BEEF Daily

Jude Capper On Brain Food

RSS

Jude Capper joins Trent Loos on the radio to discuss the power of fats and proteins for brain food.

“Nothing moved us into bigger brains faster than the consumption of animal products. Yet, it’s clearly documented that fats from animal products improves brain function. Let’s put the low-fat craze behind us and move forward by embracing the right portions of real food and real food only,” says Trent Loos, on a recent episode of Loos Tales. Loos interviewed Jude Capper of Washington State University on the importance of protein and fats in the diet for optimal brain function.

On this topic, my most-recent column in BEEF, “Diets Push Beef’s Healthy Role,” also highlights the importance of animal proteins in the diet, featuring the work of authors Gary Taubes and Loren Cordain.

Here are a few highlights from the podcast. Click here to listen to the entire segment.

“The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently indicated the third-leading disease by 2020 will be depression. I continue to see affluent individuals who read a bunch of stuff -- I didn’t say credible stuff -- but stuff, and they are consuming less milk, meat and eggs and the foods that attribute to mental health. How do we change the perceptions out there?” Loos asked Capper.

“Ultimately, it’s all about balance. Some of the fatty acids we find in fish, grass-fed beef and dairy have a major impact on vision, brain function, depression and mental illnesses. If we end up deficient on these fatty acids, we are going to have serious issues. We need to get over the perception that fat is bad, particularly that fats found in dairy and meat are worse than fats found in olive oil. Oleic acid, which is prevalent in olive oil, is also found in grain-fed beef. This offers us protection against heart disease and diabetes. Overall, it’s important to have a balanced, healthy diet that also tastes great, too,” said Capper.

“Every time I turn around, I hear of some doctor who talks about eliminating fat from the diet, not understanding how this all works,” replied Loos.

“The danger is there is so much misinformation out there, so you pick up something on the Internet or the newspapers, and it filters into our brains as this insidious idea that milk and meats are bad. What we need to do is to make a more concerted effort to help get the messages to the medical community.”

“Do not be misguided about fat. The University of North Carolina stated that pregnant mothers who eat eggs and bacon for breakfast have smarter kids. Obviously, your mom ate a good breakfast when she was pregnant with you, Jude,” concluded Loos.

For me, I always jump-start my mornings with high-quality proteins and fats, and it helps me to feel full and focused through the rest of my day. For dieters, I think a quality breakfast helps eliminate snacking on junk through the day. And, for hard-working ranchers in the high-stress time of calving season, it’s the perfect fuel!

Conventional wisdom warns us against too much fat and protein in the diet. What are your thoughts? Do you agree with Capper that animal proteins and fats are brain food? Do you try to spread the good-nutrition message of animal protein? What’s your favorite breakfast to start off your day?

Discuss this Blog Entry 15

Scott Armstrong (not verified)
on Feb 29, 2012

“Nothing moved us into bigger brains faster than the consumption of animal products. Yet, it’s clearly documented that fats from animal products improves (sic) brain function.

This is pure fiction.

Diets high in red meat, dairy products and animal fat have frequently been implicated in the development of brain problems like cognitive dysfunction, and studies show a six-fold increased risk of Alzheimer’s disease. Animal products also lead to atherosclerosis—the clogging of arteries—and the production of cardiovascular diseases such as coronary heart disease, and stroke. The most common cause of a TIA is an embolus that occludes an artery in the brain -- in short, a predicament stemming from cardiovascular disease. This usually arises from a dislodged atherosclerotic plaque in one of the carotid arteries (i.e. a number of major arteries in the head and neck) or from a thrombus (i.e. a blood clot) in the heart because of atrial fibrillation. It's pretty simple, really: TIAs, strokes, Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia stem from cardiovascular problems, and animal products cause cardiovascular problems, so animal products cause brain problems.

