Harvard School of Public Health Study Highlights Risk of Early Death from Red Meat

[AKLulu]

Red meat, saturated fat, etc. are among many risk factors. Inactivity, alcohol, smoking are others. There is no magic formula for how much one factor mitigates another. I am guessing that smoking won't be completely be mitigated by activity, who knows about red meat consumption and activity... some would say eating high red meat is not being health conscious...

You're right, some people might. I guess my point there was more along the lines of people saying things like, "If you go 20% Paleo, that means you're 20% healthier," so if you were an active non-smoker, non-drinker with a lower body mass and red meat was your only vice, you'd still be better off than a lot of the people in that study. I'm not saying it the best thing for you. I vary my diet with different sorts of proteins. I was just trying to understand the implications of the study and make them more available to others that might be wondering. Thanks for sharing, ETFnerd.

[ETFnerd]

thanks for sharing your thoughts too AKLulu

[guest439437484421]

Meh.

[Waldo]

Trying to convice a large group of people who follow a diet which has a strong "they got it all wrong" hook, a techno shunning diet backed up by research, by showing additional research from "them" isn't going to work. The paleo godfathers have already strongly leveraged against this particular strategy. The built on the ideas of the Atkins proof to create a strong we are right and everybody else is wrong sense with it that is difficult to shoot holes in with facts, something akin to attacking the Maginot line head on with foot soldiers, as the fortifications are build around that sort of attack.

I personally don't eat much high saturated fat (red) meat, though I don't specifically avoid it either. 1-2 meals a week usually, unless I'm rocking pastrami in my lunch sandwiches.

[andygates]

This study isn't adding new drama: it bolsters the existing understanding. Moderation is key. I'm sure Grok wasn't eating bacon every meal, after all.

This Chicago billboard highlights the processed meat risk in user-friendly manner: http://gawker.com/5892961/chicago-billboard-provides-helpful-reminder-that-hot-dogs-cause-butt-cancer

[AKLulu]

This study isn't adding new drama: it bolsters the existing understanding. Moderation is key. I'm sure Grok wasn't eating bacon every meal, after all.

I bet Grok gorged himself on bison/moose/mammoth for a week whenever he got it though! NOM! I miss wild game....

[ETFnerd]

i'm not trying to convince anyone of anything any more... gave that up a while ago... this study is of interest to me... if it is to you, great... if it isn't, great..

[oystergirl]

You make me giggle and when you get into these moods I just want to give you a big fat hug...

First of all, this study has been reviewed and picked apart by a load of real food and traditional food gurus (weston price association among others--oh I think Jimmy Moore also picks it apart on Livin la vida low carb)....

Here is the bottom line. Grass fed traditionally raised beef has absolutely a different fat profile than conventionally raised feedlot beef. Force feeding cattle food that they are not accustomed to traditionally (cows are ruminants and in the wild strictly eat grass and wild herbs-this is why they have 5 stomachs plus a compliment of enzymes we do not possess to digest cellulose)...such as wheat, corn, soy, animal by products, feather meal, cooked municipal garbage (yeah, commerical feedlot animals are basically seen as garbage cans and gaining weight for a higher price is the ONLY goal...) and then giving them low levels of antibiotics and growth factor (all this is documented in various places on the web, simply google CAFO and see what comes up if you are interested) creates a very different fat profile, high in polyunsaturated fats because they are FED polyunsaturated fats, lower in CLA, poorer quality protien etc.

Fact is the bovine body is perfectly attuned to take grass and create a meat that is healthy (and a milk as well) if you screw with its food source it will do the best it can, but it cannot create miracles.

It is also widely known that many members of the research and teaching staff of Harvard have ties to big agriculture. It is in their best interests to deride any food product that is not tied to their vested interests.

Also interesting is the fact that other studies, world wide, show that as people age, those who eat the highest level of cholesterol and the highest levels of saturated fat, have the lowest levels of heart disease and mortality over all.

You cant compare apples (grass fed pastured organic red meat) to oranges (CAFO grain fed conventional beef) and see any correlation...seriously, its like comparing a cow to Corey wearing a cow suit.

Big hugs you old lug...

[ETFnerd]

what % of total red meat is grass fed pastured organic red meat?

let's assume for a minute that you are right, even though i don't concede your arguments.

according to wikipedia and according to Food and Agriculture Organization FAO statistics, grazing systems supply approximately 9 percent of the world's production of beef. if we back out those cattle that are injected with antibiotics/hormones, etc, let's guesstimate that one third remains or 3%.

So if we assume that beef supply roughly equals beef demand, are you saying that only 3% of the world's beef is safe to eat?

if you are saying that 97% or so of the world's beef supply is bad for you, this is a more extreme position than saying eat two 3oz servings per week in moderation as proposed by the authors of this study...

[Elastigirl]

Some things I was curious about: It said that the people ate less whole grains and veggies. So what else were they eating with their red meat? Going to Macdonalds once a day and having french fries is differant than having a steak and a big pile of veggies. They did say they compensated for the bad diet in their studies, but how do we know it was the red meat that was causing the problem? Maybe it was the foods they were choosing to have with them, over all lack of concern for health (possibly totally sedantary) or the lack of other good nutrients.

To have a good study you need to have two comparable diets. Same other foods, exercise, but one has red meat and one doesn't.

[ETFnerd]

...but how do we know it was the red meat that was causing the problem?

we don't...

if there were easy to show causation in a study, all the cigarette companies would be out of business.

life isn't balck and white and we have to make decisions based on what you believe is the relevant evidence.

[Ryan Sannar]

Is this peer reviewed? No time to read at work. Think I have before, but don't remember.

[bigm141414]

I think her point was that the study included all types of meat and made an generalization that all red meat is bad for you. There are studies that show a difference in nutrition profiles between pasture grass fed beef and feed lot beef. And that feed lot beef can be linked to detrimental effects on the body.

Eating more quality type beef and moderating lower quality type is important.

[ETFnerd]

the problem with what you are saying is... what is the evidence for that? according to the researchers in this study who did a reading of the extant literature, a comparative study of the kind you suggest was not available...

even if you could prove that you are right, can enough organic grass fed beef be produced to make what you say possible. substitution to other proteins is the more reasonable solution in terms of susteinability.

[ETFnerd]

Is this peer reviewed? No time to read at work. Think I have before, but don't remember.

this was published yesterday...

[ETFnerd]

First of all, this study has been reviewed and picked apart by a load of real food and traditional food gurus (weston price association among others--oh I think Jimmy Moore also picks it apart on Livin la vida low carb)....

This was published yesterday... these guys must be fast readers/reviewers/pick aparters...

[bigm141414]

the problem with what you are saying is... what is the evidence for that? according to the researchers in this study who did a reading of the extant literature, a comparative study of the kind you suggest was not available...

even if you could prove that you are right, can enough organic grass fed beef be produced to make what you say possible. substitution to other proteins is the more reasonable solution in terms of susteinability.

True, there is not much evidence outside of a few small scale studies about nutritional profiles and small scale studies. A larger more comprehensive study is needed, I agree, in order to confirm that the difference translates into a healthier choice for humans.

It probably isn't sustainable for the entire population but it would still be worthwhile to find out. And getting protein from other sources is just fine and will probably be needed.

[Elastigirl]

we don't...

if there were easy to show causation in a study, all the cigarette companies would be out of business.

life isn't balck and white and we have to make decisions based on what you believe is the relevant evidence.

To me many there are too many questions left unanswered. The article did not cause me to give up red meat. Now the pink slime stuff in hamburger however......I think that might have worked for me to give up fast food burgers.

[ETFnerd]

We all have to make our own decisions...

I think McD stopped using pink slime a little while back but the USDA still buys tons of it for school lunches and it is all over the place in supermarket ground beef...

[oystergirl]

Frankly, I know that for me, I purchase grass fed beef. If I eat some non-grass fed beef I take an omega-3 supplement to counteract the bad profile-i also add in more dark greens to help with digestion and any possible by-products I didn't expect in my meat.

The more people "vote" with their pocket book--the more foods will be available.

Imagine what would happen if people really stopped buying a product because they KNEW it was bad for them...what would happen--oh yeah, it happened with TRANS FATS only a few years ago....but lets be honest--the conventional wisdom has said red meat was bad for you via saying saturated fat is bad for you since 1980...so america is a lot healthier now? hmm? LOL

I choose, through my own personal research, to eat grass fed meat. I certainly feel better doing it--and that is really all I can care about. You make your choices, I make mine....

[Sloth the Enduring]

Luckily, you're not worried about your sperm count, apparently high saturated fat is correlated with low sperm counts - another new study to pick apart.

[mandy75]

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1p6tJ5RUb

[ETFnerd]

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1p6tJ5RUb

although the site is very entertaining...

"And while we patiently twiddle our thumbs waiting for those well-designed meat studies to start existing, we should keep in mind that humankind has survived a pretty doggone long time—in much more robust shape than most of us are today—without carefully swapping our lamb shanks for an equivalent serving of kidney beans."

really? did people really lead healthier, longer lives than we do today 50, 100, 500, 2,000 years ago?

looks like life expectancy doubled after modern medical science...

[aj_rock]

Trying to convice a large group of people who follow a diet which has a strong "they got it all wrong" hook, a techno shunning diet backed up by research, by showing additional research from "them" isn't going to work. The paleo godfathers have already strongly leveraged against this particular strategy. The built on the ideas of the Atkins proof to create a strong we are right and everybody else is wrong sense with it that is difficult to shoot holes in with facts, something akin to attacking the Maginot line head on with foot soldiers, as the fortifications are build around that sort of attack.

I... I have never seen my views on paleo people put so succinctly and perfectly before. My hat is off to you, good sir.

Frankly, I know that for me, I purchase grass fed beef. If I eat some non-grass fed beef I take an omega-3 supplement to counteract the bad profile-i also add in more dark greens to help with digestion and any possible by-products I didn't expect in my meat.

The more people "vote" with their pocket book--the more foods will be available.

Imagine what would happen if people really stopped buying a product because they KNEW it was bad for them...what would happen--oh yeah, it happened with TRANS FATS only a few years ago....but lets be honest--the conventional wisdom has said red meat was bad for you via saying saturated fat is bad for you since 1980...so america is a lot healthier now? hmm? LOL

I choose, through my own personal research, to eat grass fed meat. I certainly feel better doing it--and that is really all I can care about. You make your choices, I make mine....

Oystergirl, you are awesome, but you can sometimes act like an example of this. While no one here would ever dream of depriving you of your grass-fed beef, you DO tend to reduce your arguments to just that. Which is problematic, because if everyone reduced their arguments as such, we'd have everyone just walk away being all 'FINE. I DO WHAT I WANT.' and no progress is made; no knowledge is gained nor shared. Yes you can do whatever you want, but I think it would be appreciated by all if you didn't feel the need to say it everytime the discussion comes up. Very rarely in the course of discussing such matters do most of us bring up our personal eating habits.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1p6tJ5RUb

Ah, good ole solid information mixed in with blatant fear-mongering and ad hominem attacks. If you include enough true information, then everything you say must be true, no?

All these pendantics aside, it really makes sense on a logic basis to reduce saturated fat intake to a moderate level regardless of correlation between saturated fat intake and other key lifestyle metrics in determining overall health. You can argue about sedentary populations and GH in food and chemical preservatives until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, WE DON'T KNOW. Yes high saturated fat diets tend to correlate with people that eat shitty food and don't exercise. We ABSOLUTELY have NO solid information about the exact correlation value between these two. It's entirely possible that you could eat bacon all day erryday and as long as you restrict calories and exercise, BUT WE DONT KNOW THAT. Personally, I'd rather NOT be the guinea pig that drive tests this theory just because of the chance that maybe ITS WRONG. All your primal and paleo BS and grass vs grain fed doesn't matter if you believe something so fervently and then it kills you at 50. If lowering my sat fat intake is correlated with living a longer, healthier life, then I'm going to damn well moderate my intake. My well-being and the well-being of my loved ones and friends is simply too important to me to risk telling them ANY voodoo hypothesis not based strongly in scientific evidence.

rant mode = off

[spatzcat]

Aj Rock - YOU ROCK.