Eat beef for good health

More news that the conventional wisdom about cholesterol and heart attacks may be wrong:

Two widely prescribed cholesterol-lowering drugs, Vytorin and Zetia, may not work and should be used only as a last resort, The New England Journal of Medicine said in an editorial published on Sunday.

. . .

[T]he full results of a two-year clinical trial that showed that the drugs failed to slow, and might have even sped up, the growth of fatty plaques in the arteries.

. . .

Unlike other cholesterol medicines, called statins, which block the liver from making cholesterol, Zetia works by blocking the intestine from absorbing cholesterol in food.

Does taking Zetia lead to the opposite expected result because the drug itself is doing some weird stuff? Or because cholesterol absorbed from food is actually good for you.

Just to be on the safe side, I plan to increase my beef consumption.

Comments

[Days of Broken Arrows]

Yes, Dr. Dean Edell -- and others -- have noted that there is no direct correlation between elevated cholesterol and heart attacks. Meaning, about half the people with high levels don't get them (this is the bad cholesterol).

I may have mentioned this before, but my grandmother was admitted to the hospital with a terminal tumor and they discovered she had high cholestrol. She had only a few months to live and the docs decided she should be on "a cholesterol-lowering drug."

She was 89.

[Brandon Berg]

Beef actually doesn't have that much cholesterol. If you want to up your cholesterol intake, you should eat more egg yolks and organ meats. Especially brains. When was the last time you heard of a zombie dying of a heart attack?

[Peter]

Some people seem to have excessive cholesterol levels even if they follow low-cholesterol diets and vice-versa.

[David Alexander]

Just to be on the safe side, I plan to increase my beef consumption.

I shall join you in your quest for beef... :)

[John Smith]

What if low IQ humans had parts of their bodies that were good for me, then I should perhaps go to a third world country and purchase one for consumption...

[Half Sigma]

If God thought eating beef were immoral, He wouldn't have made cows kosher.

[David Alexander]

If God thought eating beef were immoral, He wouldn't have made cows kosher.

I thought HS didn't believe in Yahweh or any other deity. Besides, this is the same god that allowed his chosen people to be the scapegoats for anything wrong in the lands they lived in. Hell, this is the same god that gave one group of his people high IQ and left the other half with average IQ...

[Vim]

John Smith:

"What if low IQ humans had parts of their bodies that were good for me, then I should perhaps go to a third world country and purchase one for consumption..."

1. It's not legal to purchase a person.

2. It's not legal to eat a person.

3. If person A has IQ 101 and person B has IQ 100, can person A eat person B?

4. If person A has IQ 180 and person B has IQ 120, can person A eat person B?

5. The difference between a human and a cow is not solely IQ, surely you know this.

6. There is a clear cut objective difference between what is a human and what is a cow, there is no danger of a sliding scale where a person one day mistakes a human for a cow. However, there is a danger of a sliding scale once we decide people we don't identify with are food.

[tvoh]

I've been raising my own grass fed beef for years and have no problems with cholesterol. My doctor used to tell me to stop and follow his no red meat example. He is dying. It is a shame as he was a wonderful man.

To be on the safe side, I've submitted myself to a merlot maintenance program.

[Peter]

What if one of the chicks in 2 Girls 1 Cup were a vegetarian and the other wasn't? Would it be hypocritical from the vegetarian's standpoint?

[SFG]

I still think the poop in that video looked like chocolate ice cream.

And yeah, though I think a lot of it's about animal cruelty, so you could eat someone's body products if they wanted you to. People drink milk after all.

Cue Rammstein:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lk06_ll_vgo

[Vim]

SFG:

"I think a lot of it's about animal cruelty"

My position is that once humans have completely solved the human on human cruelty problem, then sure animals can be next. In addition, once we've solved the problem of the 854 million undernourished people in the world, it's fair to worry about ruling out perfectly reasonable sources of food. Until then it seems bizarre and unethical to worry about chickens and cows and whatever else.

[Anon]

My position is that once humans have completely solved the human on human cruelty problem, then sure animals can be next. In addition, once we've solved the problem of the 854 million undernourished people in the world
Utopic thinking cracks me up. You do realize that at one time most of Academia thought that Marxism would solve both of those problems, right? But we're smarter now, right? Mises dubunked Marx in 1927 but no one wanted to listen. Just prorder GTAIV and buy yourself a steak sandwich.

[latte island]

high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com covers this issue in detail. Since I've been eating more healthy fat and fewer carbs, some of my minor health issues have improved dramatically.

However, there is a danger of a sliding scale once we decide people we don't identify with are food.

If I eat an asian, will I be hungry again in an hour? And ahead of the curve as usual:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2933524.stm

Sweet, delicious pygmy...Such a tender little people.

[John Smith]

There is a clear cut objective difference between what is a human and what is a cow, there is no danger of a sliding scale where a person one day mistakes a human for a cow

But the differences between humans and cows are present in the differences between humans, to a much lesser degree. There are retarded humans who cannot physically hold things and cannot speak. Would it be ok to brutalize them?

In addition, once we've solved the problem of the 854 million undernourished people in the world, it's fair to worry about ruling out perfectly reasonable sources of food. Until then it seems bizarre and unethical to worry about chickens and cows and whatever else.

I know you don't buy into the race and IQ stuff, but world poverty is primarily an issue of too many low IQ people not able to produce enough economic value to feed themselves, and too many of them to just live off the land. If anything, everyone going vegetarian would free up tremendous resources and would eliminate poverty until people reproduced enough to bring it back.

[Half Sigma]

John Smith: "world poverty is primarily an issue of too many low IQ people ... everyone going vegetarian would free up tremendous resources and would eliminate poverty until people reproduced enough to bring it back."

So would the Soylent Green approach you endorsed earlier.

