Dieticians have long segregated proteins as ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ Now, one self-anointed diet guru is pretending there’s a rank order among meat, poultry and seafood … I said ‘pretending.’
Let’s see how smart you are.
Today’s quiz will determine whether you can properly identify what a recent news feature in The Washington Post described as “the hierarchy of meat.”
In other words, which animal foods are nutritionally better than others — considering that many of them, according to this report, are considered to be “bad for you” and thus automatically shoved to the bottom of the rankings.
Of course, the credibility of this list is suspect right out of the gate, because the writer cited a study published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology that measured the health impact of substituting red meat and processed meat for fish among adults in Denmark. The study tracked people who ate 12 ounces of fish a week in place of red meat or processed meat products.
Using a statistical risk-benefit model, the researchers then calculated what they termed the “Additional Life Years” supposedly to be gained if the entire population of Denmark were to make similar dietary substitutions. The total benefit, they estimated, was 7,000 additional person-years of healthy life.
That may sound like a significant benefit, but when applied to the entire Danish population, the average “healthy life” to be gained would amount to just under 11 hours per person.
So an adult lifetime (presumably) of eating fish instead of beef, pork or processed meats buys you another 11 hours of life. Not exactly a fabulous return on investment.
A quick quiz
But back to the quiz. Can you rank these food items in order, based on (alleged) nutritional value?
- Ground beef
- Chicken wings
- Lamb chops
- Pork sausage
I confess: It’s a trick question. According to The Post’s reporting, they’re all bad!
None of those foods are “good for you,” if we’re to believe the expert quoted by the newspaper, one Dr. Janese Laster, a gastroenterologist affiliated with Georgetown University Hospital. That’s because they all contain — gasp! — saturated fat, and for most dieticians (and some gastroenterologists, apparently), consuming that substance is the nutritional equivalent of sitting in the sun all day without first smearing yourself with SPF 100 sunscreen.
In other words, just this side of an actual suicide.
What should you be eating?
“Poultry and fish are considered the best animal proteins you can load your diet with,” the good doctor opined. She noted that fish contains omega-3 fatty acids, which can protect against cardiovascular disease.
A couple problems with that.
First, reliable studies have determined that tunafish, which is America’s preferred source of fish, contains about 270 to 300 milligrams of omega 3s per average 3½ ounce serving, whereas most health organizations recommend ingesting a minimum of 400 to 500 milligrams of omega 3s per day.
To obtain the recommended level, in other words, you’d basically have to eat a can a day of tunafish, which might help with the cardiovascular protection, but would likely leave you smelling like the inside of a seafood cannery.
Second, even a fish-a-holic like Dr. Laster acknowledged that, “There’s some risk of ingesting mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls [and] microplastic, due to our polluted water supply,” she explained.
The solution? “Try to avoid species such as swordfish or king mackerel and opt for cod or salmon instead.”
And it shouldn’t be farmed salmon but instead “wild-caught” salmon, which, last time I checked, was retailing anywhere from $18 to $26 a pound. Not exactly a price point that qualifies it as staple in one’s everyday diet.
The bottom line for Laster, as you’d expect, is the same bad advice that mainstream dieticians, USDA’s Dietary Guidelines advisory committee members and various medical and health associations have been peddling for decades: Ditch the beef; eat anything else that doesn’t contain fat.
Dr. L goes even further than that: she recommends limiting red meat consumption to only a few servings a month. For the 95% of the population that doesn’t practice vegetarianism, that represents a monumental shift in traditional dietary patterns.
And if there’s anything even the most extreme veganistas will acknowledge, for most people, making even minor changes in one’s food preferences is a lot easier to preach than practice.
The opinions in this commentary are those of Dan Murphy, a veteran journalist and commentator.
Related stories:
