Is fake meat bad for you?
This is a funny one. Food freaks are suspicious of highly processed food, but overlook that fake meat is a highly processed food. There has been quite an upsurge in sales of fake meat in the last couple of years so it seems that lots of people think they are doing themslves some good by avoiding the dreaded red meat. So some journalists are having fun with that. They are condemning fake meat as unhealthy.
Real vegetarians won't be bothered. They mostly live on lightly processed legumes -- nutmeat and the like -- as a protein source. Fake meat would be a low priority for them
I have never had any time for fake meat. I had a very nice piece of thinly sliced Scotch fillet steak for dinner last night washed down by a good Australian Shiraz. The wine:
By EVANGELINE MANTZIORIS
So it's not surprising new research out this week including the health effects of ultra-processed, plant-based foods is going to attract global attention.
And the headlines can be scary if that research and the publicity surrounding it suggests eating these foods increases your risk of heart disease, stroke or dying early.
Here's how some media outlets interpreted the research. The Daily Mail ran with:
Vegan fake meats are linked to increase in heart deaths, study suggests: Experts say plant-based diets can boost health – but NOT if they are ultra-processed
The New York Post's headline was:
Vegan fake meats linked to heart disease, early death: study
But when we look at the study itself, it seems the media coverage has focused on a tiny aspect of the research, and is misleading.
So does eating supermarket plant-based burgers and other plant-based, ultra-processed foods really put you at greater risk of heart disease, stroke and premature death?
Here's what prompted the research and what the study actually found.
Remind me, what are ultra-processed foods?
Ultra-processed foods undergo processing and reformulation with additives to enhance flavour, shelf-life and appeal. These include everything from packet macaroni cheese and pork sausages, to supermarket pastries and plant-based mince.
There is now strong and extensive evidence showing ultra-processed foods are linked with an increased risk of many physical and mental chronic health conditions.
Although researchers question which foods should be counted as ultra-processed, or if all of them are linked to poorer health, the consensus is that, generally, we should be eating less of them.
We also know plant-based diets are popular. These are linked with a reduced risk of chronic health conditions such as heart disease and stroke, cancer and diabetes. And supermarkets are stocking more plant-based, ultra-processed food options.
How about the new study?
The study looked for any health differences between eating plant-based, ultra-processed foods compared to eating non-plant based, ultra-processed foods. The researchers focused on the risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease and stroke) and deaths from it.
Plant-based, ultra-processed foods in this study included mass-produced packaged bread, pastries, buns, cakes, biscuits, cereals and meat alternatives (fake meats). Ultra-processed foods that were not plant-based included milk-based drinks and desserts, sausages, nuggets and other reconstituted meat products.
The researchers used data from the UK Biobank. This is a large biomedical database that contains de-identified genetic, lifestyle (diet and exercise) and health information and biological samples from half a million UK participants. This databank allows researchers to determine links between this data and a wide range of diseases, including heart disease and stroke.
They used data from nearly 127,000 people who provided details of their diet between 2009 and 2012. The researchers linked this to their hospital records and death records. On average, the researchers followed each participant's diet and health for nine years.
What did the study find?
With every 10% increase of total energy from plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods there was an associated 5% increased risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke) and a 12% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
But for every 10% increase in plant-sourced, non-ultra-processed foods consumed there was an associated 7% lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a 13% lower risk of dying from cardiovascular disease.
The researchers found no evidence for an association between all plant-sourced foods (whether or not they were ultra-processed) and either an increased or decreased risk of cardiovascular disease or dying from it.
This was an observational study, where people recalled their diet using questionnaires. When coupled with other data, this can only tell us if someone's diet is associated with a particular risk of a health outcome. So we cannot say that, in this case, the ultra-processed foods caused the heart disease and deaths from it.
Why has media coverage focused on fake meats?
Much of the media coverage has focused on the apparent health risks associated with eating fake meats, such as sausages, burgers, nuggets and even steaks.
These are considered ultra-processed foods. They are made by deconstructing whole plant foods such as pea, soy, wheat protein, nuts and mushrooms, and extracting the protein. They are then reformulated with additives to make the products look, taste and feel like traditional red and white meats.
