Eat Meat And Stop Jogging: 'Common' Advice On How To Get Fit Is Keeping You Fat And Making You Sick (3 page)

Although there have been attempts to instill the benefits of soy in our minds from corporations, the media, and even the government, it’s clear that the evidence supporting the negative impact of regular consumption is far superior. The reality is, the U.S. economy and many BIG businesses, like Monsanto, have a lot invested in the success of soy.

In the year 2000, the U.S. produced 75 million tons of soybeans, and exported nearly 30% of that.

Similar to the promotion of whole grains as a ‘requirement’ in a healthy diet (discussed in Mistake #7), we’re being misled in an effort to protect economic and corporate interests.  For example, research posted in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1995 concluded that the consumption of soy protein lowers cholesterol. The study was financed by a corporation (DuPont Protein Technologies) that produces and markets soy through a sister organization (The Solae Company).

Legumes = Decreased Absorption & Intestinal Health

Soy is not the only legume that can be harmful to our health when over-consumed.  Like grains, nuts, and seeds, legumes come equipped with plant defenses that are designed to prevent consumption.  Unlike humans and animals, plants don’t have a distinct security system that immediately resists or inflicts harm on initial contact. However, they are quite capable of provoking considerable damage over time.  This slow, and many times unnoticeable, deterioration becomes increasingly prevalent when consumed frequently and in large quantities.

The first problem with legumes is that they contain phytic acid (or phytates), that have been shown to reduce the absorption of magnesium, calcium, iron, zinc, and B12. A vegetarian will tell you that phytates can be removed with proper preparation procedures (sprouting, soaking, draining, and boiling), but research tells us that only 50% of phytates are removed with an 18hr soak. Furthermore, it’s highly unlikely that most non-meat eaters practice such a tedious process given the North American norm of prioritizing speed and convenience over quality.  The reason we eat is to nourish our bodies with the vitamins, minerals and essential fats and proteins we require to live, so absorption is pivotal.  Ironically, the minerals we fail to absorb in plant-based alternatives are the same ones excluding if we fail to consume (and absorb) animal protein.  My question is:

W
hy go to such extremes to make a food edible that would otherwise not be, when perfectly safe and more effective foods are available? 

Without getting too scienc-y, legumes are also high in lectins, which can cause intestinal damage, and increase ones risk of an autoimmune disease,
like IBS, Crohn’s, or Colitis.

“…lectins can interact with a variety of other cells in the body and are recognized as the major anti-nutrient of food.”

Lectins can also bind to insulin receptors.  This increases our risk of something called leptin resistance. As we’ve already discussed, adequate leptin levels are critical in determining our metabolic rate, and suppressing fat storage and hunger hormones.  If our cells become resistant to leptin we become more prone to over-eating and under-burning.

Don’t get me wrong, other foods have natural defenses as well, and many foods other than beans are high in lectins.  However, problems arise from the over-consumption and over-reliance on these foods.  A few soaked beans once in a while isn’t going to kill you, but 1 or 2 meals with beans every day and you’ll definitely experience the negative impact on your health.

Legumes = High in Carbohydrates

The other reason legumes are an inferior protein source is that they are very high in carbohydrates.  In the chart below of the most commonly consumed legumes, the first number is the glycemic load (blood sugar response), and the second number is the total carbohydrates in only 1 cup:

As you’
ll discover shortly (Mistake #6), excess daily carbohydrates are the driving force in body fat gain.  Even the lowest carbohydrate values on this chart (Lima Beans = 31g) are far too high for 1 serving at 1 meal.  Although legumes appear to be a viable source of protein for non-meat eaters, when there is an over-reliance on this food as your protein source at most meals, it negatively affects your body composition.

Not ALL Meat is Created Equal

Somehow, as I sit here in 2013 I am handed a new diet book from my brother where the author outlines the importance of avoiding animal foods to improve overall health and lose weight.  Yet when I read his support for why limiting animal products is ‘fundamental’ his points are far from relevant to his recommendation.  As per usual, his suggestions carry no reliable scientific support, and he continuously refers to animal protein as ‘factory farmed’ meat, and classifies meat-eating as pizzas and cheeseburgers.

Not all meat is industrially produced, grain-fed, and pumped with antibiotics, just like not all vegetables are Genetically Mo
dified (GMO).

Grass-fed beef, fre
e-run poultry, and wild fish are easily attainable with a little effort and a minor budget adjustment.  In fact, selecting higher quality meat is usually more satiating (filling), meaning you will likely eat less and balance or potentially lower your grocery costs.  Animal protein is essential to your survival, and can be obtained from local farmers with respectable production and treatment processes.

There also seems to be a tendency to group red meat and processed meat together, even though unprocessed red meat continues to show no association with an increase in heart disease, cancer, and mortality. For example, a 2009 study concluded that:

“A
high consumption of red meat was related to higher all-cause mortality, and the association was stronger for processed meat.
After correction for measurement error
, higher all-cause mortality remained significant only for processed meat.”

Processed meat is clearly the issue, just like GMO
s and pesticides are in fruits and vegetables.  When you’re comparing one food group to another, you can’t compare the very best variety in the food you’re in favor of, with the worst variety of the food you’re against.  That’s like saying your hockey team is better because your 1st line center is better than the other team’s 3rd line center.  If that’s the case, the plant-based proteins we should consider when comparing them to animal protein, should be the genetically modified varieties.  Processed sausages, bacon, and cold cuts, and how the meat is prepared (whether burnt or charred), are the only time correlations between meat and cancer can be drawn.

We all want to avoid factory-farming, processing, GMOs, pesticides, antibiotics and any other ingredients that harm our health.  When comparing dietary choices it’s essential to look at the best or equivalent options of each.

Not ALL Meat-Eaters are Created Equal

Vegetarians often refer to The Seventh Day Adventists (a vegetarian Christian group) as an example of low cancer and mortality rates from avoiding meat. The problem is, it’s unfair to compare this group to a meat-eater in regular society, as they are a secluded group that doesn’t smoke or drink, and likely doesn’t engage in other life shortening lifestyle choices.  A meat-eating equivalent to this group would be the Mormons, who follow similar principles with respect to smoking, drinking, and lifestyle choices.  When you look at the cancer, heart disease, and mortality rates for the Mormons, here’s how they compare to the U.S. Average:

• 22% Lower Cancer Rate
  
• 34% Lower Mortality Rate from Colon Cancer
  

Furthermore, despite the Seventh Day Adventists lifestyle habits lowering their risk, they seem to experience higher rates for other cancers - Hodgkin's disease, malignant melanoma, brain, skin, uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical, ovarian, and colon.

Monocrops = Murder

We are repeatedly told that “grains can feed the world.”  However, what many fail to recognize, without revisiting the dietary consequences of a reliance on plant based proteins, is that wheat, corn & soy are Monocrops. Essentially, a monocrop is planted, grows, is consumed, and strips the earth of its ability to reproduce.  Monocrops increase the rate of soil erosion from ploughing, and decrease the water and nutrient content of the soil.  Unfortunately, once the soil is destroyed in one area, the crop field must occupy a new location (with fertile soil), and significant time and resources are needed to restore the previous site.

“A nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.”
Franklin D. Roosevelt

When you consider the amount of
irrigation needed to water these crops, and the land that it occupies, the monocrop footprint is significant.  This drives animals out of their homes, and uses up the resources they need to survive.

It’s suggested that 90% of the Northern US Prairies have been ta
ken over by monocrops.

We are damaging our land and using up our resources to grow a food that may fill us up, but will not provide proper nourishment.
Conversely, 1 cow can nourish 1 human for an entire year, and the cow’s relationship with the earth is a renewable one:

Soil – Grass – Cows – Humans – Soil (Repeat)

A cows stomach allows it to consume grass and digest cellulose.  We, as humans, cannot digest grass and therefore look to the cow to consume grass and convert it into digestible fat and protein (it’s body).  The cow is not only providing humans with essential protein and fat, but they’re ensuring the health of the grass & soil by:

Grazing
- keeps the grass short, allowing it to re-grow properly. 

Fertilizing
– bacteria in the stomach of the cow feed on the grass and the cow consumes the bacteria for growth.  When the cow digests and eliminates waste, it provides manure to the soil, which feeds the grass, and fertilizes it with nutrients to grow.

Crops, on the other hand, are occupying and destroying the l
and, sucking water reserves dry and not promoting regrowth.

The environmental reasoning for not eating meat is severely flawed, and the moral reasoning may be even worse.  More importantly, both objections have nothing to do with our ultimate goal, and your reason for reading this book:

A
better body composition and a longer and healthier life. 

Animal Protein = Healthier Body & Longer Life

We need meat to thrive, and as I’ll continue to show you, it’s an essential requirement for obtaining a lean, muscular physique. Science has proven that an increase in your consumption of animal products will increase your longevity, whereas the vegetarian diet has been consistently correlated with an early grave. Just look at the Hindus in Southern India, who have the lowest life expectancy in the world because of a lack of animal protein in their diet.  When looking at the general population, vegetarians have equal rates of atherosclerosis, and higher mortality rates.  In fact:

Meat-eating men living 4% longer, and mea
t-eating women live 32% longer!

“All truth passes through three stages.
First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident.”

― Arthur Schopenhauer

Mistake #3

Blaming Saturated Fat For Heart
Disease

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors,
from hundreds of thousands of years ago, thrived averaging 50% of their total calories from animal foods.

“The
prehistoric humans of North America frequented animals such as camel, bison, mammoth, mountain sheep, bear, wild pig, beaver, elk, mule deer, sloth, and antelope, what we’d refer to as ‘very fatty meats’ today.”

When you analyze the tissue of
these foods, you’ll notice a very high percentage of saturated fats, and an extremely low level of polyunsaturated fats. It’s important to note that polyunsaturated fats are what we’ve been told to increase over the last 50 years to replace saturated fats.  The ‘experts’ have told us to restrict or eliminate saturated fats to prevent obesity and disease, even though the diseases plaguing North Americans over the past 10,000 years were virtually non-existent in hunter-gatherer societies.  Dr. Loren Cordain, a top global researchers in the area of evolutionary medicine suggests that there was no cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and even near-sightedness and acne in these men and women.  As for obesity, here’s the standard physique of those eating 50% of their total calories from animal foods high in saturated fat:

Hunter-gatherers were also taller than most Modern Amer
icans, and without the bone malformations and cavities associated with poor nutrition.

“But didn’t Neanderthals and Hunter-Gatherers have a short average life expectancy?”

Yes, but childhood death was more common which skewed the average, and those of the Paleolithic Era had to deal with an inferior shelter, a long-list of hungry predators, and weren’t blessed with the convenience and luxury of a pharmacy down the street.  Despite having no heath care, one could argue that the infant mortality rate was surprisingly low, and the life expectancy relatively high, as 10% of them lived into their 60’s.

Even if we are living longer now, it’s clear that less and less of those years are ‘disease-free
!’

Science suggests that genetically we have changed very li
ttle over the past 40,000 years, with evidence that we only differ by 0.02% at most.  What we seem to forget is that the last 10,000 years makes up an extremely small amount of time in human history. Robb Wolf puts it perfectly when he relates our human history to a football field, saying that:

“…
if we started walking from one end-zone toward the other, we could walk 99.5 yards, and this would represent all of human history except the last 5000 years or so.”

Saturated Fat Research = Flawed

The recommendation to lower saturated fat
started in 1953 when Dr. Ancel Keys supplied results from his research comparing dietary fat intake and heart disease in 7 countries. He concluded that that Americans eat the most fat and have the highest rate of death from heart disease, and the Japanese eat the least fat and have the lowest rate of death from heart disease.

I suppose Ancel was trying to make a name for himself as he failed to mention that his research was actually performed on 22 cou
ntries!  When all 22 countries were included, Dr. Key’s results showed no significance.  When breaking down his data the lack of association between countries is almost embarrassing:

Finland and Mexico ate similar amounts of fat, yet the death rate from heart disease was 24 TIMES higher in Finland!

Unfortunately, once this research was accepted as proof, future experiments continued to cite Key’s research and create somewhat of a snowball effect.  The originally tainted science was quickly perceived as ‘fact,’ and the government and health associations started making serious claims:

“High-fat foods are causing coronary heart disease and other deadly problems in Americans, and these high-fat foods are just as dange
rous to the public as cigarettes.  The depth of the SCIENCE BASE underlying its findings is even more impressive than that of tobacco and health in 1964.”

Saturated Fat Does NOT Cause Heart Disease

Similar country comparison research has been done since Keys falsified study.  For instance, in 1998 in the journal Nutrition, researchers looked at the average intake of saturated fat in 41 European countries and compared it to the risk of death from heart disease.

The countries with the HI
GHEST saturated fat intake had some of the LOWEST death rates from cardiovascular diseased, while the lowest intakes (like Georgia and Azerbaijan) had some of the highest rates. 

Here’s the map of cardiovascular deaths (highest = dark):

Compared to the map
of fat intake (highest = dark):

Although it’s been proven time-and-time again, but somehow ne
ver properly acknowledged, there is no connection between saturated fat intake and heart disease:

I know i
t’s still hard to swallow.  It seems so simple to believe that fatty meat and butter are to blame.  We can all picture a big slab of butter-coated red meat clogging up our arteries.  However, saturated fat is not to blame:

As recent as 2009, there was a review of 21 studies on saturated fat intake, analyzing results from 350,000 people, and all concluded NO ASSOCIATION with heart disease!

In fact, there’s ample evidence that increasing saturated fat intake lowers heart disease.

Even though the evidence is readily available, many North Americans still believe we need to lower our fat intake because dieticians, governments, and doctors are still making claims like this:

“Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol have no known beneficial role in preventing chronic disease and are not required at any level in the diet."  Food and Drug Administration, 2002

Clearly we haven’t benefited from the advice to lower saturated fat, as since the low-fat recommendation were introduced, obesity rates have doubled and heart disease rates tripled in the U.S.  We’ve lowered fat intake nationally, yet we’re fatter than ever, and heart disease, diabetes, depression, and cancer rates have skyrocketed. In the year 1900 we averaged 18lbs of butter per person per year, and in 1995 we had less than 5lbs, yet look at the heart disease and cancer rates: