Red meat flat out bad: study

[Chanson13]

I have trouble with these kinds of studies because we (and specifically the media)tend to read more into them than they really conclude. the conclusion of the study is as follows:

"Conclusions: Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk."

Although they tried to assess the other risks (smoking, obesity, physical activity, total caloric intake) and "weed out" those covariants, this is not an exact science. The conclusion is NOT that red meat "causes" cancer or any other disease. There is an "association." There is also, I would guess, an "association" between red meat consumption and average income, meals eaten out, "stress," and a host of other covariants that are nearly impossible to guage. Until you do a double-blind study, in a carefully controlled manner, you wont really know the answer to the question that we all have.

And I have to wonder, if red meat is so "flat out bad," then why was cardiovascular disease almost unknown in the Inuit peoples prior to the change of their diet to include sugar and flour.? Those people ate nothing but whale and seal meat for extended periods of time.

[Subby]

And I have to wonder, if red meat is so "flat out bad," then why was cardiovascular disease almost unknown in the Inuit peoples prior to the change of their diet to include sugar and flour.? Those people ate nothing but whale and seal meat for extended periods of time.

Just a point there which was raised earlier, the 'flat out bad' is my semi-humerous take on the study title/body when titling the thread. Yes, it's me wanting the best of both worlds, to stay relevant but inject a bit of flavour. The study didn't use that term (though probably got quite close). While you raise some excellent points, I think we also have to be careful to let it speak in it's own terms if we're going to hold it to close account. The basic thrust of the study is that there were findings here that suggest meat may be implicated in reduced lifespan through the term of the study (really how much is frustratingly elusive). I don't think it was commenting on the Inuit, for example.

[ant hill]

I would think that in general, Meat of any animal is fine as today we see that in Fast Food places that feed our world as they raise BG to pluto. As manufacturing industry venture into foods there's a problem of keeping it palatable & fresh. With this problem they added extra ingreadiance to keep it that way!!!

Obviously fresh is allways King!!! and in Moderation.

[Bill_Iowa]

Denise Menger has given her opinion on this study...

Will Eating Red Meat Kill You? | Mark's Daily Apple

Here's one thing Denise noticed about the study (there's a graph in the above link)...

"Ah, yes: here we see the folks eating the least red meat have the highest rates of elevated cholesterol, while the red-meat-indulgers have the lowest rates. Given the media’s eagerness to assign cause and effect to this study, it’s mighty strange none of the headlines proclaimed “Red meat reduces cholesterol!"

And another interesting point that Denise picks up on...

"Lessons From the Past

In case you’re skeptical that observational studies can run disturbingly contrary to reality, look no further than the hormone replacement therapy (HRT) craze that peaked a few decades ago. By 1991, 30 observational studies—including this one based on none other than the Nurses’ Health data—collectively showed that women taking estrogen seemed to have a 44% reduction in heart disease risk compared to their non-hormone-replacing counterparts. Naturally, this led literally millions of women to jump on the estrogen bandwagon in pursuit of better health and longer lives. A very unfortunate oopsie-daisy sprouted up later when some randomized, controlled trials finally emerged and revealed that rather than being protective, hormone replacement therapy actually increased heart disease risk by 29%!"

A carnivore I will stay...

[ant hill]

Again from a magerzine
Would this be edited??

Enjoy your Europe vacation Bill.

[jojeti]

Please pass the bacon....

[nordgirl]

"Ah, yes: here we see the folks eating the least red meat have the highest rates of elevated cholesterol, while the red-meat-indulgers have the lowest rates. Given the media’s eagerness to assign cause and effect to this study, it’s mighty strange none of the headlines proclaimed “Red meat reduces cholesterol!"

That doesn't ring true with my experience. Since switching to a low-fat plant based diet 6 months ago, both my husband's and my cholesterol levels have plummeted. Personally, I wouldn't trust anything a Paleo follower has to say about this. The day that study came out was the 9/11 of the Paleo diet.

[raffi]

Here's another analysis of the posted article.

Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat

[georgepds]

Here's another analysis of the posted article.

Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat

I found this part of Taube's criticism compelling (emphasis is mine), mostly because it is quantitative

"Moreover, this meat-eating association with disease is a tiny association. Tiny. It’s not the 20-fold increased risk of lung cancer that pack-a-day smokers have compared to non-smokers. It’s a 0.2-fold increased risk — 1/100th the size. So with lung cancer we could buy as a society the observation that cigarettes cause lung cancer because it was and remains virtually impossible to imagine what other factor could explain an association so huge and dramatic. ... When I first wrote about the pseudoscience of epidemiology in Science back in 1995, “Epidemiology Faces It’s Limits”, I noted that very few epidemiologists would ever take seriously an association smaller than a 3- or 4-fold increase in risk. These Harvard people are discussing, and getting an extraordinary amount of media attention, over a 0.2-fold increased risk.

[k_dub]

That doesn't ring true with my experience. Since switching to a low-fat plant based diet 6 months ago, both my husband's and my cholesterol levels have plummeted. Personally, I wouldn't trust anything a Paleo follower has to say about this. The day that study came out was the 9/11 of the Paleo diet.

Denise Minger is not a Paleo follower. Here is her website. She is not advocating Paleo diets over any other diet (or any specific diet in particular), if you took the time to read her analysis.

I'm an epidemiologist and I actually design, conduct, and analyze observational studies. I have a lot of professional experience with food preference/frequency questionnaires. Denise is absolutely right about the major limitations in this study. That being said, it is still an interesting study that should lead to more research - particularly - are there differences between consuming conventionally-raised (hormone injected, corn-fed, pink slime contaminated, antibiotic laden) beef, pork, and lamb and organically raised meats (or even wild game)?

I'm not sure you know anything about the Paleo diet (besides what you've heard through mass media). It promotes whole food (versus processed food). So what about it don't you like?
By saying you don't trust anything a Paleo follower says, you are discounting many people's opinions on this forum (because there are many of us who follow a Paleo-like diet with great success in our health outcomes) - seems very close minded.

That being said, I'm happy that your chosen diet is working for you and your husband. I'm always interested in hearing other people's experiences, regardless of what diet they follow. I'm open-minded like that. Because what works for one person, doesn't always work for others.

[xMenace]

That doesn't ring true with my experience. Since switching to a low-fat plant based diet 6 months ago, both my husband's and my cholesterol levels have plummeted. Personally, I wouldn't trust anything a Paleo follower has to say about this. The day that study came out was the 9/11 of the Paleo diet.

So you've proved that your diet lowered "cholesterol" levels. I wouldn't pin any medals on that. 3/4 of heart attack victims have normal cholesterol levels, and low cholesterol is associated with earlier deaths fro all causes. Risk from cholesterol levels are associations. Go ahead and manage them. Statistics say it's doing no good. Science points much more to sugar as the cause of heart disease and can in fact demonstrate action. Science has so far shown zero demonstrable effects from fats, cholesterol, or red meat. You'd think after all these decades there'd be loads of evidence, but seriously, there's none.

A low fat, plant-based diet can be quite paleo. The latest Atkins book has a chapter for veggie based diets. I'd bet money you've reduced your carb loads.

[Caravaggio]

That doesn't ring true with my experience. Since switching to a low-fat plant based diet 6 months ago, both my husband's and my cholesterol levels have plummeted. Personally, I wouldn't trust anything a Paleo follower has to say about this. The day that study came out was the 9/11 of the Paleo diet.

I hope you understand what a "Paleo diet" is, and the different views even within the Paleo community regarding cholesterol.

Can you please explain why you wouldn't trust a Paleo follower?

[nordgirl]

Denise Minger is not a Paleo follower. Here is her website. She is not advocating Paleo diets over any other diet (or any specific diet in particular), if you took the time to read her analysis.

My apologies, and I admit I didn't read the whole piece, I have 5 kids and a big house to run!

Can you please explain why you wouldn't trust a Paleo follower?

I only meant in terms of the topic obviously though I imagine they would have a hard time remaining objective about a study whose premise discredits their way of life which I can understand.

A low fat, plant-based diet can be quite paleo. The latest Atkins book has a chapter for veggie based diets. I'd bet money you've reduced your carb loads.

That's interesting, I didn't know that. And you're right about the carb loads, well not for the kids and I, but my husband is a type 2 so it's all about him and he definitely cannot handle bread. I don't give him anything with flour in it anymore.

So you've proved that your diet lowered "cholesterol" levels. I wouldn't pin any medals on that. 3/4 of heart attack victims have normal cholesterol levels, and low cholesterol is associated with earlier deaths fro all causes. Risk from cholesterol levels are associations. Go ahead and manage them. Statistics say it's doing no good.

Maybe so, but I tell you what I look great in my jeans

[xMenace]

Maybe so, but I tell you what I look great in my jeans

Physical appearance and physical health are not the same thing. Anecdotally there's an epidemic of heart disease among marathoners. I know several skinny people with stents.

The bottom line is observational studies, no matter how good the math and testing procedures are, cannot be used to identify cause. Cause cannot be proven by math. Further experiements need to take place to attempt to isolate variables and prove this hypothesis wrong. Over the last decades, every set of such experiements have proven this hypothesis wrong. Why they continue to push their agenda is mystifying and IMHO complete folly.

[PinkRose]

I've come in a bit late in this discussion and I have not read all of the posts but I just wanted to chirp in with one thing that seems to have been reinforced to me many times. And it is quite simply that, we actually do need to eat meat/animal protein. Not simply because of Vit B12 that is absent in a pure plant based diet but because of a whole host of amino acids, protein and other nutrients that meat provides us. I know someone who persisted with a very strict vegan diet but who eventually had to re-introduce red meat into his diet to combat persistent low energy levels. The red meat brought him back into equilibrium.

Having said this, I am not someone who is a big connoiseur of red meat. I tend to instinctively avoid eating too much of it for some reason. We may vary in our need for it. It is all a matter of individual balance. But I thought it's been scientifically proven that we do need to eat meat as part of a balanced diet. That's my understanding anyway.

And yes eating meat & animal derived food products with saturated fat does raise LDL cholesterol levels. Whether elevated LDL cholesterol levels is okay or not is quite another medical debate but eating red meat will raise your LDL levels.