Cant balance out monthly shops - thinking of trying a butchers for the meat.

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Go veggie! If you're spending £150 a month on meat your eating yourself into an early grave anyway, it be cheaper and a lot healthier!

Exactly! Especially if it's red meats (beef, lamb, pork) and it's processed!
If you're eating more than 2-3 meals a week containing meat you are nuts imho (and the opinion of boffs at Harvard who have done huge research into it)

“This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death,” said Hu. “On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity and mortality.”

 

[Glaucus]

No it doesn't at all, you need to understand these "study's" they are statistical. All they show is that on average vegetarians look after themselfs marginally better than meat eaters. Hardly a surprise. Seeing as some do it for supposed health reason.
Show me a clinical study, that compares a balanced unrefined meat vs a balanced unrefined vegy.
As wellas in the past less processed options for them.


There's a lot of crap stuff out there from statistical studies. Statistical studies do not and never can prove a link, they merely suggest something for further study.

And as for going vegie that report doesn't support that.

Replacing one serving of total red meat with one serving of a healthy protein source was associated with a lower mortality risk: 7 percent for fish, 14 percent for poultry, 19 percent for nuts, 10 percent for legumes, 10 percent for low-fat dairy products, and 14 percent for whole grains

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

study.

And as for going vegie that report doesn't support that.

Errrrr yes it does, have you actually read the research papers

 

[Glaucus]

Read the quoted part.

Look at this group of reserch, same researchers.
http://www.epic-oxford.org/publications/?c=EPIC-Oxford

There different reports contradict each other.
The issue is with statistical data. You have far to many variables to overcome.
You have to take into account so many factors. It's just impossible.

All these supposed factual and conclusive links. Are based on statistical data and far from proven. Especially as vegetarian food becomes more popular and more proccessed

When statistical research takes this into account, it comes back with little difference.
even this is not based on two opposing but nutrient balanced diets, exercise, genetics etc though.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16441942/

Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians.

 

[EdwardTeach]

Buy loose veg, its always much cheaper.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

Nonsense, the Professors/researchers at Harvard who have done the most recent and largest research into it are pretty certain of their results and findings.

I think I'll take the opinion of Frank Hu professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard then some meat-loving armchair expert from Overclockers!!

A new study by Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers finds a strong association between the consumption of red meat—particularly when the meat is processed—and an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. The study also shows that replacing red meat with healthier proteins, such as low-fat dairy, nuts, or whole grains, can significantly lower the risk.

The study, led by An Pan, research fellow in the HSPH Department of Nutrition, will be published online in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition on August 10, 2011 and will appear in the October print edition.

Pan, senior author Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH, and colleagues analyzed questionnaire responses from 37,083 men followed for 20 years in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study; 79,570 women followed for 28 years in the Nurses’ Health Study I; and 87,504 women followed for 14 years in the Nurses’ Health Study II. They also conducted an updated meta-analysis, combining data from their new study with data from existing studies that included a total of 442,101 participants, 28,228 of whom developed type 2 diabetes during the study.

After adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), and other lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the researchers found that a daily 100-gram serving of unprocessed red meat (about the size of a deck of cards) was associated with a 19% increased risk of type 2 diabetes. They also found that one daily serving of half that quantity of processed meat—50 grams (for example, one hot dog or sausage or two slices of bacon)—was associated with a 51% increased risk.

“Clearly, the results from this study have huge public health implications given the rising type 2 diabetes epidemic and increasing consumption of red meats worldwide,” said Hu. “The good news is that such troubling risk factors can be offset by swapping red meat for a healthier protein.”

The researchers found that, for an individual who eats one daily serving of red meat, substituting one serving of nuts per day was associated with a 21% lower risk of type 2 diabetes; substituting low-fat dairy, a 17% lower risk; and substituting whole grains, a 23% lower risk.

Based on these results, the researchers advise that consumption of processed red meat—like hot dogs, bacon, sausage, and deli meats, which generally have high levels of sodium and nitrites—should be minimized and unprocessed red meat should be reduced. If possible, they add, red meat should be replaced with healthier choices, such as nuts, whole grains, low-fat dairy products, fish, or beans.

