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

[Machine10033]

Depends. What kind of red meat do you eat? What are your eating habits like?

Most normal days :

morning is either 4 whole eggs mixed with egg whites and oatsor a protein shake mixed with oats. Vitamins and fish oil

mid morning half pound of lean ground beef w bone broth, rice and veggies

lunch same... or ground Turkey w rice and guacamole and veggies

dinner varies but two nights a week I will have a rib eye, smothered in onions /mushrooms, potatoes and veggies.... other nights it’s salmon, pork or chicken.

before bed low fat cottage cheese mixed w raisins...

 

[Machine10033]

Hi Machine10033,
The take home message I got was that the good effect eating your Veggies outweighed any problems from Red Meat....I read once that Canadas Inuit,in their home environment were almost entirely carniverous but had very little Cancer or Chloresterol problems...You speak of genetics,possibly you are a West Atlantic type,say Irish or Scots?whose ancestors foraged along the Sea Shore,although in the hard Winters they ate enormous quantities of Sea Kale to fill their bellies.

i am Irish, German and Italian.... I do crave chicken parmigiana and pasta often

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Amsterdam,
Driving home from a Ladies place a few nights ago and the car in front,belted a Bunny....I recovered him,soon as I got home I had his overcoat off and within ten minutes Briar Rabbit was in my slow cooker,simmering in a Curry Sauce...Made a tasty breakfast.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Amsterdam,
Hard enough to knock 'em off with a Pea Rifle let alone a Catapault,they are surprisingly tough and even though hard hit often make it back to their burrows.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Amsterdam,
Still pretty impressive,I have a catapault I use against Currawongs,a large Rook like Bird,I find 12mm Nuts the best...Back in the Day I would sit up over a burrow with a Pea Rifle,and using a silencer knock them off,some evenings I would have half a dozen bodies littered around,but it never seemed to worry the others!

 

[EyeBRollin]

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.

Yes, it absolutely genetic. Some people have natural low lipid levels, combined diet having no effect (it’s not absorbed in the intestine). They actually used that gene to engineer PKS9 inhibitor meds.

 

[EyeBRollin]

This is wrong. Read the big fat surprise and you will change your mind, ideas are supported with well done research articles. Red Meat is superfood and in fact doesnt cause any cancer or cv risks.

Sorry, this is flat out wrong.

 

[EyeBRollin]

You dont have to apologize for your delusions. Im gonna eat a big ribeye steak now.

Good for you. Enjoy!

 

[MatureDJ]

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]

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?

 

[EyeBRollin]

I love it when researchers have a theory and go hunting for evidence to prove themselves right, instead of letting the data speak for itself.

That high consumption of red meat increases risk of cancer and cardiovascular disease? That’s more of a consensus than a theory at this point.

 

[Scaramouche]

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]

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.

 

[Scaramouche]

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!

 

[Scaramouche]

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]

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]

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]

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.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

 

[BackInTheGame78]

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.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

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]

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.