Advocates of organic food have believed for decades that steroids (and other growth hormones) in dairy and meat are having an affect on human health.
It is argued that the early onset of puberty, increased obesity and greater height might all be side effects of hormones in animal products.
The anecdotal evidence for this seems strong. Yet, hormone and antibiotic use, was probably more out of control in 60s and 70s. Perhaps, the increased consumption of meat in low income communities can explain the most recent increase in human size (even with slightly better meat vs. 1970).
I had always assumed that it was wise to under emphasize industrial animal products in my diet. Two things have made me question this approach:
- Watching my 12 year old, 4’ 11’ 85 lb prepubescent child get pushed around on the soccer field by 6’2" 215lb 12-year-old-men. (This seems like an exaggeration but it is not. Many, many kids are much, much larger now than even the “freaks” of the 1980s.
- Contadores “tainted beef” claim. (No doubt this was b.s. but it does illustrate something- That “tainted beef” probably does have some performance enhancing properties).
Questions:
- Assuming industrial meat were responsible for changes in human physiology. What rules might one use to guide oneself as an athlete and as a parent.
(I assume that if your child wanted to become a pro-football player you would not encourage a diet that is low in “tainted beef”.
On the other hand, the “tainted beef” diet might be highly detrimental to your child’s cross country options.
- Assuming you wanted to go to the dark side (i.e. strategically eat industrial animal products) what knowledge might be used to guide you?
I assume “tainted beef” helps increase muscle growth.
And that “tainted chicken” and milk might increase breast growth and body fat (not a positive athletic outcome).
What else?
For me, this depends on genetic predisposition and goals. My wife is pregnant with our first daughter, and while I would love for her to be a great athlete, it is probably not realistic to expect her to be a professional based on her parents’ mediocre genetics.
We are both tall-ish and lean (6’1"/170lbs and 5’9") and good-ish runners (1:23 and 1:45 1/2 marathon). Feeding her “enhanced” meats may help her grow taller and give her a better chance at volleyball or high jump, but that seems like a high risk, low reward scenario.
If I was trying to make a linebacker out of a future son, doing a little meat doping may help, but the odds of him making it to the NFL are still so low, that I don’t think it is worth it.
The flip side is that if I came from a family of very small or very large people, it may be beneficial to general quality of life (mostly just fitting into the “normal” range) to try to skew things one way or the other.
Are there any blind studies that have been done or any effort to calculate actual absorption rates. Blood tests to show rate of absorption?
I just tend to take some of the claims made by anyone saying “do this’ or don’t eat that it’s toxic” with some skepticism.
I’m not trying to argue this, but I just want to clarify if there is some real proven fact here. Not just some statistical correlations.
Remember, lighter wheels always allow you to accelerate faster right. We “know” this and they feel faster, therefore it must be faster. But when you model it, you get the opposite.
Our daughter eats tons of meat, non of it organic, none of the milk products organic. She’s still small/short. Although she also drank Soy milk her first 2 years.
I think Athletes like Rinny, Joyce and few others should disprove that automatically, size matters… and in fact in some events being smaller is an advantage. They are fast because of excellent P/W ratio and economy of motion.
If you want your child to get huge, inject steroids. (but, of course, seriously don’t)
If you want your child to grow up into whatever natural body they are genetically destined, don’t worry about it. The levels of hormones present in “tainted” beef is insignificantly low and depending on which you are concerned, not active in humans. Read more here: Article on cancer.org reviewing several reviews. This one specifically deals with milk.
Hormone treated cows produced beef with 42% more hormones and was rejected by Europe had levels of 1.85ng/3oz portion. Ok, a 8oz. steak has about 5ng of hormone (vs. about 3.5ng in organic beef). See here for a list of normal testosterone levels and then tell me whether that 1.5ng spread throughout an entire body would put your 85 pound child (~40L or 400dL) into super-hulk range, or not.
I do think there is some grounds to what you’re hypothesizing about the food/steroids and overall upwards trends in growth, but I don’t think that’s the reason your son is getting smushed on the field by man-boys.
The reasons is that he’s 12, so you have a mix of prepubertal and post pubertal boys on the field. So you’ll see really big size differences.
But yes, 6’2" 215lbs at age 12 is a pretty big kid! The vast majority of boys, however, are not this Shaq-sized at age 12.
Obviously, what you fuel your body with has a great effect on physical adaptations. Not as much as genetics, but absolutely plays a role. Somewhat related, one of the latest hot areas of research in nutrition is prenatal nutrition; particularly the effects of a pregnant mother’s diet on their fetus’ future dietary predilection’s. My n=1, my wife could not stand the taste of meat of any kind during her pregnancy, my daughter is pretty much a vegetarian. Now that she is prego with #2, softly nudging her to eat a little more animal flesh.
This is only one data point, but I can partially disprove the evidence that tainted chicken and milk may increase breast size and fat growth. My wife drinks a TON of milk and loves chicken. She’s skinny and has no boobs.
