All Red Meat is Bad for You

[GlennB]

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.

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%.

 

[rustypouch]

When was the last time you ordered just the hamburger patty?

So I still don't understand why fast food burgers shouldn't be considered as red meat.

 

[RobRoy]

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.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

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.

 

[NewtonTrino]

So I still don't understand why fast food burgers shouldn't be considered as red meat.

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.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

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.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

 

[Lowpro]

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.

 

[casebro]

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.

 

[epepke]

So I still don't understand why fast food burgers shouldn't be considered as red meat.

Because they also have buns.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

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.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

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.

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.

 

[Checkmite]

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

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.

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.

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.

 

[NewtonTrino]

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.

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.

 

[rustypouch]

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.

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.

 

[rustypouch]

Because they also have buns.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

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.

 

[Perpetual Student]

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.

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.

 

[Nasty Neil]

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!

 

[gabeygoat]

Because they also have buns.

Edited by LashL: 

Removed breach of Rule 0 and Rule 12.

so do chicken sandwiches, fish sandwiches, and gardenburgers