We’ve been eating suet for millennia but has recently been replaced with other fats. In this article, we’ll look at what suet actually is, how it compares to other fats, what it’s used for and the surprising health benefits that are only just being understood.

What is suet anyway?

Suet is the fat found around the kidneys and loin areas of ruminant animals (Ruminants are herbivore mammals). The suet you find in butchers is usually from either a cow or sheep. In fact, you may be lucky enough to get lamb kidneys with the suet still attached if you ask your butcher nicely.

At room temperature it’s in a solid-state with a slightly off white colour – a general rule is the whiter the fresher. The suet from a lamb or mutton is almost cute compared to the slab you get from a cow or ox.

Interesting fact… suet from cows/oxen and sheep/mutton is not Kosher as this fat is offered as sacrifices at Jewish temples.

Tallow

Tallow is rendered suet. Rendering is a process of separating the liquid fat from the solid meat using heat. The remaining meat will go crispy and is called cracklings, which – with a pinch of salt – is ridiculously tasty as a snack or side to a meal. There are plenty of tallow recipes to be found online such as this one.

The remaining liquid will go solid at room temperature and can be stored un-refrigerated for up to 3 months. Before vegetable and seed oils started appearing in our cupboards, tallow – along with lard (rendered pig fat) – would be the main fats used for cooking, not a vegetable or seed oil in sight.

Coincidentally, back in these days, there was little in the way of heart disease, diabetes and many other metabolic diseases despite a much higher consumption of these animal fats and lower consumption of plant-based fats… isn’t that food for thought.

How it Compares to Other Fats

With the exception of coconut oil, suet has the highest saturated fat content of any other fat at 52g per 100g. And again with the exception of coconut oil, has the lowest level of polyunsaturated fat at 3g per 100g.

Being mostly saturated fat with stable fully saturated carbon structures – which I talk more about on this post about saturated fats – is the reason why it stays solid at room temperature.

Coconut oil is a unique plant-based fat and the highest content of saturated fat that we know of, coming in at a whopping 83g per 100g. Coconut oil aside, it’s generally animal-based fats that are higher in saturated and lower in polyunsaturated fat. That fact makes animal fats more stable and less prone to oxidization.

A Brief History of Suet

Suet has been used in British traditional Christmas puddings dating back as far as the 15th century, although first officially recorded in an English College Pudding recipe in the 17th Century and served to Oxford and Cambridge University students.

By the 18th century, it was widely used for cooking in recipes such as puddings, dumplings, crusts, mince pies, sausages, Haggis, forcemeats and stuffings.

Suet and tallow is actually very versatile stuff and not limited to just cooking. It was also used for many other applications such as medical ointments for skin rashes such as intertrigo, lamp oil, soap, making candles, engine lubricants, bio-diesel, aviation fuel and leather treatments such as dubbin and black ball.

Tallow Soap

It may sound strange to you, as it did to me, that soap can be made from animal fat or any fat for that matter. I always found it strange that soap products would promote being vegan until I learnt that soaps were traditionally made using tallow.

To make non-animal-based soaps, oils such as palm, coconut and olive are generally used.

Coconut oil – being very high in short-chain saturated fats – is so effective at cleaning due to its advanced water solubility. Although it produces plenty of suds, it strips away our body’s natural oils and leaves skin dry, requiring added moisturising ingredients to compensate.

SLS & SLES

There’s seems to be a psychological relationship between a higher foaming action of soap and the feeling of being clean.
This is where what was a simple and effective product with minimal ingredients, turns into chemistry.

Chemists figured out that sodium lauryl sulphate (SLS) and sodium laureth sulfate (SLES) works extremely well as a foaming agent and starting being widely used in soaps, shampoos, toothpaste and household cleaning products.

There’s controversy over the use of SLS and SLES as they can irritate the skin of some, as well as having some inconclusive links to cancer.

Parabens

As soap manufacturers moved away from tallow and started using other plant-based fats, due to their high unsaturated fat content, the shelf life is dramatically reduced. Again, the chemists come to the rescue to overcome this with the use of parabens.

