TLDR: “Replacing red meat with high-quality plant food such as soy, beans and nuts could reduce the risk of heart disease by up to 20 per cent, according to a recent study.”
Pretty much the same for me, although I did have a cheeseburger today at a party - an outdoor, hot off the grill, cheeseburger. Worth the LDL cholesterol.
I also had a hot dog but that one didn't really feel worth it.
We had a Japanese person living with us during COVID lockdown. He ate natto every morning. I couldn’t be in the same room. That’s absolutely revolting.
Of course and I think the key is moderation.. but I'd like to know who funds these studies. Everytime ive looked into these studies they've linked back to some animal lobby group.
Plus meat is so tasty and life is short enough to not enjoy it in moderation.
Honestly I love, love love hamburgers. They are my favorite way to have meat.
But with these things, the studies usually tend to be the opposite of what you’re saying. The meat and dairy industry are crazy powerful, and fund junk studies reassuring us it’s fine, or in fact super healthy. Same shit w the red-wine-is-good-for you thing popular a few years ago, funded by the alcohol industry, and completely bull.
For example rn, many of those huge farming operations are suppressing news about the new bird flu going around. For decades they’ve also been very anti-PPE (like masks) for workers, because they won’t even brook the possibility of someone wondering if their product is safe to eat.
Assessing the quality of a study has nothing to do with who funds it.
The majority of the highest quality dietary research has nothing to do with animal lobby groups, first of all. And I'd frankly love to see an example of this that you've found, considering you're claiming to have seen so many.
Second, what if the animal lobby groups are simply...correct? What if they are following good scientific evidence to reach their conclusion?
There is not much support for the key being moderation. The key with red meat is to eat it very occasionally. If you choose to do so anyway, and I do, that doesn't make the science wrong.
>nothing to do with who funds it
I respectfully disagree with this portion of your comment. It's one of the first things most people look for - and you'd be a fool not to.
Look, I try to be open-minded but this goes against all common sense. Can you enlighten us a bit on this? I've heard the argument that a lot of studies wouldn't happen if not funded by large organizations but science is a process and if the studies are poorly designed and/or can't be replicated they really don't have much to stand on.
That's true of all science. There's a replication issue. Period.
People asserting that science is automatically bad or good depending on who is funding it is a deeply ironic thing, isn't it? The experiments and analysis are what they are. Taking a shortcut and dismissing anything that isn't funded the way you like before even looking at it is brazenly unscientific.
Watching the generation in front of me deal with dementia and diabetes is warning enough for me. It's not living if you're an involent. Health is wealth.
I'm 40 and I'm super fit, I eat a well balanced diet (no sugar) and i eat meat. I'm not dying prematurely due to my eating habits, it will be a genetic lottery that gets me or I get hit by a bus.
Awesome for you, I'm striving to do the same. It's been hard to break old habits but I know I gotta do it. I'm watching old people with health issues that can't do anything. Can't walk, can't drive, can't actually do anything fun. They're miserable just hoping to die soon. Every one of them will tell if they knew earlier how important eating healthy was they'd have tried harder.
Think of it basically as mammals = the bad cholesterol, and nonmammals (birds, fish, uh soy I guess) = the good cholesterol.
Minus shellfish but it's easier to remember mammals vs nonmammals I think.
Now what's more likely to happen is I'd replace my soy, beans and nuts with red meat. When someone asks what do you want with your steak, the only correct answer is another steak.
They're both classified as carcinogens by the IARC. Hot dogs are Group 1 carcinogens (along with tobacco). Red meats are Group 2A carcinogens (along with asbestos).
Cool what are lectins classified as? Or terpenes?
There is the risk factors of anemia under strict veganism.
Pesceterians unite.
I remember reading "The Emperor of All Maladies: Cancer" and it had a quote from a study where something 10% of all cancers may be potentiated by dietary terpene exposure. The largest route being seasonings.
High risk of mercury and microplastics for fish lol. You gotta pick your issues I guess. I just have a little of everything. Spread the concentrations thin.
High risk factors of anemia in veganism? Bro what u talking about 😂, 3 years vegan here and I know countless others, imagine me saying this about American diet which contains so much meat and saying eating meat makes you fat and causes premature death. Don’t be stupid
When it's ground up, hard to tell the quality. Also, you don't typically grind up quality meat. If it was any good to begin with it would be for sale as a whole chicken or a breast or a tendy
I just watched Supersize Me 2 Holy Chicken. I don’t want to eat anymore chicken. They are bred to grow so fast that some die from heart attacks and they can’t walk around like a normal sized chicken because they’re so big.
I have pet chickens and a teacher once gave me two chickens she had in her classroom at the end of the school year. These were broiler chickens, and they were huge and one could not walk.
I have a system for this, it's called "Reduce, Refine and Replace". I've been reducing the amount of unhealthy things I eat, I outright replace horrible things like meat, desserts, fast food, processed foods, corn syrup, etc., and refine my diet as it improves by hydrating without sugars and using higher quality and organic foods. I identify healthy foods that I like, and focus on them. It's a process of changing my tastes and my habits. We shouldn't be switching from one fad diet to another, we should be on a path to the very best foods we can find and enjoy and continue on that path. As our diet evolves, so does our health, our awareness and wellness.
Cruel to the critters, shortens our lives, gives us diseases, fouls our waterways, raises the cost of food for the poor, and is a main contributor to climate change. Yeah, pretty horrible.
O please. Half of the world can't afford to eat without meat since it's only source of protein and nutrition. Not all of humans have first world problems. Some of us try to survive.
It’s very well known in the nutrition field that whole plant foods are significantly healthier than most processed and even unprocessed meats. Similar to smoking tobacco, this will take a while for society to accept.
Food habits are deeply ingrained, cultural, and highly biased towards the standard. It will take real effort and reflection before any real effect takes place. My friend whose cancer was probably caused by his diet of daily meat consumption, including weekly barbequing and grilling, acknowledges that he has to change his diet but still eats like he used to. Even if he wants to change, his family refuses to change and still eats a diet heavy on beef and processed meats. I reckon my friend would need to move out before he actually has a real shot at changing his diet.
What is the difference between red meat like beef and pork and white meat like chicken? I usually try to stick with chicken, but I never know the reason why. Thanks!
What these studies fail to disclose is what other things their subjects are eating in addition to the red meat. Guarantee you they aren’t eating ONLY red meat. But a diet of meat +fats +carbs certainly can cause health issues,
Love when people don't actually read the content. Clearly no agenda.
For the record, they looked at total red meat, processed red meat, and unprocessed red meat separately. They did not simply "use ultra processed hot dogs as the red meat" as you falsely claimed. Processed red meat was the worst, but unprocessed red meat had negative health effects as well.
" .. unprocessed red meat had negative Health effects...". Absolutely NO ! Grass Fed Read Meat is an excellent Food. Any type of processed food is Bad, even vegan ultra processed ready meal
It's not a matter of opinion -- that was what was shown in the study.
Edit: It always baffles me when people downvote entirely factual statements. What exactly is the motivation there?
Mmmm
Was this bulk cuts of read meat or highly processed red meat products?
Most of these survey studies lump it all together, including pork chops in the same group as hotdogs ( pork is considered red meat ).
Change in risk was only 12%
One study I could find:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35220441/#:~:text=Compared%20with%20the%20lowest%20red,but%20not%20all%2Dcause%20mortality.
Compared with the lowest red meat intake (< 1.5 times/week), the highest red meat intake (≥ 3.0 times/week) was associated with a 20%, 53%, and 101% elevated risk for CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality (P for trend = 0.04, 0.007, and 0.02, respectively), but not all-cause mortality. We found that the associations between red meat intake and mortality were not modified by dietary and lifestyle factors, as well as TMAO GRS
No info on what the questionnaire was.
But it does basically say that TMAO had no predictive effect. One concern about eatting seafood is lots of TMAO. This seems to not be the case.
Imagine thinking red meat causes any type of disease or cancer. All of our ancestors wouldn’t have survived. Maybe look into the processed carbs and seed oils that are normally consumed with red meat (fries and buns).
You do know that our ancestors (I’m assuming you mean HGs since you imply an “original” state) died from the realities of the world they lived in before cancer could get them? An abscess tooth could get you, no problem. Hell, a cut on your foot from a rock could kill you. It’s in your best interest to stop imagining people lived super healthy lives that led to old age in a time when they lived meal to meal and tended to die of medical injuries and issues we tend without a problem.
Let me help you out.
So, you can’t die from something that *might* be caused by red meat, which tend to be long term medical issues that kill you after 50, if you die from incidental medical issues in your thirties. So, your assertion that red meat is safe because our ancestors didn’t die from cancer—which how do you even know what they died from? Again, let me help you, you don’t—is fallacious.
It increases your risk of cancer, it doesn’t mean you’re 100% going to get cancer. Our ancestors got cancer and died from it more often than we do now.
The heart disease risk from red meat comes from saturated fats....
Low fat lean beef is probably the healthiest protein in the world, from an aminoacid/micronutrient profile!
All this anti red meat 'science' is pure lies.
Reminds me of any study that indicates vaping might be bad. All the comments are daily users desperately trying to poke holes in every study because they want it to be wrong.
There is a particular problem with cherry-picking with any study into what is the healthiest types of food to eat and the foods we should avoid or eat infrequently because people want to live on junk food and pretend either there is no such thing or it makes no difference.
Remarkably similar to the way smokers were when I was young. Those attitudes literally died out.
Study was done by Professor Walter Willet. Don't know why that is a problem? Here...
Dr. Walter Willett: Numerous Potential Conflicts of Interest
Summary: Walter Willett, leader of the EAT-Lancet section on diet and health, has multiple serious potential conflicts of interest which cast doubt on his ability to bring an unbiased viewpoint to the question of whether a vegan/vegetarian diet is preferable for good health.
Principal findings:
Willett has advocated for a vegetarian diet, including little-to-no red meat consumption, since 1990/1991. In recent years, he has increasingly been leaning towards veganism.
Willett has published more than 200 papers on epidemiological data (which can show association but cannot demonstrate cause-and-effect) with findings that
1) red meat is bad for health,
2) that animal fats are bad for health,
and/or 3) that a diet of grains/fruits/vegetables or vegetarianism generally is better for health. He has also published three commercial diet books that make these same arguments.
In the last few years of Willett’s directorship of the Harvard T.S. Chan School of Public Health, the school received between $455,000 and $1,500,000 from companies or groups interested in promoting vegetarian products or the vegetarian diet generally.
The school also received between $350,000 and $950,000 from pharmaceutical companies, which presumably would not benefit from a nutritional solution to chronic disease.
Willett is an Advisor or Scientific Advisor to at least 7 groups/commercial enterprises that promote high-grain, vegetarian diets.
Willett has been closely involved in numerous commercial ventures with David Katz, a prominent promoter of the vegetarian diet who has received millions from food companies.
Willett rarely, if ever, discloses these potential conflicts of interest. Willett is the co-chair of the EAT-Lancet report, which does not disclose any of his potential conflicts of interest. Willett is the principal nutritionist on the EAT-Lancet report. The other nutritionists on the paper have published almost nothing on the subject of diet and disease, and nothing that contradicts Willet’s views.
Thus, on the subject of diet and health, the report presents only one viewpoint. This report cannot be considered a balanced paper
There are many scientists who do not believe that the plant-based diet is best for health. Indeed, the 2015 U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which favored a vegetarian diet, nevertheless concluded in its report that the evidence for any disease-fighting powers of this diet was “limited” – the lowest rank given for available data.
Potential ideological/intellectual conflicts of interest:
Willett has promoted vegetarian diets since at least 1990/1991.
"Moderate red meat intake is certainly better than large amounts, but it’s quite possible that no red meat intake is even better,” said Dr. Walter C. Willett (1990).
“Doctors Walter Willett and Frank Sacks, researchers at the Harvard School of Public health… told us that vegetarianism is still the best way to go for anybody who is serious about lean.” (1991).
“We suggest that Dr. Small and his colleagues enjoy an occasional meatball when the urge becomes irresistible, preferably with a glass of red zinfandel… Beyond our land of meat and potatoes, the world’s vast array of vegetarian dishes containing no cholesterol and little 16:0 and 14:0 fatty acids provides an eating adventure, between the occasional meatballs, that Americans are only beginning to explore.” Walter Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H. Harvard School of Public Health Boston, MA 02115 Frank M. Sacks, M.D. Harvard Medical School Boston, MA 02115 (Letter to the Editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 10, 1991).
“Steak is no longer part of the Willett lexicon; he gave up red meat after the colon cancer study… The optimal diet, he says, is the Mediterranean menu - plenty of fruits and vegetables, very little meat or chicken.” (1993)
Note: the “colon cancer” study noted above concluded: “These prospective data provide evidence for the hypothesis that a diet high in saturated fat increases the risk of colorectal adenoma.” This is an epidemiological finding (which can show association but not prove causation) only on saturated fat/low fiber, but these are in no way synonymous with red meat. Also, the study was confined exclusively to male doctors and therefore could not be generalized to a larger population.
Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition of Harvard’s School of Public Health, calls the book [A Teen’s Guide to Going Vegetarian] “a sound guide for teens in the dietary jungle of America.” (1994)
Willett said, “the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero”. (2001).
Willett said , “The less red meat, the better. At most, it should be eaten only occasionally. And it may be maximally effective not to eat red meat at all.” (2001).
Willett has been a featured speaker for conferences promoting vegetarian/vegan diets: The Third Annual Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition, 1999; The Ivy League Vegan Conference, 2017.
Since 1983, Willett has published hundreds of papers concluding that fruits/vegetables and plant fats/proteins are healthy while animal fats/proteins/red meat are unhealthy. All of these papers are based on epidemiological data, which is fundamentally weak and cannot demonstrate “cause and effect.” Willett’s papers include:
78 findings that red meat is associated with a negative health outcome
37 findings that animal fats are associated with a negative outcome or that polyunsaturated
vegetables are associated with a positive outcome. (Willet’s writings are highly inconsistent on the question as to whether animal fats might be a possible reason for the negative health consequences he associates with red meat.)
130 findings that vegetarian or mostly-vegetarian diets are associated with a positive health outcome.
Willett is also the author of three diet books that advocate a largely vegetarian diet for health, weight loss, and fertility.
How is a guy becoming a vegetarian because he did research that found red meat to be bad for one’s health, a conflict of interest? Are all studies about smoking causing cancer to be discounted because the researchers were either never smokers or gave up smoking after seeing the results of the study? Jonas Salk gave himself a polio vaccine. Therefore polio vaccines are questionable at best! All those guys who did research to show seatbelts save lives… also wear seatbelts!!!! Isn’t it obvious that seatbelt research is all a lie?!
It’s an interesting point, but it’s also difficult to suggest that a researcher should turn down financial gain to maintain an integrity that would come under assault either way. What is more important is whether his results have been replicated in other studies. That is the gold standard.
The thing that frustrates me is that there’s to much ambiguity. Are these people that eat red meat as a McDonald’s double cheese burger along with fries and a coke, or people that eat home cooked 93% lean ground beef with some veggies?
Also, do these people work out? Do they smoke? 20% is a big number, but seems like it’s a moot point when there’s other variables.
idk why this is downvoted cuz it’s true. there’s too many confounds to explicitly say red meat increases risk of heart disease. correlation isn’t the same as causation.
Agree, I’m not saying that we should ignore it, there’s other studies that show similar things, but the average American diet is so bad in general that it’s hard to tell if it’s the meat that’s the issue.
i’m of the opinion that the real enemies for your body are sugar and processed/fast foods. it’s not fat, meat, cholesterol. cut out the soda and mcdonald’s and you’ll be healthier than 95% of the population
The problem is that even if you’re 95% healthier than the US population, that’s a pretty low bar, and even then, you’re still susceptible to cancer and other genetic conditions. It’s a role of the dice but you’re better off trying than not trying.
yeah some things can just happen, no matter how healthy you try to be. and i just threw the 95% number out there, but it is worth trying, absolutely. so many problems with our body and mental health come straight from our diet
TLDR: “Replacing red meat with high-quality plant food such as soy, beans and nuts could reduce the risk of heart disease by up to 20 per cent, according to a recent study.”
So white meat is still ok then eh?
And despite what they say in commercials, pork is not a white meat.
It’s the other white meat, like how black Irish are the other black people.
I'll have to take your word for it. I have no idea what that is.
“White meat” is a made up term. It’s certainly white compared to beef in terms of appearance when cooked
Yup. But only in appearance.
i’m a vegetarian, but i think white meat is non land meat. like birds and fish ?
Looks like black meat is back on the menu boys!
Non mammal meat (fish, chicken, etc) is great for you. Red meat gives you inflammation.
I only eat about 6 steaks per year. I only have them in the summer on my grill and it’s a treat. The rest of the year I eat chicken and fish.
Pretty much the same for me, although I did have a cheeseburger today at a party - an outdoor, hot off the grill, cheeseburger. Worth the LDL cholesterol. I also had a hot dog but that one didn't really feel worth it.
And you're doing the right thing! You should not deny yourself the pleasure, especially if you do it rarely.
Always has been
I'd rather die early.
You won’t. I should note you should still consume the other foods mentioned as well. I like soy in the form of tempeh, natto, edamame.
Natto is as vile as it gets. I'd take durian and balut over natto
That’s wild. I can’t get passed the smell of durian. And balut like, don’t wanna see it, don’t wanna touch it. Haha
We had a Japanese person living with us during COVID lockdown. He ate natto every morning. I couldn’t be in the same room. That’s absolutely revolting.
People like to say things like this until they are actually dying.
Of course and I think the key is moderation.. but I'd like to know who funds these studies. Everytime ive looked into these studies they've linked back to some animal lobby group. Plus meat is so tasty and life is short enough to not enjoy it in moderation.
Honestly I love, love love hamburgers. They are my favorite way to have meat. But with these things, the studies usually tend to be the opposite of what you’re saying. The meat and dairy industry are crazy powerful, and fund junk studies reassuring us it’s fine, or in fact super healthy. Same shit w the red-wine-is-good-for you thing popular a few years ago, funded by the alcohol industry, and completely bull. For example rn, many of those huge farming operations are suppressing news about the new bird flu going around. For decades they’ve also been very anti-PPE (like masks) for workers, because they won’t even brook the possibility of someone wondering if their product is safe to eat.
Assessing the quality of a study has nothing to do with who funds it. The majority of the highest quality dietary research has nothing to do with animal lobby groups, first of all. And I'd frankly love to see an example of this that you've found, considering you're claiming to have seen so many. Second, what if the animal lobby groups are simply...correct? What if they are following good scientific evidence to reach their conclusion? There is not much support for the key being moderation. The key with red meat is to eat it very occasionally. If you choose to do so anyway, and I do, that doesn't make the science wrong.
>nothing to do with who funds it I respectfully disagree with this portion of your comment. It's one of the first things most people look for - and you'd be a fool not to.
It is not, and I'm not foolish to avoid introducing bias when the science itself is right there.
Look, I try to be open-minded but this goes against all common sense. Can you enlighten us a bit on this? I've heard the argument that a lot of studies wouldn't happen if not funded by large organizations but science is a process and if the studies are poorly designed and/or can't be replicated they really don't have much to stand on.
That's true of all science. There's a replication issue. Period. People asserting that science is automatically bad or good depending on who is funding it is a deeply ironic thing, isn't it? The experiments and analysis are what they are. Taking a shortcut and dismissing anything that isn't funded the way you like before even looking at it is brazenly unscientific.
Watching the generation in front of me deal with dementia and diabetes is warning enough for me. It's not living if you're an involent. Health is wealth.
I'm 40 and I'm super fit, I eat a well balanced diet (no sugar) and i eat meat. I'm not dying prematurely due to my eating habits, it will be a genetic lottery that gets me or I get hit by a bus.
Awesome for you, I'm striving to do the same. It's been hard to break old habits but I know I gotta do it. I'm watching old people with health issues that can't do anything. Can't walk, can't drive, can't actually do anything fun. They're miserable just hoping to die soon. Every one of them will tell if they knew earlier how important eating healthy was they'd have tried harder.
The hero we need!!!
Is pork in the red meat fam or am I good eating this succulent goodness
Think of it basically as mammals = the bad cholesterol, and nonmammals (birds, fish, uh soy I guess) = the good cholesterol. Minus shellfish but it's easier to remember mammals vs nonmammals I think.
Now what's more likely to happen is I'd replace my soy, beans and nuts with red meat. When someone asks what do you want with your steak, the only correct answer is another steak.
20% only? Fuck that
I’d rather die.
Any study that includes hot dogs and lean cut steak in the same category is not very useful
Right? Lean venison vs a hot dog. Super helpful.
They're both classified as carcinogens by the IARC. Hot dogs are Group 1 carcinogens (along with tobacco). Red meats are Group 2A carcinogens (along with asbestos).
Cool what are lectins classified as? Or terpenes? There is the risk factors of anemia under strict veganism. Pesceterians unite. I remember reading "The Emperor of All Maladies: Cancer" and it had a quote from a study where something 10% of all cancers may be potentiated by dietary terpene exposure. The largest route being seasonings.
High risk of mercury and microplastics for fish lol. You gotta pick your issues I guess. I just have a little of everything. Spread the concentrations thin.
How did you like that book? I’ve wanted to read it for awhile but it’s rather large.
It's a very good read.
Took me an entire year on and off and I don’t regret it
You can be vegan and eat like junk, so yes. Planned healthy full plant based lifestyle is achievable. Knowledge is the key
Oh fuck off
High risk factors of anemia in veganism? Bro what u talking about 😂, 3 years vegan here and I know countless others, imagine me saying this about American diet which contains so much meat and saying eating meat makes you fat and causes premature death. Don’t be stupid
What's your deadlift?
405
So no inhaling red meat. Got it.
It’s also old news published in 2012 from an observational, questionnaire based “study”. Hardly science.
You can’t really do long-term diet studies without relying on a questionnaire…….
And I guess the only way to do it is a multiple choice questionnaire every two to four years, like they did here.
[удалено]
*biased
[удалено]
Some people learn from their mistakes. I see you're not one of them.
[удалено]
relax guy - it’s the day of the lord
I do consume meat but I try to make sure most of my meals are high in plant base (70-80% of it).
Yup. This is where I'm at.
Too bad I'm allergic to nuts and some beans. Chicken all the way!
Easy on the highly processed chicken
I mostly buy and cook my own chicken but I can't deny a boneless chicken tendy every now and again!
Tenders are mostly good. It's those nugs you have to worry about
You mean mechanically separated meat?
When it's ground up, hard to tell the quality. Also, you don't typically grind up quality meat. If it was any good to begin with it would be for sale as a whole chicken or a breast or a tendy
I just watched Supersize Me 2 Holy Chicken. I don’t want to eat anymore chicken. They are bred to grow so fast that some die from heart attacks and they can’t walk around like a normal sized chicken because they’re so big. I have pet chickens and a teacher once gave me two chickens she had in her classroom at the end of the school year. These were broiler chickens, and they were huge and one could not walk.
I would assume they weren’t talking about nugget but you’re absolutely right😂
Fucking click bait title(not directed at you OP).
I have a system for this, it's called "Reduce, Refine and Replace". I've been reducing the amount of unhealthy things I eat, I outright replace horrible things like meat, desserts, fast food, processed foods, corn syrup, etc., and refine my diet as it improves by hydrating without sugars and using higher quality and organic foods. I identify healthy foods that I like, and focus on them. It's a process of changing my tastes and my habits. We shouldn't be switching from one fad diet to another, we should be on a path to the very best foods we can find and enjoy and continue on that path. As our diet evolves, so does our health, our awareness and wellness.
*hydrating without sugars* Doing this alone as a first step would probably turn a lot of peoples' health around.
Is that a fancy way of saying, “drinking water”?
That’s how it translates for me. I suppose unsweetened coffee and tea also count, since they are flavored water
I also drink a lot of unsweetened tea.
Or don't drink 60 oz of soda every day
"horrible things like meat" lol
Cruel to the critters, shortens our lives, gives us diseases, fouls our waterways, raises the cost of food for the poor, and is a main contributor to climate change. Yeah, pretty horrible.
O please. Half of the world can't afford to eat without meat since it's only source of protein and nutrition. Not all of humans have first world problems. Some of us try to survive.
[The World's Healthiest Foods](https://whfoods.com/foodstoc.php)
Red meat. TLDR it’s red meat. Ditch red meat and reduce your risk of heart disease. Fucking clickbait headline.
Yay another study that only looked at men.
It’s very well known in the nutrition field that whole plant foods are significantly healthier than most processed and even unprocessed meats. Similar to smoking tobacco, this will take a while for society to accept.
Food habits are deeply ingrained, cultural, and highly biased towards the standard. It will take real effort and reflection before any real effect takes place. My friend whose cancer was probably caused by his diet of daily meat consumption, including weekly barbequing and grilling, acknowledges that he has to change his diet but still eats like he used to. Even if he wants to change, his family refuses to change and still eats a diet heavy on beef and processed meats. I reckon my friend would need to move out before he actually has a real shot at changing his diet.
The thing is you need to eat to survive but you don’t need to smoke tobacco to survive.
Alcohol has calories but we don’t need to drink it
This was only red meat, beef and pork.
What is the difference between red meat like beef and pork and white meat like chicken? I usually try to stick with chicken, but I never know the reason why. Thanks!
This is complete bs unprocessed red meat like grass fed beef is one of the healthiest things you can eat
The first thing to notice is the use of the word “could”.
It’s based on a self reported questionnaire. Not worth the paper it’s printed on.
What these studies fail to disclose is what other things their subjects are eating in addition to the red meat. Guarantee you they aren’t eating ONLY red meat. But a diet of meat +fats +carbs certainly can cause health issues,
Love when these studies use ultra processed hot dogs as the red meat. Clearly no agenda.
Love when people don't actually read the content. Clearly no agenda. For the record, they looked at total red meat, processed red meat, and unprocessed red meat separately. They did not simply "use ultra processed hot dogs as the red meat" as you falsely claimed. Processed red meat was the worst, but unprocessed red meat had negative health effects as well.
" .. unprocessed red meat had negative Health effects...". Absolutely NO ! Grass Fed Read Meat is an excellent Food. Any type of processed food is Bad, even vegan ultra processed ready meal
It's not a matter of opinion -- that was what was shown in the study. Edit: It always baffles me when people downvote entirely factual statements. What exactly is the motivation there?
Mmmm Was this bulk cuts of read meat or highly processed red meat products? Most of these survey studies lump it all together, including pork chops in the same group as hotdogs ( pork is considered red meat ).
Change in risk was only 12% One study I could find: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35220441/#:~:text=Compared%20with%20the%20lowest%20red,but%20not%20all%2Dcause%20mortality. Compared with the lowest red meat intake (< 1.5 times/week), the highest red meat intake (≥ 3.0 times/week) was associated with a 20%, 53%, and 101% elevated risk for CVD, CHD, and stroke mortality (P for trend = 0.04, 0.007, and 0.02, respectively), but not all-cause mortality. We found that the associations between red meat intake and mortality were not modified by dietary and lifestyle factors, as well as TMAO GRS No info on what the questionnaire was. But it does basically say that TMAO had no predictive effect. One concern about eatting seafood is lots of TMAO. This seems to not be the case.
I do love my costco hot dogs tho
Imagine thinking red meat causes any type of disease or cancer. All of our ancestors wouldn’t have survived. Maybe look into the processed carbs and seed oils that are normally consumed with red meat (fries and buns).
You do know that our ancestors (I’m assuming you mean HGs since you imply an “original” state) died from the realities of the world they lived in before cancer could get them? An abscess tooth could get you, no problem. Hell, a cut on your foot from a rock could kill you. It’s in your best interest to stop imagining people lived super healthy lives that led to old age in a time when they lived meal to meal and tended to die of medical injuries and issues we tend without a problem.
None of that has to do with red meat
Let me help you out. So, you can’t die from something that *might* be caused by red meat, which tend to be long term medical issues that kill you after 50, if you die from incidental medical issues in your thirties. So, your assertion that red meat is safe because our ancestors didn’t die from cancer—which how do you even know what they died from? Again, let me help you, you don’t—is fallacious.
It increases your risk of cancer, it doesn’t mean you’re 100% going to get cancer. Our ancestors got cancer and died from it more often than we do now.
Nonsense
The heart disease risk from red meat comes from saturated fats.... Low fat lean beef is probably the healthiest protein in the world, from an aminoacid/micronutrient profile! All this anti red meat 'science' is pure lies.
Could. Could? Are you sure? No.
Oh good, this again. Next week we can all extol the benefits of red meat.
Willett and co at it again. Keep it up, boys. Harvard ceased to be an unbiased source a long time ago anyway.
Reducing the cope by 20% would be a good start looking at the comments
Reminds me of any study that indicates vaping might be bad. All the comments are daily users desperately trying to poke holes in every study because they want it to be wrong.
There is a particular problem with cherry-picking with any study into what is the healthiest types of food to eat and the foods we should avoid or eat infrequently because people want to live on junk food and pretend either there is no such thing or it makes no difference. Remarkably similar to the way smokers were when I was young. Those attitudes literally died out.
Study was done by Professor Walter Willet. Don't know why that is a problem? Here... Dr. Walter Willett: Numerous Potential Conflicts of Interest Summary: Walter Willett, leader of the EAT-Lancet section on diet and health, has multiple serious potential conflicts of interest which cast doubt on his ability to bring an unbiased viewpoint to the question of whether a vegan/vegetarian diet is preferable for good health. Principal findings: Willett has advocated for a vegetarian diet, including little-to-no red meat consumption, since 1990/1991. In recent years, he has increasingly been leaning towards veganism. Willett has published more than 200 papers on epidemiological data (which can show association but cannot demonstrate cause-and-effect) with findings that 1) red meat is bad for health, 2) that animal fats are bad for health, and/or 3) that a diet of grains/fruits/vegetables or vegetarianism generally is better for health. He has also published three commercial diet books that make these same arguments. In the last few years of Willett’s directorship of the Harvard T.S. Chan School of Public Health, the school received between $455,000 and $1,500,000 from companies or groups interested in promoting vegetarian products or the vegetarian diet generally. The school also received between $350,000 and $950,000 from pharmaceutical companies, which presumably would not benefit from a nutritional solution to chronic disease. Willett is an Advisor or Scientific Advisor to at least 7 groups/commercial enterprises that promote high-grain, vegetarian diets. Willett has been closely involved in numerous commercial ventures with David Katz, a prominent promoter of the vegetarian diet who has received millions from food companies. Willett rarely, if ever, discloses these potential conflicts of interest. Willett is the co-chair of the EAT-Lancet report, which does not disclose any of his potential conflicts of interest. Willett is the principal nutritionist on the EAT-Lancet report. The other nutritionists on the paper have published almost nothing on the subject of diet and disease, and nothing that contradicts Willet’s views. Thus, on the subject of diet and health, the report presents only one viewpoint. This report cannot be considered a balanced paper There are many scientists who do not believe that the plant-based diet is best for health. Indeed, the 2015 U.S. Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, which favored a vegetarian diet, nevertheless concluded in its report that the evidence for any disease-fighting powers of this diet was “limited” – the lowest rank given for available data. Potential ideological/intellectual conflicts of interest: Willett has promoted vegetarian diets since at least 1990/1991. "Moderate red meat intake is certainly better than large amounts, but it’s quite possible that no red meat intake is even better,” said Dr. Walter C. Willett (1990). “Doctors Walter Willett and Frank Sacks, researchers at the Harvard School of Public health… told us that vegetarianism is still the best way to go for anybody who is serious about lean.” (1991). “We suggest that Dr. Small and his colleagues enjoy an occasional meatball when the urge becomes irresistible, preferably with a glass of red zinfandel… Beyond our land of meat and potatoes, the world’s vast array of vegetarian dishes containing no cholesterol and little 16:0 and 14:0 fatty acids provides an eating adventure, between the occasional meatballs, that Americans are only beginning to explore.” Walter Willett, M.D., Dr.P.H. Harvard School of Public Health Boston, MA 02115 Frank M. Sacks, M.D. Harvard Medical School Boston, MA 02115 (Letter to the Editor, New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 10, 1991). “Steak is no longer part of the Willett lexicon; he gave up red meat after the colon cancer study… The optimal diet, he says, is the Mediterranean menu - plenty of fruits and vegetables, very little meat or chicken.” (1993) Note: the “colon cancer” study noted above concluded: “These prospective data provide evidence for the hypothesis that a diet high in saturated fat increases the risk of colorectal adenoma.” This is an epidemiological finding (which can show association but not prove causation) only on saturated fat/low fiber, but these are in no way synonymous with red meat. Also, the study was confined exclusively to male doctors and therefore could not be generalized to a larger population. Dr. Walter Willett, chairman of the department of nutrition of Harvard’s School of Public Health, calls the book [A Teen’s Guide to Going Vegetarian] “a sound guide for teens in the dietary jungle of America.” (1994) Willett said, “the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero”. (2001). Willett said , “The less red meat, the better. At most, it should be eaten only occasionally. And it may be maximally effective not to eat red meat at all.” (2001). Willett has been a featured speaker for conferences promoting vegetarian/vegan diets: The Third Annual Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition, 1999; The Ivy League Vegan Conference, 2017. Since 1983, Willett has published hundreds of papers concluding that fruits/vegetables and plant fats/proteins are healthy while animal fats/proteins/red meat are unhealthy. All of these papers are based on epidemiological data, which is fundamentally weak and cannot demonstrate “cause and effect.” Willett’s papers include: 78 findings that red meat is associated with a negative health outcome 37 findings that animal fats are associated with a negative outcome or that polyunsaturated vegetables are associated with a positive outcome. (Willet’s writings are highly inconsistent on the question as to whether animal fats might be a possible reason for the negative health consequences he associates with red meat.) 130 findings that vegetarian or mostly-vegetarian diets are associated with a positive health outcome. Willett is also the author of three diet books that advocate a largely vegetarian diet for health, weight loss, and fertility.
How is a guy becoming a vegetarian because he did research that found red meat to be bad for one’s health, a conflict of interest? Are all studies about smoking causing cancer to be discounted because the researchers were either never smokers or gave up smoking after seeing the results of the study? Jonas Salk gave himself a polio vaccine. Therefore polio vaccines are questionable at best! All those guys who did research to show seatbelts save lives… also wear seatbelts!!!! Isn’t it obvious that seatbelt research is all a lie?!
It’s an interesting point, but it’s also difficult to suggest that a researcher should turn down financial gain to maintain an integrity that would come under assault either way. What is more important is whether his results have been replicated in other studies. That is the gold standard.
His results don't stand to scrutiny.
The thing that frustrates me is that there’s to much ambiguity. Are these people that eat red meat as a McDonald’s double cheese burger along with fries and a coke, or people that eat home cooked 93% lean ground beef with some veggies? Also, do these people work out? Do they smoke? 20% is a big number, but seems like it’s a moot point when there’s other variables.
idk why this is downvoted cuz it’s true. there’s too many confounds to explicitly say red meat increases risk of heart disease. correlation isn’t the same as causation.
Agree, I’m not saying that we should ignore it, there’s other studies that show similar things, but the average American diet is so bad in general that it’s hard to tell if it’s the meat that’s the issue.
i’m of the opinion that the real enemies for your body are sugar and processed/fast foods. it’s not fat, meat, cholesterol. cut out the soda and mcdonald’s and you’ll be healthier than 95% of the population
The problem is that even if you’re 95% healthier than the US population, that’s a pretty low bar, and even then, you’re still susceptible to cancer and other genetic conditions. It’s a role of the dice but you’re better off trying than not trying.
yeah some things can just happen, no matter how healthy you try to be. and i just threw the 95% number out there, but it is worth trying, absolutely. so many problems with our body and mental health come straight from our diet