[Samseau]

(03-27-2012 09:59 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

I agree with the article. Eating what we've been evolutionarily specialised for over the course of millions of years is clearly a bad idea.

Oh wait, no it isn't.

Seriously. This article looks like bullshit to me.

[gringochileno]

(03-25-2012 06:48 PM)Roosh Wrote:  

Quote:

Red meat is not the whole picture, but the reduction probably has been a contributor to the reduction in mortality rates that we have today.

Probably! Is that the standard we make now on telling the public what they should eat?

Medicine and public health are all about probabilistic reasoning. Making decisions under uncertainty is what people who work in those fields do every day. Saying a study's conclusions are probable means that they reflect current best evidence; they could be overturned in the future with further research but this is what we know.

That said, you need to be careful when reading about medical studies in the popular press. They often get oversimplified and their meaning gets distorted. I haven't looked at the details of the red meat study but one thing I would look for is just how much eating red meat increased mortality--the effect could be statistically significant but still very small. Since this isn't a randomized controlled trial I would also need to look very carefully at how well they controlled for potential confounding factors before accepting the results of the study.

[gringochileno]

Warning: this is a long post. I've tried to bold the most important parts.

Alright, I got a hold of the study (it's attached to this post). From my reading it actually seems pretty well-conducted. They used a couple of huge cohorts of patients and kept track of an impressive number of variables that they were able to control for in the analysis, which makes me confident that their results are fairly robust. I couldn't find any serious flaws in the methodology that would make me question the validity of the data.

As I suspected, the interpretation of the data is where the problem lies.

Looking at the combined results for all-cause mortality (Table 2, "Pooled Results" section), you can see that moving from one quintile to the next in meat consumption increased your risk of death in a stepwise fashion, without much overlap between the confidence intervals. The bottom three rows of the table make it pretty clear that eating more red meat is associated with a statistically significant, progressive increase in all-cause mortality, even after controlling for a large number of potential confounding variables like BMI, activity level, smoking, family history, and many others. I also like that they broke it down into processed vs. unprocessed meat, since that allowed them to show that both kinds increase the risk of death, although processed meat may do so to a somewhat greater extent.

What really surprised me, though, is that the results they give are exclusively in the form of hazard ratios, which tell you the relative (or percentage) increase of risk from eating more meat relative to baseline. What I would really like to quantify is the absolute risk, i.e. how likely is it really that eating more meat is going to make me die an early death. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have used their statistical adjustment procedures to give absolute risk numbers, which I consider a serious impediment to evaluating the usefulness of this study.

However, we can use their data to estimate them. Here's my analysis:


What I've done in the left-hand column is taken their raw data (cases per person-year by quintile of meat eaten) and calculated the absolute risk of death per person-year without adjusting for age or any other variables. In the combined results, the risk of death from all causes is just under 2% per person per year.

The row labeled "attributable risk" measures how much "extra" risk of death was incurred by people in a given quintile compared to people in the first quintile.

The "NNH" row measures number needed to harm, which is equal to 1 divided by the attributable risk and tells you how many person-years of follow-up were required to produce one excess death. For example, an NNH of 100 would mean that for every 100 years lived by the entire study population, one more death was produced than we would expect from the baseline mortality rate. NNH is the standard measurement used to quantify absolute risk factors in medicine. An NNH from the single- to low triple-digits usually denotes a clinically important risk factor.

As you can see, the left-hand column's numbers are all over the place, which reflects the fact that the raw data haven't been statistically adjusted. We need to find a way to reproduce the authors' statistical adjustment procedure.

In the right-hand column I've tried to factor in the controls by using the hazard ratios from the original results. Using the data from the first quintile as an absolute-risk baseline, I used the hazard ratios to calculate how many cases we would expect in each quintile given the study results.

With this methodology, we get an NNH between about 2000 and 4300, with an average around 3250, for a one-serving-per-day increase in meat consumption. Those in the top 20% of meat consumption had an NNH of about 1300 compared to the bottom 20%. That means that if you reduce your meat consumption by one serving per day, you would expect to reduce your risk of death from all causes by about 1/3250, or 0.03%, per year. Even if you went from eating more meat than 80% of people to eating almost no meat, your risk of death would only decrease by about 0.08% per year.

Finally, we're able to state the bottom line: Eating less meat seems to decrease the risk of death, but the benefit is likely to be small.