Parabens are a preservative and lengthen the shelf life of beauty products. But they have received bad press in recent years due to a link to breast cancer. After being absorbed into the skin, it may disrupt hormone function by mimicking oestrogen. Too much oestrogen promotes breast cell division and tumour growth.

Back to Basics

I have to admit that when I began writing this article, I didn’t expect to be including a section on soap.

It seems to me that as we’ve moved away from using tallow and looked at using non-animal based fats – whether for vegan or any other reason – in the process of solving one problem and creating another, we’ve exposed ourselves to ever more unnatural ingredients and chemicals that may have detrimental effects to our health.

I know from my wife’s experience in trying to find beauty products that work in harmony with her skin without causing reactions, she’s on a seemingly never-ending hunt. The powers of marketing offer her a magic potion promising resolution to all her skin-related woes – usually at a high cost – only to be let down time and again.

I think there’s a big element of what we put into our body resulting in our body repaying us with health and maximum beauty which I wrote about in my bone broth post. But, perhaps as well as what we put in our body, equally important is what we put on our body. As irony would have it, the answer may land on animal products.

Just as nose to tail eating provides the perfect ratios of nutrients for us to reach our maximum health potential, it appears that soap made from tallow provides the perfect ratio of fats to clean our skin and hair without disrupting our skin’s natural oils. It works in harmony.

We can still source tallow derived soaps such as this one from Pipers Farm, or you can make your own as shown here in this great tallow soap article.

The great thing is that there are minimal ingredients and no harsh chemicals. The craze these days are to have products as natural as possible… no this chemical… no that toxin. Yet the original tallow based soaps never had these things.

I can’t help but think we need to just re-group and bring it back to basics. We went off on a well-intentioned tangent but let’s get back on track.

Plus, it complements the nose to tail philosophy that Offally Good is all about. Suet is classed as a waste product due to its unpopularity in recent years so making soap helps in leaving as little to waste as possible paying full respect to the sacrificed animal.

Suet in Food

As well as getting suet in its pure form, you can also purchase it in a pre-shredded form, which would be more widely recognised by most. Atora being the most popular supplier, it comes in a box with a dusting of flour for added preservation.

As convenient as pre-shredded suet is, why not ask your butcher for the real thing? He will practically give the stuff to you and you’ll at least know it’s come from a good source.

Due to the high melting point of suet, it softens much later in the cooking process than other fats leaving air pockets creating a lightness unrivalled by any other pastry.

Good Ole’ English Puddings

There’s a reason why England is well renowned for its puddings both sweet and savoury. The use of shredded suet in such delights as spotted dick, jam roly-poly, Christmas pudding and of course… Steak and kidney pudding is what sets them apart from just flour-based puddings.

As Misson de Valbourg said, after a visit to England in 1690, “Ah what an excellent thing is an English pudding!”

Dumplings

Some would argue that a stew is not a stew unless it’s served with dumplings. Made simply with suet, flour and a drop of water, these small balls of gooey yumminess, perfectly suspended atop a sumptuous meat stew are the perfect finishing touch for a dance of taste and texture sensations.

Low-Carb & Gluten-Free Options

The above options are not for the carb & gluten dodgers among us. But that doesn’t mean we have to miss out on the action.

Burgers

If you’ve made your own burgers and they end up dry, simply grate some suet and add to the mix for the juiciest burgers you’ve ever made.

Cracklings

I mentioned these above but you don’t need to go through the whole tallow making process to get these little nuggets. I cut the suet into small pieces around 1cm cubes. Fry them on a medium heat until they go clear and start to crisp up. It takes no longer than 10 minutes. These are a favourite in my house.

There will be a load of lovely liquid fat that you should save for your next roast or fry-up.

Is Suet Healthy?

At this point, you may be thinking I’m crazy stating that suet has health benefits. Up until 2016, I was under the impression that saturated animal fats are bad for our health and we should be replacing them with unsaturated vegetable and seed oils and spreads.

I won’t go into too much detail here but I’ve written more about this here.

Believe it or not, there is no solid evidence to back up the claims that saturated animal fats are bad and unsaturated plant-based fats are good as we’ve been lead to believe.