Every single cardiovascular risk factor (hypertension, high cholesterol, high homocystine, high triglycerides, and insulin resistance) destroys a good enzyme called DDAH and makes too much ADMA, a byproduct of protein metabolism. The ADMA reduces your body’s ability to produce nitric oxide, which is what gives your blood vessels their elasticity. So it’s not enough to just control your cholesterol, or just your hypertension and your triglycerides – you must control all the risk factors. This is what an oil-free, plant-based diet does, but no medicine (to my knowledge) can do that, and advising people to consume fat- and cholesterol-laden products to improve brain function is like advising swimmers to wear straightjackets.

on Mar 1, 2012

I have to agree 100% with Dr. Capper on this one.

Scott, could you please post the original reference for any legitimate research that actually implicates consumption of animal-based foods in cardiovascular disease. Even though the medical-pharmaceutical-government complex publicly maintain this notion, the evidence (usually the very studies the MPG complex cites) does not support this position at all. Cardiovascular disease is much more related to the overconsumption of sugars and refined grains.
If you look at the actual database of the well known large cohort studies, none of them remotely suggest meat consumption causes hypertension, high VLDL cholesterol, high tryglycerides. Look at the work of Robert Krauss at UCB, Kwiterovich at John Hopkins, or any of the other highly respected lipid chemists and their work will all indicate excessive CHO consumption and the induced insulin resistance is the actual cause of all the problems you cite above. Krauss' work even goes so far as to suggest the more staurated fat in the diet the lower the risk of cardiovascular disease.
Just because government and mainstream medicine holds something to be true, doesn't mean it is. Just look at the downward spiral of American health, both personal and as a nation, points out the unreliability of those two sources of information.

on Mar 1, 2012

The problem with your thinking here Scott is that you are influenced by "conventional wisdom" is is usually not wise. There are a lot of other factors involved in these "studies" which are not reflected such as physical activity and (in the case of Alzheimer) things in the diet such as aluminum. There are also many "studies" out there which are biased to begin with and throw out data which does not agree with what the pre disposed outcome of the study. As the saying goes, there are more old ranchers than there are old doctors..

Anonymous (not verified)
on Aug 22, 2012

Yer nutts!!! We must eat as close as possible to our natural diet. What animal has gone to extinction when their natural diet was available and their habitat remained intact. I'm not talking about eating just red meat, I'm talking about red meat grown naturally, on grass not in a feedlot.

on Mar 1, 2012

Scott,
Do you realize our brains are made mostly of fatty acids and cholesterol? Cholesterol isn't the enemy; in fact, it helps fuel our bodies.

Have you read any of Gary Taubes' work? "Why We Get Fat And What To Do About It," and "Good Calories, Bad Calories," as well as books like "The Paleo Diet" by Loren Cordain and "Primal Blueprint," by Mark Sisson all point out that it's starches, sugars and carbs that lead to all neolithic diseases -- heart disease, diabetes, high cholesterol, insulin resistance, etc.

We have become a society that is fat-a-phobic, and in turn, we have replaced fats in most of our foods with sugars. The obesity epidemic is spiraling out of control in this country. Today's Americans eat more sugar now than ever before, and studies show they are under-eating on protein requirements as stated by USDA's MyPlate.

So, logically we cannot blame animal fats and proteins for the health issues we face in this country. I rely on a quality breakfast like bacon and eggs for breakfast. I round my day out with green, leafy veggies, and I'm left satisfied, focused and productive through my day.

Scott Armstrong (not verified)
on Mar 1, 2012

Only 17% of the human brain is composed of cholesterol, but the entire suggestion that food stuffs composition should mimic brain composition is worse than fallacious – it is dangerous. Increased plasma cholesterol concentration through the increased net sterol turnover to the brain enhances the production of Ab protein and neuritic plaques, the key histochemical feature of Alzheimer’s disease.

Our bodies are about 70% water. Should 70% of our meals be water? Should 1% of our food stuffs be hair and toenails? You are suggesting that we ignore what we know about nutrition and chronic disease and focus on weighing components of the human brain to plan menus? Should we measure the composition of a car by weight and then put “fuel” composed of 80% steel in the gas tank? We run on carbohydrates. Glucose, one of the most basic carbohydrates, is our primary fuel. Brain tissues, red blood cells and cells of the kidneys will only use glucose as fuel.

Gary Taubes is a journalist, not a scientist, nutritionist or a medical doctor, and by invoking his work, you are moving away from brain function and into weight control by diet. OK, let’s go there. Gary is a proponent of the Atkin’s diet, and distorted others’ views and manufactured stories to sell books (see http://www.cspinet.org/nah/11_02/bigfatlies.pdf for example). Common consequences of following this type of diet include dehydration, diarrhea, weakness, headaches, dizziness and bad breath. Over the longer term, such a diet can increase the risk of atherosclerosis — one study has shown that this diet increases serum cholesterol levels and may increase the risk of coronary heart disease by more than 50% with long term use, kidney problems, heart disease, cancer, bone or joint ailments, and other problems that may be brought on as these people persist in using these high-protein, high-fat, low-carb diets. The diet is high in disease-causing substances; low in disease-preventing substances, and these results were even found in a study published by The Atkin’s Center itself. A medical study showed that mental functioning is impaired by ketosis, the mechanism used to reduce water weight in such diets (see, for example: Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord 19:811, 1995).

Blaming the obesity epidemic on plant-based foods is as illogical as promoting artery-clogging fats for brain function (do you know what a stroke is?). The goal of any healthy diet is to pack in as many nutrients as possible with as few calories as possible. Plant foods do the best job—hands down—and they include disease-preventing substances, rather than disease promoting substances, to boot. The obesity epidemic can be reversed by going to whole, plant-based foods and passing by the lab-manufactured garbage in aisle 18. You claim to have a high energy level. Good for you. But that’s hardly evidence of comparative performance for you, much less grounds for promotion of a disease-causing diet. Here’s what evidence looks like: Loss of energy was reported by 40% of registrants in a study of Atkin’s followers.

Proponents of the Paleo Diet are similarly confused, and their ignorance for nutritional and biological science and evidence from epidemiological and clinical studies is shameful.

The USDA is tasked with regulating food safety and promoting the industry. Guess which role wins? The protein requirement has been soundly critiqued, even from people who set the nation’s nutritional guidelines (see foodpolitics.com, for example). Medical, not marketing, studies show we need no more than 10% of our diets to be protein, and show that when we cross 20% with animal protein, we turn on cancer growth. In fact, we don't need protein at all -- we need amino acids, and protein is a middle-man. You can be forgiven if you don’t know what the medical term for protein deficiency is, since that condition is so rare in the US that it’s not even reported by the CDC. But obesity is endemic, highly correlated with the consumption of animal products, and the biologic causes (overeating of fats, simple carbs, and lack of exercise) are well-known and understood.

Finally, the cause and timing of death for any individual is not a valid criticism for a dietary regime. Atkins suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension before he died. But I don’t use that to condemn his dangerous dietary regime – it’s anecdotal and the worst abuse of the fallacy known as hasty generalization.

I stopped counting logical fallacies in your posting when I got to 20. I’d suggest you take off your animal ag hat and focus on the central premise of journalism: to provide society with accurate and reliable information, strung together with principles of valid inference and correct reasoning, rather than promoting bad science strung together with anecdotal hearsay, folk stories and logical fallacies. As Thomas Paine said, “He who dares not offend, cannot be honest.”

on Mar 1, 2012

I think one of the salient points of the CSPI article you cited, viewed in conjunction with Taubes work, is that studies are very open to interpretation. I think Taubes made the point very effectively in GC,BC that the researchers themselves often only view their results in paradigms their industry has created. Look at it from a different angle and there are other legitimate interpretations. When I was in academic research, I had colleagues who refused to publish certain studies because their results did not fit the mainstream view. What is the point of doing research if we come to beleive the results have to fit a certain viewpoint?

