"Is grass fed beef the same as your typical corn fed beef?"

You would think it has to make a difference. I watched Food Inc, while not willing to blindly accept everything in that movie, there is no denying a cow that is being fattened in a yard being fed corn and god knows what else, living in disgusting, awful conditions that would make anyone gag...as compared to a free range, grass eating cow out in a field that is clean, moving around, and not wallowing in fe$es. Common sense says there just has to be a difference.

moderation in all things...

The only study regarding diet and extending one's lifespan that I know has held for a number of years, is that of a restricted caloric intake. No one has debunked that yet , that I know of. Everything else keeps changing: no butter - yes margarine- no margarine- little butter ok- olive oil good....,is just a little example and yes, I know that related to saturated vs unsaturated fats.
In traditional Chinese medicine, which seems to have addressed chronic health issues fairly well( western is still the best with acute conditions), meat can be beneficial to individuals that suffer certain deficiencies. It seems to boil down to the individual. What meat, how it is prepared and how much also differ according to the individual and the state of their organs. I am not 100% sold on anything yet, except eating a variety of fresh, unprocessed foods. I was a vegetarian for many years and now I eat meat maybe once a week; just seems to work out that way.
The study in the OP is not conclusive to me and so I will most likely continue to eat how I do now, most things in moderation.

I'll admit I have a bias, I really skeptical of things like this. I was skeptical when the Paleo diet came up, I'm skeptical now of the "no red meat."

I'm skeptical for a number of reasons that have nothing to do with a taste for red meat.

1. I don't know the details of the study. Did they adjust for factors other than red meat (exercise, other dietary concerns, lifestyle etc.).

2. Also who did the study? Are they reputable or do they have an agenda?

3. I'm pretty sure political considerations to cloud the judgement of the USDA at times BUT not always. Lots of people with unpopular theories say "the government/fill in the blank industry, have covered this up." Maybe, or maybe the theory these people are pushing just isn't widely accepted.

"moderation in all things..."

Precisely

Here's the link to the study. Skeptics can see it for themselves: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287

As for Luke's questions:
1. Did they adjust for factors other than red meat (exercise, other dietary concerns, lifestyle etc.).
Yes

2. Also who did the study? Are they reputable or do they have an agenda?
Folks from the Harvard School of Public Health. I have no idea who they are.

3. I'm pretty sure political considerations to cloud the judgement of the USDA at times BUT not always. Lots of people with unpopular theories say "the government/fill in the blank industry, have covered this up." Maybe, or maybe the theory these people are pushing just isn't widely accepted.
I'm not sure what the USDA has to do with this. But if you're referring to what I said about confirmation bias, you're proving my point.

Part of the study consisted in participants filling out questionairs on their habits and behavior.

I don't think any study is going to be perfect, or 100% conclusive. But start browsing through the references here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat

When numerous studies with different methodologies and different populations find links to cancer, heart disease diabetes, premature death, they're probably on to something.
This most recent study probably has some flaws, but it corroborates what we already know.

Bovinea flatulence is causing global warming.

To clear things up
I said - "I'm pretty sure political considerations to cloud the judgement of the USDA at times BUT not always. Lots of people with unpopular theories say "the government/fill in the blank industry, have covered this up." Maybe, or maybe the theory these people are pushing just isn't widely accepted.

Scott said - "I'm not sure what the USDA has to do with this. But if you're referring to what I said about confirmation bias, you're proving my point."

Scott I was refering to Ben's suggestion that the bad affects of meat were covered up due to lobbying pressure. That might be true, I don't know if its documented or not. Its also possible the facts on how bad meat is just weren't enough to convince the officials.

For the record I have no special attachment to red meat. If someone really convinces me its bad I'll stop eating it.

Ok, so what? 68% of Americans are overweight to begin with. What % of those involved in the research were overweight or obese? This study used a large group of individuals in a country that struggles with moderation, specifically food.

What preexisting health risks and behavioral patterns did individuals have over the course of the research and how did it impact the research? Were they active? Not just occasionally dropping in to the gym once a week, but a real cultivated lifestyle of physical activity.

