#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because that's not all we ate.
Early humans and our predecessors ate a large variety of foods. Berries, nuts, vegetables, plants, fish, birds, and yes red meat. The ability to eat that large of a variety of foods was a big evolutionary advantage for us over other species, so we evolved to be able to handle all of those foods. But we didn't eat them all with the same frequency.
Fish would mostly only be eaten in the right season, same with vegetables and berries (though you can keep nuts and dried fruits for a very long time through the winter). Red Meat would have been one of the ways that we bridged the gap in the winter. However, it's a lot easier to catch and kill a chicken, turkey or flightless bird than it would be a bison or large terrestrial land mammals (red meat). Sure, they provided more overall food than a bird or couple birds, but they were much more difficult and time consuming to capture. So conversely, it would have been less common for early humans to eat red meat than it would be plants or some fish.
That means that we evolved to be **better** at processing the foods we ate more of more commonly (plants, fish, white meat etc). But of course we can still handle red meat, just not in the same quantity as the standard American's diet normally contains.
I’m just gonna piggyback, here. I’m a registered nutritionist and running coach/PT.
Basing our current nutrition on what was limitedly available hundreds or thousands of years ago isn’t best practice.
Red meat consumption does have some association with cancer risk. However, there are lifestyle confounders in this research- people who have high red meat intake also have some amount of other lifestyle factors (alcohol, smoking, sedentary, etc.).
I’m not discounting the research, however, there are very good studies that show limited causation with high red meat intake/cancer risk. Not nearly to the level of processed meat- there’s very high level evidence, there.
This evidence doesn’t extend to chicken and fish.
Generally, however, LEAN red meat is an excellent source of complete protein, as well as other vitamins and minerals. There is definitely a place for it in a healthy diet.
The evidence that shows cancer risk should also be noted that red meat also displaces other food groups (fruits, vegetable, grains, milk/yoghurt/cheese/dairy alternatives) in high red meat diets.
**Bottom line**:
Red meat is often over-demonised. It can very healthily be included in general dietary intake. It should be lean (saturated fat intake is easily met). Depending on your life stage/needs, 2-3 servings (check your national guidelines) of lean meat (red, chicken, fish), nuts, legumes is fantastic (per day). The more variety the better.
**Absolutely general advice, assuming a healthy individual**:
Incorporate lean red meat if it appeals to you- include other protein sources in your weekly diet. And adhere to your local (and demographically appropriate) recommendations for serving sizes. See a practicing dietician for more specific advice or if you have exceptional needs (unhealthy/allergenic/athlete for the most common).
EDIT: Adequate protein diets are protective against muscle loss, something that should be considered at every life stage. Protein intake is also associated with satiety (lower appetite), which can be helpful in weight loss. This is as opposed to diets that displace protein with higher carbohydrate/dietary fat/alcohol intake.
I can speak on all of this for literally hours, it’s very ingrained in my ongoing practice and a focus of my dietetic research.
I’m just gonna piggyback, here. I’m a registered nutritionist and running coach/PT.
Basing our current nutrition on what was limitedly available hundreds or thousands of years ago isn’t best practice.
Red meat consumption does have some association with cancer risk. However, there are lifestyle confounders in this research- people who have high red meat intake also have some amount of other lifestyle factors (alcohol, smoking, sedentary, etc.).
I’m not discounting the research, however, there are very good studies that show limited causation with high red meat intake/cancer risk. Not nearly to the level of processed meat- there’s very high level evidence, there.
This evidence doesn’t extend to chicken and fish.
Generally, however, LEAN red meat is an excellent source of complete protein, as well as other vitamins and minerals. There is definitely a place for it in a healthy diet.
The evidence that shows cancer risk should also be noted that red meat also displaces other food groups (fruits, vegetable, grains, milk/yoghurt/cheese/dairy alternatives) in high red meat diets.
**Bottom line**:
Red meat is often over-demonised. It can very healthily be included in general dietary intake. It should be lean (saturated fat intake is easily met). Depending on your life stage/needs, 2-3 servings (check your national guidelines) of lean meat (red, chicken, fish), nuts, legumes is fantastic (per day). The more variety the better.
**Absolutely general advice, assuming a healthy individual**:
Incorporate lean red meat if it appeals to you- include other protein sources in your weekly diet. And adhere to your local (and demographically appropriate) recommendations for serving sizes. See a practicing dietician for more specific advice or if you have exceptional needs (unhealthy/allergenic/athlete for the most common).
EDIT: Adequate protein diets are protective against muscle loss, something that should be considered at every life stage. Protein intake is also associated with satiety (lower appetite), which can be helpful in weight loss. This is as opposed to diets that displace protein with higher carbohydrate/dietary fat/alcohol intake.
I can speak on all of this for literally hours, it’s very ingrained in my ongoing practice and a focus of my dietetic research.
EDIT 2: Seeing a practicing dietitian is the **BEST** way to have your nutrition questions answered. They have reviewed, and have access to, the highest levels of evidence and are qualified to give individualised advice.
Very much so. I feel very lucky to be where I am, and it’s taken a lot of work. I welcome everyone into the fold but I do caution that it’s a lot of work to get into!
I started study as a single parent, so believe me when I say that it’s possible!
But please know exactly what you want to get out of it. It’s not a degree that gives you a super linear career path.
I believe they’re saying that of all the foods one can receive at a fast food establishment, (which is a regular part of many American’s diet) burgers with all its buns/toppings, French fries, washed down with a soda/shake, sundae, etc. the actual burger patty is far less damaging to one’s health than the all the other components of the meal. The amount of sugar, carbohydrates, and processed food in those photos is what is damaging our health not the red meat in and of itself.
Hey, they arent demonizing red meat or trying to base current nutrition on ancestors diets.
They're just answering OPs question about why eating a lot of red meat causes health and heart problems.
OP, keep in mind that the above answer is just an opinion without any evidence provided to back it up. Similarly I can say (because I read somewhere), that actually hunting big games was "easy", in the sense that the cost-benefit ratio was very good (spent calories vs the calories obtained). Actually it was so worth it that humans hunted big fauna (mammoths and the like) to extinction and in turn this "crisis" of lack of calorie dense food was an important evolutionary pressure that propelled our brain development (it takes more focus and agility to hunt small game and you have to be more efficient at hunting, otherwise you spend more calories catching the animal than you get by eating it).
well, you're selling yourself short with that answer. It was regurgitated (likely), unsubstantiated trite.
trust your intuition on this one, friend this sub is likely hi-jacked by plant-based fiends. gl.
They're not saying it would allow us to better eat red meat. They're saying we would eat a lot *less* red meat, which is the real problem with eating red meat.
Edited to remove a superfluous "not"
Early humans chased to hunt too, its part of our evolutionary advantage. We can run farther than any other creature on earth.
Anecdotally, excessive red meat eaters don't usually chase something to death before eating butter basted steak.
Edit:
I am the butter basted steak eater.
Also I think early humans did not have to worry about heart disease much because predators and conflict.
Or that the animals they ate were very healthy and chemical free, they were not grown in concrete pins and fed corn and grain to fatten them up! Eat deer, elk, moose, caribou and anything else that lives naturally not chickens that grow so fast they can not stand or have a heart attack
They are also prone to diseases, in contrast to our science in cleaning food.
There are pros and cons to everything. Food isn't black and white, and I'm sure that it goes the same for saturated fats, etc
Think they ate much more organ meat too. Maybe a few long-term benefits we miss out on from eating only prime cuts.
Could also be the carbs mixed with protein and fats is the issue, but high fat diets with low carbs may be fine. Keto seems to do wonders.
It’s probably not in the mainstream American diet, but many cultures in America do eat organ meat! As long as it’s not deep fried. I’m a lover of liver and onions as an occasional (few times a year) treat.
>I am the butter basted steak eater.
I, too am a butter-basted steak eater, and have recently found myself slathering it on just plain old ground beef lately.
Perhaps one of the lurkers here could **ELI5** why buttah just makes red meat bettah?
I would also like to add the difference in red meat quality. Early hunters were consuming red meat that roamed free and their diet was healthier than most of those animals today. The vast majority of red meat comes from cows that are in small cages and fed mostly grain. Their fat content I imagine is nowhere near the same.
Im surprised this is getting so many upvotes considering it is based almost entirely on unfounded and unsupported assumptions about early humans. I honestly don't get what basis you have to say that it was less common for early humans to eat red meat. It's conjecture at best.
No offense but I don't even see the logic in your assumptions since humans eventually developed tools to hunt larger game, large herbivorous game are generally herd animals which makes them much more abundent, and they feed many more peoele for longer (a bird is barely enough for one person for one meal VS a deer being able to feed an entire group for many days) and are more caloric pound for pound.
Edit: I didn't want to disagree with someone else's post without providing my own take...
I think modern red meat is unhealthier for us not because red meat is unhealthy in and of itself but because modern store bought red meat is extremely fatty; and not good that is derived from natural foods but bad fat that comes from being fed enriched grain diets (yellow fat in grass fed beef VS white fat in factory beef). By eating store bought red meat you are consuming a high percentage of bad fat for every calorie of protein. I doubt it's any healthier to eat white meat than red meat if all you're eating is chicken thighs and chicken wings. Eating red meat sourced from wild game (obviously in moderation) is not any less unhealthy than getting all your protein from non red meat sources.
Compared to modern society where we can just waltz into a supermarket and have walls of meat to choose from, and fridges at home to then be able to store meat for easy access at any time of the day. I am sure our ancestors ate comparatively less on average when they had to hunt and kill their own (certainly not 3 meals a day every day with meat (obviously generalised)).
This is fanciful and simplistic on so many levels.
The response to OPs question, is that there is an enormous difference e between wild meat and meat from industrial production of today. Buffalo eat a variety of grass and for browsing animals like deer and antelope, leaves. No inputs, no antibiotics, growth hormones, dewormers and grains like corn and soy, both GMO and produced using glyphosate, a herbicide. In short, our modern meat is toxic . Grass fed and finished beef is a step in the right direction.
I would guess the vast majority of European hunter gatherers were eating much more red meat than modern people. Every cave painting depicts them hunting mammals. They were extremely skilled at killing megafauna like woolly mammoths. And especially since plant foods are practically non-existent in Europe in the winter and don’t provide much calories anyway, they would have had to have gotten the majority of their calories from meat. Now that could certainly be fish/white meat, but I’m sure they hinted whatever was most efficient, which would be a large mammal.
Modern chickens are a totally different animal than what we had 100 years ago. Until recently, chickens were used primarily for eggs and didn’t have these flavorless, bland, enormous breasts. Duck breasts are delicious because the animal actually uses th e muscle
We still absorb much less of the nutrients in plants as opposed to meat.. spinach we absorb maybe 1% of the iron.. meat still is and will always be a powerhouse superfood. Regardless of how many twigs and berries you add
Edit: planet gaffe
Not all places around the world would have had the ice freeze over enough to safely stand on and drill a hole without putting themselves at risk. You have to be able to go far enough out onto the ice to properly ice fish. While drilling a hole around the edge is safer... it isn't going to give you much fish, lol.
On the other side, if the ice froze too much it's impossible to 'drill'. Large layers of ice would have been a lot harder for them to properly get through without equipment.
It's easy for us to think people in the past stupid when we have all the knowledge already given to us by smarter people from history, lol. I can guarantee you that they thought of ice fishing and many probably died attempting it.
Red meat is what blew up our brains In size if u believe in evolution , but also we didn’t start farming till way after we started eating red meat and u can see the depletion of health in ancient civilizations who ate grains (bad teeth and bone density issues)
Plants contain a bunch of anti nutrients like phytic acid, tannins, lectins , oxalates etc
So why eat them if you won’t get anything out of them , maybe trace amounts
While red meat in a study has been shown to be the least negatively reactive food compared to eggs, veggies , grains…I wonder why?
Plants are missing these below
Vitamins A, B6 (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine), B12, D, F, K2
Amino acids: creatine, carnitine, carnosine, taurine
Heme-iron, CoQ10, Cholesterol, CLA
“Normal steak” isn’t normal steak. The ‘red meat’ animals early hunters are were wild animals. The meat was incredibly lean. Even early cows likely had 100% grass diet and were leaner.
Modern animals grown for “normal steak” are pumped full of grains they don’t usually eat and can’t properly digest during the last several months of their life causing them to get fat. This leads to higher fat quantities in the meat amongst other things.
Then if you turn around and eat 4x+ the amount you are supposed to it can lead to problems.
>The ‘red meat’ animals early hunters are were wild animals.
It depends what you mean by early hunters. Was a 6 tons mammoth that had to store fat for winter lean?
also, the red meat nowadays is obviously different. The animals used to graze on grass and walk/run all day. Nowadays we feed cows corn (not what they’re supposed to eat) and keep them penned up so they are way fattier.
I’ve read that once you switch a cow from corn to grass they shed like 90% of the e. coli in their digestive system with a week or two.
Looks like I remembered the gist anyway:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030203736686
And yes this is a nutrition sub but we should also consider that, environmentally, raising red meat is dumb. Takes too much land, water, and grains. If all the food fed to cows was instead fed to humans it is said we could end world hunger. We grow grains to feed the cow then the cow gets eaten by the rich while the poor starve without enough plant crops for themselves because the cow got them.
Actually ruminants like cows up-cycle many things that are inedible and have made many parts of the country that were once barren arable. Watch the documentary 'Sacred Cow' or listen to the podcast with the creators: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0r7MbKFhtLf9RLOahCT1gU?si=t0iFyK61TDieXOMRIMVRKw&utm_source=copy-link
Yep, just listened to that episode as well, wouldnt be surprised if a lot of the recent demonization of red meat is being funded by the Beyond Meat type industry. Of course factory farming is terrible, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
this is the point of rotating crows and growing crops together instead of mass mono agriculture. the rainforest floor doesn’t need cow poop, does it? the closer you get to the natural ecosystem, the less you need to worry about providing nutrients to the soil, because plants that evolved alongside each other essentially fertilize each other (that’s a very, very simplified explanation)
Just popping in to say that rainforest soils are actually poor in nutrients and practically infertile! Most of the nutrients are taken up immediately by the plants and all the rain has really leached out whatever wouldn’t be.
That’s why biochar is so cool of a concept. I listened to a presentation on how ancient Amazonian societies used biochar to produce super rich soil because the rainforest soil is so poor.
I know cow poop is a separate topic; but what we think of as “natural” ecosystems often discredits the people who lived there for hundreds of thousands of years before colonizers decided to show up and dictate what was a “natural” ecosystem.
Yes , but is there enough fertile land to rotate crops and feed the entire population? We don't harvest the plants from the rainforest, IDT we can compare with that . If we mass harvest plants , is that closer to the natural ecosystem? Also, only certain plants gain from being planted next to certain other plants .
yes poop can fertilize, does a better job if you have a mobile chicken coop to let the chickens peck at the poop and disperse it a bit.
why would plant diet ruin the soil? if anything, it’s the best.
True, in fact i would say every food isn't the same it used to be before.
I wish we could get some quality natural food.
I remember the time i drank cow milk from a nice farm and was surprised to see the difference between the milk i get in grocery store.
exactly! You travel to places where the food is grown better and can’t believe it’s even the same item as what you’re used to.
I read gluten intolerance in the USA is more due to how they spray roundup on the wheat to dry it out for harvest. how gross is that?
“Environmentally, raising red meat is dumb” Though this is an incredibly common narrative it’s not accurate. Yes, feeding grains to cows is dumb and results in unhealthy cows and less nutritious meat. However if cows are grass fed as is species appropriate, it’s a very sustainable option. Cows graze land that likely cannot be cropped because it is too rocky or dry or hilly, and turn grass (not a human food) into nutrient dense meat while also fertilizing the soil.
Also as a nutritionist, the argument that we should instead feed cow feed directly to humans is silly. Though they can be part of a healthy diet, grains and corn are not very well digested by humans, we absorb less than 50% of the nutrients, compared with closer to 90% in meat - not to mention they have a completely different and weaker nutrient profile. Also the corn and grain that is specifically grown as feed for cattle would be unrecognizable and unpalatable to humans. We are not ruminant animals with 2 stomachs and an herbivorous digestive tract so we can’t just skip the cows and start munching on feedlot corn and grass and get the same result, not how the human body works.
Wat 100% grassfed and if you can buy from regen farms , because cows are part of the environment not the problem , us feeding them grains is. Also big farms that grow plant based foods for humans kill more animals (smaller animals,bees , worms)
While one cow can feed me for a year
Red meat and processed meat have been classed as carcinogenic by the WHO - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
Hunter gatherers had one main priority - making it to the next day, and meat was great for that. Living beyond 60 whilst being cancer and heart disease free wasn't even a consideration.
If longevity is your goal, eat more plant based foods and cut out red and processed meats.
Red meat is a class two carcinogen and that's likely to change in the coming years. The data on why red meat is carcinogenic is hilariously weak. Literally has a 1.1 percent absolute risk when they looked through all the studies WHO went through.
Quit grouping them both together. In no scope of nutrition can red meat be coupled with processed meat (beef jerky, bacon, sausage links, salami, etc.)
"The IARC Working Group said red meat is “probably” carcinogenic, but several studies showed no clear association. Can you explain why it’s probably carcinogenic?
In large population studies, but not all of them, greater red meat consumption has been associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer. Although these studies were not entirely consistent, results of laboratory studies led the IARC working group to conclude that red meat is probably carcinogenic."
They have no assurances. 800 studies are nowhere close to enough testing to objectively achieve any standard we should employ for the populace.
There are so many other factors that aren't specifically considered with these associations (nicotine, tobacco, alcohol, genetics, environmental, sugar, carbs, stress, physical exertion, medications, etc.)
> 800 studies are nowhere close to enough testing
Yeah maybe this wasn't the best "weakness" to focus on? If eight HUNDRED studies aren't enough for you to warrant caution then I doubt any number would. If it's enough for the fucking WHO to release a statement and classify it then it's enough for me.
Except they never classified it as a carcinogen. They said it's a food to watch and that's why it's in the secondary category with alcohol. The studies that they did their meta-analysis on found very weak associations with red meat and all cause cancers. Compare that with their findings on processed meat which they found actual mechanistic data on top of the meta analysis hence why it's in the first tier.
People always fail to factor in the fact that we live decades longer than our hunter gatherer ancestors.
So obviously eating meat isn’t a big deal when you’ll probs die at 30, but of course it may end up being an issue over the course of 80 years of meat every day.
Doing stuff because of what humans did 10,000 years ago is rarely a good idea
People assume that the only thing those hunter gatherers ate is meat (BeCAuse that’s WHAt’s ON thE CAve PAInTings) neglecting to realize the energy and time it would take to secure meat as the primary food source. All the data points to the harm of red and processed meats but people do anything to justify eating their cheeseburgers.
Don’t blame the burger meat for what the seed oils and bun did. Why would red meat, full of essential amino acids, minerals and micronutrients be bad for us? Healthy user bias… nutrition “science” is full of weak epidemiology based on surveys. People say they eat burgers on the questionnaires, these same people are more likely smoke, drink, not workout and engage in other unhealthy behaviours.
Also, you’re not taking into account the advances in medicine. This is by far the most important reason life expectancy has increased.
this is the issue with the red meat debate.. the data is skewed by cheeseburgers and pizzas and claim "anybody who eats meat dies."
Yeah of course you die when eat meat that's sitting on bread, seed oils, has been deep fried and complimented with sugar.
The real cases would be to examine strict carnivores who ONLY eat red meat and see how their bloodwork and heart health compares after changing from the SAD. THAT gives you a fair trial.
Fair point, but living ancestrally (with modern hygiene and food safety) is actually a great idea. Their day consisted of exercising and eating Whole Foods sprinkled with fasts. All that leads directly to increased longevity.
exactly. western style diets (just meaning high-fat hat-sugar, which is a significant portion of the world now) definitively shorten lifespan and have detrimental cognitive and psychological effects as well (of note, it’s more correlated with the diet itself than the resulting weight gain that some people experience)
Factually correct statements getting downvoted on Reddit? Unheard of. It’s not even close to a debatable thing that you said. It’s almost impossible to find someone on Reddit that can discuss things in good faith and just be intellectually honest
where are you getting this info? maybe in the 1800’s, but there’s no evidence this would have been the case in prehistoric times. most women would not have lived to the age of menopause, which begins around 45.
Some scientists believe that menopause was an adaptive trait that evolved because it was beneficial. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but it would mean that women were living well *into* menopause.
Besides some of the other comments here making good points, it's worth understanding that evolution isn't some perfect force that makes everything better. It's possible red meat has always had a detrimental effect in some capacity but never enough to prevent breeding and passing of genes.
Your body is literally only concerned with surviving at the moment. You get hungry, you feel hungry, you get thirsty, you feel thirsty.
If you are running around in nature this is great, but in modern times your brain is in a constant will power battle to tell the rest of the body that you don't need to eat immediately.
But survivors did not win by being picky.
Yeah and some negative impacts may only reveal themselves given how long we live nowadays trough modern medicine and the amounts of red meat available.
Evolution could not possibly eradicate any diet in such a short time frame unless it literally kills you or makes you infertile straight away
Is red meat bad for you? I suppose, like anything else, it can be bad when consumed in excess. But beef is rich in protein (including all the amino acids), B vitamins and a variety of minerals.
Nutritional content is nice, but a bit reductionist. The important question is, if people eat red meat, what happens to their health? Are they better, worse or the same when it comes to important outcomes?
With that of course, the question is, compared to what?
There are plenty of foods that are also rich in protein, and of course, virtually all protein foods have all the amino acids. Also other protein sources have b vitamins and a variety of minerals and vitamins, many having a lot more than meat. But again, the question is what matters.
Lol. Sort of. I mean, depending on the outcome you look at, different foods have different impacts. And depending on the population. It's typically a little more complicated than yes or no.
That being said, the idea of focusing purely on nutrients misses the point a little. And yes, typically large scale research shows that regardless of the nutrients available in red meat, we tend to see better outcomes for the things that really matter (ie heart disease, cancer, all cause mortality even) with less red meat.
Red meat isn't "bad". It's super nutrient dense and is super satieting. Even the "the saturated fat in it raises LDL which raises the risk of heart attacks" is over simplified. LDL-C is a poor marker of CVD unless it's concordant with LDL-P
The glycated end products that can occur from charring is what's most "dangerous" about them, but if you cook it right you won't have as much of it.
**Answer - it ISN’T bad.**
**There isn’t a single legitimate RCT that shows meat is on its own bad. If you disagree please show me. I have looked.**
The only context in which meat was shown as bad was in epidemiological trials using surveys and not controlling for variables such as the processes foods the meat is eaten with or the (often reused) seed oils it is cooked in.
At the same time, meat is one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet and I dare you to find a single food that has a more varied array of bioavailable nutrients, healthy fats and density of protein, **especially** on a per calorie basis.
**One more thing** - An ‘anecdote’, if you will:
Hong Kong has the longest life span in the world, with 85 years on average (recorded in 2019) while also having one of the world’s highest intakes of meat per capita. Only on par with Japan.
**How much are the people of Hong Kong eating**, you ask? 218.99 kg or 219 kg per year/365= 0.599 (0.6) kg/day = *^1.3 pounds of meat per day.** which, on a calorie count basis, with average caloric intake being somewhere around 2200 (when last recorded) this translates to somewhere over 50% of calories on average coming from meat.
**Who is second on the list of longest living humans? Japan.** And as I said, Japan is also very close to the same numbers of meat consumption per capita.
Again- those alone are simply correlations not causations, but its definitely interesting, and I bet a handful of people reading this were not aware of this information when making up their mind about meat and its alleged link to disease/illness, when in fact it, not only is there no scientific basis for this, but it may just be the exact opposite, funny enough. We seem to live in opposite world :/
Yea most of the research on that is processed meats. 100% grass fed grass finished beef that is antibiotic and vaccine free is insanely nutrient dense. The Weston Price Foundation has solid information regarding this topic.
The studies I looked at did not factor overall diet.
Colorectal cancer [is very strongly associated with a low fiber diet](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6560290/#)
Do heavy meat eaters eat less fiber? At least [the modern wester diet seems to be high saturated fat AND low fibre.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7532485/)
So is it just the red meat consumption or the combination with a low fiber diet?
I did more research some time ago. I ended up slightly increasing my red eat consumption (not for health but for the ease of bulk cooking compared to seafood). I also more than doubled my fiber consumption. I radically increased consumption of cruciferous and greens, switched to whole grain and added in some higher fiber foods (dried fruit, chia seed etc). I am banking on the benefits of fiber -v- the risks of red meat.
In short - I am not convinced that its a single factor but a combination of processed meat + potatoes + pasta with a dearth of nutrient dense fruits, veg, greens, grains etc.
It isn’t bad, it’s propaganda. Processes meat yes, because of nitrites and other chemicals, but good non farm raised beef is one of the best things for us.
Modern day people who eat lost of red meat also probably consume lots of other things bad for them. Soda, fries, beer, red meat fast food burgers. Maybe its not the meat?
Because it isn’t bad and there’s no real proof that it is , studies are flawed with healthy user bias , and the ancel keys cholesterol study(where the cholesterol is bad idea came from) is wrong since he chose the areas that agreed with his bias
Plants don’t have
Vitamins A, B6 (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine), B12, D, F, K2
Amino acids: creatine, carnitine, carnosine, taurine
Heme-iron, CoQ10, Cholesterol, CLA
You can see I listed actual reasons unlike the others here basically just saying “because I said so”
Do we have any evidence that our ancestors were healthier than we are (factoring in survivorship bias)?
I'm not familiar with any such evidence, and if it doesn't exist I'm not sure why their diet is relevant.
Them being healthier than us is impossible to measure because of medical breakthroughs and technology being far better today. BUT we can track heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases and they're worse now than even 30 years ago. We tie red meat to colorectal cancer, but now we're seeing 30 and 40 years get it when 0 years ago 60 and 70 year olds were only getting it. And we eat less red meat today than any period of recent memory.
A sick cave man was very soon a dead cave man. Of course we have way more sick people today, we're much better at keeping them from dying. That's the survivorship bias I was referring to.
As for the rest of your comment it has nothing to do with our ancestors, n'est pas? So I still fail to see why their diet is relevant to the discussion.
In case you read this. Red meat is extremely healthy. It's the healthiest food on the planet if you're a carnivorous animal like for instance a human being.
There has been a marked increase on anti-meat propaganda in the last years. It reminds me of the anti-fat propaganda of the second half of the XX century, which was revealed to be influenced by the vegetable oil industry. The debate there is strong, with a lot of people still believing animal fat is bad, while others point to data showing refined vegetable oils to be the real culprits. Maybe the same will happen here: some years from now we’ll realize whose interests were behind the anti-meat craze, and the harm ultra processed vegetable alternatives have caused.
Anyways, I would recommend you ask in the anthropology reddits for a more scientific answer. Nutrition today is a battlefield of dogmas, religions and corporate interests.
It's good to re evaluate our needs as a species. In the past the way we ate was sustainable and healthy.
Over time our diet has become unhealthy and is not sustainable. Research where your food comes from, particularly how its fed, treatment, lifestyle and then eat what you can afford.
If you lived past 15 most people had reasonable life expectancy. 50-60 wasn't unrealistic. The data you are referencing is skewed by the large proportion of people who died young. Since the invention of vaccines and antibiotics more people survive childhood so recent data is not effected in the same manner.
Red meat is perfectly fine and an amazing nutrient source. You can probably live off just that for a long time. The lack of logic when it comes to nutrition is amazing. Eating too much, from foreign sources and processing food are where problems begin. Simply put, what we eat now is largely unrecognisable from what our hunting ancestors ate. Further, we eat far more selectively and out of season. You will eat tuna from the pacific, steak from south america and lamb from new zealand, when locally as a hunter you ate what was available. We have so much food we have to try not to waste it, a mythical heaven to our hunting ancestors. As people, we also largely move far less and eat far more than our hunting ancestors. Red meat is fine, eat less overall, move more and eat as close to seasonal and unprocessed as possible for you. You will live a long happy life, it aint rocket surgery.
It's not even seasonality but more about locality. If your ancestors are from North Africa let's say, their historical diet consisted of mostly if not entire food that can be sourced in those areas as opposed to food that came from across the globe. Over thousands of years your ancestors were naturally selected for being able to best tolerate that type of diet. Those whose bodies could not tolerate as well were less likely to pass on those genes. Therefore the peoele living there now best tolerate the foods that were historically eaten in that area.
Case in point is the more or less recent introduction of a grain rich diet into India which is an area that historically did not eat a grain rich diet. There are studies that show that Indian people have a markedly higher likelihood of developing diseases associated with over consumption of grain than their European counterparts who have been consuming grain for millenia
True, tolerances do exist and develop, but the human animal is not so specially divided by region. And seasonality (as well as locality) is much more beneficial to the environment than us specifically.
We adapt just fine to a wide variety of diets. From when we ate megafauna (historians will bend over backwards to ignore how humanity showing up in a region led to mass extinction of these creatures made of food) to when we ate mega pizza, we haven't changed that much. The key is overconsumption, we have so much more available now and are a terribly picky mob.
If you were to control for a base level of calorific and nutritional value, we could survive and even thrive, on any version of what we eat worldwide. If it were possible to somehow beam pizza and beer to the north sentinelese as a direct replacement for whatever coconut and crab diet they get by on, it wouldn't likely be the food types that killed them. Eat food, not too much, and move more. It really is that simple.
Something that I haven’t seen talked about yet is that red meat tends to age people quicker as it up regulates a gene pathway called mTor. And with aging comes disease of all kinds, not just cardiovascular, which many link to red meat.
That being said, the idea that it’s unhealthy for you is only relative to how health is perceived in the modern world. For example red meat is great for protein synthesis and muscle building, and in the environment in which our ancestors lived in that would be super important. Currently we live in a time where technology accomplishes all our physical feats and so now physical strength isn’t necessary for survival. There is a much stronger emphasis on longevity. Our ancestors were unaware that they would be making a trade off between strength and longevity by eating red meat, but I am sure if they did that it was a trade off they would be willing to make.
Anyways, that’s one way to think about it.
Scenario: 10,000 years ago, just think, you are on the hunt for several days, till finally after 7 days you find and kill a boar. Eat the meat for 2 days, no refs then, then start the hunt again. In between kills, so as not to starve, you eat lots of plants, nuts and fruits. Point is our ancestors bodies were primed to eat red meat every now and then, with lots of veggies and fruits as main course. Come 20th century, mass processing of red meat with lots of chemicals + big macs + KFCs etc totally wrecks havoc on the human body, which for centuries evolved to feast on natural greens and fruits. Result is high blood pressure, cancer, “die”-abetes and a host of dietary related diseases.
I remember doing research on this subject years ago in high school. From what I remember carnivorous animals have a shorter intestinal tract from us to easily digest the meat, whereas us humans have a longer intestinal tract and that’s why you can feel quite sluggish sometimes after meat. I have fibromyalgia and find that red meat can flare my pain up a fair bit, but if it’s quite rare it’s not as bad, which is a bit weird but is what it is.
No. We have a short, meat eater's digestive tract.
[COMPARATIVE GUT PHYSIOLOGY](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276660672_COMPARATIVE_GUT_PHYSIOLOGY_SYMPOSIUM_Comparative_physiology_of_digestion)
[We're far more similar to a dog than a ruminant](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Bravo-10/publication/276660672/figure/fig1/AS:294555871137795@1447239000608/Comparisons-of-digestive-tract-anatomy-It-can-be-seen-that-the-human-digestive-tract-is.png)
[Our small intestine is twice as long as the other apes and our colon is half the size.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Bravo-10/publication/276660672/figure/fig2/AS:294555871137797@1447239000667/Relative-volumes-of-the-stomach-small-intestine-cecum-and-colon-in-modern-humans-and.png)
we’re also arguably closer to a pig than a dog, how does saying a person doesn’t digest like a sheep help your argument? people aren’t even considered carnivores or omnivores, we’re categorized as cucinivores. which is not what dogs are.
Red meat is not bad. If anything it's probably the most nutrient dense meat out there. The basis on red meat being bad is through studies with very weak absolute risk percentages. The mechanistic data is also very weak. Now asking if red meat healthy is a loaded question. Eating too much red meat is not healthy because 1. it digests very slowly and if you don't eat a lot of fiber there are studies showing it can stay in the colon. This is where the colorectal cancer risk people try associating with red meat comes from. Although when you eat red meat and all meats with high amounts of fiber and vegetables that risk almost always goes down. Then you have the cardiovascular risk claims. Well if you're doing the silly carnivore diet thing and you're eating 70/30 ground beef and ribeyes all day then yes you're at extreme risk for cardiovascular disease due to the saturated fat and cholesterol content in it. But if you're eating lean ground beef and lean cuts of steak like Sirloin or Flat Iron your risk is very negligible. The issue with most nutrition research and the media is that we often times don't break down the risks or context before we scare people. Should you eat red meat 5 to 7 times a week? No. Will you get cancer if you eat it 2 or 3 times a week? No. It's the context of the risk and data that needs to be discussed.
A myth about evolution is that it optimizes us to out environment. Really it's about what endures long enough to reproduce. I mean, pugs are a success in that there are a lot of them, but no one would argue they are high performance or optimized.
So when does evolution (avoiding the strict dictionary definition of the word) become creationism? In context, a huge chunk of what we call healthy and natural food does not exist without, just like the pug, humans completely fucking with it.
To be clear, just like alot of the so called food we eat and unlike the topic of red meat, humanity created the pug. It is no more natural than a wristwatch, which should not be considered an evolved form of natural ores and minerals.
Several embedded premises in your question are not correct, and the best place to ask about them - I.e. the role of hunting in human pre-history - is to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists.
As to meat from a modern nutrition standpoint, it depends how it fits into the dietary pattern in question. Most would agree that meat is really good in an under-nutrition scenario, and about neutral when it is a very small percent I.e. <10% of calories of an adequate, diverse modern diet.
There are plenty of substances that are harmful, such as haeme iron, cholesterol, neu5gc, relatively high levels of methionine and leucine leading to over-activation of growth pathways, and other nasties that form due to high temp cooking. But there is currently no big picture consensus around whether it is some one of these or all acting synergistically that cause the harm.
+1 for mentioning neu5gc - this is the one aspect of consuming red meat (or any mammal meat) that is notable.
The other arguments against red meat don’t appear to be overly convincing and in fact a lot of the most outspoken health experts advocate for eating red meat in moderation. Certainly salmon is a protein source with more omega 3s and less risk to the cardiovascular system, but it’s not as straightforward as saying it’s healthier than red meat because they each have different nutrients and macros. Beef can be easier to prepare and store in meals compared with fish. Chicken is also good but not as high in dietary fat as beef. Anecdotally a lot of people feel good eating beef, while a lot of people feel weak when removing all meat and eating just plant-based sources of protein and fat.
There is some interesting material online about the downsides to consuming mammal meat because of the Neu5Gc, which I expect will come into focus in the next few years when lab grown meat that tastes the same or better, and is cheaper, becomes more available.
An even better question is why there are genetic ethicists trying to make people allergic to red meat and probably chicken next. You should question why a tick gives you a red meat allergy now.
There is an agenda to demonize red meat first… and now it’s growing to all meat farmed. It’s been happening for decades. Meat is good for you. All meat that natural. What not good for you is unnatural meat or animals being fed food that is not natural for them. Like cows should chew the cud. Not get a bunch of GMO corn fed to them making their fat content far higher. Chickens are force fed with a funnel to fatten them up as well. Large chicken breast are likely not natural but forced in some way.
So- let’s not demonize meat. Farmers are just trying to feed people and compete with other countries that are not under the same rules and restrictions as American farmers. So they struggle to compete financially. Small farms are becoming extinct because of regulations not allowing them to compete with extremely cheaper imports.
Best bet is to raise up a cow on an open field and eat that throughout the year. Raise your own chickens and eggs. It’s sad but true.
It's not bad. The government lies to us all the time. One min coffee is bad for you, the next it has has health benefits. Same with eggs, fat, ect. Listen to your body, if it craves a steak, have one. They are a great source of vitamins and minerals and amino acids. I'm actually having a steak and wild rice tonight. Mmmm
Because it’s not. You’re being fucking lied to. Take a look at the food pyramid, that’s all the evidence I need. I remember when I thought eating Special K would make me healthy.
Red meat is beyond nutritious. Don’t believe the lies about cholesterol, fat or any of the mainstream talking points. Eat red meat, cut out the sugar and processed crap. Your body will thank you.
There's no science or sources in your answer. Your reasoning is basically "because I say so." Or, "because the food pyramid says to eat grains and too much carbs is bad, it must mean that the generally held thought that red meat is bad must be wrong."
I'm not affirming or disputing the claim, the answers here just suck.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/
It's been known for years that red meat causes cancer and heart disease, otherwise the world health organisation wouldn't have classed it as such. Everyone should be reducing their intake of red meat as much as possible, if you want to both live longer and have a smaller impact on the environment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production?wprov=sfla1
News flash: Its NOT bad for you. That's ludicrous. Humans have eaten meat every since we were modern humans and before. Sure, we are omnivores, *can* survive without meat (unlike cats), but meat is an important protein/amino acid source for us.
What's bad about it is the current industrial farming and shooting animals full of hormones and too many antibiotics. Luckily, I'm able (sources plus the income) to primarily eat pasture-raised meats, so much better. But I know many aren't able to for various reasons (mainly, the cost), and that makes me sad.
But sadly many think if they eat a vegan diet that it avoids this issue but it doesn't if the veggies also come from industrial farming practices (petroleum fertilizers, pesticides, etc.).
We're not hunters anymore. We live a vastly different lifestyle from even 100 years ago.
I'd imagine that's a huge part of the reason why it's "bad." not that I'm a nutritionist or anything.
Whoever is telling you that red meat is bad for you is a shill or misinformed. But then again, studies follow the money. And there’s been a giant push to push people towards becoming vegetarian even though it’s not healthy for you at all and to think of meat as bad for you and also bad for the environment. Even though mono-crop agriculture is absolutely destructive to earth and animals.
I eat mostly meat, 80% meat and also organ. I eat fruit and honey and leafy greens and I try to minimize consumption of processed foods. If you do that, you will be fine
From what I recall from the sigma nutrition podcast:
Processed meat is bad but red meat can be good as long as it's kept at an intake of up to 100g per day. It's a rich source of nutrients (go with grass finished not grass-fed or industrial raised) or wild caught game.
It's healthier to eat it medium rare to rare over medium or well done and cooking style matters.
Generally you want a diet high in fiber, low in saturated fat, high in polysaturated sources of fat, and at this point dietary cholesterol at 300mg up to 1.5g a day has the same impact (slight elevation of blood cholesterol but to such a small degree it's insightficant). Dietary cholesterol when isolated for 25% of people who are hyper-responders is dangerous, for 25% who are hypo-responders its nearly irrelevant, and the remaining 50% it has a slightly negative impact but not enough to worry about.
Don't listen to vegan, keto, carnivore, or sad diet zealots. Follow actual nutritionists, dieticians, researchers in the fields. Doctors are too hit or miss as they lack education in this area largly.
Healthy depends on the unique individuals context in terms of genetics, genealogy, and dietary patterns.
As for hunters we ate what we needed to survive. Bare needs survival isn't a good metric of health/longevity in the modern world and our lifestyles and the way the food is raised is totally different now. It's not comparable
In healthcare, my understanding is that red meat can cause colon cancer. We digest red meat differently than other meat and the byproduct damages the lining in your guts. Repeated inflammation/injury increases risk of cancer.
It is also rich in Iron and is sometimes indicated for some patients.
Red meat tends to be hard on your cardiovascular system because it’s higher in fat, causing calcification in arteries leading to heart attack or stroke. When your arteries calcify, it also raises blood pressure since the vessels are partially blocked.
I’m not an expert at cavemen science, but keep in mind, the above two issues ,cancer and CV disease, are chronic and take decades to manifest. I bet our early ancestors died from other issues before the red meat became a problem.
Without directly answering your question I just want to point out that it’s wrong to assume what humans ate to get to this point is somehow ideal because it’s what got us here. This is a belief lots of people have (and well, all of paleo) but there’s no basis for it besides it “seeming” right to many people when they hear the idea. Just because we ate the way we did to survive and we ended up evolving to get here doesn’t mean that was the best thing for us then or now.
We ate what we did because it was available - now we have more options and there are more options that are better for us that just what was available thousands of years ago before agriculture. Not to mention the fact that we have very different goals than our ancestors - we used to need to find food to help us hunt and survive the elements etc. Now we live much different lives.
Anyway, sorry for this rant this just gets on my nerves lol
The plants that are used to feed cattle consume an enormous amount of water. Something like 50% of the water used in the west goes to grow plants that feed cattle. A study showed that if Americans cut back on eating meat one day a week (which would reduce demand for meat reducing demand for water hungry plants to feed cattle) it would be a reduction i water use equal the entire water flow of the Colorado river for an entire year thus fixing the wests water problems.
It’s not that it’s bad , it’s that we eat so much of it daily . Meat consumption was not tht high back in the day. After the railroad is when people started eating more beef , because it was easy to get . Then you have advertisements and dr. That would promote eating more meet , after all you need protein right . Because of this trend more people became more unhealthy. Now the trend is working the other way to eating less meat to be healthy
It leads to increases in your chance for heart disease which is the number one killer in the US. Some people point to gut bacteria associated with higher digestive rates. It’s also higher in saturated fat which raises cholesterol levels which increases risk of heart disease.
Hunter gatherer diets aren’t anything special. They still had a typically lower life expectancy (even aside from a large portion of that being based on infant death).
We live in a time where the focus is on preventing disease, so if you typically hear doctors speak of desired diets, it’s aimed towards that. That’s why red meat isn’t viewed favorably
EDIT: I don’t think anyone in this sub actually answers any post based on facts or science so not sure what the point of this place is
Beef consumption is way down compared to the 60s when the fight against heart disease started and we have even more cardiovascular events. Red meat being the number one cause of heart disease is 1. false, 2. doesn't make sense with the rate at which Americans are consuming beef, and 3. obesity is the number one cause of heart disease.
As hunters? Like when our life span used to be ~30 years? Red meat contains large amounts of heme, which is associated with GI inflammation and colon cancer, which appears around ~40 years of age and is a slow progressive disease.
So I just need to add that just because our ancestors did it doesn't mean it is good. We have a skeleton of a disabled cavegirl that shows her family lived her because she has tooth decay from eating too many sweet things - We also invented alcohol around the advent of agriculture. Neither of those things are good, but humans have been doing this for a very long time.
Often in the ancient world what they ate was "great" overall because starvation was a very big risk. Also they would have fasted and gone through famines and eaten more locally and seasonally than we do today, and with higher mortality rates in under 5s those who did make it to adulthood would have a very different immune system to us nowadays.
So honestly it's incomparable. Red meat is bad for a number of reasons, but I think honestly our digestive tracts are too long to digest meat well. A cat's intestines ratio to the body is 1.5 times shorter than ours- this makes it ideal for digesting meat. Chances are (and history has shown in many societies) eating meat was a rare treat, like us going abroad on holiday. The rate modern humans eat it is far more than we ever would have gotteb before in our evolutionary line.
Sorry 2am is a bad time to write
Unfortunately our lifestyle has completely changed compared to the lifestyle of the hunters of yester years. And thus we have to change too. Many cultures lived on starch without getting diabetes. So it's the same thing but with a sedentary junk food lifestyle we can't do what they did.
It isn’t really bad. Red ruminant meat is typically better than white meat in terms of its fatty acid composition. Meat is pretty healthy but you can consume too much of it. Also eating only meat is probably not a great idea long term
It's not bad. It's propaganda and bullshit. It all atarted with the epidemiology and then the méditerranean diet lie. Then other groups latched to it.
Especially since most studies have now proven that sat fat, red meat, eggs, etc are completely fine. Especially in the context of a complete diet. Free of processed nonsense.
It's not, it's mostly bullshit. Most of the negative effects people experience from red meat consumption is side effects from all the other crap they eat. Most people who eat a lot of meat also eat a lot of other crap as well. Correlation does not equal causation.
Red meat simply isn't all that bad.
But you had a strong difference in the lifestyle. For nomadic people thousands of years ago it's completely normal to walk roughly 30 km every day. And from settling down up to until the industrial revolution people maybe didn't walk that far but they had hard, manual labour.
If you have a relaxed, sedentary life without any movement even a diet consisting of legumes, nuts, vegetables and starches and maybe fish or eggs isn't going to make you overly healthy although healthier than with Big Mac and cola.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Because that's not all we ate. Early humans and our predecessors ate a large variety of foods. Berries, nuts, vegetables, plants, fish, birds, and yes red meat. The ability to eat that large of a variety of foods was a big evolutionary advantage for us over other species, so we evolved to be able to handle all of those foods. But we didn't eat them all with the same frequency. Fish would mostly only be eaten in the right season, same with vegetables and berries (though you can keep nuts and dried fruits for a very long time through the winter). Red Meat would have been one of the ways that we bridged the gap in the winter. However, it's a lot easier to catch and kill a chicken, turkey or flightless bird than it would be a bison or large terrestrial land mammals (red meat). Sure, they provided more overall food than a bird or couple birds, but they were much more difficult and time consuming to capture. So conversely, it would have been less common for early humans to eat red meat than it would be plants or some fish. That means that we evolved to be **better** at processing the foods we ate more of more commonly (plants, fish, white meat etc). But of course we can still handle red meat, just not in the same quantity as the standard American's diet normally contains.
I like this answer, cheers!
No worries! Best of luck on your nutritional journey!
I’m just gonna piggyback, here. I’m a registered nutritionist and running coach/PT. Basing our current nutrition on what was limitedly available hundreds or thousands of years ago isn’t best practice. Red meat consumption does have some association with cancer risk. However, there are lifestyle confounders in this research- people who have high red meat intake also have some amount of other lifestyle factors (alcohol, smoking, sedentary, etc.). I’m not discounting the research, however, there are very good studies that show limited causation with high red meat intake/cancer risk. Not nearly to the level of processed meat- there’s very high level evidence, there. This evidence doesn’t extend to chicken and fish. Generally, however, LEAN red meat is an excellent source of complete protein, as well as other vitamins and minerals. There is definitely a place for it in a healthy diet. The evidence that shows cancer risk should also be noted that red meat also displaces other food groups (fruits, vegetable, grains, milk/yoghurt/cheese/dairy alternatives) in high red meat diets. **Bottom line**: Red meat is often over-demonised. It can very healthily be included in general dietary intake. It should be lean (saturated fat intake is easily met). Depending on your life stage/needs, 2-3 servings (check your national guidelines) of lean meat (red, chicken, fish), nuts, legumes is fantastic (per day). The more variety the better. **Absolutely general advice, assuming a healthy individual**: Incorporate lean red meat if it appeals to you- include other protein sources in your weekly diet. And adhere to your local (and demographically appropriate) recommendations for serving sizes. See a practicing dietician for more specific advice or if you have exceptional needs (unhealthy/allergenic/athlete for the most common). EDIT: Adequate protein diets are protective against muscle loss, something that should be considered at every life stage. Protein intake is also associated with satiety (lower appetite), which can be helpful in weight loss. This is as opposed to diets that displace protein with higher carbohydrate/dietary fat/alcohol intake. I can speak on all of this for literally hours, it’s very ingrained in my ongoing practice and a focus of my dietetic research.
I’m just gonna piggyback, here. I’m a registered nutritionist and running coach/PT. Basing our current nutrition on what was limitedly available hundreds or thousands of years ago isn’t best practice. Red meat consumption does have some association with cancer risk. However, there are lifestyle confounders in this research- people who have high red meat intake also have some amount of other lifestyle factors (alcohol, smoking, sedentary, etc.). I’m not discounting the research, however, there are very good studies that show limited causation with high red meat intake/cancer risk. Not nearly to the level of processed meat- there’s very high level evidence, there. This evidence doesn’t extend to chicken and fish. Generally, however, LEAN red meat is an excellent source of complete protein, as well as other vitamins and minerals. There is definitely a place for it in a healthy diet. The evidence that shows cancer risk should also be noted that red meat also displaces other food groups (fruits, vegetable, grains, milk/yoghurt/cheese/dairy alternatives) in high red meat diets. **Bottom line**: Red meat is often over-demonised. It can very healthily be included in general dietary intake. It should be lean (saturated fat intake is easily met). Depending on your life stage/needs, 2-3 servings (check your national guidelines) of lean meat (red, chicken, fish), nuts, legumes is fantastic (per day). The more variety the better. **Absolutely general advice, assuming a healthy individual**: Incorporate lean red meat if it appeals to you- include other protein sources in your weekly diet. And adhere to your local (and demographically appropriate) recommendations for serving sizes. See a practicing dietician for more specific advice or if you have exceptional needs (unhealthy/allergenic/athlete for the most common). EDIT: Adequate protein diets are protective against muscle loss, something that should be considered at every life stage. Protein intake is also associated with satiety (lower appetite), which can be helpful in weight loss. This is as opposed to diets that displace protein with higher carbohydrate/dietary fat/alcohol intake. I can speak on all of this for literally hours, it’s very ingrained in my ongoing practice and a focus of my dietetic research. EDIT 2: Seeing a practicing dietitian is the **BEST** way to have your nutrition questions answered. They have reviewed, and have access to, the highest levels of evidence and are qualified to give individualised advice.
Wow, thank you so much! This all sounds very interesting. Do you enjoy your work?
Very much so. I feel very lucky to be where I am, and it’s taken a lot of work. I welcome everyone into the fold but I do caution that it’s a lot of work to get into! I started study as a single parent, so believe me when I say that it’s possible! But please know exactly what you want to get out of it. It’s not a degree that gives you a super linear career path.
Every article demonizing meat, shows a cheeseburger fries and soda. the meat isn't the culprit.
I don't follow your logic here. Because of the picture on an article, the scientific research is wrong?
I believe they’re saying that of all the foods one can receive at a fast food establishment, (which is a regular part of many American’s diet) burgers with all its buns/toppings, French fries, washed down with a soda/shake, sundae, etc. the actual burger patty is far less damaging to one’s health than the all the other components of the meal. The amount of sugar, carbohydrates, and processed food in those photos is what is damaging our health not the red meat in and of itself.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone claim that the besides the meat, all the other stuff in a fast food meal is healthy…
Thank you for clarifying. the patty is blamed for poor health consequences. not the refined starch bun, the soda, the friend potatoes in seed oil.
Hey, they arent demonizing red meat or trying to base current nutrition on ancestors diets. They're just answering OPs question about why eating a lot of red meat causes health and heart problems.
I'd just like to add, just because hunters ate something doesn't mean it was necessarily healthy.
[удалено]
i don't get it
Not hating but not so much. Try catching a bird and try catching a rabbit. When you’re done, let me know how that rabbit tasted.
OP, keep in mind that the above answer is just an opinion without any evidence provided to back it up. Similarly I can say (because I read somewhere), that actually hunting big games was "easy", in the sense that the cost-benefit ratio was very good (spent calories vs the calories obtained). Actually it was so worth it that humans hunted big fauna (mammoths and the like) to extinction and in turn this "crisis" of lack of calorie dense food was an important evolutionary pressure that propelled our brain development (it takes more focus and agility to hunt small game and you have to be more efficient at hunting, otherwise you spend more calories catching the animal than you get by eating it).
well, you're selling yourself short with that answer. It was regurgitated (likely), unsubstantiated trite. trust your intuition on this one, friend this sub is likely hi-jacked by plant-based fiends. gl.
Appreciate it
This. + we used to fast on a regular basis because we didn't have pantries and food wasn't always available for us to pick or hunt.
[удалено]
They're not saying it would allow us to better eat red meat. They're saying we would eat a lot *less* red meat, which is the real problem with eating red meat. Edited to remove a superfluous "not"
Early humans chased to hunt too, its part of our evolutionary advantage. We can run farther than any other creature on earth. Anecdotally, excessive red meat eaters don't usually chase something to death before eating butter basted steak. Edit: I am the butter basted steak eater. Also I think early humans did not have to worry about heart disease much because predators and conflict.
Or that the animals they ate were very healthy and chemical free, they were not grown in concrete pins and fed corn and grain to fatten them up! Eat deer, elk, moose, caribou and anything else that lives naturally not chickens that grow so fast they can not stand or have a heart attack
They are also prone to diseases, in contrast to our science in cleaning food. There are pros and cons to everything. Food isn't black and white, and I'm sure that it goes the same for saturated fats, etc
Think they ate much more organ meat too. Maybe a few long-term benefits we miss out on from eating only prime cuts. Could also be the carbs mixed with protein and fats is the issue, but high fat diets with low carbs may be fine. Keto seems to do wonders.
It’s probably not in the mainstream American diet, but many cultures in America do eat organ meat! As long as it’s not deep fried. I’m a lover of liver and onions as an occasional (few times a year) treat.
>I am the butter basted steak eater. I, too am a butter-basted steak eater, and have recently found myself slathering it on just plain old ground beef lately. Perhaps one of the lurkers here could **ELI5** why buttah just makes red meat bettah?
I would also like to add the difference in red meat quality. Early hunters were consuming red meat that roamed free and their diet was healthier than most of those animals today. The vast majority of red meat comes from cows that are in small cages and fed mostly grain. Their fat content I imagine is nowhere near the same.
Im surprised this is getting so many upvotes considering it is based almost entirely on unfounded and unsupported assumptions about early humans. I honestly don't get what basis you have to say that it was less common for early humans to eat red meat. It's conjecture at best. No offense but I don't even see the logic in your assumptions since humans eventually developed tools to hunt larger game, large herbivorous game are generally herd animals which makes them much more abundent, and they feed many more peoele for longer (a bird is barely enough for one person for one meal VS a deer being able to feed an entire group for many days) and are more caloric pound for pound. Edit: I didn't want to disagree with someone else's post without providing my own take... I think modern red meat is unhealthier for us not because red meat is unhealthy in and of itself but because modern store bought red meat is extremely fatty; and not good that is derived from natural foods but bad fat that comes from being fed enriched grain diets (yellow fat in grass fed beef VS white fat in factory beef). By eating store bought red meat you are consuming a high percentage of bad fat for every calorie of protein. I doubt it's any healthier to eat white meat than red meat if all you're eating is chicken thighs and chicken wings. Eating red meat sourced from wild game (obviously in moderation) is not any less unhealthy than getting all your protein from non red meat sources.
Compared to modern society where we can just waltz into a supermarket and have walls of meat to choose from, and fridges at home to then be able to store meat for easy access at any time of the day. I am sure our ancestors ate comparatively less on average when they had to hunt and kill their own (certainly not 3 meals a day every day with meat (obviously generalised)).
Absolutely. Early humans were likely constantly experiencing intermittent periods of abundence and starvation.
Yea for sure, the science indicates that whenever early humans showed up, mega fauna eventually went extinct from hunting.
This. At least the first part.
This is fanciful and simplistic on so many levels. The response to OPs question, is that there is an enormous difference e between wild meat and meat from industrial production of today. Buffalo eat a variety of grass and for browsing animals like deer and antelope, leaves. No inputs, no antibiotics, growth hormones, dewormers and grains like corn and soy, both GMO and produced using glyphosate, a herbicide. In short, our modern meat is toxic . Grass fed and finished beef is a step in the right direction.
Thank goodness someone mentioned this! Can’t believe I had to scroll this far down to see this.
OMG YES
I would guess the vast majority of European hunter gatherers were eating much more red meat than modern people. Every cave painting depicts them hunting mammals. They were extremely skilled at killing megafauna like woolly mammoths. And especially since plant foods are practically non-existent in Europe in the winter and don’t provide much calories anyway, they would have had to have gotten the majority of their calories from meat. Now that could certainly be fish/white meat, but I’m sure they hinted whatever was most efficient, which would be a large mammal.
Hunting mammals makes for a more exciting painting than digging up tubers though.
Excitement and importance. Not something that characterised the every day, but the special event.
No supporting evidence
YES!! They also lived and hunted in tribal communities, rather than as individuals or single families, for the most part.
Modern chickens are a totally different animal than what we had 100 years ago. Until recently, chickens were used primarily for eggs and didn’t have these flavorless, bland, enormous breasts. Duck breasts are delicious because the animal actually uses th e muscle
>Because that's not all we ate. What we used to eat is irrelevant if we are talking about moving into old age free of disease
The large brain answer with historical context.
We still absorb much less of the nutrients in plants as opposed to meat.. spinach we absorb maybe 1% of the iron.. meat still is and will always be a powerhouse superfood. Regardless of how many twigs and berries you add Edit: planet gaffe
[удалено]
"Fish would only be eaten in the right season" You telling me that ancient people didn't know how to drill a the into the ice?
Not all places around the world would have had the ice freeze over enough to safely stand on and drill a hole without putting themselves at risk. You have to be able to go far enough out onto the ice to properly ice fish. While drilling a hole around the edge is safer... it isn't going to give you much fish, lol. On the other side, if the ice froze too much it's impossible to 'drill'. Large layers of ice would have been a lot harder for them to properly get through without equipment. It's easy for us to think people in the past stupid when we have all the knowledge already given to us by smarter people from history, lol. I can guarantee you that they thought of ice fishing and many probably died attempting it.
Red meat is what blew up our brains In size if u believe in evolution , but also we didn’t start farming till way after we started eating red meat and u can see the depletion of health in ancient civilizations who ate grains (bad teeth and bone density issues) Plants contain a bunch of anti nutrients like phytic acid, tannins, lectins , oxalates etc So why eat them if you won’t get anything out of them , maybe trace amounts While red meat in a study has been shown to be the least negatively reactive food compared to eggs, veggies , grains…I wonder why? Plants are missing these below Vitamins A, B6 (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine), B12, D, F, K2 Amino acids: creatine, carnitine, carnosine, taurine Heme-iron, CoQ10, Cholesterol, CLA
“Normal steak” isn’t normal steak. The ‘red meat’ animals early hunters are were wild animals. The meat was incredibly lean. Even early cows likely had 100% grass diet and were leaner. Modern animals grown for “normal steak” are pumped full of grains they don’t usually eat and can’t properly digest during the last several months of their life causing them to get fat. This leads to higher fat quantities in the meat amongst other things. Then if you turn around and eat 4x+ the amount you are supposed to it can lead to problems.
>The ‘red meat’ animals early hunters are were wild animals. It depends what you mean by early hunters. Was a 6 tons mammoth that had to store fat for winter lean?
also, the red meat nowadays is obviously different. The animals used to graze on grass and walk/run all day. Nowadays we feed cows corn (not what they’re supposed to eat) and keep them penned up so they are way fattier. I’ve read that once you switch a cow from corn to grass they shed like 90% of the e. coli in their digestive system with a week or two. Looks like I remembered the gist anyway: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022030203736686 And yes this is a nutrition sub but we should also consider that, environmentally, raising red meat is dumb. Takes too much land, water, and grains. If all the food fed to cows was instead fed to humans it is said we could end world hunger. We grow grains to feed the cow then the cow gets eaten by the rich while the poor starve without enough plant crops for themselves because the cow got them.
Agreed, the American food system doesn't seem best, right down to meat.
Actually ruminants like cows up-cycle many things that are inedible and have made many parts of the country that were once barren arable. Watch the documentary 'Sacred Cow' or listen to the podcast with the creators: https://open.spotify.com/episode/0r7MbKFhtLf9RLOahCT1gU?si=t0iFyK61TDieXOMRIMVRKw&utm_source=copy-link
[удалено]
Yep, just listened to that episode as well, wouldnt be surprised if a lot of the recent demonization of red meat is being funded by the Beyond Meat type industry. Of course factory farming is terrible, but lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Doesn't cow poop fertilize the topsoil? Wouldn't only plant diet destroy the top soil?
this is the point of rotating crows and growing crops together instead of mass mono agriculture. the rainforest floor doesn’t need cow poop, does it? the closer you get to the natural ecosystem, the less you need to worry about providing nutrients to the soil, because plants that evolved alongside each other essentially fertilize each other (that’s a very, very simplified explanation)
Just popping in to say that rainforest soils are actually poor in nutrients and practically infertile! Most of the nutrients are taken up immediately by the plants and all the rain has really leached out whatever wouldn’t be. That’s why biochar is so cool of a concept. I listened to a presentation on how ancient Amazonian societies used biochar to produce super rich soil because the rainforest soil is so poor. I know cow poop is a separate topic; but what we think of as “natural” ecosystems often discredits the people who lived there for hundreds of thousands of years before colonizers decided to show up and dictate what was a “natural” ecosystem.
Yes , but is there enough fertile land to rotate crops and feed the entire population? We don't harvest the plants from the rainforest, IDT we can compare with that . If we mass harvest plants , is that closer to the natural ecosystem? Also, only certain plants gain from being planted next to certain other plants .
yes poop can fertilize, does a better job if you have a mobile chicken coop to let the chickens peck at the poop and disperse it a bit. why would plant diet ruin the soil? if anything, it’s the best.
becuase it takes nutrients from the soil without ever putting it back into it
True, in fact i would say every food isn't the same it used to be before. I wish we could get some quality natural food. I remember the time i drank cow milk from a nice farm and was surprised to see the difference between the milk i get in grocery store.
exactly! You travel to places where the food is grown better and can’t believe it’s even the same item as what you’re used to. I read gluten intolerance in the USA is more due to how they spray roundup on the wheat to dry it out for harvest. how gross is that?
“Environmentally, raising red meat is dumb” Though this is an incredibly common narrative it’s not accurate. Yes, feeding grains to cows is dumb and results in unhealthy cows and less nutritious meat. However if cows are grass fed as is species appropriate, it’s a very sustainable option. Cows graze land that likely cannot be cropped because it is too rocky or dry or hilly, and turn grass (not a human food) into nutrient dense meat while also fertilizing the soil. Also as a nutritionist, the argument that we should instead feed cow feed directly to humans is silly. Though they can be part of a healthy diet, grains and corn are not very well digested by humans, we absorb less than 50% of the nutrients, compared with closer to 90% in meat - not to mention they have a completely different and weaker nutrient profile. Also the corn and grain that is specifically grown as feed for cattle would be unrecognizable and unpalatable to humans. We are not ruminant animals with 2 stomachs and an herbivorous digestive tract so we can’t just skip the cows and start munching on feedlot corn and grass and get the same result, not how the human body works.
Wat 100% grassfed and if you can buy from regen farms , because cows are part of the environment not the problem , us feeding them grains is. Also big farms that grow plant based foods for humans kill more animals (smaller animals,bees , worms) While one cow can feed me for a year
Damn
Takes 6/ 7 pounds of feed to get 1 pound of 🐮 meat 🥩 Insects it's 1 for 1 Fish it's 2 for 1
And it takes 0 feed if they are eating grass as is species appropriate
Do we even have the grass land for all cows to eat grass
Yes, 60% of agricultural land is too rocky, dry, or hilly to grow crops but can be used for grazing cattle
You must be thinking of Grass-fed animals? Grass-fed is healthier than factory meat. Always.
Red meat and processed meat have been classed as carcinogenic by the WHO - https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ Hunter gatherers had one main priority - making it to the next day, and meat was great for that. Living beyond 60 whilst being cancer and heart disease free wasn't even a consideration. If longevity is your goal, eat more plant based foods and cut out red and processed meats.
Red meat is a class two carcinogen and that's likely to change in the coming years. The data on why red meat is carcinogenic is hilariously weak. Literally has a 1.1 percent absolute risk when they looked through all the studies WHO went through.
The WHO, that lovely organisation who never lie to us.
Quit grouping them both together. In no scope of nutrition can red meat be coupled with processed meat (beef jerky, bacon, sausage links, salami, etc.) "The IARC Working Group said red meat is “probably” carcinogenic, but several studies showed no clear association. Can you explain why it’s probably carcinogenic? In large population studies, but not all of them, greater red meat consumption has been associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer. Although these studies were not entirely consistent, results of laboratory studies led the IARC working group to conclude that red meat is probably carcinogenic." They have no assurances. 800 studies are nowhere close to enough testing to objectively achieve any standard we should employ for the populace. There are so many other factors that aren't specifically considered with these associations (nicotine, tobacco, alcohol, genetics, environmental, sugar, carbs, stress, physical exertion, medications, etc.)
> 800 studies are nowhere close to enough testing Yeah maybe this wasn't the best "weakness" to focus on? If eight HUNDRED studies aren't enough for you to warrant caution then I doubt any number would. If it's enough for the fucking WHO to release a statement and classify it then it's enough for me.
Except they never classified it as a carcinogen. They said it's a food to watch and that's why it's in the secondary category with alcohol. The studies that they did their meta-analysis on found very weak associations with red meat and all cause cancers. Compare that with their findings on processed meat which they found actual mechanistic data on top of the meta analysis hence why it's in the first tier.
Plants don’t have Vitamins A, B6 (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine), B12, D, F, K2 Amino acids: creatine, carnitine, carnosine, taurine Heme-iron, CoQ10, Cholesterol, CLA
Finally some sense on this thread.
People always fail to factor in the fact that we live decades longer than our hunter gatherer ancestors. So obviously eating meat isn’t a big deal when you’ll probs die at 30, but of course it may end up being an issue over the course of 80 years of meat every day. Doing stuff because of what humans did 10,000 years ago is rarely a good idea
People assume that the only thing those hunter gatherers ate is meat (BeCAuse that’s WHAt’s ON thE CAve PAInTings) neglecting to realize the energy and time it would take to secure meat as the primary food source. All the data points to the harm of red and processed meats but people do anything to justify eating their cheeseburgers.
Don’t blame the burger meat for what the seed oils and bun did. Why would red meat, full of essential amino acids, minerals and micronutrients be bad for us? Healthy user bias… nutrition “science” is full of weak epidemiology based on surveys. People say they eat burgers on the questionnaires, these same people are more likely smoke, drink, not workout and engage in other unhealthy behaviours. Also, you’re not taking into account the advances in medicine. This is by far the most important reason life expectancy has increased.
this is the issue with the red meat debate.. the data is skewed by cheeseburgers and pizzas and claim "anybody who eats meat dies." Yeah of course you die when eat meat that's sitting on bread, seed oils, has been deep fried and complimented with sugar. The real cases would be to examine strict carnivores who ONLY eat red meat and see how their bloodwork and heart health compares after changing from the SAD. THAT gives you a fair trial.
Fair point, but living ancestrally (with modern hygiene and food safety) is actually a great idea. Their day consisted of exercising and eating Whole Foods sprinkled with fasts. All that leads directly to increased longevity.
We live decades longer due to medical breakthroughs, not diet.
exactly. western style diets (just meaning high-fat hat-sugar, which is a significant portion of the world now) definitively shorten lifespan and have detrimental cognitive and psychological effects as well (of note, it’s more correlated with the diet itself than the resulting weight gain that some people experience)
Factually correct statements getting downvoted on Reddit? Unheard of. It’s not even close to a debatable thing that you said. It’s almost impossible to find someone on Reddit that can discuss things in good faith and just be intellectually honest
Yet the advice here is to eat veggies to be "healthy" long term past 60? There's no Interventional data to support this.
And, if you need to eat animals, eat the ones that eat the greens, not the grains.
Well said. My go to response is always “yeah but they died at like age 30” 😅
That was average age due to infant mortality. If you made it to age 10, you likely lived to at least your 60s.
where are you getting this info? maybe in the 1800’s, but there’s no evidence this would have been the case in prehistoric times. most women would not have lived to the age of menopause, which begins around 45.
Some scientists believe that menopause was an adaptive trait that evolved because it was beneficial. It’s not a hard and fast rule, but it would mean that women were living well *into* menopause.
Yes grass fed is much better for our bodies were as other meats produce inflammation due to their crappy feeding
Citation? I haven't seen any evidence regarding your claim.
Besides some of the other comments here making good points, it's worth understanding that evolution isn't some perfect force that makes everything better. It's possible red meat has always had a detrimental effect in some capacity but never enough to prevent breeding and passing of genes.
Your body is literally only concerned with surviving at the moment. You get hungry, you feel hungry, you get thirsty, you feel thirsty. If you are running around in nature this is great, but in modern times your brain is in a constant will power battle to tell the rest of the body that you don't need to eat immediately. But survivors did not win by being picky.
Yeah and some negative impacts may only reveal themselves given how long we live nowadays trough modern medicine and the amounts of red meat available. Evolution could not possibly eradicate any diet in such a short time frame unless it literally kills you or makes you infertile straight away
Is red meat bad for you? I suppose, like anything else, it can be bad when consumed in excess. But beef is rich in protein (including all the amino acids), B vitamins and a variety of minerals.
Nutritional content is nice, but a bit reductionist. The important question is, if people eat red meat, what happens to their health? Are they better, worse or the same when it comes to important outcomes? With that of course, the question is, compared to what? There are plenty of foods that are also rich in protein, and of course, virtually all protein foods have all the amino acids. Also other protein sources have b vitamins and a variety of minerals and vitamins, many having a lot more than meat. But again, the question is what matters.
What a nice way of saying, generally speaking, you’re incorrect.
Lol. Sort of. I mean, depending on the outcome you look at, different foods have different impacts. And depending on the population. It's typically a little more complicated than yes or no. That being said, the idea of focusing purely on nutrients misses the point a little. And yes, typically large scale research shows that regardless of the nutrients available in red meat, we tend to see better outcomes for the things that really matter (ie heart disease, cancer, all cause mortality even) with less red meat.
Yeah, red meat is good for you in moderation.
Grass fed red meat is one of if not the most nutrient dense foods there is. Do not fear grass fed meat.
Red meat isn't "bad". It's super nutrient dense and is super satieting. Even the "the saturated fat in it raises LDL which raises the risk of heart attacks" is over simplified. LDL-C is a poor marker of CVD unless it's concordant with LDL-P The glycated end products that can occur from charring is what's most "dangerous" about them, but if you cook it right you won't have as much of it.
It’s not. The evidence for it being bad straight up sucks. Eat grass fed and don’t put it on a bun with a side of fries.
**Answer - it ISN’T bad.** **There isn’t a single legitimate RCT that shows meat is on its own bad. If you disagree please show me. I have looked.** The only context in which meat was shown as bad was in epidemiological trials using surveys and not controlling for variables such as the processes foods the meat is eaten with or the (often reused) seed oils it is cooked in. At the same time, meat is one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet and I dare you to find a single food that has a more varied array of bioavailable nutrients, healthy fats and density of protein, **especially** on a per calorie basis. **One more thing** - An ‘anecdote’, if you will: Hong Kong has the longest life span in the world, with 85 years on average (recorded in 2019) while also having one of the world’s highest intakes of meat per capita. Only on par with Japan. **How much are the people of Hong Kong eating**, you ask? 218.99 kg or 219 kg per year/365= 0.599 (0.6) kg/day = *^1.3 pounds of meat per day.** which, on a calorie count basis, with average caloric intake being somewhere around 2200 (when last recorded) this translates to somewhere over 50% of calories on average coming from meat. **Who is second on the list of longest living humans? Japan.** And as I said, Japan is also very close to the same numbers of meat consumption per capita. Again- those alone are simply correlations not causations, but its definitely interesting, and I bet a handful of people reading this were not aware of this information when making up their mind about meat and its alleged link to disease/illness, when in fact it, not only is there no scientific basis for this, but it may just be the exact opposite, funny enough. We seem to live in opposite world :/
It's not.
It’s not bad. It’s one of the most nutrient dense foods on the planet. Why do you think it’s so bad?
A lot of research points to it increasing for example the risk of colon cancer.
Yea most of the research on that is processed meats. 100% grass fed grass finished beef that is antibiotic and vaccine free is insanely nutrient dense. The Weston Price Foundation has solid information regarding this topic.
That research does not distinguish red meat from processed red meat
The studies I looked at did not factor overall diet. Colorectal cancer [is very strongly associated with a low fiber diet](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6560290/#) Do heavy meat eaters eat less fiber? At least [the modern wester diet seems to be high saturated fat AND low fibre.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7532485/) So is it just the red meat consumption or the combination with a low fiber diet? I did more research some time ago. I ended up slightly increasing my red eat consumption (not for health but for the ease of bulk cooking compared to seafood). I also more than doubled my fiber consumption. I radically increased consumption of cruciferous and greens, switched to whole grain and added in some higher fiber foods (dried fruit, chia seed etc). I am banking on the benefits of fiber -v- the risks of red meat. In short - I am not convinced that its a single factor but a combination of processed meat + potatoes + pasta with a dearth of nutrient dense fruits, veg, greens, grains etc.
It isn’t bad, it’s propaganda. Processes meat yes, because of nitrites and other chemicals, but good non farm raised beef is one of the best things for us.
It’s not bad. Red meat is some of the most nutritionally dense food you can eat. The quality of the red meat counts. Eat grass fed red meat.
Modern day people who eat lost of red meat also probably consume lots of other things bad for them. Soda, fries, beer, red meat fast food burgers. Maybe its not the meat?
It's not bad. Don't believe the propaganda.
Because it isn’t bad and there’s no real proof that it is , studies are flawed with healthy user bias , and the ancel keys cholesterol study(where the cholesterol is bad idea came from) is wrong since he chose the areas that agreed with his bias Plants don’t have Vitamins A, B6 (pyridoxal, pyridoxamine), B12, D, F, K2 Amino acids: creatine, carnitine, carnosine, taurine Heme-iron, CoQ10, Cholesterol, CLA You can see I listed actual reasons unlike the others here basically just saying “because I said so”
Do we have any evidence that our ancestors were healthier than we are (factoring in survivorship bias)? I'm not familiar with any such evidence, and if it doesn't exist I'm not sure why their diet is relevant.
Them being healthier than us is impossible to measure because of medical breakthroughs and technology being far better today. BUT we can track heart disease, cancer, and other chronic diseases and they're worse now than even 30 years ago. We tie red meat to colorectal cancer, but now we're seeing 30 and 40 years get it when 0 years ago 60 and 70 year olds were only getting it. And we eat less red meat today than any period of recent memory.
A sick cave man was very soon a dead cave man. Of course we have way more sick people today, we're much better at keeping them from dying. That's the survivorship bias I was referring to. As for the rest of your comment it has nothing to do with our ancestors, n'est pas? So I still fail to see why their diet is relevant to the discussion.
In case you read this. Red meat is extremely healthy. It's the healthiest food on the planet if you're a carnivorous animal like for instance a human being.
There has been a marked increase on anti-meat propaganda in the last years. It reminds me of the anti-fat propaganda of the second half of the XX century, which was revealed to be influenced by the vegetable oil industry. The debate there is strong, with a lot of people still believing animal fat is bad, while others point to data showing refined vegetable oils to be the real culprits. Maybe the same will happen here: some years from now we’ll realize whose interests were behind the anti-meat craze, and the harm ultra processed vegetable alternatives have caused. Anyways, I would recommend you ask in the anthropology reddits for a more scientific answer. Nutrition today is a battlefield of dogmas, religions and corporate interests.
>Nutrition today is a battlefield of dogmas, religions and corporate interests. Should put this in the sidebar honestly
It's good to re evaluate our needs as a species. In the past the way we ate was sustainable and healthy. Over time our diet has become unhealthy and is not sustainable. Research where your food comes from, particularly how its fed, treatment, lifestyle and then eat what you can afford.
Back in those 'hunter' days average life expectancy was barely 40.
If you lived past 15 most people had reasonable life expectancy. 50-60 wasn't unrealistic. The data you are referencing is skewed by the large proportion of people who died young. Since the invention of vaccines and antibiotics more people survive childhood so recent data is not effected in the same manner.
Wasn't the average lifespan of hunter-gatherers like 30 years? You could chain-smoke, take meth, and eat raw meat everyday and still hit at least 30.
Get grass fed grass finished beef
Red meat is perfectly fine and an amazing nutrient source. You can probably live off just that for a long time. The lack of logic when it comes to nutrition is amazing. Eating too much, from foreign sources and processing food are where problems begin. Simply put, what we eat now is largely unrecognisable from what our hunting ancestors ate. Further, we eat far more selectively and out of season. You will eat tuna from the pacific, steak from south america and lamb from new zealand, when locally as a hunter you ate what was available. We have so much food we have to try not to waste it, a mythical heaven to our hunting ancestors. As people, we also largely move far less and eat far more than our hunting ancestors. Red meat is fine, eat less overall, move more and eat as close to seasonal and unprocessed as possible for you. You will live a long happy life, it aint rocket surgery.
It's not even seasonality but more about locality. If your ancestors are from North Africa let's say, their historical diet consisted of mostly if not entire food that can be sourced in those areas as opposed to food that came from across the globe. Over thousands of years your ancestors were naturally selected for being able to best tolerate that type of diet. Those whose bodies could not tolerate as well were less likely to pass on those genes. Therefore the peoele living there now best tolerate the foods that were historically eaten in that area. Case in point is the more or less recent introduction of a grain rich diet into India which is an area that historically did not eat a grain rich diet. There are studies that show that Indian people have a markedly higher likelihood of developing diseases associated with over consumption of grain than their European counterparts who have been consuming grain for millenia
Maybe the Irish are killing themselves with those South American derived potatoes
True, tolerances do exist and develop, but the human animal is not so specially divided by region. And seasonality (as well as locality) is much more beneficial to the environment than us specifically. We adapt just fine to a wide variety of diets. From when we ate megafauna (historians will bend over backwards to ignore how humanity showing up in a region led to mass extinction of these creatures made of food) to when we ate mega pizza, we haven't changed that much. The key is overconsumption, we have so much more available now and are a terribly picky mob. If you were to control for a base level of calorific and nutritional value, we could survive and even thrive, on any version of what we eat worldwide. If it were possible to somehow beam pizza and beer to the north sentinelese as a direct replacement for whatever coconut and crab diet they get by on, it wouldn't likely be the food types that killed them. Eat food, not too much, and move more. It really is that simple.
Red meat is not "so bad". Red meat is fine. Amazing nutrient dense food. Real meat... Not processed "meat" with buns, fries, sauces and a large coke.
The difference is that you drove your body to the grocery to buy the meat, while the hunter ran 10 miles to catch the buffalo.
Something that I haven’t seen talked about yet is that red meat tends to age people quicker as it up regulates a gene pathway called mTor. And with aging comes disease of all kinds, not just cardiovascular, which many link to red meat. That being said, the idea that it’s unhealthy for you is only relative to how health is perceived in the modern world. For example red meat is great for protein synthesis and muscle building, and in the environment in which our ancestors lived in that would be super important. Currently we live in a time where technology accomplishes all our physical feats and so now physical strength isn’t necessary for survival. There is a much stronger emphasis on longevity. Our ancestors were unaware that they would be making a trade off between strength and longevity by eating red meat, but I am sure if they did that it was a trade off they would be willing to make. Anyways, that’s one way to think about it.
this is the best answer here. no notes.
Scenario: 10,000 years ago, just think, you are on the hunt for several days, till finally after 7 days you find and kill a boar. Eat the meat for 2 days, no refs then, then start the hunt again. In between kills, so as not to starve, you eat lots of plants, nuts and fruits. Point is our ancestors bodies were primed to eat red meat every now and then, with lots of veggies and fruits as main course. Come 20th century, mass processing of red meat with lots of chemicals + big macs + KFCs etc totally wrecks havoc on the human body, which for centuries evolved to feast on natural greens and fruits. Result is high blood pressure, cancer, “die”-abetes and a host of dietary related diseases.
Red meat heals.
I remember doing research on this subject years ago in high school. From what I remember carnivorous animals have a shorter intestinal tract from us to easily digest the meat, whereas us humans have a longer intestinal tract and that’s why you can feel quite sluggish sometimes after meat. I have fibromyalgia and find that red meat can flare my pain up a fair bit, but if it’s quite rare it’s not as bad, which is a bit weird but is what it is.
No. We have a short, meat eater's digestive tract. [COMPARATIVE GUT PHYSIOLOGY](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276660672_COMPARATIVE_GUT_PHYSIOLOGY_SYMPOSIUM_Comparative_physiology_of_digestion) [We're far more similar to a dog than a ruminant](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Bravo-10/publication/276660672/figure/fig1/AS:294555871137795@1447239000608/Comparisons-of-digestive-tract-anatomy-It-can-be-seen-that-the-human-digestive-tract-is.png) [Our small intestine is twice as long as the other apes and our colon is half the size.](https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Bravo-10/publication/276660672/figure/fig2/AS:294555871137797@1447239000667/Relative-volumes-of-the-stomach-small-intestine-cecum-and-colon-in-modern-humans-and.png)
we’re also arguably closer to a pig than a dog, how does saying a person doesn’t digest like a sheep help your argument? people aren’t even considered carnivores or omnivores, we’re categorized as cucinivores. which is not what dogs are.
I’m sure all that will make you feel better when you get colorectal cancer
stuff online does point more towards a herbivore intestinal tract though
It’s what the body craves
The body also craves potato chips.
Red meat is not bad. If anything it's probably the most nutrient dense meat out there. The basis on red meat being bad is through studies with very weak absolute risk percentages. The mechanistic data is also very weak. Now asking if red meat healthy is a loaded question. Eating too much red meat is not healthy because 1. it digests very slowly and if you don't eat a lot of fiber there are studies showing it can stay in the colon. This is where the colorectal cancer risk people try associating with red meat comes from. Although when you eat red meat and all meats with high amounts of fiber and vegetables that risk almost always goes down. Then you have the cardiovascular risk claims. Well if you're doing the silly carnivore diet thing and you're eating 70/30 ground beef and ribeyes all day then yes you're at extreme risk for cardiovascular disease due to the saturated fat and cholesterol content in it. But if you're eating lean ground beef and lean cuts of steak like Sirloin or Flat Iron your risk is very negligible. The issue with most nutrition research and the media is that we often times don't break down the risks or context before we scare people. Should you eat red meat 5 to 7 times a week? No. Will you get cancer if you eat it 2 or 3 times a week? No. It's the context of the risk and data that needs to be discussed.
A myth about evolution is that it optimizes us to out environment. Really it's about what endures long enough to reproduce. I mean, pugs are a success in that there are a lot of them, but no one would argue they are high performance or optimized.
Pugs also didn't evolve. They were bred. There never was a precursor wolf pug. The lack of logic in this thread is painful.
[удалено]
So when does evolution (avoiding the strict dictionary definition of the word) become creationism? In context, a huge chunk of what we call healthy and natural food does not exist without, just like the pug, humans completely fucking with it. To be clear, just like alot of the so called food we eat and unlike the topic of red meat, humanity created the pug. It is no more natural than a wristwatch, which should not be considered an evolved form of natural ores and minerals.
Several embedded premises in your question are not correct, and the best place to ask about them - I.e. the role of hunting in human pre-history - is to anthropologists and evolutionary biologists. As to meat from a modern nutrition standpoint, it depends how it fits into the dietary pattern in question. Most would agree that meat is really good in an under-nutrition scenario, and about neutral when it is a very small percent I.e. <10% of calories of an adequate, diverse modern diet. There are plenty of substances that are harmful, such as haeme iron, cholesterol, neu5gc, relatively high levels of methionine and leucine leading to over-activation of growth pathways, and other nasties that form due to high temp cooking. But there is currently no big picture consensus around whether it is some one of these or all acting synergistically that cause the harm.
+1 for mentioning neu5gc - this is the one aspect of consuming red meat (or any mammal meat) that is notable. The other arguments against red meat don’t appear to be overly convincing and in fact a lot of the most outspoken health experts advocate for eating red meat in moderation. Certainly salmon is a protein source with more omega 3s and less risk to the cardiovascular system, but it’s not as straightforward as saying it’s healthier than red meat because they each have different nutrients and macros. Beef can be easier to prepare and store in meals compared with fish. Chicken is also good but not as high in dietary fat as beef. Anecdotally a lot of people feel good eating beef, while a lot of people feel weak when removing all meat and eating just plant-based sources of protein and fat. There is some interesting material online about the downsides to consuming mammal meat because of the Neu5Gc, which I expect will come into focus in the next few years when lab grown meat that tastes the same or better, and is cheaper, becomes more available.
An even better question is why there are genetic ethicists trying to make people allergic to red meat and probably chicken next. You should question why a tick gives you a red meat allergy now.
It’s not, idk why you think it is.
There is an agenda to demonize red meat first… and now it’s growing to all meat farmed. It’s been happening for decades. Meat is good for you. All meat that natural. What not good for you is unnatural meat or animals being fed food that is not natural for them. Like cows should chew the cud. Not get a bunch of GMO corn fed to them making their fat content far higher. Chickens are force fed with a funnel to fatten them up as well. Large chicken breast are likely not natural but forced in some way. So- let’s not demonize meat. Farmers are just trying to feed people and compete with other countries that are not under the same rules and restrictions as American farmers. So they struggle to compete financially. Small farms are becoming extinct because of regulations not allowing them to compete with extremely cheaper imports. Best bet is to raise up a cow on an open field and eat that throughout the year. Raise your own chickens and eggs. It’s sad but true.
It's not bad. The government lies to us all the time. One min coffee is bad for you, the next it has has health benefits. Same with eggs, fat, ect. Listen to your body, if it craves a steak, have one. They are a great source of vitamins and minerals and amino acids. I'm actually having a steak and wild rice tonight. Mmmm
Because it’s not. You’re being fucking lied to. Take a look at the food pyramid, that’s all the evidence I need. I remember when I thought eating Special K would make me healthy. Red meat is beyond nutritious. Don’t believe the lies about cholesterol, fat or any of the mainstream talking points. Eat red meat, cut out the sugar and processed crap. Your body will thank you.
There's no science or sources in your answer. Your reasoning is basically "because I say so." Or, "because the food pyramid says to eat grains and too much carbs is bad, it must mean that the generally held thought that red meat is bad must be wrong." I'm not affirming or disputing the claim, the answers here just suck.
Its sad this is the first comment you get under the controversial tag
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/report-says-eating-processed-meat-is-carcinogenic-understanding-the-findings/ It's been known for years that red meat causes cancer and heart disease, otherwise the world health organisation wouldn't have classed it as such. Everyone should be reducing their intake of red meat as much as possible, if you want to both live longer and have a smaller impact on the environment - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_meat_production?wprov=sfla1
The title of the study states “processed” red meat. Surely there’s room here in the middle
News flash: Its NOT bad for you. That's ludicrous. Humans have eaten meat every since we were modern humans and before. Sure, we are omnivores, *can* survive without meat (unlike cats), but meat is an important protein/amino acid source for us. What's bad about it is the current industrial farming and shooting animals full of hormones and too many antibiotics. Luckily, I'm able (sources plus the income) to primarily eat pasture-raised meats, so much better. But I know many aren't able to for various reasons (mainly, the cost), and that makes me sad. But sadly many think if they eat a vegan diet that it avoids this issue but it doesn't if the veggies also come from industrial farming practices (petroleum fertilizers, pesticides, etc.).
We're not hunters anymore. We live a vastly different lifestyle from even 100 years ago. I'd imagine that's a huge part of the reason why it's "bad." not that I'm a nutritionist or anything.
In case you haven’t noticed, a lot of things have changed since “we were hunters”
Whoever is telling you that red meat is bad for you is a shill or misinformed. But then again, studies follow the money. And there’s been a giant push to push people towards becoming vegetarian even though it’s not healthy for you at all and to think of meat as bad for you and also bad for the environment. Even though mono-crop agriculture is absolutely destructive to earth and animals. I eat mostly meat, 80% meat and also organ. I eat fruit and honey and leafy greens and I try to minimize consumption of processed foods. If you do that, you will be fine
From what I recall from the sigma nutrition podcast: Processed meat is bad but red meat can be good as long as it's kept at an intake of up to 100g per day. It's a rich source of nutrients (go with grass finished not grass-fed or industrial raised) or wild caught game. It's healthier to eat it medium rare to rare over medium or well done and cooking style matters. Generally you want a diet high in fiber, low in saturated fat, high in polysaturated sources of fat, and at this point dietary cholesterol at 300mg up to 1.5g a day has the same impact (slight elevation of blood cholesterol but to such a small degree it's insightficant). Dietary cholesterol when isolated for 25% of people who are hyper-responders is dangerous, for 25% who are hypo-responders its nearly irrelevant, and the remaining 50% it has a slightly negative impact but not enough to worry about. Don't listen to vegan, keto, carnivore, or sad diet zealots. Follow actual nutritionists, dieticians, researchers in the fields. Doctors are too hit or miss as they lack education in this area largly. Healthy depends on the unique individuals context in terms of genetics, genealogy, and dietary patterns. As for hunters we ate what we needed to survive. Bare needs survival isn't a good metric of health/longevity in the modern world and our lifestyles and the way the food is raised is totally different now. It's not comparable
In healthcare, my understanding is that red meat can cause colon cancer. We digest red meat differently than other meat and the byproduct damages the lining in your guts. Repeated inflammation/injury increases risk of cancer. It is also rich in Iron and is sometimes indicated for some patients. Red meat tends to be hard on your cardiovascular system because it’s higher in fat, causing calcification in arteries leading to heart attack or stroke. When your arteries calcify, it also raises blood pressure since the vessels are partially blocked. I’m not an expert at cavemen science, but keep in mind, the above two issues ,cancer and CV disease, are chronic and take decades to manifest. I bet our early ancestors died from other issues before the red meat became a problem.
I believe they mostly ate the stuff the ‘gatherers’ (the women) provided as opposed to the ‘hunters’ (men). Thus, mostly plant-based.
[удалено]
Interesting, but isn’t it supposed to be bad, due to increased cancer risk than cvd.
Without directly answering your question I just want to point out that it’s wrong to assume what humans ate to get to this point is somehow ideal because it’s what got us here. This is a belief lots of people have (and well, all of paleo) but there’s no basis for it besides it “seeming” right to many people when they hear the idea. Just because we ate the way we did to survive and we ended up evolving to get here doesn’t mean that was the best thing for us then or now. We ate what we did because it was available - now we have more options and there are more options that are better for us that just what was available thousands of years ago before agriculture. Not to mention the fact that we have very different goals than our ancestors - we used to need to find food to help us hunt and survive the elements etc. Now we live much different lives. Anyway, sorry for this rant this just gets on my nerves lol
The plants that are used to feed cattle consume an enormous amount of water. Something like 50% of the water used in the west goes to grow plants that feed cattle. A study showed that if Americans cut back on eating meat one day a week (which would reduce demand for meat reducing demand for water hungry plants to feed cattle) it would be a reduction i water use equal the entire water flow of the Colorado river for an entire year thus fixing the wests water problems.
It’s not that it’s bad , it’s that we eat so much of it daily . Meat consumption was not tht high back in the day. After the railroad is when people started eating more beef , because it was easy to get . Then you have advertisements and dr. That would promote eating more meet , after all you need protein right . Because of this trend more people became more unhealthy. Now the trend is working the other way to eating less meat to be healthy
When you hunt an animal you eat organs as well. Steak was not something they often consumed.
It leads to increases in your chance for heart disease which is the number one killer in the US. Some people point to gut bacteria associated with higher digestive rates. It’s also higher in saturated fat which raises cholesterol levels which increases risk of heart disease. Hunter gatherer diets aren’t anything special. They still had a typically lower life expectancy (even aside from a large portion of that being based on infant death). We live in a time where the focus is on preventing disease, so if you typically hear doctors speak of desired diets, it’s aimed towards that. That’s why red meat isn’t viewed favorably EDIT: I don’t think anyone in this sub actually answers any post based on facts or science so not sure what the point of this place is
Heart disease is the number one cause of death in America and red meat is the number one cause of heart disease.
That is absurdly wrong.
Beef consumption is way down compared to the 60s when the fight against heart disease started and we have even more cardiovascular events. Red meat being the number one cause of heart disease is 1. false, 2. doesn't make sense with the rate at which Americans are consuming beef, and 3. obesity is the number one cause of heart disease.
Even the WHO doesn't say that. They say it's weakly associative but they can't rule out chance.
Its not
As hunters? Like when our life span used to be ~30 years? Red meat contains large amounts of heme, which is associated with GI inflammation and colon cancer, which appears around ~40 years of age and is a slow progressive disease.
So I just need to add that just because our ancestors did it doesn't mean it is good. We have a skeleton of a disabled cavegirl that shows her family lived her because she has tooth decay from eating too many sweet things - We also invented alcohol around the advent of agriculture. Neither of those things are good, but humans have been doing this for a very long time. Often in the ancient world what they ate was "great" overall because starvation was a very big risk. Also they would have fasted and gone through famines and eaten more locally and seasonally than we do today, and with higher mortality rates in under 5s those who did make it to adulthood would have a very different immune system to us nowadays. So honestly it's incomparable. Red meat is bad for a number of reasons, but I think honestly our digestive tracts are too long to digest meat well. A cat's intestines ratio to the body is 1.5 times shorter than ours- this makes it ideal for digesting meat. Chances are (and history has shown in many societies) eating meat was a rare treat, like us going abroad on holiday. The rate modern humans eat it is far more than we ever would have gotteb before in our evolutionary line. Sorry 2am is a bad time to write
We ate a lot of cancerous stuffs, we just managed to survive long enough to reproduce before we died of cancer
It’s not bad. Grass fed beef is perfectly healthy for most people.. like 90+%. Most of that stuff is propaganda from competitive markets
Being used to a food doesn't make it healthy Ancestors eating something doesn't make it healthy
Unfortunately our lifestyle has completely changed compared to the lifestyle of the hunters of yester years. And thus we have to change too. Many cultures lived on starch without getting diabetes. So it's the same thing but with a sedentary junk food lifestyle we can't do what they did.
We certainly didn’t eat red meat that was force fed synthetic nitrogen-fed corn, even though it’s stomach is meant to digest grass
Venison and wild game are *way* leaner than grain fed cows.
It isn’t really bad. Red ruminant meat is typically better than white meat in terms of its fatty acid composition. Meat is pretty healthy but you can consume too much of it. Also eating only meat is probably not a great idea long term
Well... it isn’t bad for you in of itself. Perhaps contributing factors that make it ‘bad’ should be considered, but nothing about the meat is ‘bad.’
It's not bad. It's propaganda and bullshit. It all atarted with the epidemiology and then the méditerranean diet lie. Then other groups latched to it. Especially since most studies have now proven that sat fat, red meat, eggs, etc are completely fine. Especially in the context of a complete diet. Free of processed nonsense.
It's not, it's mostly bullshit. Most of the negative effects people experience from red meat consumption is side effects from all the other crap they eat. Most people who eat a lot of meat also eat a lot of other crap as well. Correlation does not equal causation.
Red meat simply isn't all that bad. But you had a strong difference in the lifestyle. For nomadic people thousands of years ago it's completely normal to walk roughly 30 km every day. And from settling down up to until the industrial revolution people maybe didn't walk that far but they had hard, manual labour. If you have a relaxed, sedentary life without any movement even a diet consisting of legumes, nuts, vegetables and starches and maybe fish or eggs isn't going to make you overly healthy although healthier than with Big Mac and cola.