[Anon]

If anything, everyone going vegetarian would free up tremendous resources

This is a faulty assumption often pushed by vegetarians. They assume that by growing protein grains instead of feed for cattle that the food production system would be efficient enough to feed everyone.

This is improbable because:
A: Not all cattle feed on stock grown specifically for them. A lot of cattle feed is in fact a recycled product from crop or meat waste. Cattle are also often fed by having them graze on public lands where they eat natural plants that humans can't digest.

B: Shipping costs are not taken into account. Just because you have a crop surplus does not mean it can be sent to Africa. Many of the staple crops you buy are subsidized by taxpayers just so they can get to local markets.

I'm all for world aid, but this belief in vegetarianism as a solution to world hunger is seriously flawed. Not to mention highly unlikely as most Americans, including myself, will never, ever stop eating beef.
If there is a magic bullet anywhere, it is probably in genetic engineering.

[John Smith]

this belief in vegetarianism as a solution to world hunger is seriously flawed.

A:
According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and a total of 70% of its grain.

B: Food may not be sent to Africa, but overall food prices will be cheaper throughout the world, which will have spillover effects.

I'm gung-ho for genetic engineering, but of the IQ type, not the food type, unless it's accompanied by some sort of reliable population control measure.

B: Food may not be sent to Africa, but overall food prices will be cheaper throughout the world, which will have spillover effects.

The main problem with food in Africa is assholes like Mugabe and the inability of Africans to keep a stable society in place(see SA for a process of a functioning nation turning into s cesspool), not Americans(or anyone else) raising cattle, eating beef or food prices. Zimbabwe used to be the bread basket of Africa.

[Anon]

According to the USDA, growing the crops necessary to feed farmed animals requires nearly half of the United States' water supply and 80% of its agricultural land. Additionally, animals raised for food in the U.S. consume 90% of the soy crop, 80% of the corn crop, and a total of 70% of its grain.

Um you didn't provide a source, and you didn't address my point that cattle are often raised on public land. As for water, you are making the assumption that farmers and ranchers compete for the same water, which is not true. There is no national water supply that is finitely divided. Some areas have plenty of water for grain and cattle, some areas have a deficit.

Consider a rancher whose cattle feeds on crop waste and drinks water from a river that is not near any arable farmland. If you banned meat, from this rancher you would not have any net gain of grain. You would just be eliminating a source of protein as well as an economic resource. This is the key flaw in your assumption, that meat producers compete for the same resources as grain producers. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Thus claiming that a massive switch to vegetarianism will feed more people is simplistic and myopic. It's just another way of trying to guilt people into becoming vegetarian.

B: Food may not be sent to Africa, but overall food prices will be cheaper throughout the world, which will have spillover effects.

So we grow more crops which then lowers grain prices. Good job, now many third world countries have nothing to sell us. Countries like Brazil can no longer export beef either because we're all vegetarian. You've killed off an entire industry and flooded the market with cheap grains. The third world countries you were trying to help now hate you. Good job.

The previous poster has a better solution. Stabilize Africa, starting with countries like Zimbabwe that are held back economically by idiots like Mugabe. If that means by force then so be it. No more double standards for African countries, no more fuzzy-headed wishful thinking, no more blaming the west / colonialism for every little thing that goes wrong there. Admit that many African governments just plain stink and only exist to enrich the people at the top.

[Vim]

"... no more blaming the west / colonialism for every little thing that goes wrong there. Admit that many African governments just plain stink and only exist to enrich the people at the top."

Can you really not make the connection between colonialism and governments that only exist to enrich the people at the top?

[John Smith]

Hey, I'm all for blaming Africa and America last. But we should at least think about the consequences of eating meat.

My source is Wikipedia.

Consider a rancher whose cattle feeds on crop waste and drinks water from a river that is not near any arable farmland. If you banned meat, from this rancher you would not have any net gain of grain. You would just be eliminating a source of protein as well as an economic resource. This is the key flaw in your assumption, that meat producers compete for the same resources as grain producers. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. Thus claiming that a massive switch to vegetarianism will feed more people is simplistic and myopic. It's just another way of trying to guilt people into becoming vegetarian.

Not quite. If all cattle was free roaming, then sure. But factory farming, which is the bulk of the meat industry, does compete directly with human consumption.

Countries like Brazil can no longer export beef either because we're all vegetarian. You've killed off an entire industry and flooded the market with cheap grains.

With the emergence of China, food prices are going to increase throughout the world. And given the US's gigantic trade deficit, exporting food isn't such a bad thing anyway. Sure Zimbabwe used to be a breadbasket, but for now, their comparative advantage lies in raw materials.

Sure Zimbabwe used to be a breadbasket, but for now, their comparative advantage lies in raw materials.

So they can't feed themselves, but they've got plenty of raw materials? Problem solved I guess. If South Africa can't keep the lights on in the mines, what makes you think Zimbabwe will do any better? Please refer to my above post again for what the problem is. They will just move from one disaster to the next.

[Anon]

Not quite. If all cattle was free roaming, then sure. But factory farming, which is the bulk of the meat industry, does compete directly with human consumption.

It's not just cattle, pigs and chickens are often raised on waste. There are also cases where crops would not be as cost effective to grow if animal farms were not nearby.

If you banned meat you would be eliminating sources of protein that are produced with a low energy input. Consider a remote village where locally caught fish is the main source of protein. It would hardly make sense to ship out soy cakes to such a village when they already have a sustainable source.

But then this conversation is totally pointless anyways, since even if the U.S. went vegetarian you would still have 1.3 billion Chinese eating pork fried rice. Would you try to convert them too or should only Westerners take part in meat abstention? Why do so many people believe that the West could solve the world's problems through individual sacrifice? It is almost as if a quarter of white people are born to be catholic or liberal.