grassfedwisdom:

Whole9 just released three great articles on functional movement that I highly recommend checking out. Focusing on the five exercises that everyone from Greg Everett to Keith Norris feel they could not do without, I guarantee it will make you rethink your workout. Check the first in the series here: http://whole9life.com/2013/04/the-whole9-five-movements-series-part-1-2/

2 notes

Reblogged from grassfedwisdom

why-thecagedbird-sings:

readytobesuperfit:

This is disgusting…

3,077 notes

Reblogged from paleolithicgirl

grassfedwisdom:

Well this is scary! Read this from io9.com: If you love bacon, then you ought to be careful about getting a bite from a lone star tick — unlike other tick bites, which can spread diseases like Lyme disease, a lone star tick bite can actually make you allergic to red meat

http://io9.com/5981332/the-tick-that-can-make-you-a-vegetarian

1 note

Reblogged from grassfedwisdom

Nice no nonsense article on the rise of grass fed meat. 

Grazing pastures provide habitat for lots of creatures, not just cows, from big bluestem to prairie chickens. When managed properly, they can store carbon [PDF] in much the same way that a forest does. Finishing cows on the range eliminates the need for concentrated animal feeding operations, or CAFOs, which sully water quality fromlittle creeks all the way down the Mississippi River and into the Gulf of Mexico.

http://grist.org/food/upping-the-steaks-how-grass-fed-beef-is-reshaping-ag-and-helping-the-planet/#.UQ2cuNh-l1k.twitter

1 note

homeostatic-regulation:

Let’s translate into something simple rather than paperspeak:

Glucose: Increases insulin, increases GLP-1, decreases ghrelin: all of which increase satiety and decrease reward seeking behavior.

Fructose: Barely increases insulin, doesn’t increase GLP-1, and doesn’t decrease ghrelin, so after ingestion you will presumably still be hungry and looking for the next bag of skittles.

Read more @ Evolutionary Psychology

4 notes

Reblogged from modillion

primalpalette:

Many firms are now conflicted, continuing to hawk unhealthy products yet also touting elaborate plans to improve nutrition. They insist they will help lower obesity rates, not raise them, but there is room for doubt.

7 notes

Reblogged from primalpalette

primalpalette:

The Senate on Thursday rejected an amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to let states require clear labels on any food or beverage containing genetically engineered ingredients. The vote on the amendment to the farm bill was 26 to 73. 

Fuck.

5 notes

Reblogged from primalpalette

Thanks to Robb Wolf for the links to this post that clears up the bad science behind the latest “Nutritional McCarthyism” (Robb Wolf again). 

Caveman Doctor

Red Meat Consumption and Mortality

Last week, I coincidentally posted on the health benefits of grass-fed beef, with my conclusion basically stating that grassfed, pastured beef and grain-fed beef are so vastly different in their nutritional values, that they cannot realistically be  considered the same food source. Yet after reading the recent article “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality” which is all over the news, and seeing my inbox full of about 100 emails, I quickly thought to myself: “Here we go again”. More food-frequency questionnaires, biases, lumping of foods together, and then placing the cross hairs on red meat.

The gist of this study is that the more meat you eat, the larger your mortality risk. In fact, they state that 9.3% of deaths in men and 7.6% in women could be prevented by consuming a half less per serving of red meat per day. The strength of this study is a large population of participants, and I admire the authors’ honesty in admitting their results may be a little shaky (in the manuscript though, not the abstract).However there are some definite strikes against the study, and therefore basing important dietary decisions based on this data is unwise (to me). Unfortunately every media outlet has blindly accepted their results and conclusions, spreading the claim red meat is harmful.

In this study, the authors assessed dietary intake of meat in participants of the Health Professionals Follow-up Study through food frequency questionnaires (FFQ) with:

“In each FFQ, we asked the participants how often, on average, they consumed each food of a standard portion size.

There were 9 possible responses, ranging from “never or less than once per month” to “6 or more times per day.”

Questionnaire items about unprocessed red meat consumption included “beef, pork, or lamb as main dish” (pork was queried separately beginning in 1990), “hamburger,” and “beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish.” The standard serving size was 85 g (3 oz) for unprocessed red meat. Processed red meat included “bacon” (2 slices, 13 g), “hot dogs”(one, 45 g), and “sausage, salami, bologna, and other processed red meats” (1 piece, 28 g).”

STRIKE #1: Lumping many food-types together, even though in practice they are very different.This may be obvious to many of you, but clearly the nutritional benefit (or detrimental effect) of a hot-dog full of processed meat and nitrates is NOT THE SAME as grass-fed beef. Similarly, processed bacon made from chronically-stressed pigs (see my previous posts on the living conditions of animals in industrial farms) is NOT THE SAME as ethically and responsibly raised pork. All meat is not created equal, so to study industrially produced meat products and apply that data to free-range, grass-fed meat is scientifically false.

http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/03/13/red-meat-consumption-and-mortality/

1 note