingham S Dose-dependent effect of

dietary meat on endogenous colonic N-nitrosation.Carcinogenesis.

2001; 22(1):199-202

 

These two studies go into the mechanism via which red meat promotes

colon cancer. Since red meat contains no fiber, it remains in the

gut much longer than fiber-filled foods.

 

They describe the biochemical effects of this slower transit time,

including heightened exposure to red meat's nitrogenous metabolites.

In other words, red meats' slower

transit time in the bowel promotes prolonged exposure to these

carcinogenic compounds (naturally occurring N-nitroso compounds)

when a larger percentage of the diet is made of animal products

rather than plant materials.

 

Another important mechanism reported was the high haem

content of red meat, because dietary haem increased cytolytic

(cell-killing) activity and colonic epithelial proliferation, thus

explaining why red meat is more colon cancer promoting compared to

fish or chicken.

 

Heart disease also occurs not just because of the processing of

meats or the fact that beef is grain fed and not grass fed, but

because of other intrinsic properties of animal foods, and the fact

that we require a

significant exposure to a full symphony of natural antioxidants and

phytochemicals in unprocessed plant matter that we are not getting

as animal products increase and the percentage of vegetation

decreases.

 

Tomorrow, DiseaseProof will feature a look at the real cause of Dr.

Atkins' death, while on Friday I will discuss the healthy way to

integrate some meat into your diet.

 

Written By:Helena

On March 22, 2006 02:54 PM

 

Thanks very much for this series. It seems like more and more people

believe in these stories, I once almost fell for them too. I think

it is interesting to note that Weston Price's data collection

methods were not scientific at all. He, the rich western 'doctor',

entered a village, and asked what the people there ate. Of course,

not used to having such

important visitors, the locals gave him the best they had, the food

they used for special occasions such as this: meat. And Mr Price

concluded that those people ate lots of meat all the time.

 

Regardless, I can still understand the claims of those

saturated-fat-is-good-for-you people. As a vegan, I find that most

research about health and vegans does not concern me, because most

vegans eat way unhealthier than me.

 

It does not sound that unreasonable to my lay mind that people on a

standard-american-diet with practically no vegetables at all with

processed or grain fed pesticide loaden meat

cannot easily be compared with people who eat free range grass fed

meat and lots of vegetables. That's why studies with controlled

trials (such as the second study linked) are important, because they

eliminate the

problem that most people who eat lots of meat also eat lots of junk

food, but of course that still leaves the problem of grain fed

pesticide loaden meat.

 

It would be interesting if you could refute some specific studies

these people cite all the time, such as

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?

cmd=Retrieve & db=PubMed & list_uids=7934543 & dopt=Abstract

 

 

Written By:Dana

On March 22, 2006 07:40 PM

 

Just wondering if you have checked out this website

http://beyondveg.com

and what comments you have on it, particularly since the author is a

former vegetarian. My specific question is regarding the failure to

thrive syndrome - is this the result of the vegan diet not

necessarily

including adequate amounts of vegetables and substituting that

percentage of their caloric intake with grains and processed foods?

Thank you.

 

Written By:Elijah Lynn

On March 23, 2006 02:11 PM

 

This blog is gettin' better everyday.

 

Written By:Tonja

On March 28, 2006 12:16 PM

 

In response to Helena's comment about refuting specific studies they

cite, I have investigated a couple of these. In each case, it is a

clear example of mis-use of the scientific literature. Any study has

a margin

of error, and findings may be a result of random error, or chance.

To

simplify, think about it this way. If I randomly take 10 people from

Boston and 10 people from San Francisco and measure their height, I

could get a difference in the average height of the two groups just

by chance. It wouldn't necessarily mean that there is really any

difference

in height between the two cities. Scientists use statistics to help

determine whether the results they find are likely to be " real " or

due

to chance error, but no single study can be considered conclusive.

Many

factors can cause bias in research. You have to look at the findings

of

many studies to really draw conclusions.

 

So as an example, I found the Weston Price website citing a study

that

found no relationship between cholesterol level and cardiovascular

disease in people over the age of 70. From this they conclude that

cholesterol is not related to heart disease.

 

What they ignored were a

large number of papers finding a relationship, but finding that the

relationship decreases with age. Given that cholesterol is only one

of

many risk factors, this makes sense. Cholesterol apparently is a

greater

risk factor for early cardiovascular disease – but other factors

weigh

in more heavily for heart disease in the elderly. I did a medical

literature search for articles that cite this paper, since other

studies

that get the same finding would certainly cite this one. I found no

study that showed no relationship between cholesterol and

cardiovascular

disease.

 

Another example is their bias in selecting studies to say that soy

is

dangerous. They reference a handful of studies that found soy

consumption to be associated with something negative, but ignored

literally hundreds of studies finding the opposite – many of which

use stronger scientific methods.

 

To the general public, they give what on the surface appears to be a

strong argument. To someone trained in science, however, it is

shoddy science at best – and outright deceptive at worst.

 

 

Written By:Fanny

On April 11, 2006 11:08 AM

 

Bravo! FTC should fine these websites!

 

Written By:Lauren

On April 13, 2006 09:31 AM

 

YAY! Finally! I am SO tired of hearing the WAP/Mercola fans

promoting

their agenda as FACT rather than (misguided IME) opinion. Thank you

for responding to our pleas, Dr. Fuhrman!

 

Lauren

 

Written By:Celeste

On December 10, 2006 04:47 PM

 

Very well said, Tracey! Bravo!

 

Written By:Gerry Pugliese

On March 20, 2007 12:48 PM

 

Check out this post for Dr. Fuhrman's thoughts on many of these

comments:

 

Dr. Fuhrman on Dietary Misinformation

(http://tinyurl.com/23voau)

 

 

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-the-meat-and-butter-

diet.html