All Red Meat is Bad for You

Lowpro said:
There's was a rather large cohort study in China regarding red meat consumption (rural areas do not have as much available red meat as urban areas) showing an increase in mortality rate.

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287

I've not read anything much though through it, mostly out of lack of interest and my ribs are almost done ^^
Click to expand...

Cool. That's some similar results. I'm pretty sure we have this journal at work (OSU Valley Library), So I'll give it a looksee beyond the abstract.
 
That link should have the entire paper, though it's a script so if you have a script blocker you may not see it.

Just remember that it's a cohort study, and mostly those offer preliminary data that will support further research, such as possibly gaining grant funding towards researching the pathology involved in red meat and cardiovascular disease.
 
Lowpro said:
That link should have the entire paper, though it's a script so if you have a script blocker you may not see it.

Just remember that it's a cohort study, and mostly those offer preliminary data that will support further research, such as possibly gaining grant funding towards researching the pathology involved in red meat and cardiovascular disease.
Click to expand...

ah, thanks for the heads up.
 
This observational study is quite poor. Don't tell me red meat kills me when you can't separate meat intake from sugar and what intake (e.g. to them mcdonalds burgers are "red meat").

Also the methodology for this observational study is quite poor. Based on their own data it's more like red meat eating also corresponds with other behaviors that are bad for your health (less exercise, smoking etc). If everyone is told not to eat red meat and people who try to live healthier skip the red meat it would show up in a study like this. Also take a look at the reported caloric intakes.

Bottom line this study proves nothing about "red meat". I'll be eagerly awaiting some real science to examine on this issue.
 
NewtonTrino said:
This observational study is quite poor. Don't tell me red meat kills me when you can't separate meat intake from sugar and what intake (e.g. to them mcdonalds burgers are "red meat").
Click to expand...

Uh...hate to tell you this, but "mcdonalds burgers" are red meat.
 
Checkmite said:
Uh...hate to tell you this, but "mcdonalds burgers" are red meat.
Click to expand...
When was the last time you ordered just the hamburger patty?
 
NewtonTrino said:
This observational study is quite poor. Don't tell me red meat kills me when you can't separate meat intake from sugar and what intake (e.g. to them mcdonalds burgers are "red meat").

Also the methodology for this observational study is quite poor. Based on their own data it's more like red meat eating also corresponds with other behaviors that are bad for your health (less exercise, smoking etc). If everyone is told not to eat red meat and people who try to live healthier skip the red meat it would show up in a study like this. Also take a look at the reported caloric intakes.

Bottom line this study proves nothing about "red meat". I'll be eagerly awaiting some real science to examine on this issue.
Click to expand...

I assume you're talking about first paper, not the chinese study. From the first paper:

The results were adjusted for age; body mass index; alcohol consumption; physical activity level; smoking status; race; menopausal status and hormone use in women; family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; history of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia; and intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables.
Click to expand...

(My quote is actually edited to remove details. Please see the original for the levels they used for each factor.)

While there may be other relevant factors, they seem to have covered the obvious ones.
 
NPR aired a piece on this study yesterday: Death By Bacon?

One of the researchers on the study drew a slightly different conclusion:

"We're not talking about a vegetarian diet " says Hu. "A moderate consumption, for example one serving every other day, I think is fine."​

The information on bacon and hot dogs was also interesting. I especially loved the spokesperson for the American Meat Institute Foundation:

"I don't think there are a lot of risks associated with those processes [used to produce hot dogs or bacon]," says Betsy Booren, director of scientific affairs for the AMI Foundation.

"They're made from meat, which is needed in the body," Booren says. And she argues it's unfair to single out meat, when there are many risk factors for cancer and heart disease.​
 
So far as I can see it is a questionnaire. Not saying it has no value but certainly not as much as a real checking what people eat. *shrug*. If the tradeoff for eating meat is a few years.... Then i shall trade off. It is not as if life quality after 70 or 80 is a valid trade off agaisnt life queality at 20-40 anyway.
 
RobRoy said:
NPR aired a piece on this study yesterday: Death By Bacon?

One of the researchers on the study drew a slightly different conclusion:

"We're not talking about a vegetarian diet " says Hu. "A moderate consumption, for example one serving every other day, I think is fine."​

The information on bacon and hot dogs was also interesting. I especially loved the spokesperson for the American Meat Institute Foundation:

"I don't think there are a lot of risks associated with those processes [used to produce hot dogs or bacon]," says Betsy Booren, director of scientific affairs for the AMI Foundation.

"They're made from meat, which is needed in the body," Booren says. And she argues it's unfair to single out meat, when there are many risk factors for cancer and heart disease.​
Click to expand...


Bacon too??

Wasn't pork supposed to be "the other white meat"?? :(
 
I've gone to red meat once a week and feel that's the best I can do. If that's too much, eff it.
 
Checkmite said:
Uh...hate to tell you this, but "mcdonalds burgers" are red meat.
Click to expand...

Red meat is *one component*. So how do you know if it's the red meat or something else?

If you lump in fast food hamburgers with red meat what result would you expect? Just curious.

I would love to see the same study where they compare fast food eaters to non-fast food eaters. Or a myriad of other things.
 
I am a bit suspicious of the study because, if it were true, surely we would see a huge majority of the truly aged to be lifelong vegetarians. If there were such studies, then we would not be able to get the vegetarians to ever shut up.

Any read of a study that interviewed a few thousand old folks to see what their lifetime eating were?

(Before anyone suggests I DOMYOWNGOOGLING, I may get to it later today but I have a garage door to paint while the Sun is still shining and rain and thunder is forecast for Thursday.)
 
Resume said:
I've gone to red meat once a week and feel that's the best I can do. If that's too much, eff it.
Click to expand...

Amen. We're down to two (not counting bacon, that's sacred) and have no real interest in extending our lives by 1% by skipping red meat entirely.

In fact, The Institute For Studies has proved that denying oneself minor carniverous dietary pleasures raises stress levels and reduces life expectancy by 1.5%.
 
Listening to the NPR report yesterday, and now reading all this talk about meat and bacon is really making me hungry for a double bacon cheeseburger.
 
RobRoy said:
Listening to the NPR report yesterday, and now reading all this talk about meat and bacon is really making me hungry for a double bacon cheeseburger.
Click to expand...

DO EEEEET!!!!

Anyways, there definitely is a clash between a long standing clash between larger Nutritional groups with "eggs and meat" interests versus, well...most doctors and nutritionists.

Anyways, I have the book The China Study and it's actually pretty good. It's not crankish, rather addresses the flaws in dissemination of knowledge to consumers. It's worth reading.
 
rustypouch said:
So I still don't understand why fast food burgers shouldn't be considered as red meat.
Click to expand...

It should be considered red meat. But it should also be considered a bunch of other things including a bunch of food additives and processed who knows what.

How do you statistically separate it out? For example if fast food was extra bad for you and people who ate "red meat" are really just eating a lot of fast food how can you simple blame "red meat", instead of blaming processed crap?

If "healthy" people generally avoided red meat or even fast food because they consider it unhealthy and they do practice other healthy habits this could mask whether or not red meat is the problem. This same thing happened with hormonal replacement in women.

Bottom line, the study has a ton of room for slop in it. All it's saying is that this needs more investigation. Real studies with controls etc are going to be a lot more interesting.
 
NewtonTrino said:
Bottom line, the study has a ton of room for slop in it. All it's saying is that this needs more investigation. Real studies with controls etc are going to be a lot more interesting.
Click to expand...

All fine, except this isn't the only study, it doesn't aim to be conclusive, as said already it's great groundwork for further study. But there are MANY studies that indicate high red meat consumption with specific diseases, such as CVD, cancer and these are DIRECTLY linked to red meat consumption. These diseases lead to increased mortality, so the red meat consumption (NOT RED MEAT, but its overall consumption) shows positive correlation.

When you have these positive correlations, be it the cohort study, the China Study, the CVD studies all pointed to red meat, I dare say that which it's good to err on the side of caution, it's not so reasonable to be a perpetual fence sitter too on it.
 
I'm with Lowpro on this one, I'm sure I've read of studies showing a strong positive correlation at the society-wide level between levels of red meat consumption and bowel cancer, and between levels of processed meat consumption and bowel cancer.

Rather than live in denial ("I'm an internet rebel, I eat bacon to defy PETA! Look at me!") you should demand that science get to work on safe bacon.

I miss bacon. Not enough to shorten my average life expectancy over it though. There are lots of tasty things to eat and fun things to do that are better for me.
 
Shoot son I'm still gonna eat the hell out of bacon and ribs, but managing overconsumption along with general dietary awareness can do wonders. That's just a real public policy among many places I know of. Maybe Germany.
 
IIRC, re: red meat and dying from bowel cancer, eating red meat gives the chances of NOT dying from bowel cancer 99.7%. Not eating red meat, and the chances of Not dying of bowel cancer get better, up to 99.8% of NOT dying of bowel cancer. Meaningless improvement when stated that way. So the studies broadcast results based on "relative risk". In this case a 33% IMPROVEMENT. (two per thousand is 33% better than THREE.) But then they usually turn that inside out too, and claim it as "those who eat red meat have a FIFTY PERCENT GREATER chance of getting the disease. Sorry, in my improvised numbers, there is no 50% improvement, there is only a .1 % improvement.

I'll have a triple bacon cheeseburger while you mull that over. ;)
 
Last edited:
rustypouch said:
So I still don't understand why fast food burgers shouldn't be considered as red meat.
Click to expand...

Because they also have buns.

Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
casebro said:
IIRC, re: red meat and dying from bowel cancer, eating red meat gives the chances of NOT dying from bowel cancer 99.7%. Not eating red meat, and the chances of Not dying of bowel cancer get better, up to 99.8% of NOT dying of bowel cancer. Meaningless improvement when stated that way. So the studies broadcast results based on "relative risk". In this case a 33% IMPROVEMENT. (two per thousand is 33% better than THREE.) But then they usually turn that inside out too, and claim it as "those who eat red meat have a FIFTY PERCENT GREATER chance of getting the disease. Sorry, in my improvised numbers, there is no 50% improvement, there is only a .1 % improvement.

I'll have a triple bacon cheeseburger while you mull that over. ;)
Click to expand...

I tend to think a 1 in 1000 chance of bowel cancer is worth avoiding, don't you? While I agree in general that such public health issues should be framed in terms of deaths per thousand people or something rather than as relative risks, I think it's rationally risk-averse to avoid 0.1% chances of death.

The odds of being in a car crash on any given trip are less than one in one thousand, yet I still wear a seat belt.
 
The study mentions that confounding factors such as smoking, obesity, exercise, alcohol intake and other life style factors have been taken into account, but I don't see much detail as to how that was done.
It has been my (non-scientific and purely anecdotal) observation that meat eaters tend to partake in many of the above mentioned factors to a greater degree than more health conscious people. So, I am far from satisfied that these factors have been adequately addressed in this study.
 
Perpetual Student said:
The study mentions that confounding factors such as smoking, obesity, exercise, alcohol intake and other life style factors have been taken into account, but I don't see much detail as to how that was done.
It has been my (non-scientific and purely anecdotal) observation that meat eaters tend to partake in many of the above mentioned factors to a greater degree than more health conscious people. So, I am far from satisfied that these factors have been adequately addressed in this study.
Click to expand...

What you do is you compare apples to apples. Or in this case compare people who eat meat but who are similar to non-red-meat-eaters in all other relevant respects to the non-red-meat-eaters . If the red-meat-eaters still have a higher risk of bowel cancer, it's either the red meat or something else you forgot to control for.
 
NewtonTrino said:
Red meat is *one component*. So how do you know if it's the red meat or something else?
Click to expand...

Red meat is very rarely eaten all by itself. I imagine one might compile a list of meals in which red meat was the common component.

NewtonTrino said:
If you lump in fast food hamburgers with red meat what result would you expect? Just curious.

I would love to see the same study where they compare fast food eaters to non-fast food eaters. Or a myriad of other things.
Click to expand...

Fried red meat is still red meat. I'm not 100% sure, but I suspect frying and broiling are by far the most common method of preparing beef. I don't think it would even be a stretch of the imagination to suppose hamburgers specifically are the most commonly consumed beef dish. If there's something wrong with frying, and beef is usually fried when eaten, one might naturally expect a link between regular consumption of beef and the health consequences of frying; but that doesn't make the observation invalid. Beef doesn't "not count" as red meat just because it is fried.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Red meat is very rarely eaten all by itself. I imagine one might compile a list of meals in which red meat was the common component.
Click to expand...

My point is that unless you separate out the meat how do you know it isn't one of the other components? Especially when you blend a bunch of meats together like this study does? At best this study shows that hamburgers are bad for us IMHO.
 
NewtonTrino said:
It should be considered red meat. But it should also be considered a bunch of other things including a bunch of food additives and processed who knows what.

How do you statistically separate it out? For example if fast food was extra bad for you and people who ate "red meat" are really just eating a lot of fast food how can you simple blame "red meat", instead of blaming processed crap?

If "healthy" people generally avoided red meat or even fast food because they consider it unhealthy and they do practice other healthy habits this could mask whether or not red meat is the problem. This same thing happened with hormonal replacement in women.

Bottom line, the study has a ton of room for slop in it. All it's saying is that this needs more investigation. Real studies with controls etc are going to be a lot more interesting.
Click to expand...

Oh, I agree entirely that the methodology is flawed. There are just so many variables in diet and lifestyle choices of people used in this study that I don't know how they can isolate the effects of just one.

I was responding to the implication that the meat used in fast food doesn't count as meat. Granted, it's lower quality, and there's a good chance it comes from old dairy cows, but it's still beef.
 
epepke said:
Because they also have buns.

Edited by LashL: 
Removed breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I wasn't precise enough, as other posters had implied that even the patties of fast food burgers weren't red meat.

I sorry if I confused you. It sounds as if you've had a rough day. Come here, we can snuggle. I'll even let you be the little spoon.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
What you do is you compare apples to apples. Or in this case compare people who eat meat but who are similar to non-red-meat-eaters in all other relevant respects to the non-red-meat-eaters . If the red-meat-eaters still have a higher risk of bowel cancer, it's either the red meat or something else you forgot to control for.
Click to expand...
Yes, of course that is a naive description of what is done to control for confounding factors. As on who is trained in demographics, I can assure you it is not quite so straightforward when dealing with multiple factors. Additionally, I am nor sure the population used -- 38,000 men and 84,000 women -- is big enough when controlling for all these: smoking, obesity, alcohol, exercise. Does the study mention any attempt to control for geography: region, urban, suburban, rural, etc.? Population studies, using questionnaires can be notoriously misleading.
I would also like to know more about the researchers histories, the source of funding and the motivation behind the study.
I have seen too many population studies that are later contradicted by better studies using alternative methods.
I remain unconvinced.
 
Last edited:
First, I ask, Are you living to see how long you can live for?

OR, Are you living to ENJOY your life as much as possible?

As I am for enjoying my life, I care less if red meat may be bad for me IN THE LONG Run or not.

And as I LOVE THE TASTE OF RED MEAT, I eat it frequently.

Next, EATING MEAT IS WHAT MADE UP HUMANS as doing so caused our brains to GROW MUCH FASTER AND MUCH LARGER!

Had we not become red meat eaters, we would still be running around the plains of Africa trying to saves our butts from being some carnivors din din!

And what if vegetarians are vegetarians for ENOUGH generations, would they simply DE-EVOLVE?

Would not their digestive systems and stomachs become like those of other Non-meat eaters? IF we were not meat eaters, would not our body shapes more closely resemble those of apes rather than of monkeys?

Look at vegetarian animals and compared them to carnivorous animals. On one side you have Cows, Hippos and Buffalo as examples

While on the other side, you have Lions, Alligators and Wolves.

Now honestly, which ones are FAT and which ones are not?

Next, in very carefully controlled scientific
experiments conducted with identical rats separated into two groups. The first group was fed a strict vegetarian diet.

This Veggie diet group lived for 550 days.

The second group was fed the EXACT SAME vegetarian diet PLUS MEAT. This group lived for 1020 days.

So the group which ate MEAT lived nearly TWICE as long !! GEE, LIVING TWICE AS LONG AND ENJOYING IT AT THE SAME TIME!

SUCH A DEAL!

A few years ago, the State of Colorado conducted a study & found there were 415 people in the state who were over the age of 100. (They also found Co. had the highest percent of people over 100.)

Out of those 415 healthy, active people over 100 years of age living in Colorado, NOT one was a vegetarian! In fact, ALL of them averaged eating meat TWICE a day.

HELLO? EVERYONE OVER 100 ATE MEAT TWICE A DAY!

In 2002, I read about a lady who lives in my most favorite city, Manhattan Beach, Ca. She is the oldest resident and super active for her age of 103.

She is, of course, a MEAT eater.

So, this 77 year old sure as hell is not going to quit eating RED MEAT!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Puppycow
Jordan Peterson's all-meat diet
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
319
Views
38K
casebro
casebro
Butter!
Help! I Need A Patient Physicist! (Warning - Long and Very Amateur)
Replies
9
Views
3K
Roboramma
R
M
Could cell phones be bad for you after all?
Replies
24
Views
5K
mike3
M
Dragoonster
Is nutritional "science" woo?
2 3 4 5
Replies
193
Views
7K
Skwinty
Skwinty
Tsukasa Buddha
Fat Logic
8 9 10 11 12
Replies
475
Views
56K
Skeptical Greg
Skeptical Greg

Back
Top Bottom