skip to main |
skip to sidebar
we are trying not to complain.
Contributors
Labels
blogs/friends/etc. (does not imply endorsement!)
- matthryn
- k-i-s-s-i-n-g
- adverbs?
- far away friend
- lovely when she posts
- boston
- cute nephews
- cute niece
- other niece and nephew are password protected
- old, old friend
- sometimes maddening, always interesting
- wise like my kiddo
- nurse
- follows
- clever fellow
- mama scientist
- guitta the wise
- 12th grade prom date
- caroline makes things
- sis/friend anna and co
- marty c
- they're in scotland
3 comments:
Note that the study included processed meat and did not include organic, grass-fed beef. The article's indictment could just as easily be against hormones, antibiotics and feedlot practices as against red meat. (So go ahead and eat your red meat, when you can afford to get organic.)
Are there studies that support the idea that eating non-organic is directly linked to causing cardiovascular disease and cancer (I definitely suspect hormones could be linked to cancer)? I think if you ate the same amount of saturated fats from organic meat vs. non-organic meat, you would still have the same risk for cardiovascular disease. What probably happens is that organic meat is more expensive, people buy it less, and thus consume less saturated fats. It's really difficult to make a hard and sure causal relationship.
Megumi, There are many studies that show omega6 as causative for inflammation, etc., that leads to plaque buildup that leads to cardiovascular disease. And many studies that show that corn-fed, feedlot beef have high omega6 levels in their fats. Grass-fed cattle, on the other hand, have very good omega3/omega6 ratios.
Post a Comment