Of course, the usual caveats apply, and this is in no way a good substitute for an absolute risk analysis by the authors using their original data. But based on what I've seen, the study seems to confirm what I suspected earlier: there's a significant relative benefit to lowering meat consumption, but the absolute benefit is less so. Personally, I'd like to see what the authors have to say on this matter since they may already have done an analysis that clears up the issue but didn't show up in the published article for whatever reason.

[sheesh]

(03-27-2012 09:59 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

I agree with the article. Eating what we've been evolutionarily specialised for over the course of millions of years is clearly a bad idea.

Oh wait, no it isn't.

When in human history did people have steak for lunch each and every day ?

[BortimusPrime]

I looked up the nutrition info for top sirloin: (and it listed an 18oz steak, which is pretty damn big)

116g protein
19g fat
7.2 mg iron
191 mg cholesterol
21.4 mg zinc

Sounds like the only thing I'd die of from eating beef would be testosterone poisoning.

[Timoteo]

"Now, where to actually purchase horse meat?"

Yeah...this is the tricky part. If you live in the Southwest, near Mexico, there might be places where you can get it, but otherwise, try searching online maybe?

[Kitsune]

(03-28-2012 12:52 PM)sheesh Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 09:59 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

I agree with the article. Eating what we've been evolutionarily specialised for over the course of millions of years is clearly a bad idea.

Oh wait, no it isn't.

When in human history did people have steak for lunch each and every day ?

People would have eaten nothing but meat for weeks at a time before agriculture. They didn't hunt down a buffalo, and famished and exhausted say, 'lets wrap this in clingfilm, put it in the freezer, and eat 50 grams twice per week until it is all gone.'

Humans are apex predators. Historically we would have killed the shit out of everything and then eaten the shit out of everything.

What is the alternative, and how likely is it that we're biologically adapted to it?

Grain? Nope - can't even eat it raw.
Vegetables - Not even available for a lot of the year in most places.

Consider what the human body and mind is designed to do, and then eat accordingly. Hint: Pack mentality and future-orientation tend to mean the animal is adapted for hunting big game.

It also means bigger brains and more will to power, which is probably why the 'recommended food' pyramid is so completely warped.

[kosko]

^ This is really off base. The whole "hunt" mentality of humans is a myth. Look at physical composition and you start to figure out how this is a complete lie. We share more with a horse then we do with a cougar. Humans diet is only made to digest roughly around 20% of animal proteins. If you say "BS" to this go try and live of exclusively meat and see where you end up. The human body can naturally break down plants and extract all nutrients from them while with meat this is not the case.

The next thing is out teeth if humans were supposed to eat mostly animal flesh are teeth would reflect this. Go pick up your dog and pry open its mouth. Examines its teeth compared to yours, you notice your dog has more triangular 'shredders' that are meant to be able to rip through animal flesh easier. Contrast this to a human which may have 4 tiny canine teeth with the majority being molars which press and break down plant fibers. Are teeth look more like horses and koalas then cougars or dogs.

Next effort. Humans as mostly plant eaters need to constantly eat more to get a good abundance of nutrients. Most of us, even if you don't agree with my premise in my post here will agree that the western style of "3 meals a day" is off base. Humans generally need 6 meals a day at least, we need constant upgrades of fuel versus most meat eaters whom would eat once a day or maybe once evrey few days. The modern human can sit now and paint false stories of being hunters. Few will ever be put into the position of hunting mass amounts of food to understand the required effort involved in doing this.

- tracking migration seasons and patterns

- traveling far distances to find your prey

- having to kill and clean and carry back a 600lb animal back to your home base

- the effort to try and preserve the meat via smoking or salt if that civilization was that advanced at the time.. Most weren't.

There was no Publix to get your meat from with zero to know effort. You sometimes expended more energy to get the meat than you even would re-coup in nutrition. This is why humans learned to grow and raise there own food. Small goats, lambs, rabbits and chickens were more manageable but this came after the fact once we started growing crops (or at the same time).

Mass production is the only reason meat has become such a high component of the human diet. There is no other reason. Meat is extremely resource and energy intensive to produce this is why prior to the 1900's humans only got about 15% of their diet from meat. Only after the 60s/70s did it balloon to rates we are used to today with the myth that we were brolic hunters whom killed bears with our hands when in truth we we just raised rabbits lol.

Instead of looking at tales look at human nature and our composition. You don't get unhealthy eating a diet composed of dense plants.. Go find me a person whom has grown sick from eating to much spinach. You can find millions of people whom have grown sick from eating to much animal protein tho.. Tons of people. Now with human nature, humans are notorious for avoiding wasting energy if not needed. Outside of American culture people do not go balls out for tasks if not needed, you will need the energy for when it is needed. I can't see the logic of humans spending more energy to go hunt mass amounts of meat then they would get in return from the majority plant based diet. Look back to settlement patterns and how humans favored being in close proximity to water to be close to plants and their lifeblood water. If humans used the myth logical we would live on the tops of hills far removed from our own vitals to be more close to animals we hunted. and finally composition. We don't have claws or flesh cutting teeth. Maybe millions of years ago we did but hey that's not relevant for humans near history of the last few thousand years.

Meat is a important piece of are overall diet. I am far from some vegan feeble as some may get from this post. 20% protien in your diet is more than enough. There are superior plant sources that all cultures and civilizations had to keep them running and prospering. Humans got there 20% from smaller game and fish. These were more suited to are living patterns. The idea of hunting down large animals is a disney creation. The ROI is so low and proper complete nutrition can not be attained and a exclusive high meat diet.

[Kitsune]

(03-29-2012 03:17 PM)kosko Wrote:  

If you say "BS" to this go try and live of exclusively meat and see where you end up.

Brutal. Ok, I'll bite.

(03-29-2012 03:17 PM)kosko Wrote:  

^ This is really off base. The whole "hunt" mentality of humans is a myth. Look at physical composition and you start to figure out how this is a complete lie. We share more with a horse then we do with a cougar.

Yeah.. Like the eyes on the sides of our heads. Wait? We have predatory eyes on the fronts of our heads - like predators. For hunting.

Maybe it is the fact we have two stomachs like cows, sheep etc. Nope!

I suppose horses have one stomach, which is why they eat grass like we can... Nope.

Quote:

If you say "BS" to this go try and live of exclusively meat and see where you end up. The human body can naturally break down plants and extract all nutrients from them while with meat this is not the case.

Inuit's have a completely carnivorous diet, as do nomadic Asians. Paleolithic humans had a diet similar to that of bears and wolves; I suggest you search out the work of Buckminster-Fuller, Vilhjalmur Stefansson and Weston Price, who I'll come to in a moment.

Nobody has claimed that we're pure carnivores, but it is retarded to think that humans didn't eat meat in HUGE quantities. Oh and by the way, we can't break down cellulose, a big part of herbivores digestive power.

Quote:

The next thing is out teeth if humans were supposed to eat mostly animal flesh are teeth would reflect this. Go pick up your dog and pry open its mouth. Examines its teeth compared to yours, you notice your dog has more triangular 'shredders' that are meant to be able to rip through animal flesh easier. Contrast this to a human which may have 4 tiny canine teeth with the majority being molars which press and break down plant fibers. Are teeth look more like horses and koalas then cougars or dogs.

Price was a dentistry dude who found that in the carnivorous cultures stated above, they rarely had any tooth decay or need for dental work. This is opposed to the modern diet, where people's teeth are fucked.

Also, canines have molars, bears have molars, humans have molars. Yes we grind food down but we have a mix of teeth, like all omnivores.

Quote:

Next effort. Humans as mostly plant eaters need to constantly eat more to get a good abundance of nutrients. Most of us, even if you don't agree with my premise in my post here will agree that the western style of "3 meals a day" is off base. Humans generally need 6 meals a day at least, we need constant upgrades of fuel versus most meat eaters whom would eat once a day or maybe once evrey few days. The modern human can sit now and paint false stories of being hunters. Few will ever be put into the position of hunting mass amounts of food to understand the required effort involved in doing this.

Humans aren't mostly plant eaters. Humans don't need 6 meals a day, jesus. They do if they're eating chicken food and biscuits and stuff with no caloric value, but you can easily become super strong on a heavy fasting diet where you eat once or twice a day and eat LOADS.

'Few humans will ever hunt' is a ridiculous argument. Few will ever do agriculture either? And it doesn't matter how much energy you burn, in most of the human world there are seasons, which means during winter, autumn and spring you aren't getting many fruits and veggies unless you dig for them. Before plowed fields and GM veggies growing where they were put, how much energy do you think paleo-man used digging up potatoes or carrots?

Quote:

- tracking migration seasons and patterns

- traveling far distances to find your prey

That is exactly what humans did. We're the only animals that can track those complex things, and one of the only sets of animals that can hunt in packs to chase down prey. When you consider we're the smartest, and our nearest followers(in intelligence terms) are dolphins, orcas, chimps, wolves, hunting dogs etc. who generally also hunt in packs to chase down prey, how is it even debatable that we could be the only high-intelligence-herbivore-notpackhuntereventhoughthatisexactlywhatatribeis among all the other ones?

Quote:

There was no Publix to get your meat from with zero to know effort. You sometimes expended more energy to get the meat than you even would re-coup in nutrition. This is why humans learned to grow and raise there own food. Small goats, lambs, rabbits and chickens were more manageable but this came after the fact once we started growing crops (or at the same time).

If predators always expended more effort to get meat than they got from it, then it wouldn't be an evolutionarily stable imprint; i.e. predators wouldn't survive. Agriculture is something our bodies aren't designed for; they haven't evolutionarily caught up. It is also, at 10,000 years ago, an almost insignificant time when considering that our biological make-up is similar to the first true humans which appeared over 200,000 years ago.

Agriculture also meant we started eating grains - you can't believe we were also built for that, even though increasingly they're killing us?

Quote:

Mass production is the only reason meat has become such a high component of the human diet. There is no other reason. Meat is extremely resource and energy intensive to produce this is why prior to the 1900's humans only got about 15% of their diet from meat. Only after the 60s/70s did it balloon to rates we are used to today with the myth that we were brolic hunters whom killed bears with our hands when in truth we we just raised rabbits lol.

At this point I'd rather not repeat points. It isn't a myth that we were hunters, I mean WTF? There's a lot of archaeology to prove that we obviously were. I guess those cave pictures are fake too? Human's have been hunters throughout their history. Jesus.

Quote:

Instead of looking at tales look at human nature and our composition. You don't get unhealthy eating a diet composed of dense plants.. Go find me a person whom has grown sick from eating to much spinach. You can find millions of people whom have grown sick from eating to much animal protein tho.. Tons of people. Now with human nature, humans are notorious for avoiding wasting energy if not needed.

You're just going to have to source up here. Where are the millions of people who get sick from 'too much animal protein?' What does that even mean? And I'm pretty sure you can get sick from eating just vegetables, but I never suggested such a thing and don't now. Humans aren't notorious for being low energy animals - hence we aren't still fucking around in tribes and we have skyscrapers etc.

I'm starting to think your argument is based purely from subjective observations, which is kinda scary, no offense.

Quote:

Outside of American culture people do not go balls out for tasks if not needed, you will need the energy for when it is needed. I can't see the logic of humans spending more energy to go hunt mass amounts of meat then they would get in return from the majority plant based diet.

I'm not sure American moral values have much to do with biology.

Quote:

Look back to settlement patterns and how humans favored being in close proximity to water to be close to plants and their lifeblood water. If humans used the myth logical we would live on the tops of hills far removed from our own vitals to be more close to animals we hunted

Holy shit. We moved near to water because we need to drink it. ANIMALS WHICH WE EAT also need to drink too. Have you never seen a documentary with literally thousands of animals grazing at waterholes, and predatory animals trying to snatch them from there?

All animals go near water holes. And surprise - humans, like other predators, also settle on high ground for better terrain visibility. Would you argue that a tiger is not a carnivore because it climbs trees away from the water where its food is?

Quote:

and finally composition. We don't have claws or flesh cutting teeth. Maybe millions of years ago we did but hey that's not relevant for humans near history of the last few thousand years.

No, we have a brain and a predatory desire to hunt things down in packs with spears and rocks (And later knives, guns, bombs. Face it, we spend a lot of time as a species coming up with killing machines.) And of course human history is relevant when you're talking about biological make up! We haven't physically evolved in the last few thousands years. Do you know how long evolution takes?

Quote:

Meat is a important piece of are overall diet. I am far from some vegan feeble as some may get from this post. 20% protien in your diet is more than enough. There are superior plant sources that all cultures and civilizations had to keep them running and prospering. Humans got there 20% from smaller game and fish. These were more suited to are living patterns. The idea of hunting down large animals is a disney creation. The ROI is so low and proper complete nutrition can not be attained and a exclusive high meat diet.

I'm sorry, but I have to call BS. Disney creation? You realise there are paleolithic paintings depicting hunts right? You realise it is less nutritionally valuable to catch a rabbit than large game, right?

You'd have to catch twenty rabbits to feed a tribe for one day. One bison would feed a tribe for a week.

as for sources:


Vilhjalmur Stefansson
Richard Buckminster Fuller
Ketogenic Diet.
Any Paleo book.

Go live with eskimos.
etc.

[gringochileno]

I wouldn't be too gung-ho about the whole "if our ancestors ate it it must be good" thing. It makes sense to a point because it could reflect what the human digestive system evolved to be able to process most efficiently, but remember that humans didn't live very long in those times and tended to die of very different causes than people in modern societies do, so it's questionable whether the same diet is optimal for promoting long-term health today.

[Kitsune]

Diet isn't the problem there though.

Paleo men would have got fucked over by war, predation, no medicines whatsoever. Etc. Without that, there'd be little increase in life expectancy in modernity.

Pro's would be that heart disease, diabetes and obesity would not be a problem, and probably (I'm going out on a limb here) there'd be less arthritis and osteoperosis.

[kosko]

Heart disease is the number one killer in North America outside of Cancer. HD is largely caused by the build up of plaque which is made from fats and solids are body can't break down. There is a difference in the fiberose compounds are body can't digest and uses beneficially and pass through into are stools versus a substance it does not know what to do with.

Humans high consumption of meat is directly correlated to are exploitation of fossil fuels. Humans needed a cheap energy source to derive meat for the levels of consumption we enjoy today. This is why I can BS on humans being dominant meat eaters as it does not make any sense that we would expend more energy to seek and hunt meat then we would get in return. This is how civilizations die off as they do not effectively plan their settlement and energy sources to prosper.

Its funny your bring up Eskimos I have actually spent time in the near Artic and the Eskimo diet is very much more diverse then strickly caribou or other cold water fatty fish. Eskimos staples include berries which they ate daily as well as small bird I can't remember the name off. Also grasses/greens that grew all year around were part of the equation also.

Again with settlement patterns humans settled downstream not up. This notion that we lived on hills to overview prey is non-sense. Why doesn't anybody remember that water levels were much higher in those days and what is perceived as being "up-hill" in todays sense was near shallow low lands. The Egyptians religiously moved their settlements twice a year ahead of summer rains and the rise of the shoreline they figured out the water patterns and moved each time.... Why didn't they just live further up?? Well because like I said humans are notorious for not wanting to waste energy. The Egyptians needed to b near fresh water in arid conditions for life, as well as to be close to fish and shipping routes. It was less work for them do this then to go by your notion of them living on hills to hunt antelope. This is why IMO it makes sense that the Nordic people were superior with ships and sea travel as they could not accumulate enough substantive plants in their lands so they had to travel to trade with others.

This biggest flaw which shoots your notion down is energy. We today have no way to grasp how cheap fuel has made our lives so much easier... Before fosil fuels, steam, horse power... Manpower is what you used. This is not a machine or animal you beat down in use but yourself. As humans were smaller in those days spending weeks on hunting missions with a pack of homies to go hunt bison... You wouldn't make it back alive. Few cultures/civilizations could master that and still keep a functioning and prospering society. I know my people didn't. Why the hell go hunt if you just learn how to build a boat with are large brains and go sail a couple of hours further down stream to fish! Again why would nomads in thailand attempt to go hunt in the brush when they could sit and think out mathematics to crack growing patterns for rice plants.. All these things use less manpower energy and play to human strengths of thought which is the upper hand we were given over other species. To say humans didn't play to their strengths back then is laughable. So like I said I can point to many people whom have grown sick from eating a majority meat diet versus nobody whom has grown sick of eating plants. Meat was not such a large factor as many people want to think. It was just to intensive to acquire. When you start talking energy dynamics you start talking about stuff that supersedes everything and gets into the very codes of nature. Animals whom live off Animal proteins their energy utilization drastically differs from ours. Many jungle predators like I said maybe eat once evrey few days or once a week, they sleep the majority of the rest of time as their body digests and re-coups energy for their next hunt... Then boom. They expend all that energy again to get their meal and the cycle continues.

We are not extreme herbivores that must eat for hours daily to aquire their needed energy, nor are predators whom can only expend energy for short bursts to acquire their meals. There is a balance and like all animals we play to our strengths.

Think of the amount of energy it takes to make a 18oz stake. Now remove fossil fuels, machines and think of a sole man having to expend that energy to derive that meal. He would die before he could enjoy it lol.

[gringochileno]

(03-29-2012 05:43 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  

Diet isn't the problem there though.

Paleo men would have got fucked over by war, predation, no medicines whatsoever. Etc. Without that, there'd be little increase in life expectancy in modernity.

Pro's would be that heart disease, diabetes and obesity would not be a problem, and probably (I'm going out on a limb here) there'd be less arthritis and osteoperosis.

My point exactly. People were dying of things like starvation and trauma before they could get old enough to develop heart disease, diabetes, cancer, or any of the other things that modern humans are most likely to die from. So there's very little reason to think that natural selection would favor a diet that confers resistance to those things.

[MikeCF]

Fat cells are the basin of toxins, pesticides, antibiotics, and other hormones. When you eat fatty beef, you're ingesting all those same toxins the animal consumed.

If you take a guy who eats bread and butter, fatty beef, and some cake....

Compare him to a guy who eats a large salad or serving of veggies with grass-fed beef...

You're going to have two different results.

[sheesh]

(03-29-2012 01:06 PM)Kitsune Wrote:  

People would have eaten nothing but meat for weeks at a time before agriculture. They didn't hunt down a buffalo, and famished and exhausted say, 'lets wrap this in clingfilm, put it in the freezer, and eat 50 grams twice per week until it is all gone.'

Humans are apex predators. Historically we would have killed the shit out of everything and then eaten the shit out of everything.

What is the alternative, and how likely is it that we're biologically adapted to it?

Grain? Nope - can't even eat it raw.
Vegetables - Not even available for a lot of the year in most places.

Consider what the human body and mind is designed to do, and then eat accordingly. Hint: Pack mentality and future-orientation tend to mean the animal is adapted for hunting big game.

It also means bigger brains and more will to power, which is probably why the 'recommended food' pyramid is so completely warped.

Problem is that people didn't die at the age of 80 in the stone age, more likely at the age of twenty something or in their thirties if they were lucky. They didn't have to worry about bowel cancer, high blood pressure, arteriosclerosis etc. because they died before they could ever develop these diseases. This makes the comparison totally flawed.

Today's life is totally different, thus a modern diet needs to be different if we want to be healthy.

I try not to eat more than 300 grams of red meat per week and it's damn tough...

[deepcov3r]

(03-27-2012 12:00 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(03-27-2012 09:59 AM)Kitsune Wrote:  

I agree with the article. Eating what we've been evolutionarily specialised for over the course of millions of years is clearly a bad idea.

Oh wait, no it isn't.

Seriously. This article looks like bullshit to me.

An important thing people don't think about is that we didn't evolve to live to be 80. Living that long, I suspect has little direct effect on how many viable childrn you have.

We adapted to live shorter, but more intense life spans. So if red meat helps you have kids before 25 but kills you of cancer at 55, that's a good thing for people 5000 years ago.

We evolved, by definition, to have the highest number of viable children probably by age ?. You need to raise them for, say, 15 years to reach independence, but then your life after that is gravy, except to the degree you help your children have children. If you compete for food with your own children, your existence may be a detriment to your gene line.

So things that kill you at 55, 60 may actually have been favorable for people 5000 years ago, but unfavorable now.

It's like we're cars that were developed to run at 160 MPH but only for 25,000 miles. They might be overdesigned in certain ways, but limited in others.

[RawGod]

So what's this nasty toxin in meat which causes cancer?

[WestIndianArchie]

(11-27-2012 09:06 AM)deepcov3r Wrote:  

An important thing people don't think about is that we didn't evolve to live to be 80.

{snip}

We adapted to live shorter, but more intense life spans.

I wonder how the game would change if we knew we were probably gonna die in our 60's?

WIA

[Genghis Khan]

RawGod...I believe one of the toxins in meat is called Neu5Gc. Supposedly IGF-1 is harmful as well, but I'll need to look into it more.

[Captain Ahab]

Okay, I'm confused.

I was at 184.

A couple months ago I decided to eat three slices of bacon, four boiled eggs, and five tablespoons of extra virgin olive oil everyday to up my T levels. I was already in shape and athletic before but now I have a bit more muscle.

I am at 195 now.

My problem is that I notice I am starting to get fat. I still look like I have a flat stomach but I am starting to get thick around the love handles and a bit of slight extra padding in the front. I notice my 34 inch waist on my jeans is starting to stretch a bit. I can barely be comfortable wearing my old shorts I used to fit in. Now I have to keep the button open just to stand wearing them.

My question is should I drop the bacon/eggs routine? Maybe I should work out more? I understand red meat is good to increase T levels but I don't want to run the risk of getting fat or heart disease. I already work out 5 days a week doing interval weight training and three days of cardio.

How much red meat should I eat a week? 16oz 20oz? I am used to eating a large package of bacon a week. I use ground turkery for all my other "red meat" needs. Is that a good game plan?