Since I think we will not likely agree on research interpretation, I will revert to common sense and observation of the world around us. Having fed different types of livestock most of my life, one very simple fact that leads me to believe CHO do in fact make people obese and fat does not. To make hogs, chickens, cattle, sheep or any other animals (lab mice, rats, hamsters, etc), we feed them grain or sugary byproduct feeds. If we want to maintain animals at a near constant rate or grow muscle, we feed them higher levels of protein and reduce the available CHO in the diet.

If too much fat is inserted into a livestock finishing ration, they slow the rate of fattening and too much fat will make them stand still in weight gain. If you don't consider this to be valid information, then every animal trial ever done in nutrition or medicine becomes invalid.

Why is there currently a pet obesity epidemic? Because more and more pet foods are almost entirely grain based and are fat deficient.
Have you ever seen a fat carnivore in the natural world? I live among wolves and coyotes, mountain lions and bobcats. These predators eat almost entirely animal flesh and organs, very often eating only the fattiest body parts and leaving the leaner parts.
Bears, on the other hand, are omnivores and will become remarkably fat in the fall in response to eating high-sugar content berries and digging starchy roots.
I will take the credibility of millions of years of evolution and nutritional adaptation well ahead of any 'recent study' published in JAMA.

Scott Armstrong (not verified)
on Mar 1, 2012

The problem with Taubes’ work is not that it is “…open to interpretation…”, but that he: cherry picks the stories that match his predetermined views; he misrepresents expert opinion and quotes out of context – often contrary to the intent of the person interviewed, as cited by several interviewees; he counters decades of good science with unfounded opinions, he offers dietary guidance that has been proven to cause or aggravate several chronic diseases, he blurs important distinctions (e.g., he implies that fat itself doesn’t cause obesity, but fat contains twice the calories of protein or carbs and excessive calories cause obesity; and he makes little distinction between complex carbs and simple carbs), and, knowingly or not, he states untruths. Another problem is that he happens to be a very readable writer. If he wrote poorly, he’d be another basement-dwelling blogger, where he could do little harm.

If your former colleagues “refused to publish certain studies because their results did not fit the mainstream view”, then you are right in asking why on earth they were in research. To refuse to publish valid research findings that might have a meaningful contribution to society out of fear is unconscionable. The point of academic research is to push back the frontiers of knowledge, not to look backward at the trail to “confirm” what lay ahead.

We’d agree on research interpretation if you agree with the scientific community that researchers follow the scientific method; otherwise, we would not agree. Taubes clearly does not follow the scientific method, but then, he’s not a scientist, but a writer who is handsomely paid for sensationalism and for appeal to popularity. That's why it's important to know the difference when reading "revolutionary" diet books.

“Why is there currently a pet obesity epidemic?” As with humans, animals are overfed and underexercised. Food composition is a confounding variable, your generalizations notwithstanding.

