Any Views On Processed Meats?

Kunder

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
141
Processed meats - I know they are not ideal, and according to the WHO even known carcinogens, but what about the Peat perspective?

They are super convinient, and often very tasty. I would class them in two groups - high fat (sausages, salamis) and low fat (ham etc.).

Being almost always pork-based, I understand the high fat options are not ideal due to high content of unsaturates (though probably most of it are MUFAS).

What about ham though? It is super lean, cooked (not fried or baked), sounds like a pretty decent Peat meal.

I understand that the vast majority of any processed meat is treated with nitrate salts, even if there are no other chemical additives. Has anyone asked Peat about these nitrite salts?

It is also possible to find processed meats that contain nothing but spices and regular salt. Would these be in any way un-peaty, if consumed with sufficient amount of gelatin?

Any thoughts?
 

jyb

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2012
Messages
2,783
Location
UK
A lot of Dr Peat's articles (raypeat.com) warn against meat that is not very fresh - he explains his point of view in reasonable details on this topic. So on this point, Dr Peat reaches the same conclusion as the studies you mention.

It is independent from whether the meat has more or less unsaturated fats, so this warning would apply to beef and ham too.
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,551
Age
32
Location
Netherlands
I mostly avoid all processed meats, since most processed meats have a ton of preservatives.
If I crave meat I usually stick to Steak or Chicken Breast. There are 100 % fresh meat with no additives.
I used to eat Ground beef too, but I read recently that ground beef had endotoxin in it, and other nasty fillers.
This matched my experience with eating ground beef, as I felt mildly sick each time I ate it.
 
OP
Kunder

Kunder

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
141
A lot of Dr Peat's articles (raypeat.com) warn against meat that is not very fresh - he explains his point of view in reasonable details on this topic. So on this point, Dr Peat reaches the same conclusion as the studies you mention.

It is independent from whether the meat has more or less unsaturated fats, so this warning would apply to beef and ham too.

Thanks Jyb. Would you have a link to Peat’s article or can thinknof which one it was in? Ive read quite a few of them and dont recall this topic being written about.
 
OP
Kunder

Kunder

Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2018
Messages
141
I mostly avoid all processed meats, since most processed meats have a ton of preservatives.
If I crave meat I usually stick to Steak or Chicken Breast. There are 100 % fresh meat with no additives.
I used to eat Ground beef too, but I read recently that ground beef had endotoxin in it, and other nasty fillers.
This matched my experience with eating ground beef, as I felt mildly sick each time I ate it.

Vinero thanks. You mention tons of preservatives, but there are processed meats out there, especially here in Europe, that contain nothing but spices and regular salt. Nothing more. How would that be harmful?
 

Vinero

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2013
Messages
1,551
Age
32
Location
Netherlands
Vinero thanks. You mention tons of preservatives, but there are processed meats out there, especially here in Europe, that contain nothing but spices and regular salt. Nothing more. How would that be harmful?
Spices and salt are ok. I would avoid meats with citric acid though.
 

fradon

Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2017
Messages
605
Processed meats - I know they are not ideal, and according to the WHO even known carcinogens, but what about the Peat perspective?

They are super convinient, and often very tasty. I would class them in two groups - high fat (sausages, salamis) and low fat (ham etc.).

Being almost always pork-based, I understand the high fat options are not ideal due to high content of unsaturates (though probably most of it are MUFAS).

What about ham though? It is super lean, cooked (not fried or baked), sounds like a pretty decent Peat meal.

I understand that the vast majority of any processed meat is treated with nitrate salts, even if there are no other chemical additives. Has anyone asked Peat about these nitrite salts?

It is also possible to find processed meats that contain nothing but spices and regular salt. Would these be in any way un-peaty, if consumed with sufficient amount of gelatin?

Any thoughts?

cabbage might be a good antidote to processed meats...high in vitamin c and can help the liver detox. germans seem to live on processed meats and most do okay. I guess it depends on how your body processes the stuff. But nitrates have been linked to illnesses.

one thing they are doing is the states is selling uncured processed meats with no sodium nitriite but instead they use celery seed salt which has natural occuring nitritries.
 

Aleeri

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
323
Is the deal the same here as with oral tobacco being carcinogenic no? Nitrosamines. Formation and occurrence of nitrosamines in food. - PubMed - NCBI

Tobacco-specific nitrosamines are what causes various cancers related to oral tobacco use. Swedish oral tobacco (snus) is not heat fermented (steamed only), which minimizes nitrosamines. This is why there are no studies that have been able to show any correlation between cancer and swedish snus.
 

