Grass fed beef – Is it better for your health?

[The Big Blob]

There’s been a good discussion of grass fed beef vs grain fed here http://www.enz.org/forum/showthread.php?t=43430
where people have been talking about pros and cons for flavour and animal welfare. I’d like to open a new discussion about why I think grass fed beef is better for your health than grain fed beef and why I’m happy that grass fed seems to be the norm in New Zealand.

If you couldn’t care less about eating from a health perspective, that’s fine by me – I’m not here to preach, I just want to explain my own preference for grass fed beef.

A lot of our health problems are caused by inflammation in our bodies – we’re talking heart disease, cancers, and a whole host of other issues.

One cause of inflammation seems to be the amount of omega 6 fatty acids compared with omega 3 fatty acids we eat. It’s thought ideally we should be getting about one or two parts omega 6 to one part omega 3, but a lot of us are eating 20 grams of omega 6 for every single gram of omega 3 we get. So, we get inflammatory diseases.

It’s actually very hard eating our modern diets to get the omega 6 to 3 ratio right, but cattle eating their natural diet of grass produce a healthy ratio, while grain fed cattle don’t.

The bottom line is that grass fed beef is probably good for you, while grain fed beef probably isn’t.

Here’s more info http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/10.

[Fern49]

Grass-fed beef tends to be leaner and less fatty than grain-fed beef, plus I prefer the taste.

[72andsunny]

The bottom line is that grass fed beef is probably good for you, while grain fed beef probably isn’t.

Here’s more info http://www.nutritionj.com/content/9/1/10.

I have not clicked your link, but I cannot agree with that statement. If you look at how adept our bodies are at recycling cholesterol (and storing fat), it is pretty clear that 1) we were not meant to eat as much as we do and 2) meat was supposed to be an occasional treat for when we were lucky enough to be able to catch an unlucky animal.

I was at a lecture where the doctor presenting said something like the US has the highest incidence of colorectal cancer in the world, followed closely by NZ. I can't find a confirmation for that online (quickly at least), but I don't think anyone will argue that the incidence is high in both countries. I haven't looked at heart disease at all; again, I'll just say that the incidence is high in both countries. There is probably some merit to eating more omega 3 fatty acids. However, Eskimos do not suffer from heart disease because they do not eat red meat...the beneficial effects of fish have been greatly exaggerated. That is to say: If you eat a lot of red meat and eat a lot of fish, you are still going to get colon cancer and have a heart attack.

[batgirl1001]

On the whole I would agree that grass-fed beef is generally better than grain-fed beef with one notable exception....waygu beef. Normal beef whether it is grass or grain tends to be full of protein and saturated fats whereas wagyu beef due to the different breed of cow and how they are raised, can be healthier if not just the same as a grass-fed cow. The argument is the fat content (although it has a higher fat content than grass-fed) is actually mainly monounsaturated fats, the higher the marbling the higher the level of monounsaturated fats ratio it is to saturated fats. It also does have high concentration levels of omega-3, something you don't find it regular meat.

NZ wagyu is probably really, really expensive. Normally it will cost me about $34 for a 300g Australian wagyu ribeye (7-8 grading) , but I imagine the price is much higher in NZ. So if I were living in NZ right now, I would choose grass-fed beef though I would marinate to add flavour and texture to the meat, something I don't do with wagyu.

[DMS]

I know grass-fed, pasture raised beef is healthier for my conscious and that's all that matters. Food stock maybe bred to die but their life doesn't have to suck in between.

[Super_BQ]

All these studies that say what foods are better for you doesn't add up. Especially in countries like the US or NZ, for the simple reason... we're living longer lives. If evidence with all these cancers, heart disease, ailments on the human body were to be significant in countries like the US or NZ, then it would show up in the mortality rates which, it doesn't seem that people are living less years.

I would rather bet on better living conditions and access to good medical treatments as the primary drive to why people are living longer.

[DMS]

All these studies that say what foods are better for you doesn't add up. Especially in countries like the US or NZ, for the simple reason... we're living longer lives. If evidence with all these cancers, heart disease, ailments on the human body were to be significant in countries like the US or NZ, then it would show up in the mortality rates which, it doesn't seem that people are living less years.

I would rather bet on better living conditions and access to good medical treatments as the primary drive to why people are living longer.

I don't know about this Super_BQ. While yes, we are living longer lives because of the access to life-sustaining drugs and overall better medical care, it doesn't measure the quality of life. And all of the examples you gave: Cancer, heart disease and other ailments like diabetes, pancreatitis, morbid obesity and mental health disorders such as bipolar, panic disorder, altzheimers and dementia are all on the rise. Further studies are showing that the hormones given milk cows showing up in children and producing estrogenic compounds in developing girls and a theory of mine is this is why we are seeing a higher percentage of effeminate men (gay or not). No we aren't living better in the US by far for the people that spend the majority of their time eating a "typical" American diet that is filled with fat, salt and sugar. The food companies call this the bliss point and it is specifically designed to make people addicted to their food.

[The Big Blob]

I have not clicked your link, but I cannot agree with that statement. If you look at how adept our bodies are at recycling cholesterol (and storing fat), it is pretty clear that 1) we were not meant to eat as much as we do and 2) meat was supposed to be an occasional treat for when we were lucky enough to be able to catch an unlucky animal.

I was at a lecture where the doctor presenting said something like the US has the highest incidence of colorectal cancer in the world, followed closely by NZ. I can't find a confirmation for that online (quickly at least), but I don't think anyone will argue that the incidence is high in both countries. I haven't looked at heart disease at all; again, I'll just say that the incidence is high in both countries. There is probably some merit to eating more omega 3 fatty acids. However, Eskimos do not suffer from heart disease because they do not eat red meat...the beneficial effects of fish have been greatly exaggerated. That is to say: If you eat a lot of red meat and eat a lot of fish, you are still going to get colon cancer and have a heart attack.

I'm not arguing that consuming large amounts of meat is good for you. I'm arguing that if you eat meat, and you are concerned about cancer, heart disease, arthritis and other inflammatory diseases, it's better to have a healthy ratio of omega-3 to omega-6 oils, and, if you're going to eat meat, eating grass fed beef achieves this, while grain fed does not.

Corectal cancer is one of the west's biggest killers. It's a disease rooted in inflammation – its incidence is halved in people who take anti-inflammatory pills like aspirin or ibuprofen for five years or more. However, in addition to suppressing the inflammatory COX 2 path, these pills also suppress the COX 1 path, resulting in potential gastric damage.

Rather than treating inflammation with pills, my thoughts are that it's better to limit inflammation through diet – hence my preference for grass fed beef.

Since you've touched on it, here are a few random jottings that come to my mind about colorectal cancer prevention:

1. Epidemiological studies indicate no colorectal cancer issues with eating up to 1 kg of red meat a week. I suspect the only reason red meat issues arise at all is because people are eating grain fed cattle, rather than grass fed cattle.
2. While ibuprofen can reduce inflammation, natural substances such as curcumin, found in turmeric have produced similar anti-inflammatory results in clinical trials, with no gastric issues.
3. Epidemiological or clinical studies indicated the following behaviours can significantly reduce risk of colorectal cancers: drinking a few glasses of milk or yogurt a day; eating brown rice regularly; consuming turmeric; ensuring you get enough vitamin D3 by getting out for half an hour in the summer, and supplementing with about 50 micrograms a day (2,000 IU) in winter. Also, get rid of any visceral fat on your body – if you have a lot of visceral fat, this produces inflammatory chemicals that lead to 4x more precancerous polyps in the colon than people who have low levels of visceral fat. Stop smoking – smoking kills healthy gut bacteria that produce anti-inflammatory substances in the colon – they are replaced by pathogenic bacteria, which produce inflammatory chemicals. Don't drink a lot of alcohol.

[The Big Blob]

All these studies that say what foods are better for you doesn't add up. Especially in countries like the US or NZ, for the simple reason... we're living longer lives. If evidence with all these cancers, heart disease, ailments on the human body were to be significant in countries like the US or NZ, then it would show up in the mortality rates which, it doesn't seem that people are living less years.

I would rather bet on better living conditions and access to good medical treatments as the primary drive to why people are living longer.

What I'm talking about is being able to live longer without having your middle and later years spoiled by ill-health and medical treatments that might not have been necessary with a few changes to your diet. It should be possible for more of us to live long lives in good health.

[The Big Blob]

No we aren't living better in the US by far for the people that spend the majority of their time eating a "typical" American diet that is filled with fat, salt and sugar. The food companies call this the bliss point and it is specifically designed to make people addicted to their food.

Some rather distasteful experiments have been carried out on rats.

They were brought up on a diet of standard rat chow. Then they were switched to a diet of what the researchers called supermarket food, designed to be ultra-palatable - muffins, croissants and such like.

Having got used to the new diet, the rats were then given a choice of foods - standard rat chow, or supermarket food. The problem was that they had to walk through an electrified tunnel, suffering painful electric shocks to get at the unhealthy, supermarket food.

The rats chose to take the shocks to get at the supermarket food!

Yes, this food is addictive, and cheap, and it makes it hard for our society to enjoy good health.