What would the outcome be if the researchers took a similar test group size of consistently ACTIVE individuals and conducted the same study?

I would think the risk factor of red meat would decrease significantly.

"Bovinea flatulence is causing global warming."

Indeed.

Which means red meat is safe but grains aren't. At least if you don't want to kill everyone.

Since I posted about confirmation bias a couple of hours ago, there have been at least 5 more posts that prove my point (Luke, that includes you since there's plenty of evidence that red meat is bad for you. You're just not open to it.).

Eat whatever you want. Believe whatever you want. The facts will remain the same.

Some of the Paleo type blogs are weighing in. Honestly I need to brush up on my High School biology before I wade into their arguments but they are out there if you want to look them up. No I'm not a Paleo eater, I just went there to get to see what kind of argument they had. To much technical jargin for me to wade through so I have no idea whether they're blowing smoke or not.

I looked at the actual study and found this toward the end

"Subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes"

Sounds like a bunch of typical beer bellied Americans to me. I may not know all the ins and outs of transfats but I'd be much more convinced if they'd controlled for smoking, obesity and things like that.

Edited by Cameron on 03/13/2012 10:48:49 MDT.

They controlled for smoking, obsesity, etc. Read the whole paper before commenting, please.

Read up on the McGovern commision
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_Select_Committee_on_Nutrition_and_Human_Needs

In January 1977, after having held hearings on the national diet, the McGovern committee issued a new set of nutritional guidelines for Americans that sought to combat leading killer conditions such as heart disease, certain cancers, stroke, high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, and arteriosclerosis.[2][10][11] Titled Dietary Goals for the United States, but also known as the "McGovern Report",[10] they suggested that Americans eat less fat, less cholesterol, less refined and processed sugars, and more complex carbohydrates and fiber.[11] (Indeed, it was the McGovern report that first used the term complex carbohydrate, denoting "fruit, vegetables and whole-grains".[12]) The recommended way of accomplishing this was to eat more fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, and less high-fat meat, egg, and dairy products.[2][11] While many public health officials had said all of this for some time, the committee's issuance of the guidelines gave it higher public profile.[11]

The committee's "eat less" recommendations triggered strong negative reactions from the cattle, dairy, egg, and sugar industries, including from McGovern's home state.[2] The American Medical Association protested as well, reflecting its long-espoused belief that people should see their doctor for individual advice rather than follow guidance for the public as a whole.[11] Some scientists also thought the committee's conclusions needed further expert review.[2] Others felt that the job of promulgating recommendations belonged to the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council.[9] Under heavy pressure, the committee held further hearings, and issued a revised set of guidelines in late 1977 which adjusted some of the advice regarding salt and cholesterol and watered down the wording regarding meat consumption.[2]




This isn't about this one study. This is about a long history of data showing meat is bad for you. And a long history of industry getting their way by throwing political tantrums.

Who wants those last 5 years of life any way? Those years are all miserable, why not just shave them off and have that nice taco from the street vendor? Joking.

Confirmation bias aside, the comments that seem most on point are those on moderation and caloric restriction. The argument for consuming less calories for life extension is solid and mounting, but you need to be comfortable with your own hunger for that to be an acceptable route.

Atkins, Veganism, Raw-only paleo... ETC. Extremes seem pretty, well, extreme. They may or may not be right, but they are extreme. It seems that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Michael Pollan's best idea.

And street vendor tacos truly are the best. Seriously, don't just walk past without trying one. :)

Interesting story (I'm not surprised that poltics was involved) but they didn't really say "no red meat" as far as I can tell. Where are the studies that actually said "don't eat meat" or "No red meat?"

The politicians no doubt have a stake in it....

Scott, thanks for the link. I'd far rather read the report by the actual scientists than a journalist's take on it!


One thing I noted is that there is no indication in the actual report of including or analyzing the role of refined carbohydrates in all of this. This is an issue for a number of folks here, and I wish the Harvard folks had considered it.