Too much of a good thing isn’t good for anyone. That goes for protein, too. After years of people stuffing themselves with chicken, pork and beef while they were following low-carb diets like Atkins, the meat industry is looking at a glut as the diet trend turns toward a more balanced approach.

Benchmark wholesale prices for beef and pork are down more than 8 percent from a year ago and 20 percent for chicken, according to the Livestock Marketing Information Center.

Linkage-http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12802561/

Is that a good thing? I would have thought that lower prices encourage people to buy more meat.

Is that a good thing? I would have thought that lower prices encourage people to buy more meat.

Maybe...but then again, if they are selling it off cheap, then it means they have too much. Producers don't like selling things cheap, or have surplus that goes bad, so maybe they'll reduce production? I've always sucked at economics...

I loathe the first two sentences of that article. :brood: It's just not true.

Oh yeah, and about the economics...

When demand decreases, the price goes down. When people's tastes change, it shows in the market.

I hope it will put some producers out of business. Though I feel sorry for people caught in this way of making a living, many of us have to adjust to changing markets. If they still want to raise animals, they could do it organically or grass-farmed and in the long run make more money.

I loathe the first two sentences of that article. :brood: It's just not true.

Am I reading it wrong? Aren't they saying that too much protein is bad? :confused: That's true isn't it?

The nitrogen in protein that isn't used for calories or to recycle the body's proteins gets converted to urea. Urea is filtered out of blood by the kidneys. Most Americans/Westerners eat so much meat/dairy/eggs they get two or three or more times as much protein than they need for nutrition. The result is the kidneys are constantly over-worked and makes them more likely to fail and/or develope kidney stones. Ironically, it is also associated with osteoporosis because the kidneys will "swap" calcium ions in the blood for hydrogen ions (the ion that is/causes acidity) in urine because the kidneys/urinary tract can't handle alot of acidity. To compensate your body will take calcium away from your bones, so you literally pee out your bones.

Also, protein, especially the refined protein from animal sources, causes an insulin spike and is associated with type II diabetes. People who go on low fat low protein diets to treat diabetes often can completely or mostly stop using their meds in a matter of months. And there is some evidence animal protein is immunogenic (tends to cause the immune system to react) and is associated with autoimmune disorders (when the immune system attacks normal molecules that are a part of the body) and allergies. For example, being fed cow's milk formula as an infant instead of breast milk makes the infant 16x more likely to get type I diabetes (happens when the body attacks the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin). One of the reasons soy milk is becoming so popular is people are finding they can control their asthma by cutting dairy from their diet.

So, yeah, there is such thing as too much protein.

I wasn't trying to say there is no such thing as too much protein.

The tone I got from the article was that they were trying to refer to meat as being the "good thing." I know they directly say "protein," but think about it: They're not really talking about protein, I hear cattle this, chicken that, mad cow disease this, pork that.

Take these quotes from the article:

"There is just an overabundance of protein on the market,” the center’s Jim Robb said."

"Big food processors are feeling the effect of what the industry calls an “oversupply of protein.”"

Now, we all know there are more sources of protein other than meat. :) What they are really addressing is meat, not protein. It's just another stunt pulled by the media that often fails to acknowledge alternative, healthy ways of eating by not including tofu and beans in their narrow definition of protein.

What this article should be stating is "Too much of a good thing isn’t good for anyone. That goes for meat, too." And by me understanding what they really meant, I got angry. They don't address in this article that people are consuming too much protein and it's getting to be unhealthy for them, so they're eating less meat. What it should be explicitly stating is that they're consuming too much meat and it's getting to be unhealthy for them.

Therefore, what I meant by "it's just not true" is well, it's just not true that meat is a good thing. Their first two sentences are just to get people to read the article and it really makes no sense at all.

Anything with me on this one? :p I'm probably being confusing, but it made sense in my head at the time. :lol: I had a really hard time articulating this.

I wasn't trying to say there is no such thing as too much protein.
I was responding to Banana. I'm sick and tired of the meat/egg/dairy industry ramming the protein myth (you can only get sufficient/high quality protein from several servings off meat/eggs/dairy per day) down people's throats and every time I see the result I cringe.

I wish this degree of negligance were legally punishable. Reminds me of the tobacco companies denying nicotine was addictive and smoking causes cancer.

I wasn't trying to say there is no such thing as too much protein.

The tone I got from the article was that they were trying to refer to meat as being the "good thing." I know they directly say "protein," but think about it: They're not really talking about protein, I hear cattle this, chicken that, mad cow disease this, pork that.

....

Anything with me on this one? :p I'm probably being confusing, but it made sense in my head at the time. :lol: I had a really hard time articulating this.

No, that makes sense now. I noticed that protein=meat thing in the article too - strange.

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects a steady rise in annual per capita consumption of red meats and poultry from 220 pounds in 2005 to 231 pounds in 2015, while consumer meat expenditures decline from about 2 percent to 1.3 percent of disposable income."

more meat for cheaper? :( come on, where are those mad cow scares when you need 'em?

"The U.S. Department of Agriculture projects a steady rise in annual per capita consumption of red meats and poultry from 220 pounds in 2005 to 231 pounds in 2015, while consumer meat expenditures decline from about 2 percent to 1.3 percent of disposable income."

more meat for cheaper? :( come on, where are those mad cow scares when you need 'em?
They're around but you just can't see them. Look underneath the most clinically obese population in the developed world, consuming the highest per capita % of government-subsidized animal flesh in the developed world, while paying the lowest per capita % of income for it. :wall: We're #1!! We're #1!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!! :wall:

They're around but you just can't see them. Look underneath the most clinically obese population in the developed world, consuming the highest per capita % of government-subsidized animal flesh in the developed world, while paying the lowest per capita % of income for it. :wall: We're #1!! We're #1!! U-S-A!! U-S-A!! :wall:
And why the health care system is failing is this huge mystery nobody can figure out. :rolleyes: