Four to seven percent in an *observational study*?
Forgive me for laughing -- that figure would be dicey in a controlled study -- in an observational study it is completely meaningless.
It doesn't help that they include processed meat with red meat. Processed meat has repeatedly been found to cause cardiovascular problems. Or grass fed with grain fed meat, or high fat vs. low fat meat of the kind our ancestors ate.
Furthermore, it doesn't examine the really important issue -- all-cause mortality. Cancer risk, say.
What this study really shows is you can eat your steaks and chops with no cardiovascular harm or insignificant harm or even a net benefit -- the figure is that sloppy.
The rule for good nutrition is simple -- eat as our ancestors ate, because it is the diet our species is adapted to.
And yes, that includes meat.
It is so hard to dislodge these nutrition myths.
I left eating meat a year back and I feel much healthy now than before. I was into fitness, So, I think if I stop eating meat how would I get protein requirements from? I was wrong, I always thought that vegetarians foods are not complete protein until I found these super vegetarian & vegan Foods.
And the fact that nonveg contains so much saturated fat is one of the reasons for so many underlying diseases.
Meat plus sugars cause heart problems.
Meat and veggies keeps you healthy.
I eat meat and veggies and my HDL is over 100.
Fluffy LDL indicates no cardiovascular issues.
This article flies in the face of current research. Simply search YouTube for LCHF (low carb, high fat) and you will observe that the overwhelming scientific consensus now is that humans are adapted to low carb, high fat foods, not johnny-come lately carbs. No amount of Pollyanna deference to the AHA or vegans will change that.
The story of the whole, scandalous mess, from ruined lives with diabetes, billions in destructive statins, to destroyed grasslands - no honest scientist can hide from it any longer.
Depends, among other things, on what else is - or isn't - in your diet. Observational studies, such as the instant, are hardly the gold-standard for reliable research. For starters, how were "observants" studied? A little demographic info, underlying conditions, and verified diets rather than self-reported would be helpful. This really creates sound, stirs up fury, and says ... nothing.
How about viruses in meat - does that increase health risks or potentially shut down the world economy in a months time? Gee, I am skeptical and guess I will hold out for the research from the meat industry. Till then I will keep eating cow which my ancient ancestors hunted daily, slaughtered and then threw in their freezers.
1
This is all social construct, not biology.
Millions of us live happy healthy lives with little or no flesh of any kind.
Eating Cow or Pig or Lamb is not better than Dog, Cat, or Horse (woah Nellie).
Also, if one cares. Murder is Murder.
All Factory Farming is Torture & Suffering... How about some Mayo with that?
6
Well said, except please do hold the mayo.
Egg laying chickens are arguably the most abused of all the factory farm animals. The federal humane slaughter act (as weak as it is) doesn’t even apply to poultry at all.
Pretty much any barbaric thing one can imagine is perfectly legal to do to a bird on a farm. And with ag-gag laws, the crime is exposing cruelty, not committing it.
7
I was born with parallax vision, canines and incisors: designed to run on meat.
Processed meat does cause more cancers and a corn and anti-biotic diet doesn't make healthy animals so it isn't smart to eat those things. When I eat lots of organic beef and chicken my body is quite healthy and happy.
4
I wish they did not mix processed meats and unprocessed meats in the same category. Processed meats can be pure junk and are loaded with preservatives and salt and I cannot imagine that gram for gram naturally raised meat has the same negative impact as those products.
8
@Detachment Is Possible they don't mix processed and unprocessed meats. This was one of the key findings of the study:
"Intake of processed meat or unprocessed red meat was significantly associated with all-cause mortality, but intake of poultry or fish was not"
6
Only when it's corn fed and in conjunction with a lot of carbs, mainly refined ones. It's the combo with refined carbs we can't handle. We've been eating meat since day 1
6
The key concept in this argument on eating red meat is missing in these research articles and the ensuing discussions. The comment here on "grass fed, organic beef" touches on it, but misses the central issue. The fats in grass-fed meat vs grain-fed meat have significant health-impacting differences. The many scientific studies documenting this are typically published in animal husbandry journals
The fat in grass-fed--"pastured"--animals is high in the ANTI-inflammatory omega-3 fatty acids (like fish oil) and low in the inflammatory omega-6 fatty acids. But the fat in grain-fed animals is the reverse balance--high in omega-6 fatty acids and low in omega-3's. And that goes for more than red meat. Milk and milk-derived products from pastured cows, the meat and the eggs from pastured chickens--all have an anti-inflammatory balance of fatty acids vs the pro-inflammatory balance when these animals are grain fed. Another benefit is the high level of beneficial conjugated linolenic acids (CLA) in the fats in pastured meat and dairy products. CLA has significant immuno-protective functions--and the lesson from this is that when dairy products are from pastured cows, full-fat is a whole lot more healthful than reduced- and low-fat versions.
Organic grains are certainly an improvement, but they are only part of the equation.
Regarding the health of our environment, several studies indicate that raising animals the old-fashioned way, on the pasture, does not contribute to harm.
13
@Sheila Haas
That may be incorrect. I understand the fatty acid differences, but they might not matter so much. And organic rather than non-organic may not matter.
We get far more poisons from plants that they produce themselves (they are 5% poison by weight) than from synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides.
Google; "Bruce Ames 99.99%" for an eye-opening study. Prof Ames is a very famous researcher:
"We calculate that 99.99% (by weight) of the pesticides in the American diet are chemicals that plants produce to defend themselves."
Also google; "Charlene Andersen, carnivore" for what a 100% meat diet (for 20 years!) did to this 46-year old women. Check the before and after images. She and her family do not eat grass-fed, just whatever is in the local grocery store, and they say everything is fine. She does not work out either.
We have detox pathways that mostly take care of things if not overloaded. If one eats no plants, then there may be plenty of excess capacity available.
1
I think our best bet is to look at the Blue Zones. They are not vegan for sure, and most eat some form of meat, fish, or poultry. But red meat is consumed in small amounts -- typically less than 4 oz a week. Hedge your bets -- eat a quality mostly plant based diet in moderation -- the key words are mostly and moderation.
11
With the combined overfishing of the oceans, climate change, and ever-increasing pollution levels is eating fish going to be an option in the future?
14
@Andrew Porter
Indeed, overfishing is killing the oceans faster than climate change.
5
The photo of the beef tells me that it's grain-fed, feedlot, conventional, full of glyphosate and other chemicals and antibiotics. Grass fed, organic beef (which I grow and butcher) never has that much fat. I eat a paleo/keto diet, 100% organic and drink one ounce of water per one pound of body weight. At 76 yrs old, I have no doctors, take no meds, and run a ranch/homestead by myself. It's not about to eat meat or not to eat meat...the real question is to eat ORGANIC or conventional, government sanctioned foods. If the government tells me it's safe, I steer clear of it. It means it means the stuff is dead, sterile, full of chemicals and antibiotics. I tell young people to never do what the government laws dictate when it comes to food because it's programed to make people sick and weak.
Heart disease is caused by chronic unintentional dehydration...something Big Pharma doesn't want you to know. There's no money in The Water Cure!
9
Of course people are confused and frustrated when major media outlets such as the NY Times give individual scientific studies a full news article. Almost all published scientific studies are small pieces of a much larger puzzle that mean little by themselves. With an extremely complex subject such as what constitutes a 'healthy diet' (or really 'healthy lifestyle' as diet alone does not make one healthy) at this point the best evidence is to look at populations where people are generally healthy throughout the lifespan and this has been done. What is consistent across such studies is that these populations eat lots of vegetables and fruits and whole grains with variations in other foods depending on what is available where they live, they often eat some but not a lot of meat, they do not eat processed foods, they do not overeat, they are physically active, and they often have much social support. Few people in the US follow such a lifestyle and thus we suffer from high rates of obesity, chronic diseases, and years of lack of health in later life even if our longevity is pretty high.
5
Beef, pork, chicken, turkey, fish, eggs, dairy and cheese are making up the major calories in the diets of many(most?) Americans and 50% of us Americans are obese and in poor physical condition. This is simple, eat what you want but don't expect the rest of us to pay for the cost of your poor health and medications. Taking control of Health Care in this country begins with taking care of our diets - the results are obvious.
7
I doubt this. I think the majority of calories for most Americans consist of cereal, bagels, fruit, sweet coffee drinks, and muffins. If it were as you described we’d be much better off.
17
@Jef Dawson Add dairy desserts, pastries of all types including doughnuts, hot dogs and other sausages, and therewith buns, ketchup, industrially processed seed oils and in general any processed food.
Of course most of these contain table sugar or high fructose corn syrup.
6
@Jef Dawson
You forgot pizza. I'd die a few years early if I could keep eating pizza.
4
How exactly was “meat-heavy” defined?? And what sorts of meats, highly processed luncheon meat or farmers’ markets sourced grass fed? I feel great eating a steak from a local source, but awful when consuming luncheon meat pre-sliced, sold in plastic with added chemical preservatives.
11
The meat shown in the photos has more fat than any meat than I would buy. There is lean beef.
I find that I feel weak and dizzy if I quit eating meat. Some people seem to need it more than others.
I don't eat much pork though -almost never because I think it has way too much fat.
After the margarine/butter debacle, the low fat/fat free and full fat milk, cream, cottage cheese, yogurt debacle, the polyunsaturated/monosaturated/some more/some less fat types ( canola, corn, safflower, palm, coconut, ...) controversies I just reserve judgement.
I think that overeating in general is the main problem. Too much sugar is another problem. I can be guilty of both so I am not virtue signaling.
All the objection to the environmental impact of beef is disproportionate. Everything that most of us do and continue to do is destructive. Throwaway electronic devices full of heavy metals, plane travel, having everything shipped to the front porch, daily auto travel, generating mountains of trash, cheap clothing and shoes, wrapping everything in small plastic packages. And that artificial beef is loaded with salt and other stuff.
9
@Consuelo It's Wagu beef. The most expensive and sought after beef in the world.
1
From the NY Times on April 7, 2013:
Culprit in Heart Disease Goes Beyond Meat’s Fat
This is an excerpt from the article. I'm curious about the follow-up research.
"The researchers had come to believe that what damaged hearts was not just the thick edge of fat on steaks, or the delectable marbling of their tender interiors. In fact, these scientists suspected that saturated fat and cholesterol made only a minor contribution to the increased amount of heart disease seen in red-meat eaters. The real culprit, they proposed, was a little-studied chemical that is burped out by bacteria in the intestines after people eat red meat. It is quickly converted by the liver into yet another little-studied chemical called TMAO that gets into the blood and increases the risk of heart disease."
https://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/08/health/study-points-to-new-culprit-in-heart-disease.html
11
I am sick and tired of these reports, one day they tell you to drink alcohol its good, next day it's not good, a few months ago they said eggs are good for your well-being then eggs are not, are these people actually sure about all these research?
8
Go read the JAMA paper. The hazard ratio for eating processed red meat is 1.07, ie nearly insignificant. Similar studies on smoking show a hazard ratio of 8-10. I wouldn’t be surprised if this study is riddled with healthy user bias. If you want to abstain from meat, do so for the environmental impacts, not because of it’s supposed health benefits.
10
And its horrific exploitation of sentient beings. Lots of cruelty and terror and pain and despair for animals. This should count for something. Cows - and pigs, chickens etc - are not potatoes.
15
@Hakon Hanesand
The 2015 WHO study "meat causes cancer" showed only a 0.8% lifetime absolute risk increase: 4.5% to 5.3%.
But they improperly sold it as a 18% relative risk increase. One third of the panel who did the research were vegans or vegetarians.
@Hakon Hanesand a 7% increase is not "nearly insignificant"
Comparing it to a more hazardous activity is clearly a distraction
1
After two years of study into my own metabolic issues, my distrust of epidemiological studies has grown exponentially.
Statistics can be used to prove just about anything and epidemiological correlations are even worse.
7
@Paul
It's also worth remembering that medical research tends to be done by a wide variety of smallish medical groups as opposed to very large well-funded organizations that have large professional statistics groups.
Plus, the criteria for inclusion can vary widely. Depending on how people are chosen, you may end up with a sample of subjects/patients where the average CRP of the patients may be 20, in another it's 3. That may make a big difference in findings.
Or there may be some other huge difference in "patient characteristics" that produces very different results between studies.
The net result is that results of research vary widely, answers can be all over the map in the "peer-reviewed research" (which actually doesn't undergo much peer review) and the "common wisdom" about things evolves only slowly after years of research by lots of groups and glacial consensus building.
1
Just watch out for that mercury in your fish! I was thinking of getting sushi tonight. What was I thinking???!!!
2
Does the quality of the meat matter? Grass-finished, for example, versus factory meat?
We lived in Spain long ago and ate locally-raised pork about 6 times a week and ate about 20 eggs a week. We returned to the US with fantastic cholesterol levels, etc.
Yes, lots of walking, of course, but also lots of meat.
Regarding the environment, that's a different consideration....
12
@sing75 Of course the quality of all your food matters, but if you look to the Blue Zones -- they have a very low meat consumption -- it is a small part of their diet.
I love eggs too, but interestingly Blue Zones average egg consumption is 3-4 a week -- not 20. Except for water and plants -- I would say everything in moderation.
3
Living is a risk of life.
So tell me again, are eggs good this week, or are they bad again? (Asking for a steak that wants to be eaten with them.)
8
A research sponsor like the Amer. Heart Assn is as fraught as a cattleman' assn.
Once again, the scientists compared the low-lifes who eat meat all day (like Trump) against the abstemious pius vegetarians... and find a slight benefit to abstention. Stats tricks don't "correct for" that kind of false inference.
1
and now chicken is considered red meat? That gives me a chuckle since many of my formerly vegetarian friends seem to eat nothing but chicken with their veggies.
9
"Ultimately they concluded that eating two or more servings of red meat, processed meat or poultry per week was linked to a 4 percent to 7 percent higher risk of developing heart disease."
Poultry is included here, really? How many Americans eat fewer than 2 servings of per WEEK? Most people I know eat 2 (or more) servings per DAY.
Did the result hold when poultry was removed, is what I'd like to know. Because Americans are not about to give up poultry any time soon.
12
I have eaten a mostly vegetarian diet for over 20 years in order to control high cholesterol. Along with exercise, it worked rather well and helped me to avoid having to take statins. Some health issues have limited my exercise now, so a statin is necessary, but I won't go back to heavy red meats. They seldom appeal any more and the fat is not tasty.
7
@Barbara
Every cell in your body needs cholesterol. 20% - 25% of your brain is cholesterol (another 25% is fat). All your hormones need it. Your liver and intestines produce 80% of your cholesterol, not your food.
Statins decrease your risk of death from heart attack by about 25% but increase your risk of death from low cholesterol problems, increasing your overall death rate so you are more likely to die - statins do lower the risk of heart attack but increase the severity of those that occur. If you look at absolute risk they decrease death risk by only 1%.
A 2015 systematic review of statin trials found that in primary prevention trials, the median postponement of death was just 3.2 days.
"Controversial report claims there's no link between 'bad cholesterol' and heart disease," the Daily Mail reports, while The Times states: "Bad cholesterol 'helps you live longer'."
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/
If you need to clean up your arteries, just use the Pauling Protocol, easy. (See Dr. Google)
I appreciate all the thoughtful discussion and questions being asked. If Mr. O'Connor wants to contact me to discuss the "Inflammation and Heart Disease" Theory, the research we have published and finally the need to use FMTVDM to measure the ACTUAL impact of these diets on heart disease, I am willing to talk with him about an article.
8
@Richard M Fleming, PhD, MD, JD
"Richard M. Fleming may be a man of many talents, but his record as a scientist has been spotty. Fleming, who bills himself on Twitter as “PhD, MD, JD AND NOW Actor-Singer!!!”, was a co-author of short-lived paper in the journal Clinical Cardiology purporting to find health benefits from a diet with low or modest amounts of fat. The paper came out in late September — just a day before the Food and Drug Administration banned Fleming from participating in any drug studies. Why? Two prior convictions for fraud in 2009."
https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/2018/11/23/second-thought-man-many-talents-with-spotty-scientific-record/Jg4srjmdN0Nk9tnNyqW43H/story.html
2
@Fourteen14 You obviously aren't up on the facts but that's ok - why bother to know what actually happened or what is going on. The paper wasn't retracted and the litigation resulting from my exposing BigPharma continues. Litigation which showed the drug company, based in Massachusetts, made tens of billions in extra sales, exposed people to more than 3 million extra curies of radiation and resulted in the misdiagnosis and deaths of countless Americans. But please, continue uninformed ad hominem attacks. Support BigPharma.
1
Useless. Conflating meat along with processed meat, and not examining other elements of the diet doesn't yield useful data. Again, NYT and the US medical establishment leaves us in the dark. How much meat leads to a "small" increased risk? Have they factored in lifestyle factors and genetics? Someone with a strong family history of cardiovascular disease is a greater risk than others. Did they factor in socio-economic status? Occupation? Again, useless propaganda. As per usual.
12
@A. Cleary You can go directly to the linked study and answer each of your posited questions.
4
@A. Cleary
It's worse than that, they conflated meat with fries, sodas, shakes, and processed food.
That's what their "meat-eating" cohort ate, plus burgers. There are no studies that look at strictly meat versus non-meat - all the studies are bogus due to conflators.
1
"red meat in particular has a high environmental impact."
Wrong. Red meat as such has no implications for the environment. It is the NATURE of the production of SOME red meats that contribute methane emissions. Even then, the link between methane and "environmental impact" (is that dog-whistling sleight-of-hand for greenhouse effect?) is tenuous.
I know families who eat venison they have hunted and butchered themselves: totally red meat with no "environmental impact" whatsoever.
6
We can’t eat poultry now?
5
@Claudia did you know we kill 1.5 billion chickens every year.
4
Mixing apples and oranges, this reporting misleads rather than clarifys. Why lump chicken, red meat and processed meat in one category and conclude that consumption of this grouping leads to a small increase in risk? Why not include lettuce? Or potato chips? They do seperate fish, which appears not to be a risk. What's the motivation here? Processed anything is a universally agreed increased risk factor. Processed meat is one of the worst. Lumping this in with anything would probably lead to a small increased risk. A large, well controlled study means nothing's if results are manipulated this way.
12
@Konrad Doerrbecker
It is next to impossible to find a strictly meat-eating cohort to test. The meat-eaters tested eat much more than just meat alone, usually burgers plus lots of junk food.
All the meat versus vegetarian studies are bogus but make good copy for health journalists. No study, for example, has ever actually found that vegetarians live longer or healthier than meat eaters.
Hong Kongers live 84.2 years on average but have the third highest meat consumption in the world (1.5 lbs/per person/per day).
But an ongoing Harvard study right now is doing that; Strict carnivores versus non-carnivores.
3
What kind of meat study only uses an incidence of 2-4 servings per week? When I was eating meat, that was closer to a daily intake, not weekly. I suspect it's that way for most meat eaters- some form of meat at every meal. In this case, the small risk of 4-7% would be greatly increased to 28-49%.
5
@Ron A
It's not valid to simply multiply the risk like that. Beyond that, I think this study is not able to establish causality, so risk cannot be inferred in any case.
3
@Jef Dawson
Then you would be rewriting the study. It was their conclusion that 2-4 servings per week led to an increased risk of 4-7% for heart disease, whether that was causal or associative TBD. They also said the risk increased as consumption increased, so, in the absence of any other indication, a straight multiplication of risk percentage is a good place to start.
1
@Ron A
And by "start" you mean "state as fact"?
@Jef Dawson do you have any connection to meat producers? Sounds like it. Many decades ago I was a delegate on the National Pork Producers Board and I know first hand their deception, overuse of antibiotics, cruelty, indifference to the environment and communities in which their corporate farms are located. Same with the beef industry- major influential lobbyists. There must certainly are environmental consequences not just in this country but internationally - cutting down the rain forest for grazing?!
7
That’s a great and fair question. No, I have no connection with the beef industry. I am a bit zealous about this, because I find the level of misinformation on this topic very disturbing, both from the nutritional and environmental perspectives. I accepted and acted on the “low fat, high carb, more plants” dogma for a long time, and my health has suffered for it. I try to read broadly and keep an open mind, and am beholden to no one. I think people should expose themselves to the best information/data they can find, and make decisions based on it. I’m trying to do that, and I must say these articles in the popular press, and some of the poor studies they refer to, can be very frustrating.
18
@Dee
Sorry, I forgot about the deforestation part. I don't think it's ideal to cut down rain forests to graze cattle, but that's not the only agricultural activity for which rain forest is cut down. Do you also criticize the production of corn and soybeans on land that was cleared of rain forest? Fortunately, grass can grow almost anywhere, including a lot of land that can't support crops. Moreover, it needs little or no irrigation, and raising cattle on grassland sequesters carbon. Growing corn and soybeans does not sequester carbon, and exposes the soil to erosion. It is true that cattle operations in other countries generally produce more GHG than in the US, where methods have been greatly improved. I strongly recommend that you look up Dr. Frank Mitloehner, at the University of California Davis. He does research in this area, and provides a wealth of great data.
9
I forgot to answer about cutting down rain forests for grazing. I don’t approve of that, but I think it’s even worse to cut them down to grow corn and soybeans, neither of which are suitable food for humans, and both of which are truly bad for the environment. It legitimately surprises me when people casually believe that raising cattle is bad for the environment. There are fewer ruminants and less area of grassland than before global warming started. Grass can be grown almost anywhere, including on a lot of land that’s not suitable for other crops. It needs little irrigation and sequesters carbon, when used to raise cattle. Look up Dr. Frank Mitloehner, UC Davis, and look at the real research - it’s the kind of data you can use to make good decisions. Instead, too many people just accept the “one hamburger is worse than driving 1000 miles” nonsense. Go data!
2
"Small but increased risk."
Or, looked at and read another way: 'increased but small risk.'
I don't eat much meat at all. But puh-leeze, already. People who like meat aren't going to give it up.
Especially for negligible gains in longevity.
Life is food. Food is life.
Live and let live.
10
Red meat is terrible for the environment. I love it but I have given it up almost entirely for that reason. The health factor is merely a plus.
11
@Campbell
This isn't true. Raising cattle is responsible for a very small percentage of GHG in the US. Refer to the work of Dr. Frank Mitloehner at the University of California Davis - he presents a lot of reliable data on this topic. Grasslands consist of perennial, deep-rooted grass that prevents soil erosion and requires little or no irrigation, and raising cattle on grassland sequesters carbon. Row crops, on the other hand, require a lot of irrigation, and expose soil to disastrous erosion. The GHG emissions from transportation dwarf those involved in raising cattle, meaning that all the produce shipped from where it grows to where it is consumed is responsible for significant environmental damage. Cattle can be raised anywhere grass can grow, which is almost everywhere, minimizing transport-related GHG. The mantra that meat is bad for the environment is fabricated, and constant repetition doesn't make it any more true.
11
@Jef Dawson That assumes that cattle are grass-fed. It also assumes that row crops are grown without best farming practices. As a result, you are making some inaccurate assumptions. My local market sells locally grown vegetables, fruit, and grain products, often from organic farms. The dairy and meat industries here often sequester their "food product" cattle to cement yards (see the recent charges made against Tillamook). Based on my personal experience visiting farms and dairies in northern Oregon and southern Washington, you're offering an idyllic, unrealistic view of cattle and dairy farming as it is practiced in the U.S. today.
11
@former therapist
I agree that beef should be entirely grass fed, but even grain finished beef is fed mostly grass during its life. I also agree that plant food should be grown in more environmentally favorable ways. I drive by fields of conventionally grown crops (mostly corn and soybeans, which aren't suitable food for humans) and also organically grown crops. While organic is better, and all that I buy, those organic fields are tilled naked, just like the huge conventional fields, which means that the topsoil is washing into the Gulf of Mexico by the ton. That doesn't happen with fields of grass feeding cattle.
5
As someone who occasionally eats beef up to eight times a month and exercises at least three times a week, I'd like to know what the risk is if your diet is also heavy in fish, whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and low-fat dairy. Also very low in sugar.
8
@NR
You are eating a diet that is consistent with the recommendations of the USDA so I wouldn't worry. However, according to this study, your beef consumption ups your risk of heart disease by 4-7%.
1
@NR
Dump the grains and excessive fruit, increase the meat, and you're good.
2
Replace all the grains with beef, limit the fruit, and you’re good
1
The more I read, the less I know about what I should be eating. Cut out the carbs? Eat more fat? Don't eat meat b/c no fiber? Too much protein sabotages keto? I can't keep up. Think I'll go have a hamberder and a cup of covfefe.
28
@Michael McDaniel Love this! Thanks! I love covfefe too.
2
There is nothing "new "here, meat increases heart risk.
Eating red meat daily triples heart disease-related chemical, Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO).
TAMO is a dietary byproduct that is formed by gut bacteria during digestion. The chemical is derived in part from nutrients that are abundant in red meat.
High saturated fat levels in red meat have long been known to contribute to heart disease, the leading cause of death in the United States. A growing number of studies have identified TMAO as another culprit.
The exact mechanisms by which TMAO may affect heart disease is complex. Prior research has shown that TMAO enhances cholesterol deposits in the artery wall.
Studies also suggest that the chemical interacts with platelets—blood cells that are responsible for normal clotting responses—to increase the risk for clot-related events such as heart attack and stroke.
10
@Padman You need to update your data, friend. Saturated fat does not play a role in cardiovascular disease. Look it up.
7
Perhaps two photos of Wagyu steaks are not the most fair, representative selections to accompany this article? Was this a study about dietary fats? Sensational visuals such as these might be something I would expect from FOX News.
6
@SRP And the third cut was untrimmed strip. Heavy on the fat.
"People With Highest Intakes of Meat Have Small Risk." That should have been the headline, per the facts presented here. Instead, we get an ideologically motivated take-down by the headline writer and the staff reporter that conveys the opposite message: meat is bad.
10
According to the study, “participants with higher total intake [of meats] (1) were younger and more likely to be male, non-Hispanic black, and current smokers and to have diabetes, higher BMI, higher [“bad”] cholesterol levels, higher energy intake [i.e. ate more], and higher alcohol intake; [and] (2) had lower [“good”] HDL cholesterol levels, had lower diet quality, and were less likely to use lipid-lowering drugs and hormone therapy…”
Moreover, eTable 1 in the study’s Supplement indicates that the correlation between high red meat consumption and the rates of smoking, alcohol consumption, and levels of physical activity with the poorer health outcomes were all statistically significant.
Yes, the authors properly stuck all of these factors into their Cox proportional hazards models to “control for” these confounding factors. But when every one of them points in the same direction—that low-meat people have ALL of these healthier behaviors and characteristics compared to high-meat people—then “controlling for” them becomes problematical and residual confounding is likely.
Therefore it remains unclear how much of the small differences in the health outcomes calculated here were actually due to differences in meat consumption versus lifestyle choices and other factors.
13
More rubbish dietary advise which is dismissed without a scintilla of doubt !
These types of toilet paper studies need to be made illegal!
1. This is an associational cohort study!
2. Associational studies prove NOTHING!
3. The hazard risk ratio are all less than two , actually just above one — THIS IS JUST STATISTICALLY NOISE !
14
There is no discussion here about the affects of hormones in the meat supply in the U.S. Europe does not allow beef with hormones to be sold for human consumption as it is in the U.S. It would be interesting if a study could be done to contrast the two and the long term effects on human health.
10
Diet and nutrition research and media coverage is so polluted by preconceptions, money, groupthink, and other factors as to be almost completely unreliable and useless.
21
Why do they lump red meat with processed meat and in this study, poultry. Has anyone done a study with just red meat? This study is meaningless unless you are a purveyor of fish.
11
Total nonsense. I’m carnivore , I eat 1 kilo + of red meat a day, eggs and cheese only. I feel my best ever. Physically, mentally, I feel my best. This is just the demonisation of meat and fat that made everyone eat more carbs and grains from the 70’s onwards and everyone got fat and sick. It’s the corn, wheat, soy and sugar industries fighting back, they are loosing ground as the population starts to wake up to their deception. Meat heals. Eat grass fe-finished meat for better health.
31
As usual, the pro-plant-based diet advocates rely on large scale longitudinal studies, that do not account for many hidden dietary factors. Usually, the populations analyzed are asked to provide "self-reported" dietary habits: ("what have you eaten over the past month?"). The low-carb analyses are relativelly fewer in number, but based on smaller population sizes. And are double-blind, and subject to much greater testing controls.
4
Organizations that have been telling people for decades to eat less meat sponsor a study that tells people to eat less meat. So not really from a neutral party.
26
It is really red meat or is it all the processed food? What about high quality red meat that is pasture raised and organic? Given all the pollution in the ocean, I wonder if there are any links between seafood and other diseases?
23
It's all confusing.
So we have to be our own laboratories of anecdotal experimentation.
If you have any of the markers of heart disease, try a plant based whole foods diet (no refined anything or sugar) for six months and get some vigorous exercise. See if your numbers improve and/ or you lose weight.
This worked for me, so I am sticking with it.
15
@RW
Cutting out "refined anything and sugar" is almost certainly a good thing. If you decide to do that, why would you choose to retain the category of foods that includes almost all dietary carbohydrates - plant foods. You could cut out the refined stuff, and eat only meat, as many people have done with very good results. There is nothing harmful about meat, and nothing magic about plants.
5
@RW A plant-based diet coupled with exercise works because it improves arachidonic acid status in cell membranes. Switching from animal protein to plant protein decreases arachidonic acid intake. Exercise speeds up the rate at which arachidonic acid gets used up and excreted. When the concentration of arachidonic acid in cell membranes becomes excessive due to high meat intake and lack of physical exertion, the result is a hyperactivated endocannabinoid system. To learn more, Google - Anna Haug arachidonic acid.
4
@Jef Dawson,
Actually, there’s a lot that’s harmful about meat, starting with: it’s not sustainable (it uses far more resources, land, water, fossil fuel, to grow animals than to grow plant foods for human consumption); it’s environmentally degrading; it’s cruel to animals and workers in the industry; it emits far more
GHG; it is the major driver of antibiotic resistance.
And whole plant food eating is one of the healthiest ways to eat, if not the healthiest. All carbohydrates are not the same: complex carbohydrates (eg, fibers), and even simpler ones occurring naturally in whole foods are fine, and actually healthy; it’s the refined carbohydrates found in sugars and flours that are unhealthy.
And plants do not just contain carbohydrates; they contain protein, oils, and all kinds of minerals, vitamins, and phytonutrients.
I agree with RW: Whole plant food eating, avoiding added oils, sugar, and salt, is the only eating habit shown to slow, stop, and even reverse many major lifestyle conditions, including heart disease, kidney disease, and T2 diabetes. It worked for my brother.
17
It would be helpful to compare risks of meat consumption (if true) to all the other risks these same studies find - is eating meat more or less risky than inactivity or other controllable risk factors. There seems to be such a big focus on meat when the articles also say it's a small risk.
3
@aeenyc Almost everyone expressing concern about meat intake is blames the saturated fat content of meat for any health issues that arise. In truth, saturated fats in red meat are mostly stearic acid, a saturated fat that has little impact on cholesterol levels. Much of the remainder is oleic acid which is considered beneficial. What is ignored is the arachidonic acid content of lean tissue. In humans, research indicates that the daily requirement for arachidonic acid amounts to tens of milligrams. However, average intakes are in the hundreds of milligrams. In supplementation studies, additional thousands of milligrams are added to the diet, often with seeming therapeutic benefit. Unfortunately, anit-meat scientists conclude that excessive arachidonic acid intake is not a problem so they ignore a vast body of research that indicates otherwise. As Philip Calder noted in a 2007 Review entitled entitled Dietary arachidonic acid: harmful, harmless or helpful?, "...it is important to keep in mind that, just because there is little biological impact of an increase in arachidonic acid intake or status, there may still be significant benefit from a decrease in its intake or status." Indeed, my health status improved dramatically over time when I restricted my meat intake. For details, Google - David Brown Kassam.
1
Are these the same researchers that produced studies showing how bad coffee was, or how good oleo was. Are they using the Ancel Keys method of discarding results that don’t prove your point.
20
Food questionnaires lack much validity - truly this study means little
15
What exactly is the culprit red meat or processed meat or poultry or processed poultry? The results contained in this article are not very exacting. A big difference between processed vs. not.
29
@Ann Korach The gut bacteria of meat (& dairy) eaters is very different than that of vegetarians. The former bacterial group generate - as they metabolize - different waste products than the later, and it is believed that waste product impacts arteries. Also vegetarians and vegans have significantly lower cholesterol (esp. the 'bad' kind).
8
@Grant
How are the gut bacteria of meat and dairy eaters different from those of vegetarians? Can you say what constitutes a "good" collection of gut bacteria? Serious question - for all the discussion of gut bacteria, I've never heard a characterization of what it should be for good health. The only dietary pattern I'm aware of that causes unhealthy gut bacteria, small intestine bacteria overgrowth, is excessive carbohydrates, which are found only in plant foods. Until I hear an unambiguous description of "good" gut bacteria, I consider this issue to be a red herring.
9
@Ann Korach Good question. Poultry and pork can be a lot richer in both linoleic acid and arachidonic acid content than beef or lamb. Google - "Anna Haug arachidonic acid" to learn why it is not a good idea to eat the flesh of grain-fed monogastrics.
1
This is an epidemiological study, so the most it can demonstrate is an association, not causality. The weak association shown in this case could, at best, motivate a hypothesis, that an actual experiment could be designed to test. Making dietary choices based on this association would be quite dicey.
19
It’s quite simple really. Populations that eat small amounts of meat and lots of plant foods live longer than populations that eat lots of meat and small amounts of plant foods. All five ‘Blue Zones’ (geographical areas where people have the longest life expectancy in the world) eat this way.
The best part? The majority of Blue Zones are in the Mediterranean and Asia where the food is not only nutritious, it’s every bit as delicious as the meat-heavy diets we eat in the West.
24
@foodluva Unfortunately, the Blue Zones will eventually get swallowed up in an industrial food system that spreads to every part of the globe. Excerpt from a 2011 Review entitled "Animal products, diseases and drugs: a plea for better integration between agricultural sciences, human nutrition and human pharmacology". "The combination of inadequate intakes of EPA and DHA with overconsumption of AA is now one of the major causes of high rates of cardiovascular death in many of the 'old' industrial countries, and there is reason to fear that some of the countries in Asia with rapidly growing economies may soon follow because of the modernization processes affecting much of the animal food production in those countries as well. At the same time, it is likely that a high dietary AA/(EPA + DPA + DHA) ratio also may lead to more rapid development of most cancers, especially in such cases where the tumour cells are expressing COX-2, and to aggravation of several chronic pain conditions and chronic inflammatory diseases. AA comes nearly exclusively from animal foods, and the best strategy for reducing the average AA intake at a population level is to make it mandatory for the farmers (and for the feed industry) that animal products shall have an omega-6/omega-3 fatty acid ratio that must not be higher than what might be considered natural for the species concerned (when the animals live in their natural habitats)."
1
@foodluva -
The life expectancy in India, home of vegetarian Hindus, simply does not support your facil argument.
4
@foodluva
Another nonsensical comment with the popular vegan myth of blue zones ! Humans became human by eating meats.
Challenge questions:
1. Please post the name of the carbohydrate deficiency disease with references.
2. Please post the name of the human societies which have lasted more than five generations on a solely plant based diet with references.
3. Why does the human GI track not have compariable sized cecum when one looks at other primates’ GI track ?
This debate and these publications highlight the specific problem we are confronted with as we talk about the impact of diets and heart disease. In neither this paper nor the Annals papers was there a measurement of the actual disease we are talking about - viz. coronary artery disease (CAD). As I laid out in the "Inflammation and Heart Disease" and "Angina" Theories almost two decades ago; CAD is an inflammatory process which is produced by the interaction of multiple factors including cholesterol, homocysteine, lipoprotein (a) and more. As we also published in 2008, merely measuring these blood tests does NOT tell you what is happening to the coronary arteries. To understand this you must measure the effect upon the coronary arteries and true quantification or measurement of this is only possible using FMTVDM. Nothing else can actually measure the functionality of these arteries and it is this functionality of these arteries which defines CAD. Until we conduct a study comparing changes in FMTVDM (the measurement of both the anatomy and function of the coronary arteries) we will NOT be able to intelligently and honestly tell you with the confidence you expect from us, what these different foods and the diets they are associated with are doing to people.
31
@Richard M Fleming, PhD, MD, JD Really, all that needs to be done to figure out where the hurt is coming from is to reduce linoleic acid and arachidonic acid intake to levels prevalent prior to the industrial revolution. Excerpt from a 2016 BMJ Editorial entitled "The importance of a balanced ω-6 to ω-3 ratio in the prevention and management of obesity"
"We now know that major changes have taken place in the food supply over the last 100 years, when food technology and modern agriculture led to enormous production of vegetable oils high in ω-6 fatty acids, and changed animal feeds from grass to grains, thus increasing the amount of ω-6 fatty acids at the level of LA (from oils) and arachidonic acid (AA) (from meat, eggs, dairy). This led to very high amounts of ω-6 fatty acids in the food supply for the first time in the history of human beings."
3
@David Brown. Thank you for your thoughts. If that was the answer, then we would need to explain why lifespans have increased over the last 100-years. There is not a single factor at play here. The entire "Inflammation and Heart Disease" Theory which I developed in the mid-1990s explains the influence of various fatty acids and more than a dozen co-factors (cholesterol, LP(a), fibrinogen, etc.) revealing a complicated interaction between these factors and the unique genetic response in each individual. The only way to measure the actual outcome and know the truth - is to measure the actual outcome and know the truth. The only method which exists to do this accurately, consistently and reproducibly is FMTVDM.
3
@Richard M Fleming, PhD, MD, JD
So what do they measure/quantify - supposed markers/signifiers of CAD instead of CAD itself?
1
How about a study of the effect of moderate or low consumption of meat? What is the relationship between quantity and outcome? What about the type of meat, Bird, Pig, Lamb, Cow, etc.
14
@sculler2x There are only two studies I am aware of where researchers reduced meat intake and measured the outcome. The aim was to restrict arachidonic acid intake. One was a 2003 arthritis study by German scientist Olaf Adam. The other was a 2019 gingivitis study by Johan Woelber. I wrote to Woelber and was informed that Olaf Adam was his nutrition instructor in Medical School. Google - Olaf Adam arachidonic acid.
Good comments throughout. I'd like to take a moment to share something quite well known in the world of nutrition: that even some vegetarian diets can be pretty unhealthy. Just being a vegetarian or a vegan does not ensure optimal health; one must still choose foods wisely.
56
@fiona
I found that out in a hurry when I asked for the vegetarian option at a conference (I do eat fish, occasionally poultry). I got a large, gloppy piece of vegetarian lasagna with lots of cheese. The 'regular' lunch serving was grilled chicken breast - lesson learned.
17
@fiona,
That’s true. A better way to eat is whole plant foods, from a variety of foods: veggies and fruits, legumes (beans, chickpeas, lentils, split peas) and WHOLE (not refined) grains, in moderation nuts and seeds — and herbs and spices. Eat a variety of each, in a variety of colors. Think of eating about 1/2 of your plate as veggies, 1/4 as whole grains, 1/4 as legumes, and a generous side of fruits. Garnish with nuts, seeds, and herbs and spices. Avoid processed food — that’s what the “whole” means, not processed.
It is necessary to take vitamins B12 supplements, as this vitamins is not present in plants, and no longer available in our treated water. However, about 1 in 3 older adults can’t actively absorb B12, and 1 in 6 meat eaters are also deficient in B12, so supplementation is necessary for these groups as well.
7
...another example: Oreo cookies are accepted on vegan/vegetarian meal plans and there's nothing healthful about Oreo cookies.
7
Humans are designed to eat plants and animals. Humans are not designed to eat sugars and processed grains. Studies like this muddy the waters and misdirect the conversation. Was this study funded by the corn industry?
21
@Amanda, always a good idea to ask about funding. Looks like industry funding was NOT used; here's the funding statement from the paper: "Funding/Support: This study was funded in part by a postdoctoral fellowship to Dr Zhong from the American Heart Association Strategically Focused Research Networks (14SFRN20480260; principal investigator: Dr Greenland). The Lifetime Risk Pooling Project was funded by grant R21 HL085375 from the NIH/NHLBI and by the Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine."
9
So headline for me is: Eating red or processed meat twice a week is NOT associated with increased risk. Sounds about the most I would eat it anyway for a variety of health reasons.
8
Does anyone else think those pictures of red meat are gross? For whatever reason, I tend to not eat much red meat (it's a bit too heavy; chicken is fine) but if someone suggested I eat what's in the picture I'd throw it out. Can't imagine anyone paying for stuff that is basically half fat.
3
@Paul B
I'll have your serving, please. These are premium wagyu steaks.
18
@Paul B
The two on the left are wagyu. I'll have them if you're passing.
9
@Paul B Your comment reminds me of the Seinfeld episode where Jerry and his date head to a steak place, similar to Peter Luger's. When Jerry asks about the chicken alternate, it's a full bird, stuffed with ham and topped with gorgonzola.
As a dietitian, this is extremely frustrating to me. We already KNOW the risks associated with high intake of red and processed meats. Why do they always act like it's some big surprise when a simple study comes out confirming the information already available?
36
@KKakes
Yes, it's frustrating to ALL of us. Alas, I think what you're seeing here is nothing but the continuing efforts of the meat industry and processed food industry to sew confusion in the minds of the inattentive and unwary, even (especially) where such matters are as here well-settled.
Please keep in mind that the constant propagation of such misinformation could not be achieved without the witting and unwitting aid and abetting of such MSM as the NYT and "health" reporters such as Mr. O'Connor. Credit where credit is due!!
Greg Gerner
WFPB Nutritarian
8
@KKakes What's no surprise is the unceasing and reckless use of nutritional epidemiology to espouse the animal foods are dangerous nonsense; the same un-science that has caused the current epidemic of metabolic diseases and deaths. Finally, the CEO of the American Diabetics Association has confirmed she treated her own diabetes through a low-carb regimen.
10
@KKakes
How do you KNOW that, and why do you lump red meat and processed meat together?
6
In the near future I suspect we will learn all food leads to a wide variety of ailments. Researchers will then state we need to stop eating period.
35
@Alan Day
Have you noticed that fasting is in fact the new answer to many of life's ills?
9
@SW
Actually the oldest cure.
As usual the article's author or the scientific group conducting the test does not provide an absolute number to go with the 4-7% increase in heart problems. If the chances of developing heart issues is 20% (made up number) then eating meat would increase the risk to about 21%. Give me a break from these scare tactics. Editors take note and do a thorough and complete job before publishing.
marty cohn
Lakewood Ranch, Florida
71
@marty cohn -
You make a very important point: we must consider both the relative and ABSOLUTE differences that such studies suggest. And even here the absolute difference appears very small, all things considered.
3
@marty cohn
The hazard ratio of the first link within the article was 1.07 ! Anything less than 2 is just statistically noise !
4
@marty cohn I subscribe to the nyt because of the high quality journalism. I am SO SAD to see nutrition articles from nyt NOT held to high standards. Smart (and emotionally controlled) people know that nothing in nutrition is black and white. This article headline effectively saying, conclusion: meats are bad, is not only dilution of a complex topic, but it gives many consumers the wrong immediate take away. There is no 1 meat. Junk food meats, processed meats, versus natural grass-fed meats, lumping them all into a simple conclusory title is what amateur bloggers do. Pls New York Times Editors, nutrition is nuanced, so should your article headlines.
4
They said "poultry" as well- ignored by all.
11
Obviously a complicated issue, as many people's livelihoods depend on the continued consumption of red meat.
Extrapolating if red meat is healthy/unhealthy is complicated, as many other factors contribute to heart disease, but here's my opinion as a physician: People who eat plant-based diets live longer and live better. Their incidence of high cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity are much lower than the patients who consume beef/pork daily.
So when an obese patient sees me and asks what diet they should try, my answer is "Vegetarian Diet", which has led to a few very angry patients. Then I suggest "Pescatarian Diet", which leads to a discussion about sustainable fishing practices (no one seems to have an objection to animal welfare).
The answer is complicated, as the meat/dairy industry has powerful lobbyists, and the Food Pyramid we were taught in school was wrong. The safe answer is we should all try to eat a more balanced diet, with less red meat and more fruits/vegetables.
39
@Mark
The answers are indeed complicated, yet you seem happy to perpetuate the simplistic and misleading idea that cholesterol is, always, simply "bad" [ie.e, should be lowered]. We are mistaken if we think the meat/dairy industry is more powerful than the Kellog's, Barilla, Sanitarium, and the Big Food/Big Pharma money pushing for a vegan world.
12
@pawl
The research is very clear: high cholesterol is bad, is strongly associated with heart disease, and should be lowered through improved diet and exercise.
6
Incorrect. Higher cholesterol is associated with lower all-cause mortality.
17
My main issue with the way these findings are presented is that the overall risk of cardiovascular disease is presented as though it is directly and singularly connected to meat consumption. Many of these studies don't take other crucial factors into account such as lifestyle and genetic predisposition. Until a model that takes all factors into account is created and a large, diverse group surveyed, none of these findings can be termed "conclusive."
16
@Filip As far as I can tell, omega-6 essential fatty acid research holds the key to understanding issues related to meat intake. Google - arachidonic acid in conjunction with almost any sort of physical or mental disturbance that comes to mind.
@Filip
If you're looking for a large study that considered other factors then this is the one for you. They analyzed 30,000 persons and allowed for many outside influences. Here's an abridged quote from the linked JAMA study:
"Cohort-stratified models were adjusted for age, sex, race/ethnicity...and educational level...plus total energy, cohort-specific physical activity...smoking status...[and] alcohol intake..."
1
@Filip
Would “processed meats” be eaten with more carbs (bread, of course) than unprocessed meats?
Would “sandwich meat” be eaten in sandwiches? Hot dogs in hot dog buns?
When these studies adjusted for other risk factors did they adjust for dietary carbs and fructose?
Did the processed meat cause heart disease and diabetes - or was it the bread?
Did anti-fat preconceptions held by their peer group blind these researchers to the obvious?
1
"Ultimately, whether to eat meat is for individuals to decide. .. Sustainability issues are also a consideration, as red meat in particular has a high environmental impact."
animal welfare and health issues aside (for those who simply refuse to be moved by the suffering of animals and who seek confirmation bias) the fact that factory farms and meat consumption has a HUGE environmental impact, no longer makes it an 'individual' concern - we share a planet, and we must all act to ensure its health and survival.
55
@spunky lisette
This is not correct. Raising ruminants on deep rooted grasslands, which prevents soil erosion and sequesters carbon, is very good for the environment. The grassland used to raise ruminants needs little or no irrigation, as opposed to almonds, for example. Because this grass can be grown in most any climate, beef can be locally raised, reducing the transport distances. Transportation of food and other products dwarfs meat production in terms of environmental impact. This argument is completely invalid.
17
@Jef Dawson The problem is that most beef cattle finish their lives in feedlots consuming vast quantities of corn in order to fatten them up for slaughter. And this corn is grown on millions of acres under an industrial agricultural model of artificial fertilizers and pesticides/ herbicides that clearly do have an environmental impact. Your argument is valid only if ruminants are managed wisely only on local grasslands in herd sizes that have enough space and/or are moved through those grasslands so they do not decimate the natural plant species.
9
@Jef Dawson The problem is that most beef cattle finish their lives in feedlots consuming vast quantities of corn in order to fatten them up for slaughter. And this corn is grown on millions of acres under an industrial agricultural model of artificial fertilizers and pesticides/ herbicides that clearly do have an environmental impact. Your argument is valid only if ruminants are managed wisely only on local grasslands in herd sizes that have enough space and/or are moved through those grasslands so they do not decimate the natural plant species.
6