For the record, wolves are anatomically and physiologically omnivores, and they do better when these omnivores eat as herbivores. I’ve interviewed operators of two wolf sanctuaries who, independent of one another, fed them a plant-based diet, and each reported longer-lived wolves. Comparing wolves, lions and bears to one another or to humans and attributing differences to diets relies on several unstated premises and some pretty wild generalizations. But as long as you’re turning to eating behavior and “millions of years of evolution”, consider this:
Anatomically and physiologically, humans are herbivores. Humans share all of the characteristics of herbivores in the 19 major features used to determine the dietary practices for which humans have evolved.
Historically, we have eaten as frugivores, a subset of herbivores. As reported in the New York Times, Dr. Alan Walker, anthropologist at John Hopkins University, stated: "Preliminary studies of fossil teeth have led to the startling suggestion that our early human ancestors (Australopithecus) were not predominantly meat-eaters or even eaters of seeds, shoots, leaves or grasses, nor were they omnivorous. Instead they appear to have subsisted chiefly on a diet of fruit. Every tooth examined from the hominids of the 12 million year period leading up to Homo Erectus appeared to be that of a fruit-eater."
With the arrival of farming, some 7,000 years ago, human remained herbivorous. The Aztecs and Incas combined maize, beans and squash, so that the different amino acids in the maize and beans could be complemented by the carbohydrate content of the squash. Classical India was vegetarian, as was Japan up until a generation or two ago. The staple of Egyptian workers building the Pyramids was boiled onions.
Our closest animal relatives, other primates, are anatomically and physiologically herbivores.
There is more than ample, consistent, robust epidemiological evidence with a clear dose response that animal products are the source of the leading chronic diseases, which now account for the vast majority of human deaths. Causal links are well-explained by plausible biological mechanisms. If animal products were so good for us, they wouldn’t kill us.
The ability to eat meat does not make us meat-eaters. Our digestive systems can process meat, but that is not a sufficient argument for claiming that we are omnivores. Our digestive systems can also process cardboard, but did not adapt to a diet of cardboard, nor are they (cardboard or meat) the optimal diet for humans.
Modern humans do not maintain an omnivorous diet behavior, either. Much of the misinformation on the issue of humans and their optimal diet arises from confusion between taxonomic and dietary characteristics. Culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices. But if you insist on looking at behavior, then we are herbivores, eating as necrovores, not herbivores eating as omnivores. True carnivores and omnivores get excited about eating whole prey animals when they see them. Humans do not. While carnivores and omnivores take pleasure in killing animals and eating their raw flesh, any human who killed an animal with his or her bare hands and dug into the raw corpse would be considered deranged. When we see dead animals on the side of the road, we are not tempted to stop for a snack.

Even if modern humans ate nothing but meat, we would never be carnivores or omnivores. Anatomically, physiologically, and historically, we are herbivores. We would be herbivores, eating as necrovores, which means the eating of dead flesh. Humans do not kill their meat so much as they scavenge it. Even hunters do not kill and eat the hot living flesh of their victims. They wait for the meat to get cold and to begin the putrification process before consumption.

on Mar 1, 2012

FYI, the founder of the American Vegan Society died at age 66 of a heart attack. Learn more about it from Denise Minger here: http://rawfoodsos.com/

on Mar 1, 2012

Amanda, I eat bacon & eggs almost every day for breakfast with some mushrooms and fruit on the side. Whole milk for breakfast beverage. When the milk cow down on the lower ranch freshens, then we should be able to get fresh raw milk which is even better. Last year they had too many twin calves and had 4-5 calves on her all the time and didn't leave any milk for the people.

on Mar 1, 2012

I think it's important to add that this blog post wasn't to demonize any particular food group or promote a particular diet or lifestyle. Instead, it was to show Americans that fat isn't the enemy, that they don't have to feel guilty about eating animal proteins. In fact, studies show beef and other red meats are actually good for heart heart health. Want more info? Check out my previous blog post on the BOLD study that shows red meat is cholesterol-lowering.

http://beefmagazine.com/beef_daily/2011/12/20/be-bold-with-beef-this-chr...

Simon (not verified)
on Oct 9, 2013

The BOLD study is a ridiculous attempt by the beef industry to buy back its consumer shares. it is a plain exemple of how, when you manipulate data, you can fool the public oh so easily. Beef does NOT lower cholesterol, it increases it, as anything with saturated animal fat.

If you want a proper example of how they made beef look like health food, please watch Dr. Greger’s video “BOLD Indeed: Beef Lowers Cholesterol?” :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCD46KbOkSM

Scott Armstrong (not verified)
on Mar 13, 2012

“…fat isn’t the enemy…” –
What you have attempted to do is show that the consumption of animal fat helps brain function. It does not. I provided a (short) list of the grounds to support my argument in my first posting, above, to refute that (groundless) claim. You later claim that red meat lowers cholesterol. It does not (see my comments, below), and the study you cited does not purport to make that claim, although you are hardly the only person commenting on the study to make that mistake.