Back in the 1950s, President Eisenhower suffered a heart attack which lead to a mad panic to figure how and why this happened.

In stepped a scientist called Ancel Keys who hypothesised that – following the discovery of cholesterol in blocked arteries – cholesterol and saturated fat from the food we eat must be causing the problem.

He very quickly managed to spread the word and convince people that this must be the case and the narrative was born. From that narrative, dietary advice was re-written and low-fat industries were formed, all before any thorough trials were carried out to confirm that his hypothesis was correct.

Since then, many trials have been conducted and their results twisted to fit the narrative. Those that didn’t were buried or given no publicity and published in obscure journals. All the while, heart disease has been rising ever since.

A Moment of Clarity

Back in 2016, after I suffered from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) for many years, I was desperate for relief. I discovered the low carb diet which is naturally high in saturated animal fats. At that point, I didn’t care if I had to go against the common advice of low fat… I felt I had nothing left to lose.

Miraculously, within a couple of weeks, most of my symptoms vanished. I was no longer tired and battling to get through the day. My depression and anxiety lifted and I began enjoying life again. My brain started working, the fog cleared and memory returned. It was like magic, better than any western medication.

Since then, it’s become so crystal clear to me that we’ve been lead in the wrong direction.

Forget what the scientists and doctors tell us… I like to use a bit of common sense.

What would we have eaten ancestrally? What would’ve been available to us before we had Tesco and KFC available 24/7?

It’s obvious when we think about it in this way, I rant more about it here.

Consuming animals have been an important part of our existence and progress on this planet… it’s what our body wants, needs and craves.

Saturated animal fats and in this case, suet, isn’t bad for us, they are essential for us. Without them, our body will struggle. Do not fear it, embrace it just as our ancestors did.

The Surprising Health Benefits of Suet

Recently, there’s been lots of talk around linoleic acid, found in vegetable and seed oils, and stearic acid, found in animal fats such as suet and tallow.

In the low carb, keto, paleo and carnivore communities, it’s common knowledge that man-made industrial vegetable and seed oils and spreads are bad news for our health and we should be not be allowing these to get anywhere near our mouths.

But, it’s now being understood that there is a much stronger correlation between the consumption of these horrible fats and the metabolic diseases we’re suffering than with anything else such as sugar or processed foods.

There’s a theory that these polyunsaturated fats may have started the fire and that our high consumption of sugar and junk food is just fuelling the flames.

The science behind this is very complicated but at a basic level, vegetable and seed oils and spreads are thought to encourage our fat cells to keep filling up, getting bigger and bigger. That is until they can’t fill up any more and end up bursting and spewing out its contents. When this happens it’s essentially when our metabolism is broken and we get sick.

On the other hand, when we consume animal fats, our fat cells do the opposite. Instead of holding onto fat, it releases it in a controlled manner to be used as fuel as required by our body.

If you find this as fascinating as I do, I encourage you to check out Dr Paul Saladino and his many recent podcasts talking all about this.

Summary

Suet and the rendered form, tallow, have many uses from food to fuel.

Tallow soap – which was widely used but is now replaced with plant-based soaps – may actually be perfect for cleaning us humans without causing cancer, irritations, reactions or dryness.

Animal fats have been branded a villain in recent years and replaced with man-made industrial vegetable and seeds oils in the hope to improve general health with questionable results.

These man-made oils may actually be the spark that’s ignited our deteriorating health with animal fats being the option to bring us back to health, possibly.

So, if you’ve not tried suet before or have been nervous of saturated fats, I hope this gives makes you reconsider and give it a go and if you do, I hope you enjoy if as much as I do.

Have a nutritious day!

There you have it! Just a reminder that I’m no doctor, dietitian or any other profession for that matter. I’m simply a bearer of information for you to do what you want with; question it, research it, erase it from your mind, you are in charge of you.

The post Everything You Need To Know About Suet appeared first on Offaly Good.

So many people I speak to tell me that meat causes cancer. I’ve always found it hard to believe considering we’ve been chowing down on this highly nutritious food for millions of years. So, I wanted to look into where this common notion came from and how true it is.