… and that assumes you absorb 100% of it into your blood stream. I would question that. I also wonder if the rate the you produce would in fact change. So if you absorb 1ng, would you body produce 1ng less. How are hormone levels regulated?
Bu I agree. when there’s 3.5 naturally, and non organic beef has 5… then WTF? Seriously?
I appreciate some actual facts. When you hear the arguments for organic, it’s usually anecdotal evidence or some broad statement. I’m not saying reducing the use of unnecessary chemicals in agriculture isn’t a bad thing. But its’ good ot have real evidence.
My favorite example is how many natural products can contain plenty of potentially harmful, toxic or otherwise cause acute adverse reactions. Ask someone with a food allergy about eating peanuts, or shellfish. I ate some pine nuts last week and everything had an aftertaste for about 6 days.
Asbestos is a completely natural, organic product. So is lead and mercury.
… and that assumes you absorb 100% of it into your blood stream. I would question that.
I intentionally left that out. There is such a huge chasm between what is physiologically important and what is eaten that you can err on the side of anti-hormone at every step and still plainly see the outcome.
If you want your child to get huge, inject steroids. (but, of course, seriously don’t)
If you want your child to grow up into whatever natural body they are genetically destined, don’t worry about it. The levels of hormones present in “tainted” beef is insignificantly low and depending on which you are concerned, not active in humans. Read more here: Article on cancer.org reviewing several reviews. This one specifically deals with milk.
Hormone treated cows produced beef with 42% more hormones and was rejected by Europe had levels of 1.85ng/3oz portion. Ok, a 8oz. steak has about 5ng of hormone (vs. about 3.5ng in organic beef). See here for a list of normal testosterone levels and then tell me whether that 1.5ng spread throughout an entire body would put your 85 pound child (~40L or 400dL) into super-hulk range, or not.
It is unlikely that one could win a scientific argument against industrial animal products. I would assume that if such an argument could be won, there would be different laws and attitudes.
It is extremely foolish, however, to overlook the ridiculous amount of money that has been spent creating our system of industrial animal production. It would be unreasonable to claim that this money has “no effect on research outcomes.”
Let’s look at your example though. Let’s say that my child consumes 25% as much beef as a typical “Hamburger and French fries kid” and the beef he does consume contains only 60% the hormones and antibiotics. That is a 88% reduction from what the “hamburger and fries kid” gets.
You argue that a small amount of artificial hormones and antibiotics in meat won’t make a difference, in the context of the huge amounts of natural hormones and antibiotics. This seems reasonable. On the other hand is it not likely that the body would react differently to the artificial?
It is unlikely that one could win a scientific argument against industrial animal products. I would assume that if such an argument could be won, there would be different laws and attitudes.
It is extremely foolish, however, to overlook the ridiculous amount of money that has been spent creating our system of industrial animal production. It would be unreasonable to claim that this money has "no effect on research outcomes."
As someone who has spent 7 years grinding away in research, this commonly mentioned assumption kinda pisses me off. Certainly there will always be corrupt findings, but those are both sure to be in the great minority and soon to be exposed. The best way to stand out (to get tenure) or to snag that big grant is to be the one to flip the paradigm. If everyone says hormone beef is safe (because they were all paid off by the beef council), then the first researcher with preliminary data to the contrary will pull major funds to pursue that. Science is not a huge club of white coats colluding to maintain the status quo. On the contrary, all the greats are known for just the opposite, and that is the underling motivation. (Sorry for the rant.)
Let’s look at your example though. Let’s say that my child consumes 25% as much beef as a typical “Hamburger and French fries kid” and the beef he does consume contains only 60% the hormones and antibiotics. That is a 88% reduction from what the “hamburger and fries kid” gets.
You argue that a small amount of artificial hormones and antibiotics in meat won’t make a difference, in the context of the huge amounts of natural hormones and antibiotics. This seems reasonable. On the other hand is it not likely that the body would react differently to the artificial?
The antibiotics is a new addition here! To keep it simple, let’s just stick with hormones…for now. It is too messy because antibiotics are completely lacking in the ideal steak, while of course, hormones are present in both samples. So they just don’t really fit in with this math-y argument.
The question about natural vs. artificial is very important! One confounding factor that I did not mention before is that if a someone consumes a lot of a hormone (or injects it), the body registers this through a feedback loop and ultimately down-regulates self-production of that hormone. This is why juicers have really low T levels after they stop injecting…their body stopped producing T a long time ago. So, as long as the ingested hormone is still registering the same pathway as the bodies endogenous hormones, then you would expect both outcomes: A) That the body would respond exactly the same as if it were natural and B) that the body would compensate by lowering the natural production of that hormone.
I am realizing now that I may have mistakenly and falsely equated natural testosterone levels with whatever juice the steak has. Clearly, if beef contains some super hormone that a child’s natural level is 1000X less than testosterone…than we’d need to re-address the math above.
6’2" 215 at age 12??? O_o