Quote:
Originally Posted by Indian Charlie
I suggest you buy the book. While there are similarities between Sears and the NT book, there are going to be some sharp differences.
The stuff you weren't agreeing with?? Could you be disagreeing because it runs counter to the information you learned from Dr. Sears, or someone like him?
|
I have no doubt that grass-fed beef is much healthier than regular beef. But I'm still not convinced that you can eat as much of it as you like.
Another huge study just came out showing how bad read meat is for you. Maybe grass-fed beef really is not bad at all. But I would need to see some hard evidence before I would take that leap of faith and recommend that people make red meat (of any type) a big part of their diet.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar...-meat-20120313
The head researcher was asked about grass-fed meat:
How about grass-fed beef? Does the way the animals are raised make a difference?
"We don't know for sure. In this study we were investigating red meat as it is consumed in the United States, which is mostly lot-fed, grain-fed beef. I'm quite sure we would not have enough people consuming mostly grass-fed beef to be able to look at that on its own.
There are some differences. Omega-3 fatty acid levels are somewhat higher in the grass-fed beef. But if someone's getting other sources of omega-3 fatty acids — if they're having fish once or twice a week — the additional amount probably won't make too much difference.
The total fat may be a bit lower. But we don't see that the fat per se is really related to the risk of getting heart disease or cancer. Cholesterol is more in the lean part of the red meat, so that's going to be just as high and maybe even higher in the grass-fed animals.
I think it would be nice to be able to study grass-fed beef directly, but I think in the meantime it's reasonable to assume that the answer is probably not going to be very different from what we saw here."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar...llett-20120324