“... wasn't to demonize any particular food group or promote a particular diet or lifestyle… --
Actually, that’s precisely what you tried to do! No fewer than 74% of the words in your blog are directly tied to quotes from one (very biased) author’s opinion, then you top it off with what attorneys would refer to as a leading question: “Do you try to spread the good-nutrition message of animal protein?” Then you make a claim about the death of the founder of a vegan group, which, as I noted earlier, “…is not a valid criticism for a dietary regime.” I continue: “Atkins suffered a heart attack, congestive heart failure and hypertension before he died. But I don’t use that to condemn his dangerous dietary regime – it’s anecdotal and the worst abuse of the fallacy known as hasty generalization.” The reference to Denise Minger is further evidence of your attempt to promote a particular diet, but it also falls flat. Ms. Minger is not a biologist, nutritionist, epidemiologist, statistician, medical doctor, or other health professional or scientist. She is a "Professional Sock Puppeteer” (her words) who took time off from her sock puppeteering to write a heavily flawed and widely discredited blog that sought to destroy the work of one epidemiologist’s 50+ years researching and publishing on nutrition and health. Because of the free publicity that follows such guerilla tactics, her blog has become widely read—but not more correct or helpful to her readers.

You urge readers to “Check out my previous blog post on the BOLD study that shows red meat is cholesterol-lowering.” Some notes on the BOLD study are in order:
1. Many of the authors of the BOLD study maintain a cozy relationship with the beef industry, which is suggested not least by the nature of the study itself. Only four of the eight authors had no conflicts of interest to declare. As the saying goes, “Whose bread you eat, their song you’ll sing”.
2. The study was performed on 36 subjects, after six were removed from the test. To blindly draw broad conclusions (e.g., “red meat is cholesterol-lowering”, and “studies show beef and other red meats are actually good for heart heart (sic) health” —your words, not theirs) from such a small sample is not only unwarranted, but factually incorrect. That is not what the study purported to show, what it showed, or what properly-constructed and well-run studies of this sort do demonstrate—see below.
3. The test was extremely limited in its scope, although you could be excused for not noting that, given the title and the “reporting” in the mass media, which mostly amounted to selectively quoting the report, rather than investigating the results or conclusions drawn from them. The study was performed neither ON nor FOR the average citizen. The study was performed on a small group of test subjects who were hypercholesterolemic. Imagine that I am a researcher who comes to you with this idea for a research project: “I think Twinkees are healthy, and I will test this hypothesis on a small group of obese people. Furthermore, I will break them into subgroups. One subgroup will receive Ho-Hos, one will receive Ding-Dongs, and one will receive Twinkees. Now, it happens to be the case that these obese people have already been on a steady diet of Twinkees, Ho-Hos and Ding-Dongs (hence, their obesity), so I’m going to offer each group balanced meals with one-half of one Twinkee, Ho-Ho, or Ding-Dong for dessert. If my study shows that the so-called ‘Twinkee diet’ helps them lose weight, the study will be a confirmation of the hypothesis that ‘Obese people who eat a lot of Twinkees can lose more weight than those who eat a lot of Ding-Dongs or Ho-Hos if they eat a balanced diet and limit the dessert to one Twinkee.’” I continue to suggest that “It will likely be true that obese people who eat a lot of Twinkees can lose more weight if they eat fewer Twinkees, but I won’t test that hypothesis explicitly. Of course, I’ll characterize the study in broad terms so people will be encouraged to say ‘Twinkees can help people lose weight.’ ”

What would you think of such a study? If you love Twinkees, the title would appeal to your confirmation bias, and if Hostess manufactured only Twinkees, it would make sure that such results (mischaracterized as they are) would get tremendous distribution. But as a researcher, you’d say the hypothesis tested is on a small population, eating carefully-designed and quantity-controlled meals, confounded with other variables (prior diets and lifestyles, different foods in each diet), the results would be overstated, the media would further overstate the results because of the need for soundbites, and the soundbites would purport to refute more carefully controlled clinical studies, epidemiological studies, and other forms of tests that show otherwise. In their report, the authors do bury such observations, but I’ve yet to find a single report in the mass media making note of that. This study is itself a case study of how to corrupt and distort scientific investigations into the truth.

Finally, two more points are in order: (1) You began the blog by stating that “consumption of animal fat helps brain function” (see my response to this groundless claim above in this comment), and later broaden it to “fat isn’t the enemy”. Even that broader conclusion is implicitly rejected in the title of the article you referenced: “Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet study” (I draw your attention to the word “lean”). In making the argument for fat, you also exclude fat, perhaps unconsciously, when you say that people “don’t have to feel guilty about eating animal protein”, and “Do you try to spread the good-nutrition message of animal protein?”. In making further claims about fat, you take pains to exclude fat when drawing your concluion.
(2) The follow-on comment that people “don't have to feel guilty about eating animal proteins”, while strictly true, isn’t terribly useful guidance. Psychopaths don’t have to feel guilty about killing people, but that isn’t terribly useful guidance unless we are due to cross paths with a psychopath. We can go through life without considering the ethics of our actions, but that doesn’t mean we should, and it wouldn’t leave us with much of a society. The vast literature surrounding this topic, whether from the perspective of our environment, individual human health, health of society, or the animals themselves, suggests that there is plenty to feel guilty about. Plenty.

W.E. (not verified)
on Dec 10, 2013

Scott and Amanda, having scanned your replies, I have seen no mention of one of the most important nutrients in the human diet for the prevention of the present plethora of degenerative diseases common among Americans. If either of you have any desire to find the whole truth about good fats, do some research on conjugated linoleic acid, which was discovered by accident in 1987. By the late 1990's, research was beginning to ramp up on the benefits of CLA, known to be available mainly from the meat and milk of ruminant animals (cattle, goats, sheep, bison, etc.) Unfortunately, most of us are woefully ignorant of the benefits of CLA to human wellness, which include better cardiac health, better mental and emotional stability, resistance to diabetes and a wide variety of cancers, a better lean-to-fat ratio in human body composition, and satisfaction of appetite which helps to curtail obesity. Research and publicity of the results were aided by checkoff dollars from the National Cattlemen's Association. Shortly after the turn of the millennium, those dollars were quietly redirected. You may or may not be able to locate old NCA press releases. Not coincidentally, the organization, now known as the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, has remained very quiet about CLA research for more than a decade. Why? The reason is that CLA is nearly absent in more than 95 percent of the beef and milk currently marketed in the USA. Why is this very valuable nutrient absent in today's beef? Because, in order to provide optimum amounts of CLA for human consumption, those ruminant animals need to be grazing a diet of green forages right up until the day they are harvested for beef. For paleolithic man, and for all of our ancestors up until World War II, CLA was an integral part of the human diet. Americans really have no idea of the effects of the absence of CLA in our diets, because virtually all of the research has been conducted in other countries where marketing concerns do not overshadow public concern for health and wellness.

just click this (not verified)
on Mar 8, 2014

This blog inspires me everyday, you should update it more often

Post new comment
or to use your BEEF Magazine ID
What's BEEF Daily?

BEEF Daily Blog is produced by rancher Amanda Radke, one of the U.S. beef industry’s top social media “agvocates.”

Contributors

Amanda Radke

A fifth-generation rancher from Mitchell, SD, Amanda grew up on a purebred Limousin cattle operation in which she and husband Tyler are active. She graduated with a degree in agriculture journalism...

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×