T Nation

All Red Meat Is Bad for You...


#1

So sayeth this article:

http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story


#2

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.


#3

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.


#4

[quote]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.[/quote]

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.


#5

[quote]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. [/quote]

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.


#6

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.


#7

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


#8

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


#9

“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.”


#10

I hate the bullshit “What’s good for you is also good for the planet”.


#11

[quote]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.

[/quote]

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.


#12

Here’s a great critique http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-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


#13

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


#14

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.


#15

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


#16

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

Coincidence I’m sure.


#17

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.


#18

[quote]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. [/quote]

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.


#19

[quote]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. [/quote]

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.


#20

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.