Where did the claims come from?

In October of 2015, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a paper called ‘Carcinogenicity of consumption of red and processed meat’. They also released a press release here and a simple Q&A article here. And then the NHS followed up with their summary here.

The press release stated:

“Red meat

After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10
countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as
probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat
causes cancer in humans and strong mechanistic evidence supporting a carcinogenic effect.

This association was observed mainly for colorectal cancer, but associations were also seen for
pancreatic cancer and prostate cancer.

Processed meat

Processed meat was classified as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), based on sufficient evidence in
humans that the consumption of processed meat causes colorectal cancer.”

The carcinogenic groups are as follows:

• Group 1 – Carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2A – Probably carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2B – Possibly carcinogenic to humans
• Group 3 – Not classifiable as to its carcinogenicity to humans

Study Types

Firstly we need to understand the processes as to how the ‘very clever people’ come to these conclusions.

Zoe Harcombe explains this thoroughly here. But (very) basically, there are some studies that prove causation. These prove without a question that for example, smoking causes lung cancer.

Then, there are other studies that prove associations. These show a link between one thing and another, for example, yellow fingers are associated with lung cancer.

It’s really important to understand that associations do not prove causation. Associations are simply that, when some people do ‘x’, we notice ‘y’ seems to happen to many of those people.

No matter how strong the association, causation can not be claimed. When an association is observed, further studies should be carried out to prove the hypothesis.

With this knowledge in mind, let’s look at the evidence.

Red Meat

So, red meat probably gives us colorectal cancer and probably maybe gives us pancreatic and prostate cancer, all based on ‘limited evidence’. If it probably gives us cancer, then that could also mean there is a probability it does not.

The explanation given on the Q&A states…

“In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.”

Epidemiological studies can only be associational in their nature, they even use the word association, so they cannot claim causation, which they don’t by using the word ‘probably’.

The Q&A also states “Eating meat has known health benefits.” As if this wasn’t confusing enough already… Meat is healthy but also gives us cancer (maybe).

Perhaps there’s a dose-response, if we limit our meat consumption we may get the health benefits while limiting our cancer risk? Their response to this…

“The risk increases with the amount of meat consumed, but the data available for evaluation did not permit a conclusion about whether a safe level exists.”

And

“The cancer risk related to the consumption of red meat is more difficult to estimate because the evidence that red meat causes cancer is not as strong. However, if the association of red meat and colorectal cancer were proven to be causal, data from the same studies suggest that the risk of colorectal cancer could increase by 17% for every 100-gram portion of red meat eaten daily.”

Can this get any more woolly? I’m literally more confused now than when I started looking into this. Let’s give up on this one and look into processed meats.

Processed Meat

The WHO has stated without a doubt that processed meat causes colorectal cancer with the Q&A stating…

“This category [group 1] is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.

In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.”

To make such a certain claim, there must be at least one randomised control study carried out at some time to have proved the claims. Er, no!

As stated, the evidence came from epidemiological studies that can only prove an association. So, they can not state for absolute certainty that processed meat causes colorectal or any other cancer until properly studied, no matter how strong the association.

Again, the case against processed meat is not absolute, they are educated guesses at best.

Confounders

Epidemiological studies are surveys carried out on groups of people that be will asked questions about diet and health issues. Some tests are carried out like blood tests, blood pressure etc. These people will be followed for ‘x’ amount of years, then ‘very clever people’ will review the data and find associations.

There are a few issues with this, for instance, can you remember exactly what you’ve eaten over the last day, week or, in some cases, a year? How many grams of rib eye or prosciutto did you eat last Thursday?

There’s also the healthy person confounder. Meat has gotten a bad rap over recent years, so someone who cares for their own health and wellbeing would follow guidance from organizations such as the WHO. They would limit their meat, eat plenty of fruit and vegetables, steer clear of processed crap, not smoke, drink little alcohol, exercise regularly and maybe even meditate.

The opposite would be true for the person who cares little for their own health and cares only for pleasures and good times…

…They’ll smoke, drink, dodge the gym and eat anything including… Yes, the evil, cancer-causing meat. They just don’t care, because… “You’ve got to enjoy life, right? Otherwise, what’s the point of living?”

As I’m sure you can see, when these surveys are carried out, the fun-loving, meat guzzlers among us, are more likely to end up with all sorts of health complications. Much more than those that look after themselves.

So, these ‘very clever people’ look at the resulting data and notice that most of these people here – who got colorectal cancer – eat meat and processed meat (and drink and smoke and don’t exercise and eat any crap).

I imagine it goes something like this:
• Processed meat – 2 + 2 = 10+/- (close enough)
• Red meat – 2 + 2 = 152+/- (close, but not close enough to be certain)

The Numbers

If the assumptions are correct and we can get cancer, what numbers are we talking here? From the Q&A…

“According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.

Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide.”

Processed meat = 34,000 deaths globally (probably/maybe)
Red Meat = 50,000 deaths globally (possibly, not sure)
Global population according to Worldometer at time of writing = 7,792,675,496

This equates to:
• Processed meat = 1 in 229,196 people will die of cancer, or 2.5 times the capacity of Wembley Stadium.
• Red meat = 1 in 155,853 people may possibly die of cancer, or 1.7 times the capacity of Wembley Stadium, or very slightly worse odds than getting 5 numbers in the Lotto.

The Q&A even goes on to compare the numbers to cancer deaths by smoking, alcohol consumption and air pollution…

“These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.”

Don’t get me wrong here, I’m not saying that unnecessary deaths shouldn’t be avoided, but looking at it in this light puts it in perspective. It’s a mere drop of Jello in a cauldron of bone broth.

Risky Business

To add to the confusion, they then go on to state…

“The consumption of processed meat was associated with small increases in the risk of cancer in the studies reviewed. In those studies, the risk generally increased with the amount of meat consumed. An analysis of data from 10 studies estimated that every 50-gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%.”

Taken on face value, an 18% increase in risk for every 50-gram portion per day sounds devastating. But this is an example of how numbers are twisted for dramatic effect.

18% is a relative risk number as opposed to absolute risk. The problem is that we need to know what the number is relative to. As – in this case – we do not know I can’t use this as an example, so I’ll make one up for entertainment value.

Let’s say 1 in 100 people get cancer without eating processed meat.
And, this increased to 2 in 100 when 50g of processed meat eaten per day.

Absolute risk is 1 in 100 vs. 2 in 100 or a 1% increase in risk – that doesn’t sound bad at all.

Whereas…

Relative risk is 1 vs. 2 or a 100% increase in risk – now that’ll make the front cover.

Taking this into consideration, an 18% increase in relative risk doesn’t tell us anything without knowing the original number. If we use, say, 50 in 100,000, then an 18% increase would be 9 giving us 59 in 100,000.

Unfortunately, relative risk is used all too often manipulating the layperson into believing something is much worse than it really is. I personally think it’s criminal and should be outlawed, but for whatever reason beyond my comprehension, it’s not.

The Headlines

With Headlines such as…

‘Processed meat ranks alongside smoking as major cause of cancer, World Health Organisation says’ – The Telegraph

‘Just two rashers of bacon a day raises your risk of cancer: Health chiefs put processed meat at same level as cigarettes’ – Daily Mail

‘Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO’ – The Guardian

…it’s understandable that many health-conscious people limited or even stopped eating processed and red meat. This dramatically affecting the sale of meat hitting our farmers hard. And, undoubtedly impacting the health of many people.

The media have jumped on the association with smoking. This is because both processed meat and smoking are in the same carcinogenic group (group 1). This sounds damning, but is explained further in the Q&A…

“processed meat has been classified in the same category as causes of cancer such as tobacco smoking and asbestos (IARC Group 1, carcinogenic to humans), but this does NOT mean that they are all equally dangerous. The IARC classifications describe the strength of the scientific evidence about an agent being a cause of cancer, rather than assessing the level of risk.”

Another example of things being blown out of proportion.

Summary of the WHO Recommendations

The assertions that processed meat is carcinogenic is weak. They cannot claim causation, and they should not, yet they do and people listen, take it as fact and act accordingly.

The link between red meat and cancer is even weaker and should be classed as inconclusive and left at that, with further studies required. Red meat shouldn’t be put into any carcinogenic group risking the health of those that believe this advice to be true and reduce or eradicate red meat from their diet as a result.

Evidence For Meat

As I was browsing my Instagram feed yesterday, a post caught my eye by @carnivorebait about a study on this very subject.

The study is called ‘Dietary factors and risk of colon cancer: a prospective study of 50,535 young Norwegian men and women.’ It was on 50,535 Norwegian men and women aged 20-54 between 1977 and 1983.

The conclusion…

“this prospective study provided no evidence of association between intake of meat, fish, fat, energy, fibre or calcium and risk of colon cancer, although an increased risk with frequent consumption of sausages was suggested.”

This is an associational type of study, so a lack of association speaks volumes where an association can only trigger an “ah, that’s interesting”, and further investigations would need to be carried out to know if it is true.

This made me wonder if there are any other studies on this subject?

Red Meat and Colorectal Cancer: A Quantitative Update on the State of the Epidemiologic Science

“In conclusion, the state of the epidemiologic science on red meat consumption and CRC is best described in terms of weak associations, heterogeneity, an inability to disentangle effects from other dietary and lifestyle factors, lack of a clear dose-response effect, and weakening evidence over time.”

Association Between Red Meat Consumption and Colon Cancer: A Systematic Review of Experimental Results

“Because of these limitations in the existing literature, there is currently insufficient evidence to confirm a mechanistic link between the intake of red meat as part of a healthy dietary pattern and colorectal cancer risk.”

Effect of Lower Versus Higher Red Meat Intake on Cardiometabolic and Cancer Outcomes: A Systematic Review of Randomized Trials

“Low- to very-low-certainty evidence suggests that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence.”

These were on the first page of 10 results on PubMed out of 59 on a search for Colorectal Cancer and Meat, filtered for humans, meta-analysis and systematic reviews.

It amazes me how all these ‘very clever people’, spending ridiculous amounts of money on these studies, can end up with completely different conclusions.

When someone like the WHO commits and makes suggestions based on educated guesses, what happens if they get it wrong?

What happens when hundreds of thousands or even millions of lives are negatively affected by their wrong advice?

Why can such risks be taken on inconclusive evidence without proper studies to prove causation be taken?

Money perhaps..?

…The cost of such studies is vast but would surely be less than the financial burden on the health care system following the negative effects on our health.

I know this is a simple view and life is just not that straight forward. But, the more I look into these kinds of subjects, the crazier I realise this world is. We have such faith in the advice we’re given and the truth is that it could be… Well… Wrong!

So wrong that our health and the health of our loved ones are at risk.

Keep It Simple

I believe we should disregard the confusing, twisted BS spoon-fed to us from the media.

And, we should question the advice given to us from the likes of the World Health Organization or Public Health England before taking it on board.

We should use a bit of common sense.

I’ve ranted about this here. Before this modern crazy world that we live in now, what would’ve been the only thing available to us to eat?

Simple, animals and some seasonal fruit and vegetables… And that’s it… Simple.

We’ve survived for millions of years eating this way. Our bodies have been finely tuned by Mother Nature to thrive from this highly nutritious food that this earth provides for us.

When I see a statement that red meat may give us cancer, it makes me realise how much we have lost touch with reality. It is such a stupid statement… Just as stupid as saying yellow fingers gives us lung cancer.

Before, we had to protect ourselves from sabre tooth tigers, now its these ridiculous recommendations from people we are supposed to trust, and many do.

The only time meat may be bad for us is when the animals are pumped full of steroids or antibiotics or any other un-natural crap.

Let’s keep it simple people, eat real food, whole food, food that our ancestors would’ve eaten.

Have a nutritious day!

There you have it! Just a reminder that I’m no doctor, dietitian or any other profession for that matter. I’m simply a bearer of information for you to do what you want with; question it, research it, erase it from your mind, you are in charge of you.

The post Meat Causes Cancer… Err, Maybe… Not Sure appeared first on Offaly Good.