However this was only one type of plant-based, ultra-processed food analysed in this study. This only accounted for an average 0.2% of the dietary energy intake of all the participants.
Compare this to bread, pastries, buns, cakes and biscuits, which are other types of plant-based, ultra-processed foods. These accounted for 20.7% of total energy intake in the study.
It's hard to say why the media focused on fake meat. But there is one clue in the media release issued to promote the research.
Although the media release did not mention the words "fake meat", an image of plant-based burgers, sausages and meat balls or rissoles featured prominently.
The introduction of the study itself also mentions plant-sourced, ultra-processed foods, such as sausages, nuggets and burgers.
So it's no wonder people can be confused.
Does this mean fake meats are fine?
Not necessarily. This study analyzed the total intake of plant-based, ultra-processed foods, which included fake meats, albeit a very small proportion of people's diets.
From this study alone we cannot tell if there would be a different outcome if someone ate large amounts of fake meats.
In fact, a recent review of fake meats found there was not enough evidence to determine their impact on health.
We also need more recent data to reflect current eating patterns of fake meats. This study used dietary data collected from 2009 to 2012, and fake meats have become more popular since.
What if I really like fake meat?
We have known for a while that ultra-processed foods can harm our health. This study tells us that regardless if an ultra-processed food is plant-based or not, it may still be harmful.
We know fake meat can contain large amounts of saturated fats (from coconut or palm oil), salt and sugar.
So like other ultra-processed foods, they should be eaten infrequently. The Australian Dietary Guidelines currently recommends people should only consume foods like this sometimes and in small amounts.
Are some fake meats healthier than others?
Check the labels and nutrition information panels. Look for those lowest in fat and salt. Burgers and sausages that are a "pressed cake" of minced ingredients such as nuts, beans and vegetables will be preferable to reformulated products that look identical to meat.
You can also eat whole plant-based protein foods such as legumes. These include beans, lentils, chickpeas and soy beans. As well as being high in protein and fibre, they also provide essential nutrients such as iron and zinc. Using spices and mushrooms alongside these in your recipes can replicate some of the umami taste associated with meat.
********************************************
Mikhaila Peterson slams 'evil' fat positive movement
Peterson Academy CEO and podcast host Mikhaila Peterson has hit out at people for making “morbid obesity a positive thing”.
It comes after controversy erupted over social media following the crowning of plus-sized model Sara Milliken as Miss Alabama 2024.
“I think that making morbid obesity a positive thing is evil, to tell you the truth,” Ms Peterson said.
“There have been many studies, like Oxford I think has a study done on a hundred thousand people who died linking obesity to a ten-year earlier death, which is similar to lifelong smoking.
**********************************************
Southern Baptists Vote on Women Pastors Rule, Reject Use of IVF
The Bible is very clear about a traditional role for women but obviouly says nothing about IVF, so I think this is rather an over-reach by the SBC
Representatives of the largest Protestant body in the United States narrowly rejected a proposal to ban churches with woman pastors.
The Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) in 2023 had provisionally passed an amendment to their constitution that would have required member congregations to appoint only men to pastoral leadership positions or face expulsion. The measure required a second vote to become effective. That vote failed on June 12. Although 61 percent of some 10,000 delegates, referred to as messengers, voted in favor of the change, a two-thirds majority was needed.
The outcome of the vote may have little practical effect on this denomination, which has long opposed placing women in pastoral leadership.
Its doctrinal statement continues to assert that the pastoral role is for men only, and the denomination already has the ability to expel congregations who differ from this teaching.
The convention later approved a measure that opposes the use of in vitro fertilization (IVF), calling it “dehumanizing” and asking “the government to restrain” the practice.
The SBC statement of faith holds, “While both men and women are gifted for service in the church, the office of pastor/elder/overseer is limited to men as qualified by Scripture.”
The document cites several Bible passages in support of this view, including the apostle Paul’s statement that he does not allow women to serve in positions of authority over men in the church.
While some denominations view that as an absolute prohibition on the ordination of women, others, including Evangelical denominations such as the Church of the Nazarene, interpret it as guidance given to specific congregations relevant to their cultural setting.
Some SBC churches have appointed women as associate pastors under the direction of a male senior pastor.
