health

Diet-related illness increases with availability of red meat: study

45 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2021 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

45 Comments
Login to comment

Plant based food is the way to go, at least 3 times a week

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Plant based food is the way to go, at least 3 times a week

All meals should be plant based, and if you're a meat-eater, some should also have meat. But if you want to be healthy, plants should make up a significant part, if not the bulk of, most meals.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

Prostate cancer, linked to red meats

1 ( +5 / -4 )

This should be rephrased to as incomes increased, not blaming it on meat with a correlation (aka guilty-by-association).

On their logic, you might as well say money causes cancer too!

Tell us again why fat is bad, for example...?

The fallacies of the lipid hypothesis

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18615352/

0 ( +5 / -5 )

I only eat red meat 2 or 3 times a month and have no plans on stopping. I would go crazy if all I ever ate was plant based. Everything is unhealthy if eaten in excess.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Tell us again why fat is bad, for example...?

Depends on the fat. Non-dairy animal fats are associated with an increase in heart disease. Plant and dairy fats on the other hand are good for you.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Gotta wonder why these studies always lump red meat in with highly processed meats. A good grass fed, grass finished steak is a very different thing to a slab of salami. Also curious that this study is about health impacts, but the reporter feels the need to also talk about the environmental impacts of red meat...

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Gotta wonder why these studies always lump red meat in with highly processed meats. A good grass fed, grass finished steak is a very different thing to a slab of salami.

This study that just came out looked at animal fat vs. plant fat:

In a 27-year study of more than 117,000 health care professionals, researchers suggest the type of fat eaten may be more important than the amount when it comes to cardiovascular health.

Study participants who ate higher amounts of non-dairy animal fat had a 16% increased risk of stroke compared to those whose ate the lowest amounts. Dairy fat was not associated with stroke risk.

https://newsroom.heart.org/news/vegetable-fat-may-decrease-stroke-risk-while-animal-fat-increases-it

But to answer your question, most food studies are only able to look at correlation, not causation, as causation studies with food come with a slew of ethics questions. So food studies are almost always epidemiological, and it's harder to test more specific comparisons like the one you question.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Articles like this are coming out regularly to demonise red meat, with the underlying thrust being to "save the planet".

Of course, that won't stop the same people who fly to climate confabs in their private jets from eating a juicy steak at whim while telling us we should be chowing down on bugs and grass.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

@Strangerland

I'm familiar with the limitations of food studies. My point was, this comes across as a hit piece on red meat rather than a balanced study. I'm sure you know correlation does not equal causation, but that didn't stop the authors concluding red meat was the cause.

And, as you point out, nuance is important. Animal fat and plant fat are not the same thing. Likewise, the fat found in a sustainably farmed, organic, grass fed and finished piece of red meat is vastly different to the fat of the commercially farmed, grain fed, pesticide and antibiotic laden meat found in most supermarkets.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Dairy fats are NOT good for your health. And eating all plant-based does not hurt anyone.

The dairy and meat industries are being subsidized big-time. They will fight to the bitter end if more people choose not to eat their stuff. Why are there not more subsidies for healthier food?

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Again with the lies.

Instead of red & processed meat, they could have written "vegetables & processed vegetables".

The culprit is processed food, any, processed food with harmful ingredients will cause illness not only in red meat but also in vegetables and fruits. Actually even processed water will give you cancer and other diseases.

Call us when a true experiment will be done, one without any processed foods!

0 ( +6 / -6 )

@menov

Could not agree more! processed food is the single biggest contributor to almost all of the modern health problems. There is so much hate on this site for pharma companies "profiting from illness". That hate would be better directed at the companies that are responsible for causing the illnesses in the first place! Monsanto, Cargill, Kraft, Nestle, Coca Cola, McDonalds... the list is endless.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

Of course, that won't stop the same people who fly to climate confabs in their private jets from eating a juicy steak at whim while telling us we should be chowing down on bugs and grass.

It won't stop them. And unfortunately, the childish among us will then use that to justify doing nothing themselves, as if we should be setting our behavior by being better than the worst, rather than trying to achieve the best. These people are the useless members of society who would have been eaten in older times.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I'm familiar with the limitations of food studies. My point was, this comes across as a hit piece on red meat rather than a balanced study. I'm sure you know correlation does not equal causation, but that didn't stop the authors concluding red meat was the cause.

Well, they concluded that "red and processed meat" were the cause, not just red meat exclusively:

"The increased intake of red and processed meat products via trade caused the abrupt increase of diet-related non-communicable diseases,"

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Dairy fats are NOT good for your health.

That's not what recent studies are saying:

Background

We aimed to investigate the association of serum pentadecanoic acid (15:0), a biomarker of dairy fat intake, with incident cardiovascular disease (CVD) and all-cause mortality in a Swedish cohort study. We also systematically reviewed studies of the association of dairy fat biomarkers (circulating or adipose tissue levels of 15:0, heptadecanoic acid [17:0], and trans-palmitoleic acid [t16:1n-7]) with CVD outcomes or all-cause mortality.

Conclusions

In a meta-analysis of 18 observational studies including our new cohort study, higher levels of 15:0 and 17:0 were associated with lower CVD risk. Our findings support the need for clinical and experimental studies to elucidate the causality of these relationships and relevant biological mechanisms.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003763

Or:

Background: Few prospective studies have examined dairy fat in relation to cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Conclusions: The replacement of animal fats, including dairy fat, with vegetable sources of fats and PUFAs may reduce risk of CVD. Whether the food matrix may modify the effect of dairy fat on health outcomes warrants further investigation.

Link: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/104/5/1209/4564387

Or:

Current scientific evidence points to a neutral or positive effect of dairy fats intake on cardiovascular health. After years of controversy, with many guidelines recommending a reduced intake of dairy products, and preferably low or nonfat dairy foods, current knowledge points to the more appropriate recommendation of moderate consumption of full-fat dairy foods within a healthy lifestyle. Fermented dairy products seem to be the best option as a source of nutrients and cardiovascular health benefits. Previous recommendations were based on cholesterol, saturated fat, and caloric contents, in dairy fat, and their potential impact on serum cholesterol, fasting sugar levels, and blood pressure. However, experimental data point to a more complex scenario in which other actors may play major roles: calcium, bioactive lipids and peptides, and even the food-matrix effect from the dairy food side, and human genetics and environmental factors all impact dairy food-related health issues. Furthermore, cardiovascular health does not rely solely on serum cholesterol levels and blood pressure but also on inflammatory biomarkers. At present, little is known on the true mechanisms underlying the cardioprotective mechanism of dairy fats, and further research in needed to elucidate them.

Link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7353644/

The idea that dairy is bad for you is outdated. The accepted science of the past two decades is that dairy is not bad for you, with some recent studies indicating it may improve cardiovascular health, leading to longer lives.

Whether or not well-raised red-mea alone is bad for you in large quantities, is something I have not been able to many studies on. For now I eat read meat, and feel that it's not only ok, it's an excellent source of vitamins and nutrients. My own thoughts are that it also seems plausible that eating too much of it, even if it's well raised, could have negative effects on overall health.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

@Strangerland

Well, they concluded that "red and processed meat" were the cause, not just red meat exclusively:

And that's exactly the point of my first post. By lumping these two things very different together they skew the results. I'm suggesting they do this intentionally to drive their agenda.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I'm suggesting they do this intentionally to drive their agenda.

Ohh, that's an interesting theory you have on this conspiracy of "theirs". Whoever "they" are.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

@Strangerland

I'm not suggesting some big conspiracy. Propaganda, yes.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

I'm not suggesting some big conspiracy. Propaganda, yes.

Propaganda IS conspiracy. It's a concerted effort to push a narrative.

And you have a theory that "they" are doing it.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Plenty of people are doing very well on a carnivore diet:

https://www.youtube.com/c/ShawnBakerMD

But of course, as Fuzzy and Menov mentioned, that does not mean a diet of salami and hotdogs.

Regarding oils, margarine and seed oils should be avoided as much as possible. Olive, coconut, and avocado oils are great, but I see nothing wrong with butter and animal fat, depending on the source and what else you eat.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Plenty of people are doing very well on a carnivore diet:

I don't take anecdotal evidence as anything more than a compelling story. I've sat through podcasts with various proponents of the carnivore diet, and it does interest me. But, any elimination diet will show positive effects for a period of time. The question is whether or not it is healthy long-term, and/or whether it has negative effects on the body long-term. I've seen no studies to show one way or the other.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

margarine and seed oils should be avoided as much as possible.

Margarine is the devil. Seed oils depend on the seed. Grapeseed oil for example isn't considered to be bad for you in any way.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

@Strangerland

Sure, you can't separate conspiracy and propaganda, but our modern world is rife with both. All of these studies are paid for by someone. You gotta ask yourself who paid for it and why. Even a completely unbiassed and legit study can be cherry picked and twisted to drive a narrative i.e. propaganda.

This article just struck me as odd. It's ok we disagree on that.

Take this for example:

The adverse effects of a diet high in red and processed meats is well known.

So why do this study then if it's already well established? Their findings are nothing new.

But the international trade of these products also has far-reaching impacts on the climate, through greenhouse gas emissions, and biodiversity loss, through shrinking habitat, the study noted.

Oh, they "noted" this, but they didn't actually study this did they.

To me this article reeks of an environmental agenda disguised as a health concern. I actually think this is an important issue that needs a solution. I'd just prefer they tackle that issue head on, rather than mixing it with health.

Try and discredit my points by labeling me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I stand by my position to take most things I read with a grain of salt.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Sure, you can't separate conspiracy and propaganda, but our modern world is rife with both. All of these studies are paid for by someone. You gotta ask yourself who paid for it and why.

Eh? You're speaking of a lack of studies that separate red meat from processed. No one has paid for it - the studies haven't been done, so they haven't been paid for.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

@Strangerland

You seem a little confused by what I'm saying, so let's leave it there. Time to get out and enjoy a beautiful autumn day!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Going vegan was the best thing I ever did. Feel so much healthier than I did before!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Lumping processed meats in with red meats in general seems...strange. Surely you would want to test those categories separately to get the most accurate data you can?

I am definitely healthier now that I started eating meat again, after years of avoiding it. Not saying you can't have a healthy plant-based diet, but you have to be way more attentive to what you are eating. As a teenager, I really wasn't. Now I eat meat moderately, along with plenty of vegetables and fish as well. Generally has worked out well for me.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

One word. Beans.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Hmmm, so are there no positive effects from a bit of meat in the diet? Life expectancy is pretty long recently, not convinced we are doing something all so wrong there.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Humans are meat eaters, we are not cows we do not have teeth for it nor the digestive system.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

As a big Health Guru, so much misinformation here, can't even start to get into it. but if you want to start , start with sugar and high carbs as the biggest death nail into your health

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I would have thought the early demise of the red meat eater would more than offset the impact to the environment. Less people = better environment.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

StrangerlandNov. 23  12:49 pm JST

I don't take anecdotal evidence as anything more than a compelling story. I've sat through podcasts with various proponents of the carnivore diet, and it does interest me. But, any elimination diet will show positive effects for a period of time. The question is whether or not it is healthy long-term, and/or whether it has negative effects on the body long-term. I've seen no studies to show one way or the other.

There are many questions. The science on this issue often clashes, as with the vaccine debate.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

The science on this issue often clashes

Which science are you referring to?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Less people = better environment.

Not if the road to create enough meat to kill off enough people to get to that point would be fatal to our species.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Which science are you referring to?

Just to be clear, I think you're making a mistaken assumption that there is any science on this matter out there. I think what you are talking about is that there are some people who are proponents of the diet, and other people who like what they say support them, regardless of the lack of science out there on the matter.

But I could be wrong, it's been over a year since I looked. Which is why I asked, what science exactly are you saying is clashing with which other science on the matter? Last I looked, there wasn't ANY science on the matter, only anecdotes.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

You seem a little confused by what I'm saying

I could say the same back. My point was that by default, studies don't exist. Doing a study requires the desire to do a study, and the funding to sponsor it. If a study hasn't been done, that can't be considered to be propaganda, as it's the default state that exists through a lack of any action by anyone. Unless someone has been actively preventing studies from happening, there is no nefarious intent, there is an absence of any intent.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

StrangerlandToday  01:44 am JST

The science on this issue often clashes

Which science are you referring to?

The issue of whether red meat diets are adverse or not to one's health.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

StrangerlandToday  02:15 am JST

An 'issue' is 'science'? Ummmm...,.

Whether eating red meat is adverse to one's health is an issue.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

StrangerlandNov. 23  10:00 am JST

This study that just came out looked at animal fat vs. plant fat:

Sounds like you are referring to a scientific study above.

But to answer your question, most food studies are only able to look at correlation, not causation, as causation studies with food come with a slew of ethics questions. So food studies are almost always epidemiological, and it's harder to test more specific comparisons like the one you question.

Sounds like you further refer to scientific studies above.

So I am confused as to your below comment:

Which is why I asked, what science exactly are you saying is clashing with which other science on the matter? Last I looked, there wasn't ANY science on the matter, only anecdotes.

For me, I believe there are conflicting studies on red meat diets and whether they have adverse health effects.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

This study that just came out looked at animal fat vs. plant fat:

Sounds like you are referring to a scientific study above.

Eh? How is a study about plant fat vs. animal fat a study on the carnivore diet?

So I am confused as to your below comment:

I don't think you are. I think you're just stumbling over the fact that I pointed out that there isn't actually any science on the carnivore diet, and therefore this statement of yours was made without any basis in reality:

The science on this issue often clashes

Leaving me at my original point:

I don't take anecdotal evidence as anything more than a compelling story.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

StrangerlandToday  03:43 am JST

Eh? How is a study about plant fat vs. animal fat a study on the carnivore diet?

Maybe animal fat is a component of a carnivore diet?

So I am confused as to your below comment:

I don't think you are. I think you're just stumbling over the fact that I pointed out that there isn't actually any science on the carnivore diet, and therefore this statement of yours was made without any basis in reality:

No, I am confused by your conflicting points.

Leaving me at my original point:

Was there a point?

4 ( +4 / -0 )

People are always telling us what they think is right for us. They want everyone to eat nothing but Millers Bran and get unhealthy, unhappy, and look sickly - a bag of bones.

This is old hat propaganda and a bunch of absolute BULL.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm suggesting they do this intentionally to drive their agenda.

An agenda that was likely discussed during COP26.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites