Re-evaluating your assumptions in light of the emerging evidence is always a good exercise. This study should appropriately give pause to those who eat meat daily.

In terms of the study methods, Cox regression is a tricky business. It seems fairly clear, as others have mentioned, that red meat was associated with many unhealthy practices in this study. You can correct for known confounding variables (smoking,drinking), but it is a lot harder to account for the myriad of other unhealthy practices that may be associated with increased red meat consumption but are less well recognized.

One of my other concerns with the study was the inclusion of "burger" in the unprocessed meat category. It would have been useful to know how many of these harried health professionals were grabbing fast food every day at lunch or dinner. Is eating a McDonald's burger and fries every day the same as eating a lean grass-fed beef steak and veggies? To my mind, they are not, but I could be wrong.

In the end, I take "dirty" studies like these under advisement, but reserve final judgement for the randomized, controlled trial. Until you prospectively evaluate like groups of individuals, it is too easy to fall prey to confounders. In the meanwhile, moderation is a good way to navigate through life, hopefully receiving the benefits of a varied diet and minimizing the dangers associated with any individual ingredient.

"Re-evaluating your assumptions in light of the emerging evidence is always a good exercise."

It's a healthy thing all around, and it can give its own positive feedback.

"One of my other concerns with the study was the inclusion of "burger" in the unprocessed meat category. It would have been useful to know how many of these harried health professionals were grabbing fast food every day at lunch or dinner. Is eating a McDonald's burger and fries every day the same as eating a lean grass-fed beef steak and veggies? To my mind, they are not, but I could be wrong."

I wondered about that myself. There's no indication that any analysis of the amount of refined carbs entered into this at all. My guess is that if there were any people eating a low refined carb diet, they were a vanishingly small percentage. From what I've read of the endocrinology, lots of protein plus lots of saturated fat plus lots of refined carbs would be about the worst route to take, health-wise! And from the factors associated with the meat-eaters in this study (overweight, smoking, no exercise, etc), I'd bet that a Big Mac, fries and Coke were standard fare for these folks!

I frankly doubt that many meat-eaters here would fit the same profile!

In my experience health workers are some of the un-healthiest people around. Kind of like, how do you know you are in a plumber's house? The toilet is broken.

Did you ever see The Road to Wellville? Weird movie, doubly weird for the parts that where historically accurate. Anyway, this is hardly the first study to fault red meat.

I personally am with the "moderation in all things" crowd, and would "eat food, not too much, mostly plants" if I had more self-control.

(please note that I am not making any paleo comments here. just offering some more balanced history of what happened with the food industry in the States during the 60's and 70's... concerning the McGovern Commission and Ancel Keys, the man behind the 40 year long anti-fat and meat campaign)

I get that vegans and vegetarians can be obnoxiously sanctimonious and smug, but we've known for decades that red meat is incredibly bad for us. The McGovern commission in the 70s recommended we eat less meat, but industry completely flipped out about it and buried the suggestions.

I'd like to suggest two books that will very much open your eyes, "Good Calories, Bad Calories", by Gary Taubes (very balanced and well-researched and as objective as possible) and "The Omnivore's Dilemma", by Michael Pollan, which takes you through the entire process of growing, processing, and selling basic foods, and also talks about the American political history around food.

Go Pollan! An excellent book.

The sweet irony is that in most cases our food is the safest it has ever been. Of course it doesn't help we also have access to the most food ever in history - at low prices (really) - so low that even the poorest people eat too much often in first world countries. But...most of our "food" isn't food really. It is designer food - calories, nothing more. It is very easy to over indulge.

When it comes to eating moderation is the key with ALL of it. Enjoy life. Enjoy food. Don't eat the same foods every day. Eat a lot of fresh foods. Enjoy meat once in awhile and when you do - enjoy the best you can afford. Eat what your body craves - listen to it. And by that I don't mean Doritos and Coke. Listen to what it really wants. COOK and PREPARE the majority of your eating so you know what you eat. Don't fill your body with artificial colorings and flavorings and wood pulp.

Btw, on the coconut oil harping? Coconut oil is a different form of saturated fat than animal fats. But....if you consume it, only buy cold extracted virgin RAW oils. Processed tropical oils ARE bad. But also remember the ethical dilemma of those oils. To grow them forests are being wiped out at an increasing rate - the demand is too high.

70% of US burgers contained this. Ammonia treated animal waste products. Also known
as sieved chicken.




http://upstrm.wordpress.com/2012/01/04/pink-slime/

Edited by oware on 03/13/2012 17:56:09 MDT.

In my experience health workers are some of the un-healthiest people around"

Yes. They all look wrung out. Bad, dull hours.
I seldom meet a doctor who looks healthy.

Meh, these "studies" come up every once in a while. Coralation is not causation-
There are people who will never give up attacking real food, nothing new here.
Also: define moderation, is it the same for an 80lb man as a 200lb man? Define low calorie,is it the same for an 80lb man as a 200lb man? What if they are not at the same level of athleticism? Subjective safe terms, puritanical guilt ,and psuedoscience have never failed to keep the population sick.

THIS is a must have book if you have an iPad....

Kat wrote....

"No. A healthy lifestyle, moderation and not jumping on the latest bandwagon/ study is the solution. No one single study or report is going to make me change my diet, which is quite sensible to begin with."

and

"Those of us that take a little better care of ourselves are probably not endangered by a weekly piece of meat."

Took the words right out of my mouth. I'm walking-hiking-running proof of that seeing as I did what the Diabetes educators and internist said I couldn't... reverse diabetes in a relatively short time. The key - moderation in all things and a physically active, healthy lifestyle. Diets, cleanses, all the different fad fasts and such don't work over the long term and that's why it's a multi-billion dollar industry. Sensible eating is the way to go. Too bad it took me a few decades and too many fad diets to figure that out.

If one chooses to be vegetarian or vegan for a multitude of reasons, that's a choice and one that I support. While we eat like vegetarians/vegans a few times a week, we also enjoy beef about once every 8-10 days.

Exercise also plays a huge role in how our body processes what we eat. A sedentary sofa-spud who eats a high fat steak is going to absorb the food differently than someone athletic who works out several times a week.

I also slept with baby girl next to me from time-to-time... and I carried her in a Moby Wrap and a sling even though "they" said it was dangerous. I also took her hiking and on a wilderness canoe trip. I had her camping at a mere 7 weeks old. All horrible choices according to some.

For every study there is an opposing study saying something different. We are what we eat... if you eat junk, your body will treat you like you ate junk.

Like I said earlier in the thread... all things in moderation.

This all things in moderation dogma is bizarre to me. Certain things are just bad for you. Period. All things in moderation, including mercery? Heroin? Cigarettes? A doctor friend of mine (who is an avowed carnivore) said there's some speculation that predates this study, but is potentially bolstered by it, that meat is more like poison than food--that eating red meat may cause dangerous changes in your body even at very low levels of consumption. I'm not sure I'm willing to go that far, and I like my meat occasionally, but this fetish for moderation is strange to me.


This "they said but I proved differently thing" is also strange. I forgot to buckle my seatbelt the other day, but I didn't die horribly, so that means I proved the "experts" wrong about wearing a seatbelt.

With all due respect, heroin is in quite a different category of substance than meat. I see the point you're trying to make, but that comparison is silly.

We're breathing too much. Less breathing, everyone!

Ray Charles did little bit of heroin, made some great music, then quit and died an old man.

So, yes, a little heroin.

I am trying to convince my children to lay off any cured meats (with or without nitrates) since their father and his father both died of stomach cancer (their father just last summer). Somehow they seem convinced that "organic" cured meats are OK. However, from what I've been reading (quite a bit of research since ex-hubby was diagnosed), it isn't just the nitrates that are the problem!

Unfortunately stomach cancer is rare in the US (although more common in Europe where everyone loves their ham and sausages) so doctors don't check for it. It was only when ex-hubby was hospitalized for blood clots that they discovered the stomach mass. He lived only a few days afterwards. His father had a similar history. However, ex-hubby's cancer was, unusually, almost symptomless--in fact, he ate a normal breakfast the day he died.

I've asked my kids at least to tell their medical providers and their children's medical providers about the family history of stomach cancer!

Edited by hikinggranny on 03/14/2012 12:26:01 MDT.

I came across an article that made me think of this thread .... just another perspective where the author addresses some issues that he feels may come into play in studies like the OP posted ... you may or may not agree with his view, but just putting out there .... might be worth a read. :)

http://www.cavemandoctor.com/2012/03/13/red-meat-consumption-and-mortality/

Funny coincidence: I was watching tv late last night (well, actually listening to it in the background while sewing on my 'mid shelter) and it was a show about what kind of life foms aliens would be potentially like, so they took a quick look at life forms on earth... First, they looked at grass and how it gets its engery- from the sun. Fine and dandy, but ti doesn't produce that much energy so it isn't able to do much. Which is why vegetables are, uh, "vegetables". Next they looked at a sheep that was eating the grass. It gets more energy from the grass than so it's able to do stuff like run, jump, etc. They showed on a plate how much grass (I think- was actually sewing) it needs to eat to power its brain for a day (or whole body? sorry). Then they showed in comparison how much grass it would take to power our brain- and it was a lot. Like a giant burlap sac's worth. The point was if all we ate was grass, we wouldn't have time to do much else besides eat. Or - we could just eat some meat, at which point they brought out a leg of lamb for the guy in the demonstration to eat. Which I that was in poor taste (pun) to eat a leg of lamb right in front of another lamb...kind of cold hearted. So their conclusion was that alines with enough intelligence to travel across space to get here would most likely be carnivorous and might look at us and our planet as another food source (paraphrasing).

But a few years ago I watched another discovery channel show where the scientists were arguing that our early monkey ancestor's (if you believe in evolution) rapid brain development that put them ahead of the other monkeys was because they ate red meat, and the rest stayed herbivores. Apparently the nutrition in red meat gave their brains a developmental kick start. So, according to them we'd still swinging from the trees if we didn't eat meat.

And that leads into an anecdotal story which is an issue I've heard can happen to vegetarians- and that's memory loss. I had a co-worker who, him and his girlfriend, were vegetarians. They ended up going to their doctor because of memory problems and their doctor's prescription was to eat some red meat.

Anyway- I just thought it was funny to see that show the same day after stumbling across this thread, and how it ties into other things I've run across regarding brain development and meat eating.

BM

Ben F said "This all things in moderation dogma is bizarre to me. Certain things are just bad for you. Period. All things in moderation, including mercery? Heroin? Cigarettes?"

Seriously? You had to go there? I guess maybe I had more faith in people being smart enough to use common sense in relation to my stating what is a common figure of speech The reader is expected to be a reasonable adult and have some common sense. The point was... there is no reason an omnivore can't enjoy the odd bit of red meat or the health nut can't enjoy the occasional treat. It's about the overall lifestyle.

Sure... red meat may cause problems at low levels. Buy organic meat that was raised without hormones and unacceptable forms of feed. Be active... that goes a long way in reducing the problems of things like cholesterol and such.

Frankly, I'd take this study with a grain of salt. Oh wait... that's bad for me too. Maybe I should just live in a bubble.

In the article they blame red meat consumption on diabetes and heart disease. I am sure they mean type 2 diabetes which kills more Americans than HIV and Breast Cancer combined. I have a bit to say about that.... red meat isn't the killer here... more calories and fat than the body can use is the problem. Obesity from over eating is the problem. A sedentary lifestyle is the problem. Alcohol abuse and smoking are the problem.

Edited by Laurie_Ann on 03/14/2012 17:52:13 MDT.