PDA

View Full Version : Too much ham?



greemah
09-15-2011, 11:50 PM
I have a lot of deli ham, about 1100g a week. Just wondering if there are any health worries with eating this much? My gf made an unsubstantiated claim that this was bad, but couldn't find anything searching so thought I'd ask here

Behemoth
09-16-2011, 12:35 AM
You eat 1100g of deli ham per week and your girlfriend says there are health worries? Guess what... She's right. You're under nourished.

Seriously though, it's all about context. There's nothing wrong with the nutrition in a 1100g worth of deli ham for a week for almost anybody unless their weekly diet is already excessively high in the few nutrients that your girlfriend likely deemed to be 'unhealthy'.

It's all about context!

There nothing wrong with damn near any nutrient that you can eat given it's not excessive in the grand scheme of things.

Is 1100g worth of deli ham excessive in the grand scheme of things? Well that all depends what the grand scheme of things (the rest of your diet) looks like.

greemah
09-16-2011, 03:18 AM
Ok in that case, my average days diet is:

3 bits of bread
50 almonds
160g chicken
200g beef
veggies
half cup rice
220g ham
1 glass milk
3 scoop protein shake

On workout days i have less fats, more carbs (including fruit), and on weekends i include eggs and berries. All days have calories and macros worked out

Now you have the context, you reckon that amount of ham is ok? I see it's not much more than the other meats I have there, but I'm sure deli ham isn't as healthy/quality, I just get it as its cheap as hell and good for protein

thecityalive
09-16-2011, 05:11 AM
TUNA!

But I can relate, I commute to school and pack a lunch and it is either turkey or ham for me, and I make big sandwiches. Nom nom nom.

Behemoth
09-16-2011, 11:13 AM
Ok in that case, my average days diet is:

3 bits of bread
50 almonds
160g chicken
200g beef
veggies
half cup rice
220g ham
1 glass milk
3 scoop protein shake

On workout days i have less fats, more carbs (including fruit), and on weekends i include eggs and berries. All days have calories and macros worked out

Now you have the context, you reckon that amount of ham is ok? I see it's not much more than the other meats I have there, but I'm sure deli ham isn't as healthy/quality, I just get it as its cheap as hell and good for protein

Unless you're watching your sodium or are trying to reduce your dietary fat intake there is no reason lose the ham IMO.

r2473
09-16-2011, 12:38 PM
There is this health guru that strongly recommends, when eating ham, you should also eat green eggs.

I've eaten them in a boat and with a goat. In the rain. In the dark. On a train.............

Holto
09-16-2011, 01:21 PM
I can't link to any studies that prove nitrates are a huge concern but that is a LOT of nitrates. (Assuming it's not some extremely rare nitrate free variety.)

That said I think there is huge difference between buying precut, packaged and preserved ham VS going to a butcher and having them slice it. Of course you could also easily roast a ham and slice it yourself.

BallsWideDeep
09-16-2011, 01:27 PM
There is this health guru that strongly recommends, when eating ham, you should also eat green eggs.

I've eaten them in a boat and with a goat. In the rain. In the dark. On a train.............

:zipit:

thecityalive
09-16-2011, 02:20 PM
:zipit:
^this

greemah
09-16-2011, 05:08 PM
Thanks for your replies all, I will continue eating my convenient and cheap ham

Funnily enough though, I will be cutting my calories a bit very soon and the bulk of what I will be cutting down on is ham... didn't work that out till after I posted this though haha. But good to know for when I do my next bulk

krazylarry
09-16-2011, 08:29 PM
I can't link to any studies that prove nitrates are a huge concern but that is a LOT of nitrates. (Assuming it's not some extremely rare nitrate free variety.)

That said I think there is huge difference between buying precut, packaged and preserved ham VS going to a butcher and having them slice it. Of course you could also easily roast a ham and slice it yourself.

"Several decades ago, some researchers raised the possibility that nitrites could be linked to cancer in laboratory rats. This suggestion received a lot of media attention. What received less media attention, however, was when it turned out that they were wrong. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Cancer Society and the National Research Council all agree that there's no cancer risk from consuming sodium nitrite. "

Take it for what it's worth.
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/seasoningflavoring/a/nitrates.htm

Alex.V
09-17-2011, 09:40 PM
"Several decades ago, some researchers raised the possibility that nitrites could be linked to cancer in laboratory rats. This suggestion received a lot of media attention. What received less media attention, however, was when it turned out that they were wrong. Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Cancer Society and the National Research Council all agree that there's no cancer risk from consuming sodium nitrite. "

Take it for what it's worth.
http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/seasoningflavoring/a/nitrates.htm

What's just as amusing- try finding a link between saturated fat and heart disease (there is none- the conventional wisdom showing a link here is based off of deeply flawed data back from the 70's and 80's). Or examine the difference between high fructose corn syrup and honey/table sugar (again, none).

I love it when horror stories fall flat.

K-R-M
09-18-2011, 12:01 AM
What's just as amusing- try finding a link between saturated fat and heart disease (there is none- the conventional wisdom showing a link here is based off of deeply flawed data back from the 70's and 80's). Or examine the difference between high fructose corn syrup and honey/table sugar (again, none).

I love it when horror stories fall flat.

I'm with you, but done:

"In a large number of observational studies and their meta-analyses, individuals who consume fewer calories, more fruits and vegetables, and less saturated fats tend to have lower risks of CVD."

" Saturated fat, derived chiefly from animal products, raises the total serum cholesterol. There is a continuous, graded relationship between the total serum cholesterol concentration and coronary heart disease events and mortality (figure 2) [41,42]. Two large cohort studies also found a small positive association between the intake of saturated fat and the incidence of coronary heart disease; for each 5 percent increment of energy, there was a multivariate relative risk of 1.17 among women (95 percent confidence interval 0.97 to 1.41) and 1.12 among men (95 percent confidence interval 0.97 to 1.28) "

Studies from 1996 and 1997:
"43
PubMed
TIDietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States.
AUAscherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci EL, Spiegelman D, Stampfer M, Willett WC
SOBMJ. 1996;313(7049):84.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between fat intake and the incidence of coronary heart disease in men of middle age and older.
DESIGN: Cohort questionnaire study of men followed up for six years from 1986.
SETTING: The health professionals follow up study in the United States.
SUBJECTS: 43 757 health professionals aged 40 to 75 years free of diagnosed cardiovascular disease or diabetes in 1986.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Incidence of acute myocardial infarction or coronary death.
RESULTS: During follow up 734 coronary events were documented, including 505 non-fatal myocardial infarctions and 229 deaths. After age and several coronary risk factors were controlled for significant positive associations were observed between intake of saturated fat and risk of coronary disease. For men in the top versus the lowest fifth of saturated fat intake (median = 14.8% v 5.7% of energy) the multivariate relative risk for myocardial infarction was 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.96 to 1.56) and for fatal coronary heart disease was 2.21 (1.38 to 3.54). After adjustment for intake of fibre the risks were 0.96 (0.73 to 1.27) and 1.72 (1.01 to 2.90), respectively. Positive associations between intake of cholesterol and risk of coronary heart disease were similarly attenuated after adjustment for fibre intake. Intake of linolenic acid was inversely associated with risk of myocardial infarction; this association became significant only after adjustment for non-dietary risk factors and was strengthened after adjustment for total fat intake (relative risk 0.41 for a 1% increase in energy, P for trend<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: These data do not support the strong association between intake of saturated fat and risk of coronary heart disease suggested by international comparisons. They are compatible, however, with the hypotheses that saturated fat and cholesterol intakes affect the risk of coronary heart disease as predicted by their effects on blood cholesterol concentration. They also support a specific preventive effect of linolenic acid intake.
ADHarvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
PMID8688759"

Not saying there's a link, but I'd still be interested in your opinion on this.

SOURCE:
http://www.uptodate.com

Alex.V
09-19-2011, 02:38 PM
I have a few main issues with even the meta-analyses I've seen, and my resistance follows this path:

1) High dietary saturated fat intake has a high correlation with a number of other conditions not thought to be intrinsically related, such as diabetes. This generally speaks to a certain type of diet and/or lifestyle that has not (to my knowledge) ever been accurately controlled for in studies, or meta-analysis of studies. Since there are other conditions thought to occur via completely different mechanisms that are highly correlated, this bolsters the theory that there are certain lifestyle conditions that are correlated with higher saturated fat intake, many of which cannot be definitively ruled out as causes for heart disease.

2) A mechanistic link therefore must be made, and as such is typically saturated fat --> elevated LDL/reduced HDL --> arterial plaque buildup --> atherosclerosis --> myocardial infarc.

3) Examining this link, what is interesting is that compounds that alter cholesterol ratios do not have recent, clinically significant evidence that altering this ratio is both sufficient and necessary for reducing the risk of myocardial infarction. The endpoint for clinical trials for these compounds was cholesterol levels, not overall patient survivability. In follow-up studies, rarely can this endpoint alone be isolated, and survivability not also attributed to other changes in diet and lifestyle. In fact, a certain truism of post-marketing studies is that more favorable outcomes are often found in more compliant patients, simply because compliance extends to other recommended lifestyle changes. Without this definitive link, the entire causal chain can be called into question.

4) Evidence-based medicine also has a similar failing... besides the fact that I find the burden of proof required by most "evidence based" recommendations to be somewhere between uninspiring and appalling. Rarely is saturated fat intake the single lifestyle modification. Controls applies to data sets after the data has been gathered is quite honestly statistically dubious- the data sample sizes are rarely equal after this has been done. There's a reason very few people in the clinical trial world who have worked on these studies put much stock in statins and other such compounds. However, there is ZERO financial incentive to conduct further studies, since the overall safety profile of many cholesterol-lowering medicines are considered highly acceptable given the population they're in, ergo prescribing them has little risk.

5) Population studies in certain cultures do not support the saturated fat --> heart disease claim (e.g. Inuit populations). Aside from the hypothesis that these individuals have adapted in a short period of time to process energy differently, or assuming that different metabolic states account for these findings (e.g. constant ketosis), this inconsistency is enough to call the link into question.

My argument boils down to this: Correlation is not causality, and there has been no definitive proof that saturated fat intake (and not other lifestyle concerns) is significant when it comes to risk of heart disease. Until a definitive mechanistic link is proposed, tested, and verified, there is simply no reason to accept the assertion.


One of the biggest hurdles in the pursuit of ultimate truth is the unquestioning acceptance of falsehoods.

K-R-M
09-20-2011, 02:44 PM
Great post.

I wasn't baiting btw, it was genuine curiosity. My statistics prof a few years ago argued something very similar about correlation/causation. I'm studying my pharmacology case study right now and there's definitely an link to be made between what you just argued and the way we prescribe medicine somtimes.

Alex.V
09-20-2011, 03:59 PM
Great post.

I wasn't baiting btw, it was genuine curiosity. My statistics prof a few years ago argued something very similar about correlation/causation. I'm studying my pharmacology case study right now and there's definitely an link to be made between what you just argued and the way we prescribe medicine somtimes.

Oh no, well understood- I realize you weren't baiting.

It can be a contentious topic- there are many people who believe (quite understandably) that a positive correlation is enough evidence to alter lifestyle, provided it's in a way that isn't costly otherwise.

And certainly, reducing saturated fat as a percentage of the average American diet is probably a good thing, simply because the overabundance of that particular macro is undoubtedly shoving out some other pretty vital nutrients. Still, my main issue is really the last point up there- if there is no definitive link, then it simply cannot be accepted as fact... we should all be careful in how slavishly we follow those guidelines. Reduce saturated fat intake to a prudent level, don't eliminate (as that can have its own consequences), and relentlessly pursue all other possible causes until definitive answers are found.

andhen2003
09-21-2011, 10:00 AM
that's a lot of sodium, so i'd just make sure to keep an eye on your blood pressure, but only if you're old like me.