New study slams "years of shoddy research" about Red Meat...finds it is not "bad for you" nor is it a health risk

MatureDJ

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
10,825
Reaction score
4,477
All I know is that nothing satisfies my hunger like red meat. I don't care what's for dinner so long as it used to be a mammal.
 

MatureDJ

Master Don Juan
Joined
Apr 30, 2006
Messages
10,825
Reaction score
4,477
Hi BackInTheGame,
Terrific article.....But at the risk of being a tedious Old Guy,Marinate your meat guys and chuck the marinade,tastiest part though it may be,down the sink,never burn or smoke your meat...Having worked on a Chicken Farm and seen conditions in which Hogs live,I eat those meats sparingly...My choice is Wild Kill or Lambs that never see a feed lot nor are they injected....I favour the food of our primitive ancestors,they spent their long cold nights under the wondrous beauty of the Stars,sitting around the fire trading lies and cracking the bones for marrow...They took on board a lot of Gelatin,natures salve and lubricant for worn bones and Cartelidge,maybe also got incidental cinders and Silicon.
What about wild boomers? Or joeys?
 

Scaramouche

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
1,103
Age
80
Location
Australia
Hi Mature DJ,
My Old Father in Law lived in a prospectors camp in a wild mountain area during the great Depression of the hungry 30's reckoned it was a red letter day when someone shot a Roo,they would grind them up with a hand mincer....We say put the meatiest bits in a cook pot with a stone,when the stone is soft it's ready...Years ago my Youngest Son used to occasionally bring me a Young Wallaby hindquarter,I used to Butterfly the Leg and stuff it with Sage flavoured Sausage Meat and Roast it....Not a great success,tender enough but it has an unpleasant Flavour.
 

Scaramouche

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
1,103
Age
80
Location
Australia
Hi Amsterdam,
" I once shot a rabbit....... and it somersaulted from the kinetic impact of my ballbearing".....Not sure about the kinetic impact doing that,sometimes you shoot a Rabbit and he will spring up twice his body height yet be dead as Mutton when you go pick him up.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
4,306
Not sure about the kinetic impact doing that
He was some genetic malfunction (small body - big head) so when the force of my catapulted ball bearing struck him in the head he 'flew' backwards in a somersault and flopped to the ground. It looked really weird. Most rabbits went down like opponents of Tyson, just keeled over.
 

Scaramouche

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
1,103
Age
80
Location
Australia
Hi Amsterdam,
You head shoot them?....You are a fantastic shot mate...I got a Currawong in my Plum tree this morning a nut got him amidships yet he just flew off,your Catapault sounds like something else!
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
4,306

Scaramouche

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
3,956
Reaction score
1,103
Age
80
Location
Australia
Hi Amsterdam,
Thanks for that....There is heaps about this on the net...Even Utubes they seem awesome...I am going to study it up over Christmas...A merry time to you Old Chap and a prosperous New Year!
 

BackInTheGame78

Moderator
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
13,701
Reaction score
14,575
When studies just say "red meat" and only look at end outcomes, it leaves a lot of important information out.

The individuals who were sampled, were they eating steaks or burgers?
If burgers:
-Home made
Or
-Fast food

These studies often leave this information out. They just conclude "red meat bad" because people that put down 2 fast food burgers a week end up getting cancer and heart disease.
It's not the red meat that did it, it's the rest of the McDonald's meal you ate alongside it.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, but i don't think you can. The data is always lacking outside variables in these studies; the sample group is often already well on their way to heart disease because 'Muricuh.
IMO if they want to do a VALUABLE study they would do studies of people who ate organic, grass fed beef versus the people who ate normal beef. The nutritional profiles and inflammatory profiles of those are so different they should be classified as different foods.
 

Obee1

Don Juan
Joined
Jun 24, 2021
Messages
117
Reaction score
93
Age
56
i eat a ton of red meat. Probably 7 plus servings a week... i workout a good deal... and also ensure I take fish oil twice daily. My blood work is always perfect and when I would take part in our biometric screening for work that nurses were always amazed at my markers. It could be genetic but who knows? I eat what I enjoy and what makes me feel good.
I think most of the regulars know my position on red meat as I've had some heated debates on here. I try to keep an open mind and reserve the right to change my mind if new evidence presents itself. For those that don't know, I'm animal based and stay on the low side of carbs 80% of the time. (I carb backload following a workout.) Through my experience and research I'm convinced now that there is corrupt cabal against red meat that has little to do with our health. It's usually about money or climate change. Case in point below.

In October I wasted $34 and bought the study put out by Harvard "researchers who concluded that red meat twice a week increased our chances of getting diabetes. And that was the headline on a dozen "News" sites. The first thing I noticed is that the main researcher was Dr Walter Willett. He is a known vegetarian whose research department has has received millions of dollars from companies that make plant based foods. He also has received money from the pharma industry. The study blatantly states there were no conflicts of interest. Then I learned that the study was purely epidemiologic. These studies mainly use FFQs (food frequency Questionnaires). These are proven to be highly flawed. And lastly but certainly not least, the study didn't control for tobacco and/ or alcohol use. What a joke. These epidemiologic types of studies shouldn't be used to form any conclusions. They should be used to form a hypothesis to be tested in a lab. The only exception is when there are ethical issues.

I'm a fan of studies but not when they are weaponized and used to change public opinion as opposed to advance science. Harvard is no longer a credible institution.
 

Obee1

Don Juan
Joined
Jun 24, 2021
Messages
117
Reaction score
93
Age
56
When studies just say "red meat" and only look at end outcomes, it leaves a lot of important information out.

The individuals who were sampled, were they eating steaks or burgers?
If burgers:
-Home made
Or
-Fast food

These studies often leave this information out. They just conclude "red meat bad" because people that put down 2 fast food burgers a week end up getting cancer and heart disease.
It's not the red meat that did it, it's the rest of the McDonald's meal you ate alongside it.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, but i don't think you can. The data is always lacking outside variables in these studies; the sample group is often already well on their way to heart disease because 'Muricuh.

*hence the thread title "shoddy research"
Healthy user bias is a common tactic used by activist "researchers." Ancel Keys gets proven wrong time and again. Let's not forget that the sugar lobby paid Harvard scientist to rig their findings to show saturated fat as the main driver of heart disease instead of sugar. Even in the 70's actual research showed sugar to be responsible for many or even most metabolic disease.

 

BackInTheGame78

Moderator
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
13,701
Reaction score
14,575
Healthy user bias is a common tactic used by activist "researchers." Ancel Keys gets proven wrong time and again. Let's not forget that the sugar lobby paid Harvard scientist to rig their findings to show saturated fat as the main driver of heart disease instead of sugar. Even in the 70's actual research showed sugar to be responsible for many or even most metabolic disease.

Again like I said above, the only study that I would buy if it showed issues would be one where they did a organic grass fed beef study versus not.

Those foods are so different from a nutritional and inflammatory profile they shouldn't even be considered the same food.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
8,644
Age
35
When studies just say "red meat" and only look at end outcomes, it leaves a lot of important information out.

The individuals who were sampled, were they eating steaks or burgers?
If burgers:
-Home made
Or
-Fast food

These studies often leave this information out. They just conclude "red meat bad" because people that put down 2 fast food burgers a week end up getting cancer and heart disease.
It's not the red meat that did it, it's the rest of the McDonald's meal you ate alongside it.
That's not what the studies look at. They isolate the variables. For example, there's the fat profile of red meat, along with heme iron, TMAOs, nitrates (for processed meat), or just comparing protein sources among a population. As for carcinogenic concerns, with the exception of colorectal cancer, the carcinogens appear to stem from compounds created in the cooking of meat, not the fact that it is red meat itself.

So to recap, if we take a sample population with say, 30% calories from fat, then compare heme iron among that group and notice a positive correlation with CVD, it's clearly a red meat association.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
8,644
Age
35
Healthy user bias is a common tactic used by activist "researchers." Ancel Keys gets proven wrong time and again. Let's not forget that the sugar lobby paid Harvard scientist to rig their findings to show saturated fat as the main driver of heart disease instead of sugar. Even in the 70's actual research showed sugar to be responsible for many or even most metabolic disease.
I think we can move past the conspiracy theories and use the latest research. The main driver of heart disease is serum concentration of Apo-B over time. Apo-B is the protein contained on all atherosclerotic lipoprotein particles in the blood. If you have metabolic disease, your particle count is fvcked up and has been for years.
 

Obee1

Don Juan
Joined
Jun 24, 2021
Messages
117
Reaction score
93
Age
56
I think we can move past the conspiracy theories and use the latest research. The main driver of heart disease is serum concentration of Apo-B over time. Apo-B is the protein contained on all atherosclerotic lipoprotein particles in the blood. If you have metabolic disease, your particle count is fvcked up and has been for years.
I have no interest in debating you EyeBRollin, as the last time we had this discussion you produced very little research. You were able to regurgitate some science but you showed very little understanding. The one study you cited was debunked several times by the researchers peers. Anytime you are given evidence contrary to your dogmatic beliefs, you start in on the ad hominin attacks on the doctors and researchers. I'll settle for just one of the many studies I asked you for to support one of your dumber statements. Please produce the research to support your argument that having calcium in your coronary arteries is a good thing. Until you produce the study or admit you made a stupid statement, you can troll someone else's post. I have no idea why your rebuttal to my quote is a disjointed statement about Apo-B. Maybe you felt the need to throw around some more of your pseudo-intellectualisms. Most of my questions are rhetorical. I'm not interested in anything you have to say unless it has that calcium research attached. Merry Christmas.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
8,644
Age
35
Please produce the research to support your argument that having calcium in your coronary arteries is a good thing.
That’s not what I said, and a good way to take things out of context. In other words you are lying.

Calcification of existing plaque due to statin therapy, is preferable to having undetectable soft plaque. Soft plaque ruptures and cause heart attacks. Calcified plaques are stable. But you can regurgitate your strawman argument.

I have little interest in debating you as well. I don’t care if you eat 10 lbs of red meat per week. It’s your body. The evidence shows association between red meat, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Do what you want with that information.
 

logicallefty

Moderator
Joined
Apr 26, 2006
Messages
6,061
Reaction score
5,240
Age
50
Location
Northeast Florida, USA
I pay no attention to any food studies what so ever. My body tells me everything I need to know. Regarding red meat, I can eat as much pork as I want and feel just fine. Beef, I can only eat in moderation. If I eat too much, I feel like crap. That's the only study I need.
 

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,721
Reaction score
8,644
Age
35
I'm not gonna debate you dude, I truly don't care about this enough.

If you think red meat is bad for you, that sounds like a 'you' problem.
There is no problem. Populations that consistently eat red meat do not live as long as blue zone populations (east Asia, the Mediterranean, USA adventists). It’s just the facts. Do with that information what you’d like.
 
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
5,127
Reaction score
4,306
40% of Americans are obese. Do you think that possibly skews the outcome metric you're using?
Also, the amount of (red) meat that these obese Americans eat in one sitting is 4-5x the portions served in Europe.
 
Top