 

[Glaucus]

No the findings are flawed as allready stated. Reserch that tries to take into account other variables comes back rather different.
Largest does not mean best, and this is all statistical and not clinical.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16441942/
Cohort studies of vegetarians have shown a moderate reduction in mortality from IHD but little difference in other major causes of death or all-cause mortality in comparison with health-conscious non-vegetarians from the same population. Studies of cancer have not shown clear differences in cancer rates between vegetarians and non-vegetarians. More data are needed, particularly on the health of vegans and on the possible impacts on health of low intakes of long-chain n-3 fatty acids and vitamin B(12). Overall, the data suggest that the health of Western vegetarians is good and similar to that of comparable non-vegetarians.

Or perhaps you should learn a bit about different types of reserch, read more studies and not just one.

As I have said in other threads, we keep getting advice from statistics and flawed conclusions. As clinical trials are done and we actually find or disprove the mechanisms we have to do a u-turn.
Cholesterol is a good case to study on how statistical reserch **** up and set us back decades in health.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

No the findings are flawed as allready stated. Reserch that tries to take into account other variables comes back rather different.
Largest does not mean best, and this is all statistical and not clinical.



Or perhaps you should learn a bit about different types of reserch, read more studies and not just one.

Or maybe not use one that's 7 years old and not even close to being as comprehensive as the 2011 Harvard piece

But hey you keep fooling yourself that daily dose's of processed red meat is perfectly healthy, it's not my funeral

The researchers, including senior author Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH, and colleagues, prospectively observed 37,698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study for up to 22 years and 83,644 women in the Nurses’ Health Study for up to 28 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diets were assessed through questionnaires every four years.

A combined 23,926 deaths were documented in the two studies, of which 5,910 were from CVD and 9,464 from cancer. Regular consumption of red meat, particularly processed red meat, was associated with increased mortality risk. One daily serving of unprocessed red meat (about the size of a deck of cards) was associated with a 13% increased risk of mortality, and one daily serving of processed red meat (one hot dog or two slices of bacon) was associated with a 20% increased risk.

Among specific causes, the corresponding increases in risk were 18% and 21% for cardiovascular mortality, and 10% and 16% for cancer mortality. These analyses took into account chronic disease risk factors such as age, body mass index, physical activity, family history of heart disease, or major cancers.

Red meat, especially processed meat, contains ingredients that have been linked to increased risk of chronic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease and cancer. These include heme iron, saturated fat, sodium, nitrites, and certain carcinogens that are formed during cooking.

 

[Glaucus]

Don't give me when you do t know the difference between reserch, and what it means. Or are eggs still bad?

Look at the largest uk study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedh...does-a-veggie-diet-lead-to-a-healthier-heart/

In absolute terms, the probability of being hospitalised for, or dying of, IHD between the ages of 50 and 70 was 4.6% among vegetarians and 6.8% among non-vegetarians.

But more importantly it talks about some of the issues.

However, there are important limitations to the study that should be considered before assuming the results apply broadly to the whole of the UK.
First, this study specifically and actively recruited vegetarians and vegans. In addition to GP practice-based recruitment, the researchers “aimed to recruit health-conscious people living throughout the UK”. People who take the effort to get involved in research involving diet and health tend to be more health conscious than the population at large (this is what is known as selection bias). As such, it is a non-representative sample, and the absolute figures of IHD cases among the 50-70 year olds in this study (6.8% in non-vegetarians and 4.6% in vegetarians) may not reflect the absolute risk in the general population.
Additionally, while all participants were invited to have their blood cholesterol levels measured at the beginning of the study, less than half did so.
The researchers suggest that much of the difference in IHD risk between the groups is associated with*non-HDL (‘bad’) cholesterol levels and blood pressure. But due to the lack of available blood cholesterol data for all participants, further research using a more complete data set would be needed to confirm this interpretation.
Despite these limitations, this was a well-conducted, large long-term study that suggests there are heart healthy benefits to a vegetarian diet.

Notice the active search for vegatarians etc.
These are important factors, especially when the differences we are actually talking about are small.

One study proves nothing.


Where did I say processed was good? Oh wait I didn't. It's one of the issues I've identified with these studies, vegatarians on average are more health concise, on average consume less Pre made/proccessed stuff etc.

These studies have to be taken with a large pinch of salt.

The fact they call it red meat is also absurd, but I expect you are unaware. That several red meats have less fat and cholesterol than skinless chicken. Ontop of that breed and feed/fattening makes a large difference to these figures.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

You posted findings from Richard Doll, yep his credible

Controversy

After his death, controversy arose over some of his work because his papers, held at the Wellcome Library, showed that for many years he had received consultancy payments from chemical companies whose products he was to defend in court. These include US$1,500 per day consultancy fee from Monsanto Company for a relationship which began in 1976 and continued until 2002. He also received fees from the Chemical Manufacturers Association, Dow Chemicals, and ICI. Some donations, including a £50,000 gift from asbestos company Turner and Newall, were given in public ceremony to Green College, Oxford, but most fees and payments remained undisclosed to the public, Oxford University and colleagues until his death. His defenders point out that his connections to industry were widely known by those in the field, that he did his work before formal disclosure of commercial interests became commonplace and that on occasion, he came to conclusions that were unpalatable to the companies who consulted him. His own view, as reported by Richard Peto, was that it was necessary to co-operate with companies for access to data which could prove their products to be dangerous.[8][9]
Doll caused controversy in 2001 when he said in a BBC radio interview that "the effects of other people smoking in my presence is so small it doesn't worry me”.[10]

 

[Glaucus]

This doesn't show anything, read the post above yours.
It does not eliminate the veriabled in the reserch you posted.
It's hardly just one piece that has come back with little difference.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

In my opinion you have hand selected or dismissed evidence to support/justify your diet where as I have selected my diet (pescatarian) from the evidence I believe to be the latest and greatest at this moment in time.

One is healthier than the other, I'm going with mine good luck with yours!

 

[Glaucus]

I haven't hand selected it at all,
You base your diet on statistical analysis and scaremongering.
I'm doing a lot of reading into reserch and where ever possible clinical trials which help to remove the guess work, these however are lacking.

You'll find two things.
Optimum diet is unknowen.
Statistical reserch can be and has been massively flawed. With 180s
You seem to be unaware of the types of red meat available.

How much have you read on cholesterol and the total 180 we've seen.

The latest and greatest reserch shows no favour for vegatarian ism over restrained and balanced veg, meat, fish, dairy.

It's not dismissing reserch, it's understanding it and also reading multiple sources. Nearly everything ATM contradicts each other.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

So basically your saying you know more than Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard University who undertook the one of the most recent and largest piece of research on the health implications of red meat????

I'll take the opinion of a proper expert over that of an armchair expert any day of the week!

“This study provides clear evidence that regular consumption of red meat, especially processed meat, contributes substantially to premature death,” said Hu. “On the other hand, choosing more healthful sources of protein in place of red meat can confer significant health benefits by reducing chronic disease morbidity and mortality.”

Go with plants. Eating a plant-based diet is healthiest. Make half your plate vegetables and fruits (potatoes and French fries don’t count as vegetables). Cook with healthy plant oils, like olive and canola oil. Get most or all of your protein from beans, nuts and seeds, or tofu.

Pick healthy protein sources like fish and beans, not burgers and hot dogs. Eating fish, chicken, beans, or nuts in place of red meat and processed meat can lower the risk of heart disease and diabetes. So limit red meat—beef, pork, or lamb—to twice a week or less. Avoid processed meat—bacon, cold cuts, hot dogs, and the like—since it strongly raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and colon cancer.

Animal protein and vegetable protein probably have the same effects on health. It’s the protein package that’s likely to make a difference. A 6-ounce broiled porterhouse steak is a great source of protein—about 40 grams worth. But it also delivers about 38 grams of fat, 14 of them saturated. That’s more than 60 percent of the recommended daily intake for saturated fat. The same amount of salmon gives you 34 grams of protein and 18 grams of fat, 4 of them saturated. A cup of cooked lentils has 18 grams of protein, but under 1 gram of fat.

Limit red meat—and avoid processed meat. Research suggests that people who eat even modest amounts of red meat have a higher risk of developing colon cancer, heart disease, and diabetes, and a higher risk of dying from heart disease, cancer, or any cause. There’s also substantial evidence that replacing red meat with fish, poultry, beans, or nuts, could help prevent heart disease and diabetes—and could lower the risk of early death. So make red meat (beef, pork, lamb) only an occasional part of your diet—no more than two 3-ounce servings a week—if you eat it at all. And skip the processed stuff—bacon, hot dogs, and deli meats—since that’s linked even more strongly to cancer, heart disease, and diabetes risk.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/quick-tips-healthy-eating-plate-pyramid/

 

[diamount]

Yes, I'm sure those powerlifters who eat a ton of protein from meats every day are going die an early death.

 

[Glaucus]

So you continue to ignore the well known errors and largest uk study.

Belive what you want it doesn't mean you are right.
Even he will acknowledge the inheritant errors in these studies.

You also going to ignore several studies that show comparing balanced with balanced is equal.

Oh look quoting the last paragraph that says mixed diet is fine.

 

[Tummy]

So basically your saying you know more than Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at Harvard University who undertook the one of the most recent and largest piece of research on the health implications of red meat????

I'll take the opinion of a proper expert over that of an armchair expert any day of the week!l

You can shove your phd and Havard research! I'm going to stick with the armchair expert on the internet! .

.

@OP, does your budget you mentioned include other things besides food? Is it a purely food shop? 'cause other things are expensive too .

In all honesty, the best advice has been given, find a local butcher(s) try their meat, if it's good and cheaper then start getting it from there on a regular basis, building a relationship with your butcher might help too as you'll get better deals.

Same goes for veg, is there a market near you? Go there or find a grocer, could save money there too.

Remember bulk buy too; if you eat a lot of rice, but lots of rice and just use it over time ect ect

 

[Glaucus]

Lol armchair, do you think I carried out the reserch on sites like pubmed.


Still ignoring what that report dictates as red meat and the lack of separation. You have done so little reading, that you don't even know that red meats are drastically different. Say ostrich compared to beef.

And you've demonised red meat from statistical data, have you even looked into other aspects? Many of which actually have clinical trials. Have you looked into types of fat saturate, polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, then hydroginized fats, have you looked into cholestrol and the many CHD risks its been through from just cholestrol, to ldl&hdl, then oxidised LDL, large and small LDL. And now there's growing support for cholestrol just not being a good indicator of CHD.
Have you looked at refined carbs? Or other chemicals in food?
Do you even know what the common pitfalls in vegetarianism are? And how to counter these issues?
Every diet has common pitfalls. If you know you can stay on a healthy balanced diet. If you don't you can end up with deficencies or potential excess toxicants.

It is far more complicated that meat vs vegatarian.
It's even more complicated that when these studies say red meat. What they actually mean is what most of the publics red meat intake is(that's not just animal, that's the cut or processed product). Not actually reserching what the cause is, or if all red meat has the same effect.

I by no means am an expert, far from it. I however in the last handful of months, tried to read as much as possible over a diverse range as possible. Diet needs to be taken as a whole. What you have done is not taking it as a whole.

Let alone, personal response to diets. Like how sated the food is can have large impact on calorie intake for example.

It's also annoying most of these studies do not include several paragphas about potential errors and alternative reasons the data can show this.
There are a few which go into this, like the one I posted earlier. This still doesn't go far enough.

 

[Tummy]

God made animals out of cuts of meat, therefore we were intended to eat them.

 

[diamount]

God made animals out of cuts of meat, therefore we were intended to eat them.

No, half a million years of evolution did.