SOMO

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,094
Is the deal the same here as with oral tobacco being carcinogenic no? Nitrosamines. Formation and occurrence of nitrosamines in food. - PubMed - NCBI

Tobacco-specific nitrosamines are what causes various cancers related to oral tobacco use. Swedish oral tobacco (snus) is not heat fermented (steamed only), which minimizes nitrosamines. This is why there are no studies that have been able to show any correlation between cancer and swedish snus.


I've also read that most tobacco is grown in soil that is radioactive and polluted with Polonium.

Also some plants concentrate certain toxic heavy metals better than others, the most glaring example is how Brazil Nuts concentrate Selenium and how Tea leaves concentrate Fluoride.
There are a lot of issues with tobacco as a plant.
Isolated Nicotine, I think, will be vindicated as a safe stimulant, right up there with coffee. But tobacco is unhealthy and too much combustible material inhaled irritates the lungs.



As far as Nitrates/Nitrites in processed meat, these preservatives are possibly the reason why studies of meat show meat to be associated with poor health outcomes. Most of these studies never differentiate between CUTS of meat or even the animal and all meat is lumped into the same category. But most would agree that some plain lean ground beef is likely healthier than Oscar Meyer "all beef franks".

RP cites the Perth Group who claims that Kaposi's Sarcoma, a skin cancer found mostly in gay men, was caused by inhaling nitrates as recreational drugs.

I think pork and chicken are problematic because of their PUFAs, even before any possibly unsafe processed-meat preservatives are added - (the most common being Sodium Nitrite, Sodium Nitrate and Sodium Phosphate).
 

Aleeri

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
323
I've also read that most tobacco is grown in soil that is radioactive and polluted with Polonium.

Also some plants concentrate certain toxic heavy metals better than others, the most glaring example is how Brazil Nuts concentrate Selenium and how Tea leaves concentrate Fluoride.
There are a lot of issues with tobacco as a plant.
Isolated Nicotine, I think, will be vindicated as a safe stimulant, right up there with coffee. But tobacco is unhealthy and too much combustible material inhaled irritates the lungs.

Why would the tobacco plant be more problematic than the coffee or tea plant? Then I could say that isolated caffeine should be the only one considered safe too as the coffee plant is likely grown in similar bad conditions/contamination in many parts of the world. Same thing with cocoa.

I can buy the vasoconstrictive and addictive aspects but I think so many other things are overblown when it comes to the tobacco plant. Just don't smoke it.
 

SOMO

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,094
Why would the tobacco plant be more problematic than the coffee or tea plant? Then I could say that isolated caffeine should be the only one considered safe too as the coffee plant is likely grown in similar bad conditions/contamination in many parts of the world. Same thing with cocoa.

I can buy the vasoconstrictive and addictive aspects but I think so many other things are overblown when it comes to the tobacco plant. Just don't smoke it.

Soil type that is suited towards one plant may not be suited for another plant. It could be that tea thrives in high-fluoride soil and tobacco survives in radioactive soil. The difference is that fluoride may have a purpose in the tea plant, but you're going to have to post some convincing evidence that Polonium or radioactive elements are necessary or beneficial for the tobacco plant.

Simple combustion (smoking) of foods is toxic when inhaled. This is even before substances like AGEs and PAH's are created.

Unless someone is smoking coffee or tea (or drinking a liquid nicotine/tobacco tincture or extract), coffee and tea will always be less toxic.


Isolated caffeine is safe in physiological doses. Regular Coffee is extremely safe, I've spoken with coffee manufacturers and asked about their practices regarding the storage and cleanliness of the coffee beans - roasting and steaming are both routinely used and many of the steps along the production line destroy mycotoxins.
There is "ceremonial" green tea you can buy that is grown a certain way and then harvested a certain way, while kept under controlled conditions.
There is no such quality control for nicotine.
I really doubt Phillip Morris or any tobacco company cares about pesticide residue or heavy metals in their product lol.

Isolated nicotine, besides possibly preventing parkinsons, is somewhat well studied, but many studies are concerned with the effects of tobacco smoke+nicotine. Even though there's some research into isolated nicotine, none of it seems too promising. Isolated nicotine is still a promoter of angiogenesis.

Vasoconstriction is almost always bad and it's hard to get vasoconstriction without hypoxia.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom