Building High-Performance Muscle™
Supplements and Nutrition
 
All Red Meat Is Bad for You...
1 2 Next Last
 

Dr. Pangloss
Level

Join date: Aug 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 2547

So sayeth this article:

http://www.latimes.com/...,0,565423.story

LA Times wrote:
All red meat is bad for you, new study says
A long-term study finds that eating any amount and any type increases the risk of premature death.

By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times

4:28 PM PDT, March 12, 2012
Advertisement

Eating red meat ?? any amount and any type ?? appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.

For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat ?? picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards ?? to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

"Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%; and fish, 7%.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren't sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.

But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.

"If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week," he said. "That would have a huge impact on public health."

A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day.

Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn't eat bacon or other processed meats.

Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study.

"There's a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important ?? that it should be part of a healthful diet," said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. "These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better."

UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."

Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet."

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.

  Report
 

Otis Rush
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2011
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 77

This is why observational studies are garbage. "Scientists" make loose associations based on shaky data and then try to issue clinical recommendations. Yeah, early humans certainly withered and died eating all that red animal meat. I'd bet that a lot of those participants cooked their meat in shitty vegetable or canola oil, eat a caloric excess and don't exercise regularly.

  Report
 

schanz_05
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2007
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 220

Yeah..... I mean do they distinguish the difference between a nice grass fed steak and a hamburger from Mcdonalds? I highly doubt it, hell potentially 80-90% of people claiming to eat red meat once a day could be from fast food. I know that the majority of my friends don't cook red meat or don't know how to cook red meat. So if I asked them how often they eat red meat, it would likely be once a day, from fast food.

  Report
 

qsar
Level 1

Join date: Nov 2011
Location:
Posts: 172

schanz_05 wrote:
Yeah..... I mean do they distinguish the difference between a nice grass fed steak and a hamburger from Mcdonalds? I highly doubt it, hell potentially 80-90% of people claiming to eat red meat once a day could be from fast food. I know that the majority of my friends don't cook red meat or don't know how to cook red meat. So if I asked them how often they eat red meat, it would likely be once a day, from fast food.


They did ask whether the meat was processed or not; though I'm not sure if most people know Mcdonald's meat is processed. The way guys like to eat meat is usually bbq'd / flame grilled which is the unhealthiest way to do it (open flame/high temperature hca, pah toxins). There's also the foods people eat meat with. How many people have fries and soda with their hamburger? Cutting meat also cuts-down a fair amount of accompanying foods such as wheat (buns for burgers or sandwiches), fried food (like onion rings), sauces (A1, ketchup, bbq), etc.

I wonder how the unrelated data factors in, since they said they looked at deaths from all sources. If someone dies in a car crash and reported to eat meat, it instantly inflates the results. Since more people eat meat than don't, I imagine the unrelated deaths inflated the numbers quite a bit.

  Report
 

Jeffrey of Troy
Level 2

Join date: May 2011
Location: Michigan, USA
Posts: 458

Otis Rush wrote:
This is why observational studies are garbage. "Scientists" make loose associations based on shaky data and then try to issue clinical recommendations. Yeah, early humans certainly withered and died eating all that red animal meat. I'd bet that a lot of those participants cooked their meat in shitty vegetable or canola oil, eat a caloric excess and don't exercise regularly.


Observational/population studies aren't garbage, they can be a good source of hypotheses to be tested. The next step is the intervention trial. The problem w/ articles like this is they skip that next step and jump to the conclusion.

  Report
 

punnyguy
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1507

Selfishly, I'm hoping the price of grass-fed meat stops rising like it's made out of gasoline.

Next step, I hope the "cholesterol in eggs will kill you" crowd makes a comeback as well.

  Report
 

caveman101
Level 2

Join date: Jan 2008
Location: England
Posts: 3469

Well, I'm eating 500g of grilled brisket a day. Looks I wont be seeing WW3

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

everybody knows white meat is better, not to be racist or anything, but red meat is known to talk in the theaters and and not pay it's bills. just crazy, stick to the white stuff

  Report
 

ksaganic
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2012
Location:
Posts: 2

"Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail."

  Report
 

Bonesaw93
Level 1

Join date: Sep 2010
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 356

I hate the bullshit "What's good for you is also good for the planet".

  Report
 

Otis Rush
Level 4

Join date: Sep 2011
Location: Connecticut, USA
Posts: 77

Jeffrey of Troy wrote:
Observational/population studies aren't garbage, they can be a good source of hypotheses to be tested. The next step is the intervention trial. The problem w/ articles like this is they skip that next step and jump to the conclusion.



Fair enough, it just grinds my gears how people put the word scientist and doctor in front of their name and suddenly that makes it okay for them to publish bad science, especially in nutrition.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

Here's a great critique http://www.zoeharcombe.com/...al-bad-science/

and I love Yahoo's headline... pretty sure you can't increase your risk of death, as being born = 100% risk of death lol

  Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

LOL. Life = death. I guess we are all fucked.

  Report
 

ElevenMag
Level

Join date: May 2011
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 280

Its not the red meat. Its the unnatural fats we create from burning the shit out of muscle grown in an animal that eats a diet not intended for it. Also almost every seed oil consumers can buy is rancid due to exposure to heat light and oxygen in processing and shipping. When the essential fat (cannot make in your body an therefore must get from food) ratio of these unhealthy and rancid omega 6 and 3's to the good unrefined, non-rancid omega 6 and 3's gets out of hand every cell in your body is out of balance.

Rancid, unnatural fats are twisted into a different shape then the original 'healthy' fat molecule they formed from and preform differently inside your cells. You are literally what you eat and the fats we consume are a major factor in today's degenerative diseases that virtually didn't exist in 1900.

  Report
 

ryanbCXG
Level 5

Join date: Dec 2010
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posts: 4978

Was wondering if anyone else saw this today. Read this on multipe "news" sites.

So i guess the fat that i have done 2 steak challneges in the last year with 7lbs of steak being consumed between the two challenges means i am going to die before i start med school. that doesnt even count the countless lbs eaten on a weekly basis. I am screwed

  Report
 

punnyguy
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1507

ROFLMFAO!!! Price of organic chicken increased $1.00/lb since Sunday at the WFM I shop at.

Coincidence I'm sure.

  Report
 

Proud_Virgin
Level

Join date: Jul 2009
Location: Illinois, USA
Posts: 537

Wow I wonder what it would take to convince some of you to change your beliefs. This isn't the first study implicating red meat intake with increased risk of mortality...yeah obviously they didn't do a double-blind experimental study, but that would never be possible.

Is this 100% conclusive? No, of course not. But its just some more evidence to be added to the sizable pile.

Whether cooking methods, methionine content, nitrate content--who knows why red meat is less healthy? Fact is, if longevity is important to you, minimizing red meat intake would be a prudent decision.

Of course, if longevity is your concern you probably wouldn't be here anyway though, so its pretty much a moot point.

  Report
 

Professor X
Level 5

Join date: Oct 2002
Location:
Posts: 51898

Proud_Virgin wrote:
Wow I wonder what it would take to convince some of you to change your beliefs. This isn't the first study implicating red meat intake with increased risk of mortality...yeah obviously they didn't do a double-blind experimental study, but that would never be possible.

Is this 100% conclusive? No, of course not. But its just some more evidence to be added to the sizable pile.

Whether cooking methods, methionine content, nitrate content--who knows why red meat is less healthy? Fact is, if longevity is important to you, minimizing red meat intake would be a prudent decision.

Of course, if longevity is your concern you probably wouldn't be here anyway though, so its pretty much a moot point.



Uh, yeah.

I think most of us realize we are going to die anyway. Hell, I nearly did a few months back. If you want to live your life preparing for your oldest last day, have fun with that.

I personally think quality beats quantity.

I don't want to be that 90n year old with no cool memories other than avoiding all risk.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

Proud_Virgin wrote:
Wow I wonder what it would take to convince some of you to change your beliefs. This isn't the first study implicating red meat intake with increased risk of mortality...yeah obviously they didn't do a double-blind experimental study, but that would never be possible.

Is this 100% conclusive? No, of course not. But its just some more evidence to be added to the sizable pile.

Whether cooking methods, methionine content, nitrate content--who knows why red meat is less healthy? Fact is, if longevity is important to you, minimizing red meat intake would be a prudent decision.

Of course, if longevity is your concern you probably wouldn't be here anyway though, so its pretty much a moot point.


You know, the first part is a very fair point. However, it's going to take more than this flawed study (did you happen to read the link I posted on the actual specifics and findings of the study showed) to prove red meat is bad for you.

and, I hate to use the evolutionary bit, but really come on.

btw- just in case you didn't know, if we hacked you up and put a nutritional label on you, you'd have a high saturated fat and cholesterol content of your "meat" since we have red meat too ya know.

sometimes people so overthink this nutritional stuff. Humans, only animals on the plant that actually will knowingly opt for the white meat, or remove the skin, or ditch the yolk. it's plain retarded.

  Report
 

AccipiterQ
Level

Join date: Feb 2008
Location: Massachusetts, USA
Posts: 3297

meh. I cut out red meat almost entirely about a year ago. Made more gains this year than any other. Not because I cut the meat out, I just really dialed in a lot of factors. Once a month or so I may have a burger if I'm at a sportsbar or something, but other than that I stick to chicken & fish. I'd like to live past 100 if possible, and I have a family history of relatives doing this. I see studies like this while I don't think there's anything remotely close to a 1:1 association there's obviously at least a grain of truth here. Yeah most of the meat people in the study were eating was probably not from grass raised / grass finished cattle. But how many people here only eat grass raised/finished beef? I'm betting less than 20%. So the study would apply to many here.

  Report
 

jehovasfitness
Level 10

Join date: Jan 2006
Location: Maryland, USA
Posts: 12547

AccipiterQ wrote:
meh. I cut out red meat almost entirely about a year ago. Made more gains this year than any other. Not because I cut the meat out, I just really dialed in a lot of factors. Once a month or so I may have a burger if I'm at a sportsbar or something, but other than that I stick to chicken & fish. I'd like to live past 100 if possible, and I have a family history of relatives doing this. I see studies like this while I don't think there's anything remotely close to a 1:1 association there's obviously at least a grain of truth here. Yeah most of the meat people in the study were eating was probably not from grass raised / grass finished cattle. But how many people here only eat grass raised/finished beef? I'm betting less than 20%. So the study would apply to many here.


It may apply to many here (which still doesn't prove anything), but to simply implicate red meat as being bad is a bit outlandish don't you think? If you truly believe how that animal is raised matters, why would you support such an idea of red meat being bad?

why not just say eat grass-fed meats?

  Report
 

punnyguy
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1507

How many people remember when butter was the devil causing all heart disease, and margarine with all its transfats were the cure???

Good nutrition boils down to eating the whole food, which has undergone as little processing and human manipulation as possible. In moderation. It's that simple.

Everything else basically boils down to ivory tower guys who need to publish to be promoted, and to get additional funding i.e. money for their research i.e. livelihood.

  Report
 

punnyguy
Level 3

Join date: Mar 2009
Location: California, USA
Posts: 1507

punnyguy wrote:
How many people remember when butter was the devil causing all heart disease, and margarine with all its transfats were the cure???

Good nutrition boils down to eating the whole food, which has undergone as little processing and human manipulation as possible. In moderation. It's that simple.

Everything else basically boils down to ivory tower guys who need to publish to be promoted, and to get additional funding i.e. money for their research i.e. livelihood.


edit to add: or some giant corporation trying to make profits from some high-margin product

  Report
 

UAphenix
Level 1

Join date: Jul 2008
Location: Colorado, USA
Posts: 249

I really don't know how they call this science. There are far too many variables that go into a persons diet to be able to draw anything relevant from the data. If I tried to enter something like that into SAS, i'm pretty sure it would flip me off and tell me to go screw myself for wasting its time. On a side note, I can't wait until they fully develop and start utilizing bypass fats for feedlot cattle. All the nutritional goodness of grass-fed without the shitty flavor and price tag to go along with it.

  Report
 

schanz_05
Level 5

Join date: Mar 2007
Location: South Dakota, USA
Posts: 220

UAphenix wrote:
I really don't know how they call this science. There are far too many variables that go into a persons diet to be able to draw anything relevant from the data. If I tried to enter something like that into SAS, i'm pretty sure it would flip me off and tell me to go screw myself for wasting its time. On a side note, I can't wait until they fully develop and start utilizing bypass fats for feedlot cattle. All the nutritional goodness of grass-fed without the shitty flavor and price tag to go along with it.



Could you extrapolate on the bypass fats you are talking about? I haven't heard anything about that.

  Report
1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last