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

[oystergirl]

I appreciate your comments AJ and I certainly do not want to come off like a paleo asshole because I do not eat paleo at all. As an Archevore/primal eater i can only really share my own personal experience of getting healthy after years of being very sick. Not just unhealthy from not eating right, or smoking and drinking and not exercising but having dibilitating lyme disease and post lyme syndrome that left me with rheumatic issues, recycling bone pain, joint issues, sleep issues and the like. i was medicated for a number of years and finally could no longer take it so i started to search for things in other areas. I have gone from raw vegan, which did decidedly help to finally settling on the archevore program because it certainly felt the best. I also looked back at the food I ate as a child, which was traditional because my mother was an immigrant and that helped me decide. When I say well, I choose this and you can choose what you want it is not meant to be a snotty comment (ah the tone of the internet) it is the truth. There are many and varied diets anyone can eat and still be healthy. There are many people who believe that all these research studies are subjected to researcher bias and skewed for the benefit of one industry or another. I guess in the long run it would be best to just avoid such interaction. For me personally, reading about indigenous cultures who ate foods that were natural and seeing the health they had was enough to know I am on the right track. Just my two cents submitted humbly and in no way trying to preach. Carry on.

[Waldo]

I certainly do not want to come off like a paleo asshole.

On a lighter note, did aybody catch the joke about this on SNL last week?

During weekend update, one of the stories was that they found that a frozen cavemen that was lactose intolerant. It also appears that he was murdered. Apparently for never shutting up about how he is lactose intolerant.

[AKLulu]

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...

Yes, it did, but it also doesn't list many (if any) diet-related deaths early on either. And I think they were talking more about the survival of humans as a whole species, not so much the life expectancy, though I can see how the "robust" comment could lead you to think that. I'm pretty sure Neanderthals were in way better shape than me though.... yeah.

[AKLulu]

On a lighter note, did aybody catch the joke about this on SNL last week?

During weekend update, one of the stories was that they found that a frozen cavemen that was lactose intolerant. It also appears that he was murdered. Apparently for never shutting up about how he is lactose intolerant.

Hahaha, nice one.

[aj_rock]

On a lighter note, did aybody catch the joke about this on SNL last week?

During weekend update, one of the stories was that they found that a frozen cavemen that was lactose intolerant. It also appears that he was murdered. Apparently for never shutting up about how he is lactose intolerant.

So what you are trying to say is all cavemen were lactose intolerant right?

/end troll

[Elastigirl]

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

But the fact that is so important is why I read other view points on it.What you call voodoo hypotheses, I feel has some very strong merits. And I look around at my friends who are still struggling with weight issues and see that they really have tried to live by the low fat guidelines and are still struggling and I wonder if perhaps the saturated fat hypothesis could be wrong. Heart disease is still a big issue, despite the heavy promotion of low fat . I also don't just rely on that, I do have my cholestrol tested, and my blood pressure has gone down since I've been Paleo.

However, I also think the reason people are on this board is because they want to be healthy. And I think if you choose not to eat red meat you can still be healthy, I am not working for the beef council.

[ETFnerd]

Yes, it did, but it also doesn't list many (if any) diet-related deaths early on either. And I think they were talking more about the survival of humans as a whole species, not so much the life expectancy, though I can see how the "robust" comment could lead you to think that. I'm pretty sure Neanderthals were in way better shape than me though.... yeah.

So your argument is that modern humankind is less robust at 7 billion strong than maybe 35,000 neandethals that lived to 30 years old and were wiped out by a similar number of cromagnon folks who were less evolved than we are...? Yeah...

[Waldo]

And I look around at my friends who are still struggling with weight issues and see that they really have tried to live by the low fat guidelines and are still struggling and I wonder if perhaps the saturated fat hypothesis could be wrong.

Could be they need to exercise more and/or eat less calories....

I don't think there are too many people eating a low fat diet that are genuinely confused as to why they are overweight. Most fat people are not clueless, they are generally aware of the indulgences that left them in their state.

There are very, very few overweight people who genuinley eat a low fat diet, that don't eat junk food/drink, and that regularly exercise.

[AKLulu]

So your argument is that modern humankind is less robust at 7 billion strong than maybe 35,000 neandethals that lived to 30 years old and were wiped out by a similar number of cromagnon folks who were less evolved than we are...? Yeah...

I have trouble understanding why my responses are so easily mis-interpreted, but I guess that's just how this thread is going. That's not what I meant at all. I was only saying that early humans died of accidents and communicable diseases for the most part (according to that graphic). We die of a lot other health-related issues. Society as a whole might live even longer if we lived a healthier lifestyle (i.e. eating better, exercising more). And my comment on being robust was just saying that early humans could have kicked my butt (and probably the butts of a lot of modern humans) purely because I'm overweight and out of shape. Maybe if I had all my modern tools about me, I'd be fine, but if I wandered onto Cro-mag territory, I wouldn't have a chance in hand-to-hand combat.

[ETFnerd]

I have trouble understanding why my responses are so easily mis-interpreted, but I guess that's just how this thread is going. That's not what I meant at all. I was only saying that early humans died of accidents and communicable diseases for the most part (according to that graphic). We die of a lot other health-related issues. Society as a whole might live even longer if we lived a healthier lifestyle (i.e. eating better, exercising more). And my comment on being robust was just saying that early humans could have kicked my butt (and probably the butts of a lot of modern humans) purely because I'm overweight and out of shape. Maybe if I had all my modern tools about me, I'd be fine, but if I wandered onto Cro-mag territory, I wouldn't have a chance in hand-to-hand combat.

i can only interpret what your write... my mind reading skills aren't up to par yet... i still don't understand where you're going with any of the stuff you posted here^

[Waldo]

And my comment on being robust was just saying that early humans could have kicked my butt (and probably the butts of a lot of modern humans) purely because I'm overweight and out of shape. Maybe if I had all my modern tools about me, I'd be fine, but if I wandered onto Cro-mag territory, I wouldn't have a chance in hand-to-hand combat.

Call me crazy, but I highly doubt that food has anything to do with this, at least post-consumption. (the act of getting it is an entirely different story).

The modern athlete OTOH is an entirely different story. The modern athlete has access to quantity and quality of food that Mr. Caveman could only dream of. Thus the modern athlete is bigger, stonger, faster, etc....

"Crappy" diets that make you fat aren't crappy and don't make you fat if you exercise enough.

[aj_rock]

But the fact that is so important is why I read other view points on it.What you call voodoo hypotheses, I feel has some very strong merits. And I look around at my friends who are still struggling with weight issues and see that they really have tried to live by the low fat guidelines and are still struggling and I wonder if perhaps the saturated fat hypothesis could be wrong. Heart disease is still a big issue, despite the heavy promotion of low fat . I also don't just rely on that, I do have my cholestrol tested, and my blood pressure has gone down since I've been Paleo.

However, I also think the reason people are on this board is because they want to be healthy. And I think if you choose not to eat red meat you can still be healthy, I am not working for the beef council.

I'm sorry elastigirl, but anecdotal evidence just should NOT be sized up against scientific research. As Waldo already replied, there are ten and half million ways they could be sabotaging their own efforts, such as under-reporting their food intake, or how people over-estimate their caloric expenditure, or believing that healthy food will make your hormones respond differently.

These are by no means conclusive studies, but they all point to the fact that, in general, if someone SAYS they are eating less calories than they burn but aren't losing weight, they are doing it wrong.

[AKLulu]

I think... I'll just stop talking... as I seem to be unable to clearly communicate my thoughts, meanings, and mild humor. Carry on, I shan't bother anyone! *hugs*

[Elastigirl]

Could be they need to exercise more and/or eat less calories....

I don't think there are too many people eating a low fat diet that are genuinely confused as to why they are overweight. Most fat people are not clueless, they are generally aware of the indulgences that left them in their state.

There are very, very few overweight people who genuinley eat a low fat diet, that don't eat junk food/drink, and that regularly exercise.

I agree that eating less and exercise are part of the equation. However part of my questionig the hypothesis is that some studies have shown that eaing a higher fat diet decreases cravings and helps your body to signal when it is full. So, by eating higher fat, you cut the cravings for carbs and hogher calorie stuff and automatically eat less. For my personal experience, I decided to test out the hypothesis and eat Paleo. For me it has worked. Once I upped my fats (not just meat but gnood oils, avocado) I was able to eat less jumk food-it broke the cycle. I haven't done enough studying to say it works for everyone.

[ETFnerd]

i don't mean to shut anyone out of a conversation... hopefully you'll change your mind and share your thoughts... i for one appreciated your contributions although i had some trouble interpreting it properly...

[AKLulu]

It's no fault of yours. I just don't know how to express myself properly and it's frustrating to me, so for my own sanity it's better I continue as a passive bystander.

[Waldo]

I agree that eating less and exercise are part of the equation. However part of my questionig the hypothesis is that some studies have shown that eaing a higher fat diet decreases cravings and helps your body to signal when it is full. So, by eating higher fat, you cut the cravings for carbs and hogher calorie stuff and automatically eat less. For my personal experience, I decided to test out the hypothesis and eat Paleo. For me it has worked. Once I upped my fats (not just meat but gnood oils, avocado) I was able to eat less jumk food-it broke the cycle. I haven't done enough studying to say it works for everyone.

I have never heard of that reasoning behind eating low fat. Only the reverse, from paleo and atkins people as one of the reasons their diet is so superior.

The reasoning behind low fat is always the same. Fat = 9 cal/gm. Carb = 4 cal/gm. Protien = 4 cal/gm. It is really easy to eat a crap ton of calories eating a lot of fat. Most low fat foods are also low calorie.

To stop eating junk food you really just need to stop eating junk food, changing your diet otherwise does not make it easier in a physical sense. It is an addiction just like cigarettes. Chewing gum might help you quit smoking, that is all that changing your diet otherwise does. Something to think about to take you mind off of it. After about 2 weeks, whether you go paleo of just stop eating junk food, you stop craving junk food and lose all the severe hunger pains, even in a very steep deficit.

Its funny how it is always called carb cravings. Heavy wheat bread, AKA stomach lead, is largely carbs and about one of the most filling foods that exists on a per calorie basis. Oatmeal has the same effect.

[MMyers]

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...

Well, we were eating Grains well into Classical Greece and Rome (which, according to this, the average age was 35), I am more inclined to believe that the reason for our modern increased longevity was from learning not to dump waste where we drink, along with other small advancements it somehow took thousands of years to learn and implement. Also, violent deaths were common up to and including Medieval times, whether it be from the Elements or through warfare. Hundreds of thousands of young people dying below the age of 20 each year really tips the 'average' to one side.

As such, I'm fairly certain that the Average age and Life Expectancy are two different things when talking about this subject, and that this picture here has confused the Average (what I believe it was trying to convey) and Life Expectancy (what it actually said, in the form of 'Average Life Expectancy"). After all, when the average age is 38 (Late Medieval), and there are a lot of younger people dying, that means that there are also a decent amount of older people living long lives. The potential was definitely there to live long, it just was cut short for many people. Also, what may have been 'insanity' in Ancient and Medieval times could be what we call dementia today. They had no concept of health and aging.

It doesn't matter to me how any person eats/lives, though. I just wanted to comment and see if anybody else thought similar. I could be blabbing, I just got home from work.

[Elastigirl]

I have never heard of that reasoning behind eating low fat. Only the reverse, from paleo and atkins people as one of the reasons their diet is so superior.

The reasoning behind low fat is always the same. Fat = 9 cal/gm. Carb = 4 cal/gm. Protien = 4 cal/gm. It is really easy to eat a crap ton of calories eating a lot of fat. Most low fat foods are also low calorie.

To stop eating junk food you really just need to stop eating junk food, changing your diet otherwise does not make it easier in a physical sense. It is an addiction just like cigarettes. Chewing gum might help you quit smoking, that is all that changing your diet otherwise does. Something to think about to take you mind off of it. After about 2 weeks, whether you go paleo of just stop eating junk food, you stop craving junk food and lose all the severe hunger pains, even in a very steep deficit.

Its funny how it is always called carb cravings. Heavy wheat bread, AKA stomach lead, is largely carbs and about one of the most filling foods that exists on a per calorie basis. Oatmeal has the same effect.

I diligently tried to eat oatmeal (steel cuts or the long cooking kind for higher fiber) for about 6 months. An hour after I ate it I was starved. And confession here, I always just hated whole wheat bread (except my friends home made in which I would eat like 5 pieces) so that was super easy to give up..

[ETFnerd]

i think that the exception to all of this is for folks who have grain or other allergies and/or sensitivities, for whom all this would make perfect sense...

[Pat G]

Back to pink slime... So glad i've never seen it here... oh wait i have. MUST NEVER EAT, esp if it's infused with duck feathers, hogs hair, and maybe even my own hair.....

sad day... animal testing anyone?

somebody play a bugle for the human race.

*dooo deeeee, doo dee dee de da de da da da daaaah*

[Elastigirl]

Back to pink slime... So glad i've never seen it here... oh wait i have. MUST NEVER EAT, esp if it's infused with duck feathers, hogs hair, and maybe even my own hair.....

sad day... animal testing anyone?

somebody play a bugle for the human race.

*dooo deeeee, doo dee dee de da de da da da daaaah*

Pink slime doubel ugh. And hair in bread. I'd love to have the money to just buy all veggies from a famer (we do that part of the time ) and all meat from someone who raises the meat humanely. Part of why I am working to get my finances in line is to be able to do more of that.

[oystergirl]

One thing I find interesting is the correlation that long life expectancy is better when many of the people who are above 60 in this country are on any number of prescription drugs or other life extending medical interventions. My parents are both over 75 and travel around the world a few times a year doing wonderfully fun things and neither is on any type of drug. Anecdotal, sure. Do they eat carbs? few....a little potato, rice, whole grain bread. Do they eat meat? Yep...do they exercise? Yep, walk, swim and do back exercises. THAT is what I want. I want to live a healthy and functionally capable life. I certainly want to be gone long before I would be sitting in a wheel chair in the window at some old folks day care center. That is not life to me. I have seen it up close and personal in the many people we visited when my gran was 93 and in her 1 year decline into death. We visited daily or a few times a week and most of these poor folks NEVER had a visitor. What is the point of living that long if your family can't even visit you and you are on meds to keep you alive? Seriously?

I guess I am digressing--but someone brought up increased life expectancy....I want life quality...seriously!

[ETFnerd]

my boss keeps a couple of copies of this book in his office... you can read a couple of pages of it on amazon here... i found reading it very helpful...

[Elastigirl]

I'm sorry elastigirl, but anecdotal evidence just should NOT be sized up against scientific research. As Waldo already replied, there are ten and half million ways they could be sabotaging their own efforts, such as under-reporting their food intake, or how people over-estimate their caloric expenditure, or believing that healthy food will make your hormones respond differently.

These are by no means conclusive studies, but they all point to the fact that, in general, if someone SAYS they are eating less calories than they burn but aren't losing weight, they are doing it wrong.

Agreed that anecdotal evidence can't replace scintific evidence. I included it to show part of why I started to question the status quo on fat hypothesis and some posts made it seem like if you ate saturated fat you were didn't care about your health, so I was stating that I was watching some of my markers to determine health. And for the scientific evidence, I think this article is very shaky and doesn't really do a good case of proving that red meat=death. In an earlier post, I stated why I thought the article wasn't good science, so this post was just an add on. I understand that others disagree, they think that even if its a small chance they should still cut back on red meat. Which is cool, if you eat more fish and veggies, either way you'll be healthy