The proposed constitutional amendment would have limited “friendly cooperation” with the SBC to a church that “affirms, appoints, or employs only men as any kind of pastor or elder as qualified by Scripture.”
Mike Law, the author of the proposed amendment and pastor of Virginia’s Arlington Baptist Church, argued that the measure was not meant to discourage women from serving in churches.
“This amendment is not about women in ministry,” Mr. Law said. “It’s specifically about women in the pastoral office.”
Noting that some 1,800 women hold pastoral roles in the SBC, Mr. Law cited Bible verses that appear to limit that role to men.
He said, “Our culture may see this prohibition as harsh, but our God is all wise and wrote this word for the flourishing of both men and women.”
Objections, Implications
Some opponents of the constitutional change were not necessarily in favor of allowing women to be pastors but objected to adding the ban to the denomination’s constitution.
Churches ordaining women have been expelled from the SBC in the past.
Last year the convention refused to reinstate Saddleback Church, an Orange County, California, megachurch listed by Lifeway Research as the seventh largest congregation in the country, because of its use of women pastors and its belief that they may hold high-level leadership positions.
On June 11, the convention voted to expel a Virginia congregation that employed a woman as an associate pastor and maintained that women could serve as senior pastors.
Other opponents argued that the amendment would disproportionately affect black congregations in the SBC because they are more likely to have women serving in pastoral roles.
SBC congregations operate independently, so the denomination cannot prevent a church from having a woman as pastor.
But it can disassociate with congregations that do not comply with SBC doctrine.
The practice of IVF, a laboratory procedure used to assist women who have difficulty conceiving a child, has been the focus of greater attention since the Alabama Supreme Court ruled in February that frozen embryos qualify as children under state law.
The Alabama court ruling has implications for both IVF and abortion since it recognizes an embryo as a human life.
Conservative politicians including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), a Southern Baptist, support IVF. Sens. Katie Britt (R-Ala.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) have cosponsored legislation to protect the procedure.
The SBC, though still formidable, has seen a steady decline in membership for the past 17 years.
After reaching a high of 16.3 million members in 2005, membership fell below 13 million by 2023, according to Lifeway Research.
***************************************************
Australia's narcissist government
When narcissists get something wrong they aways blame other people, never themselves. Leftists have many narcissist traits. See:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/narcissist-accountability.html
andhttp://jonjayray.com/leftism3.html
So the events described below are vivid evidence of how narcissistic Leftists can beEveryone knows the story of the boy stealing apples in the orchard. When confronted by the farmer, he simply holds the apples behind his back and declares, ‘Who? Me?’
Our current prime minister fits the description of that boy very well. But his colleagues are doing an impressive impersonation as well. As Chris Kenny would say, their theme song should be ‘Not Responsible’. The rule of thumb is never cop anything on the chin; rather blame someone or something else, preferably the previous Coalition government.
You really have to laugh. In the last election campaign, Albo made much of the fact that the buck would stop with him when in government. ‘If I become prime minister, I’ll accept responsibility each and every day, not always seek to blame others.’ Yeah, right.
It’s been a wild ride. I’m tempted to award a prize for the best alternative to the dog ate my homework. ‘I’ve been travelling in the car’ is a strong contender. This was the excuse pathetically given by the Prime Minister for not commenting on the arrival of an illegal vessel to our shores. I guess because he doesn’t have a mobile phone or a phalanx of minders keeping him up to date.
And then there was this clanger: ‘This is not my proposal, but the Australian people’s proposal’, thereby diverting blame for the thumping No vote he received in the Voice referendum.
To confirm that he is still in top ‘boy in the orchard’ form, Albo recently declared that, ‘I don’t comment on court proceedings overseas to which Australia is not a party.’ This was in reference to the absurd proposal of the dubious International Criminal Court to issue a warrant for the arrest of Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, for war crimes.
Barely drawing breath, Albanese then started banging on about the overseas court proceedings involving Julian Assange. I guess he never actually promised to be consistent but that should surely be a sine qua non for any head of government.
Given that the leader sets the tone for the rest of the team, it’s hardly surprising that other team members would follow his lead in blaming anyone or anything other than themselves. Heaven forbid that they should actually take responsibility for their own actions.
How many times have we heard Home Affairs Minister, Clare O’Neil, blame the ten years of neglect by the Coalition government for her inept handling of her portfolio? (B1 also frequently uses the ten years of neglect line.) Gosh, she even had to commission an ‘independent’ review or two to criticise the handling of aspects of the migration program by the Coalition government, so we would be convinced. Of course, she had no idea what those reviews would conclude, no idea at all.
Her offsider, the hapless Andrew Giles, has developed one skill during his time in the outer ministry – attempting to throw his department under the bus for the multiple errors that he’s made. You know the sort of thing: the department didn’t tell me; the department failed to keep me informed; the department misled me.
As for the howler about drones tracking the movements of released asylum seekers, if he had thought this through, he would have quickly realised that it was an absurd proposition. But it probably sounded like solid precautionary action by one of the weakest ministers in living memory. That’ll show them a thing or two, he doubtless thought.
The fact that drones were not being used for this purpose was surely an acute embarrassment, even for a man of the left whose real aim in entering parliament was to usher in a gentle and compassionate treatment for asylum seekers, even ones who had committed heinous crimes. (Not their fault, you must understand.)
But here’s the thing: throwing your department under the bus carries real risks. The bureaucrats will always know more than the minister and they don’t appreciate their hard work – pause here for laughter – being disparaged. There are plenty of examples littering the annals of political history where the careers of ministers have been ruined by revengeful Sir Humphreys.
Giles is also wont to blame Peter Dutton for his current problems. Dutton as home affairs minister simply didn’t cancel enough visas, evidently, even though he cancelled many hundreds of them.
One example of Dutton’s strength in this portfolio was his refusal to allow the father of celebrated Richmond footballer, Dusty Martin, to enter the country from New Zealand. Mr Martin had a criminal record as long as the Nile and Dutts would simply not be moved to allow him to enter the country, even to watch his son play a Grand Final.
And even ScoMo, who was as weak as water on most issues when he was prime minister, was not having a bar of the New Zealand government’s plea to keep Kiwi criminals in Australia if they had a strong association with our country. It was only when Albo came to office and the compliant Giles, who is a strong factional mate of the PM, sloppily drafted Ministerial Direction 99 to appease fellow lefty-luvvie, Jacinda Ardern.
And then we come to Billy Boy, Bill Shorten, Minister for the NDIS. He has been around the corridors of Parliament House for some time and so he knows all the excuses. The recent information about the massive rorting of the NDIS and the infiltration of criminal groups has led Shorten to blame this entirely on the Coalition.
Well, he’s only had the job for two years. Who could expect him to have achieved anything substantial in that short time? (Speccie readers, perhaps.) The fact that Shorten emotionally rejected the Coalition’s sensible suggestions to stop some of the rot within the NDIS – independent assessment, benchmarking plans – is quietly forgotten.
Then comes the news that Services Australia engaged the services of a speechwriter for the minister costing the taxpayer a cool $620,000 for a two-year contract. Given that newspapers pay one dollar per word (or less or nothing at all), this sum was simply outrageous. We were also informed that all those zingers – yep, most of us missed them – in the minister’s speeches were his own work. Obviously, zingers would have been extra.
But Billy Boy was not taking any responsibility for this outrage. It was Services Australia’s fault. He didn’t have anything do with negotiating the contract and he was unaware of the sum of money involved. Who? Me?
It’s a very long time since a minister resigned in response to an acknowledged mistake. Ian McLachlan, who is an old-school gentleman, resigned in 1998 as defence minister when he inappropriately received some information.
To be sure, there have been ministers sacked or demoted since that time, but the idea of a senior member of the government falling on their sword because of a serious error now looks like a remote possibility. The most incompetent ministers will now grab any lifesavers floating by in order to retain the perks of office – and these days, these perks are substantial. Another case of following the money.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/06/ive-been-travelling-in-the-car/
****************************************My other blogs. Main ones below:
http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com/ (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://awesternheart.blogspot.com (THE PSYCHOLOGIST)
http://jonjayray.com/blogall.html More blogs
***************************************
/>
Kristina Pimenova, once said to be the most beautiful girl in the world. Note blue eyes and blonde hair
Bliss: What every woman wants: to feel safe and secure in the arms of her man. Robert Irwin and Rorie Buckey. See 
No comments:
Post a Comment