No! Grass fed is NOT a keto rule

(Candy Lind) #101

Aw, now my hubs will be SO disenchanted I’ll never get him on keto! :rofl:

#102

That’s true but your argument is flimsy. They might have eaten some wild grain a few months of the year in limited amounts but they didn’t eat GMO wheat and corn for months on end. The impact that makes could be debatable but let’s not try to associate bison munching on a few pounds of wild grain in April with cows eating GMO corn and soy their entire lives and year round.

#103

I’m all for reading a study that ACTUALLY shows that, but in a decade of this I’ve never seen anything better than the typical saying of one thing, then you read the study and that’s not what it actually shows. Or shows somebody that ate lots of read meat ALONG with 200g of carbs a day, and countless other crap… but it was the meat.

Big fan of Dr. Mercola, but he’s not really keto and treats based on lower carb most of the time. Gedgaudes is Paleo and doesn’t eat the way we do and it’s pretty obvious she only likes keto “enough” to not alienate us. Gundry is a vegetarian in disguise as far as I’m concerned. I have a very different view of him after the Plant Paradox. Don’t tell me eating 3-4oz of meat is all I should be eating if I want to stay healthy. We need to be VERY selective with people who are not ACTUALLY Keto when it comes to this stuff. The rules aren’t the same for us. The Paleo crowd may have the most similarities but many of these people base a LOT of their info based on how it effects Paleo people and them, not how it works for us.

(Stan Brooks) #104

I might be the only person in the in the world who doesn’t see the value in Kerrygold products. I just don’t taste the difference.

(Stan Brooks) #105

There is no difference between GMO and non GMO food. If you believe otherwise please show me the science.

(Ken) #106

Wild grains were available for much of the year. Grain fed demonization started long before GMOs were introduced. Beans are fed because soybeans, after roasting provide an efficient protein source. Are you saying that eating beef that have been partially fed soybeans is a health issue? I’d like to see the science, considering the decades of science that has validated their use in feed. Putting a steer in a feedlot merely increases the rate of fat gain in order to bring it to market sooner. It doesn’t create an unhealthy product. If anything, the demonization of normally raised beef is an example of the attempts of anti meat vegetarian nutjobs to influence the meat industry by targeting consumers with their religious nonsense. How do they do it? The application of moral religious demonization of products that don’t fit their agenda. To these nut jobs, meat is evil, consumes too many resources, and contributes to global warming. All despite zero factual evidence.

I always say, it’s important to understand when you’re being lied to.

(Todd Allen) #107

I don’t think meat intrinsically has significant AGEs. Fresh killed raw meat from healthy animals probably has scarcely more AGEs than eating raspberries off the bush. But when you fatten a pig by over feeding pesticide tainted grain, cure the belly in a solution of sugar, nitrites, etc., wrap it in plastic and let it sit for months before finally crisping it up in a very hot pan at temperatures that promote rapid chemical reactions between the sugars, proteins and various other chemicals it becomes an increasingly big issue.

#108

I guess we agree to disagree here. Thanks for the replies everyone!

I see it this way, through farm subsidies the breadbasket of the US had more corn and soybeans than they knew what to do with. Then mysteriously “they” discovered that not only could you feed corn and soy to cows but that it was an ideal diet, albeit not something they ate much before that time. Sure they’ll get heartburn but we have Pepto Bismol for that.What an amazing coincidence! We have a word for that kind of coincidence, it’s called suspicious. You guys are defending arguments made by the same folks who sold us the idea of “heart healthy whole grains” and the demonization of saturated fats, remember that. Maybe the studies aren’t out yet, but you don’t find many smoking=cancer studies from the 1930’s either so I guess we’ll have to be patient.

(Stan Brooks) #109

Science isn’t perfect and humans less so. The demonization of fats came not so much from pure science but more from a dogmatic belief, and a bureaucratic system (which by their very nature is slow to change). As shown in The Big Fat Surprise, the science about these issues have always been there, just hard to find. Of course we now have much better tools such as Google Scholar so it’s a lot easy to find studies about things we may be concern about.

This is just my personal opinion but I think most people, care about other people and at the very least will not go out of their way to hurt people. One of my real fears is people will use this mistake about dietary fats as a jumping off point to say all science is bad and that will allow unsafe practices to get a strong hold on people.

#110

I thought you didn’t read books? :joy: Didn’t you go on and on about that one time?

(Stan Brooks) #111

Never said I don’t read books. Said I saw no need to buy books to get information that, for me, is easier to get a hold of online. I was a history major in college. I own and have read more books than the average person. The big fat surprise is a narrative history. In that case it’s a good concise method of gaining knowledge of the history.

Not at all.

#112

Would “heart healthy whole grains” be included in this statement? Because honestly how many people has the government killed with bad advice? Advice with very little scientific backing? I forget if Teicholz made a guesstimate but it’s gotta be an astounding number.

(Stan Brooks) #113

Yes it would be.

I don’t know. Why do you ask?

#114

You are making some poorly justified argument about people caring about people, especially in the context of government food recommendations which is what I thought we were talking about after you mentioned Nina’s book…

(Stan Brooks) #115

No I am not. Nor do I need to justify my opinion that generally people care about other people and do not go out of the way to cause harm.

If you have evidence otherwise, say for example a diary of Keys where he talks about his evil scheme to kill people by providing bad health advice I would view and give my opinion on it.

#116

Is there not sufficient evidence to reconsider the idea that grains are heart healthy? Or that 200-grams of carbs might be excessive for T2D? Follow the money here, as with many places.

At the end of his life Keys admitted his evil in so many words. He knew by burying studies he betrayed the American people, did you actually read the book to referenced?

(Stan Brooks) #117

Sure is there sufficient evidence to state that it was done to cause harm? I haven’t seen it and you have not provided any evidence.

Nope. I listened to the audio book. Twice. What you just did is called “moving the goal post” I asked if you had proof of someone’s evil intent. You changed that to “Keys admitted… in so many words”. So the answer is actually no you don’t have or don’t tend to provide that proof.

Keys was a stubborn guy who did a lot of damage but I have yet to see anyone show his intent was to cause harm.

#118

If there is sufficient evidence to prove that bad advice given to a population is causing premature death and nothing is done to alter that advice, in my book that is evil. In almost everyone’s book that is evil. What you are attempting and failing to do is “win” a a debate by requesting a very specific piece of irrelevant evidence that you know likely doesn’t exist.

(Stan Brooks) #119

Okay.

Citation please?

Nope. Been around too long in this world to think I can change your mind. I am just pointing out that I disagree with you and sometime asking you to provide sources.

Corpus delicti.

#120

Can’t this forum do polls? I guess that’s one way. My guess is 90% vote “evil” but who knows? Evil is a loaded word I guess.