How much red meat is bad for your health?
Discussion
Seems to be lots of conflicting research out there on this. Some of it suggests that a moderate amount of red meat is ok whilst others say as little as 70g a day can cause some serious health issues.
It makes sense that eating an excessive amount of red meat isn't good for you although that can hold true for lots of foods but how much is too much?
Does anyone here consciously keep an eye on their meat intake?
It makes sense that eating an excessive amount of red meat isn't good for you although that can hold true for lots of foods but how much is too much?
Does anyone here consciously keep an eye on their meat intake?
Victor McDade said:
Seems to be lots of conflicting research out there on this. Some of it suggests that a moderate amount of red meat is ok whilst others say as little as 70g a day can cause some serious health issues.
It makes sense that eating an excessive amount of red meat isn't good for you although that can hold true for lots of foods but how much is too much?
Does anyone here consciously keep an eye on their meat intake?
If 70g of red meat a day caused serious health issues, you'd have a great wedge of the population dropping dead from it daily.It makes sense that eating an excessive amount of red meat isn't good for you although that can hold true for lots of foods but how much is too much?
Does anyone here consciously keep an eye on their meat intake?
shakotan said:
If 70g of red meat a day caused serious health issues, you'd have a great wedge of the population dropping dead from it daily.
It's related to carnitine in red meat which is broken down by bacteria in the gut. This is related to higher levels of cholesterol and an increased risk of heart disease.Many people die of heart disease each day.
Silver993tt said:
shakotan said:
If 70g of red meat a day caused serious health issues, you'd have a great wedge of the population dropping dead from it daily.
It's related to carnitine in red meat which is broken down by bacteria in the gut. This is related to higher levels of cholesterol and an increased risk of heart disease.Many people die of heart disease each day.
Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
pilchardthecat said:
All the studies i have seen on this are simple correlations between red meat consumption and unhealthy lifestyles and poor diet in other respects. It's the latter that causes heart disease.
Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
Well, there's a direct correlation between those that eat red meat and carnitine to the higher production of cholesterol. This is due to the prominence of intestinal microbiota of dietary l-carnitine in red meat eaters. You don't find this in any significant quantities in vegetarian/vegans. It's very interesting and I'm openminded enough to listen to new research. An abstract of the study is here:Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/ful...
Silver993tt said:
pilchardthecat said:
All the studies i have seen on this are simple correlations between red meat consumption and unhealthy lifestyles and poor diet in other respects. It's the latter that causes heart disease.
Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
Well, there's a direct correlation between those that eat red meat and carnitine to the higher production of cholesterol. This is due to the prominence of intestinal microbiota of dietary l-carnitine in red meat eaters. You don't find this in any significant quantities in vegetarian/vegans. It's very interesting and I'm openminded enough to listen to new research. An abstract of the study is here:Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/ful...
StuH said:
I've read the paper, but like Pilchard, I find these studies misleading, as you don't know what other factors are in play. Also, what is the negative health impact compared to eating other food types? If I switch from red meat to avoid the effects of carnitine, what dietary difficencies do I then become susceptible to as a consequence? Is carnitine always a catalyst for high cholesterol and do I need to have a genetic predisposition? I eat a lot of red meat and in my recent "well man" test at the local surgery my cholesterol was low.
There are plenty of other nutritional sources to substitue red meat. Still, no point in flogging a dead horse, I'm open to new research. Otherwise we'd all still be chewing tobacco, smoking and eating fry ups every day.Silver993tt said:
pilchardthecat said:
All the studies i have seen on this are simple correlations between red meat consumption and unhealthy lifestyles and poor diet in other respects. It's the latter that causes heart disease.
Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
Well, there's a direct correlation between those that eat red meat and carnitine to the higher production of cholesterol. This is due to the prominence of intestinal microbiota of dietary l-carnitine in red meat eaters. You don't find this in any significant quantities in vegetarian/vegans. It's very interesting and I'm openminded enough to listen to new research. An abstract of the study is here:Show me a study of otherwise healthy/active people who eat loads of red meat, that demonstrates that their cholesterol levels/propensity to develop heart disease is greater than healthy/active people who don't eat loads of red meat.
(You can't show me such a study, because there has never been one to my knowledge)
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/ful...
There is clearly a connection between bacterial culture profiles and what you eat, and there is some good science there, but the association of this and a health risk in the population at large is not convincing at all - "production of cholesterol" is only a small part of the process - increased free-fatty acid production and transport might just be part of ketosis, this doesnt necessarily mean all those FFAs are being deposited in your arteries and contributing to heart disease
pilchardthecat said:
Correlation <> Causation.
There is clearly a connection between bacterial culture profiles and what you eat, and there is some good science there, but the association of this and a health risk in the population at large is not convincing at all - "production of cholesterol" is only a small part of the process - increased free-fatty acid production and transport might just be part of ketosis, this doesnt necessarily mean all those FFAs are being deposited in your arteries and contributing to heart disease
Sure but the reaction of most is to ignore such studies. You'll notice some get very defensive when somethinjg new turns up because they hate change. No one is telling people not to eat red meat, just that there is a strong link with heart disease and the choice is theirs. Red meat isn't being banned.There is clearly a connection between bacterial culture profiles and what you eat, and there is some good science there, but the association of this and a health risk in the population at large is not convincing at all - "production of cholesterol" is only a small part of the process - increased free-fatty acid production and transport might just be part of ketosis, this doesnt necessarily mean all those FFAs are being deposited in your arteries and contributing to heart disease
From the study:
"Plasma l-carnitine levels in subjects undergoing cardiac evaluation (n = 2,595) predicted increased risks for both prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and incident major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, stroke or death), but only among subjects with concurrently high TMAO levels." The high TMAO was found only in those eating red meat, not in vegetarians or vegans.
Silver993tt said:
pilchardthecat said:
Correlation <> Causation.
There is clearly a connection between bacterial culture profiles and what you eat, and there is some good science there, but the association of this and a health risk in the population at large is not convincing at all - "production of cholesterol" is only a small part of the process - increased free-fatty acid production and transport might just be part of ketosis, this doesnt necessarily mean all those FFAs are being deposited in your arteries and contributing to heart disease
Sure but the reaction of most is to ignore such studies. You'll notice some get very defensive when somethinjg new turns up because they hate change. No one is telling people not to eat red meat, just that there is a strong link with heart disease and the choice is theirs. Red meat isn't being banned.There is clearly a connection between bacterial culture profiles and what you eat, and there is some good science there, but the association of this and a health risk in the population at large is not convincing at all - "production of cholesterol" is only a small part of the process - increased free-fatty acid production and transport might just be part of ketosis, this doesnt necessarily mean all those FFAs are being deposited in your arteries and contributing to heart disease
From the study:
"Plasma l-carnitine levels in subjects undergoing cardiac evaluation (n = 2,595) predicted increased risks for both prevalent cardiovascular disease (CVD) and incident major adverse cardiac events (myocardial infarction, stroke or death), but only among subjects with concurrently high TMAO levels." The high TMAO was found only in those eating red meat, not in vegetarians or vegans.
a subset of people with suspected heart problems, had high levels of <stuff> in their blood.
high levels of <stuff> was only seen in people that eat red meat, not vegetarians
There is a huge leap of faith in connecting these two facts, though. What other lifestyle choices or health factors differentiated the two groups? There are a whole heap of other variables that need to be eliminated in a statistical study to suggest actual causation. The propensity of vegetarians to be thinner, more active, and do yoga might just mean they have healthier lifestyles, and are thus at a lower risk, and would remain so, even if they started eating steak.
I remain open minded, but unconvinced.
Also steak is yummy.
As pilchardthecat has said, there are few if any studies on which we can conclusively rely. Apart from anything else, it's a little unethical to ask humans to eat large quantities of anything and to not change any other part of their diet/lifestyle just to 'prove' it's deleterious.
As a layman with a passing interest in health and nutrition I've decided that for my family and me a paleo-style diet is most nutritious, enjoyable and healthful. I can find any number of supporting articles, though none of them will hold up to scrutiny, e.g. click.
As a layman with a passing interest in health and nutrition I've decided that for my family and me a paleo-style diet is most nutritious, enjoyable and healthful. I can find any number of supporting articles, though none of them will hold up to scrutiny, e.g. click.
grumbledoak said:
pilchardthecat said:
just a bunch of correlations between red meat consumption and other lifestyle choices.
^^^ That. I think no-one really knows. To make it worse there's no shortage of vested interests and biases from every angle.grumbledoak said:
Silver993tt said:
o, it's a correlation between red meat and cardio vascular disease.
Yeah, yeah.Are you vegetarian, vegan, or Hindu, perhaps?
From reports of several recent studies I have read or heard about I thought that the main worry was the suspected link to bowel and colon cancers, particularly from eating processed red (ish?!) meats like ham, bacon, burgers etc. - suspected to be due to the processing and the chemicals etc. this introduces like nitrates. Not to mention the potential nasties introduced from the diet the animals receive, water-retention/size packers, steroids etc., barring organic meats.
The cholesterol aspect seems to be argued about a lot still but I've read enough to make me less concerned about dietary fat intake and heart disease than the scare mongering used to frighten us, I'm far more concerned about the impact of trans fats and, esp. certain refined carbohydrates (that lead to an increase in triglyceride levels/'bad' cholesterol as well as excess weight/fat storage/ obesity) so usually avoid the processed garbage that tends to be packed with such cheap muck.
The cholesterol aspect seems to be argued about a lot still but I've read enough to make me less concerned about dietary fat intake and heart disease than the scare mongering used to frighten us, I'm far more concerned about the impact of trans fats and, esp. certain refined carbohydrates (that lead to an increase in triglyceride levels/'bad' cholesterol as well as excess weight/fat storage/ obesity) so usually avoid the processed garbage that tends to be packed with such cheap muck.
grumbledoak said:
Quite. It has been known since at least the 1930s that dietary cholesterol does not simply become blood cholesterol, yet we still got 'butter bad, eat these hydrogenated/trans-fats instead'. The vested interests do seem to prevail.
Now clearly signposted back not just to ignorant doctors/medics but to the corn syrup lobby. As per recent articles and documentaries.What changed my mind was bodybuilder Clarence Bass running experiments on his own body 30 years or so ago - he had a very high intake of eggs including yolks yet his (regular) blood tests showed no long term change or damage during these phases (though he's now moved more to organics and to balancing the various Omega oils more carefully) and was down to ludicrously low bodyfat percentages at competition time.
My diet was high protein, high fats, low carb and my cholesterol tests were the best the practice had measured, just a bit better than my brother and less than half the level the govt. wanted to get to be the average, let alone what it then was!
grumbledoak said:
Quite. It has been known since at least the 1930s that dietary cholesterol does not simply become blood cholesterol, yet we still got 'butter bad, eat these hydrogenated/trans-fats instead'. The vested interests do seem to prevail.
Which is why I (and anyone who take a keen interest in what they eat) is understandably skeptical of these kinds of studies, that seek to identify one negative aspect of red meat in isolation and without considering the wider contributing factors. Are they trying to suggest that the grass-fed beef I buy from a butcher in Scotland is worse for me than the processed food that fills every aisle at the supermarkets? Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff