We all know that eating red meat is bad, right? Huge no-no – just don’t eat it! You’ll DIE!!!!1!. Well, maybe not:
Red meat has been condemned as a cancer-causing, blood pressure-raising no-no.
Indeed, nutritional guidelines in both the UK and the US advise eating no more than 70g of beef, pork, or steak per day.
But a new review of clinical trials from Purdue University has found quite the opposite.
According to the study, eating more than the recommended daily amount of red meat does not affect short-term heart disease risk factors, such as blood pressure and blood cholesterol.
Here, for free, I will provide the tried and true George C. Noonan, Jr diet:
Eat whatever you want – just in moderation.
You know – having a bacon double cheesegburger every week will not kill you. Sure, having three a day is probably unwise…but if you’re craving some bacony goodness, have at it. Dad lived until 82. Didn’t exercise after he got out of the Marines. Ate red meat, salted his food, smoked and drank at least one whiskey a day (weekends and, after retirement, two) for his adult life. He died from complications resulting from a problem he was genetically born with.
I’d like to note that if you eat right and exercise daily, you’re going to die, anyway.
This sort of thing always brings me to a bit of fury at the stupidity of the modern world. Remember, it is “settled science” that red meat is bad. Call any doctor or nutritionist you like right this moment and ask them if you should be eating bacon double cheeseburgers and they will say, “no”. But here’s the reality – human beings have been eating bacon, beef, cheese and bread for, oh, about 100,000 years or so. Bacon and beef aren’t poison – they are food. Regular, normal, human food which our bodies are designed to process for excellent nutritional benefit. We’ve been sold a line of nonsense – and the line has been sold by people who for bizarre reasons have developed a moral aversion to eating things like red meat while also desiring that everyone else toe their line.
To be sure, if all you do is sit on your rear all day and eat things like bacon double cheeseburgers, you’re going to find yourself in serious health difficulty – but it won’t be because of the food, itself. It will be because you are a glutton and a lazy bones. Gluttony and sloth put you at risk of two things: losing your immortal soul and, of course, keeling over from a heart attack at 50 years old. But eating a nice steak doesn’t put you at risk of anything; and no matter what the vegetarians, PETA and assorted nagging Progressive Puritans say, the fact is that steak is just food. Nothing more, nothing less.
I know it’s a weird thing to go on a rant about, but it just sickens me that so much of what is normal and human is condemned these days. Can’t eat meat; can’t smoke tobacco; can’t drink booze; can’t have a bonfire on the beach; can’t drive off road; must stay on the designated paths while walking in the woods; can’t laugh at certain jokes…all in the name of some alleged cause of Justice and Saving The World. I ask: what is the point of saving the world if we can’t enjoy living in it? My dad, towards the end, was given the medical lecture: stop smoking, don’t drink any more, don’t salt your food, no more red meat. His attitude to that was, “if living means I have to give up what I enjoy, what’s the point of doing it?”.
Blogs For Victory 
One of my favorite meals is a good steak, baked potato, corn-on-the-cob and a salad. My wife and I both grew up in meat and potatoes families. Her parents lived to be 80, mine 89 and 91.
I think that this fear-mongering has two elements in it – the Progressive puritanism I noted, but also a collapse of faith. If you stop believing in God and eternity, you start clawing on to this life for all it’s worth. You start worrying about how long you’ve got, and how you might extend it…and what out there might shorten your stay. If, on the other hand, you do believe in God and eternity, then you have a different perspective…and a steak for dinner.
There’s a movement afoot to understand the difference between meat as we once ate it and meat as it is now for most of us. Part of this movement is the interest in grass-fed beef and butter from grass-fed cows.
Feedlot cows are, as I was once told, near death by the time they are slaughtered, because of their conditions. They are fed huge amounts of grain, as well as weird stuff to make them gain weight, and grain creates an acidic and unhealthy condition in cows so that, as well as the horribly confined and overcrowded conditions in which the have to exist, is why they are pumped full of antibiotics to keep them alive till they are heavy enough to slaughter. They are implanted with hormone capsules under the skin, to help them gain weight. So the mass marketed beef we eat IS a lot less healthful than the meat we used to eat.
But we are learning that grass-fed beef and natural butter are a lot more wholesome than a lot of foods we have been told are supposed to be good for us. Margarine was developed as a lubricant for machinery, and when it was first touted as a food it was pasty white and came with a little tube of yellow coloring to make it look more like butter. We were told for years it was better for us than butter, and that is being turned around now.
Now there is interest in replacing margarine with grass-fed butter, feedlot beef with grass-fed beef, and shortening with good quality lard from free range pigs. We’re starting to catch on that it’s not the food itself that is bad but the version of that food we have created.
I once asked a Mormon why his church is against things like caffeine, and he said they believe our bodies are gifts from God so we should treat them with the greatest respect and care. I have always liked that concept, and don’t think that doing so is the same at all as substituting passion for this life for belief in God.
Have to agree with you on the grass-fed cows. Couple years before he died, the old man ordered a prime rib for our Christmas dinner…when it got there, the Mrs and I immediately started berating dad for how much it cost…he was all, “just wait until you taste it”. It was some fancy, grass-fed beef which was like three steps up from USDA Choice or something. Well, let me tell you, that was the best beef we ever tasted…I think it was a 10 pound roast and even though there was only 6 of us for dinner, we ate every last bit of it before the end of the evening.
More from Matt Walsh…
http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/theres-a-stigma-around-abortion-only-because-its-pure-evil-and-we-all-know-it
And another from Walsh, who is obviously becoming a favorite of mine.
I actually thought of calling Libs “science deniers” awhile back, for their denial of gender identity, but he does a better job of it.
Earlier in the week National Geographic unveiled its January cover story. They are profiling a confused and abused young boy who thinks he’s a girl. Of course, he isn’t presented as someone who is confused and abused. Rather he’s presented as a boy who is actually a girl, which is like presenting a triangle that’s actually a circle.
There was a time when National Geographic was considered a science magazine. But the publication, along with liberalism more generally, has abandoned science. Indeed, anyone who suggests that a boy can be a girl is not only guilty of perpetuating abuse, but also guilty of rejecting the entire field of science known as biology.
That is why I propose a new name for those who believe in the “transgender” superstition. They are biology deniers. They are people who fundamentally deny the existence of biological sex. They may say that they accept biological sex and proceed to draw a false and fabricated distinction between that and “gender,” but the fact remains that if you will call a boy anything other than a boy, you have denied his biology. You are a biology denier. And that’s what you ought to be called.
http://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/matt-walsh-lets-start-calling-them-biology-deniers/
David Burge had words along these lines about how Progressives use respected institutions:
1. Kill it.
2. Gut it.
3. Wear it’s skin and demand respect.
You just wonder – why on Earth did National Geographic even decide that gender issues would be a subject in a, well, geographic publication? Aren’t these guys supposed to be giving us the lowdown on, well, geography?