News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsDo unhealthy meat eaters live shorter lives?
in Meat 
Meat eater
So it’s time for another health scare in the media. Another thing that ‘shortens life’, this time red meat. But don’t worry: as usual it’s just a new uncertain observational study.
Today’s warnings are more transparent than usual. Meat eaters do indeed die slightly younger, but what do you think they do besides eating meat?
In the media
LA Times: All red meat is bad for you, study says
The Telegraph: Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths
The media has, as usual, no sense of how little these surveys (observational studies) really proves. Statistical correlations only gives us a theory – which then must be proven in more reliable, expensive and harder-to-do studies (RCTs).
For example, the number of drownings increases every year at the same time as sales of ice cream peak. That doesn’t prove that eating ice cream makes you drown. There may always be confounding factors that aren’t measured. Both ice cream eating and drownings are more common in the summer, in the heat. Today’s study is overlooking a problem that’s just as striking.
About the study
The new study is another statistical analysis of surveys from the famous Nurses’ Health Study and Health Professional’s Follow-up Study. They sent regular surveys to more than 100 000 U.S. health care workers from the 80’s until 2008.
Then all respondents were divided into five groups, from those who ate the least red meat (to the left below) to those who ate the most red meat (to the right below). Feel free to look for yourself if it is anything other than their meat eating habits that differ. I have put arrows where it’s particularly interesting to have a look:
The difference between meat eaters and other people
Meat eaters smoke, drink and lie on the couch
The data just screams that the group who ate the most red meat is also generally much more unhealthy:
- They smoke up to three times more often!
- They are exercising much less.
- They are fatter and have more diabetes and hypertension.
- They take less vitamin supplements and need more pain medication.
- They eat a lot more calories.
- They eat less fruit, less vegetables, less fiber and less fish.
- The drink more alcohol.
Lack of logic
The researchers’ logic (simplified) looks like this:
Smoking couch potatoes with obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure who drink more alcohol than they should and eat red meat and eat a lot of (junk?) food and don’t take vitamins and don’t eat fruit or vegetables and have pain problems and of choose white bread and instant pasta and do not eat fish die sooner. Thus meat is dangerous.
What you do not know
Of course the researchers have tried to compensate the findings for the biases above, using various advanced statistical methods. But you can never compensate for every single factor, especially not those you haven’t asked about, and the need for complicated mathematical maneuvers makes the results even more uncertain.
Are there possibly other things that aren’t compensated for? Do smoking, drinking, sedentary people ever do anything else stupid – which the study isn’t compensating for?
The answer is certainly yes. You can probably think of things yourself. Here are four quick possibilities that may have shortened the life of some people in the unhealthy group:
- More accidents?
- More depressions and suicides?
- More unsafe sex? (In the 80’s – and 90’s many Americans died from AIDS)
- More negative stress, less sleep?
The elephant in the room
An American serving of red meat
However, one thing is missing the most. The meat eaters ate a lot more calories even though they ate less fruit, vegetables, whole grains and fish. So in addition to meat – what did they eat more of?
Nowhere in the study does it say anything about the amount of junk food or sugar that the meat eaters ate and drank. The results aren’t adjusted for it. That’s the real elephant in the room.
Is meat bad for you?
The only certain conclusion I can draw from this study is that if you divide the population into five groups, from least to most healthy, then the least healthy group, on average, tend to die slightly earlier.
But those news wouldn’t produce any big headlines for the scientists. It would neither frighten people nor sell newspapers.
What do you say?
What do you think about the warnings against red meat?
This study
- A Pan, et al. Red Meat Consumption and Mortality. 2 Results From Prospective Cohort Studies. Arch Intern Med. Published online March 12, 2012. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287.
More
Do you want to know more about the funny mistakes about food and health that can easily be made by trusting uncertain observational studies? Then you want to see this hilarious and thought-provoking lecture:
My favorite money quote: "We already know that saturated fat isn’t the killer it was made out to be in the 80s. There’s plenty of research to support this theory (too much to link too, in fact), and a meta analysis of 21 studies that found no link between coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease and saturated fat."
On LIVESTRONG.com! The bastion of American health & fitness obsession! Truly, the worm has turned.
Zoe Harcombe, Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science
J Stanton, Always Be Skeptical Of Nutrition Headlines: Or, What “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality” (Pan et.al.) Really Tells Us
UK readers may also be quite surprised, given the BBC news were in the lead with the scaremongering, that Dr Mark Porter, Inside Health today 14th March, was interviewing Professor Tom Sanders who is Head of Diabetes & Nutritional Sciences Division School of Medicine King's College London and he was equally sceptical.
Have I misunderstood the table, or is there something wrong with the Cholesterol measurements? Ie., with one small exception on the women table the highest cholesterol levels are on the "wrong" side of the table....
Ancel Keys pointed out back in 1984 that people with the lowest levels of cholesterol are the first to die from cancer.
SERUM CHOLESTEROL AND CANCER MORTALITY IN THE SEVEN COUNTRIES STUDY
So the fact those with higher cholesterol levels lived longer is consistent with the latest research finding on cholesterol and mortality.
I've put links to some of this in the follow up to previous blog 29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol
In Sweden there is i direct link to high taxes too!!
"American Association for Cancer Research
Low-carbohydrate, high-protein diets may reduce both tumor growth rates and cancer risk"
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-06/aafc-lhd061411.php#
"The Curious Case of Campbell’s Rats — Does Protein Deficiency Prevent Cancer?"
http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/2010/09/22/the-curious-case-of-camp...
This paper explains the relevance of neu5gc ~ inflammation ~ cancer progression.
Evidence for a human-specific mechanism for diet and antibody-mediated inflammation in carcinoma progression
I'm sure MOST readers here will be familiar with the importance Diet Doctor places on the anti inflammatory roles of Vitamin D and omega 3.
In the same way we can understand that pale skinned early humans living outdoors naturally higher 25(OH)D levels than currently considered normal and an omega 3 omega 6 ratio nearer to 1~1 They would also have obtained more anti-inflammatory magnesium in their foods and created more anti-inflammatory melatonin without light pollution at night.
Although it's probable US meat is generally more omega 6 (pro inflammatory) rich than UK / EU meat (less intensive finishing and more access to grass) it's also probably the case our anti-inflammatory status is higher, particularly those who follow a low carbohydrate diet who also reduce consumption of pro inflammatory oils, refined grains and sugars.
This is another special guest post from our favorite study-dismantler, Denise Minger.
Re Donna's point.
I think if you've the natural anti inflammatory status human DNA evolved to function best with then you can more safely consume those foods that are most equivalent to those available to our earliest ancestors.
Low-cholesterol and cancer coincide only because cancer results in low total serum cholesterol. Not the other way around.
Population keeping their total serum cholesterols under 150mg/dl are basically immune to most of the cancers, heart disease, diabetes, etc.
William Castelli, the chief scholar from the biggest heart study ever done. The framingham study.
"You know, we know that if I can get your total cholesterol down around let's say 100 to 130 or so, and I have maybe not quite a billion people on the earth like that, and those people cannot get atherosclerosis. You know in the China Study, for example, when Chou En-lai was dying of cancer he started a study in China just like the Framingham Study. The only difference was it was in 880,000,000 people so it was a little larger than the Framingham Study. But you know they found these villages in China where you couldn't get a heart attack or you couldn't get diabetes and the women couldn't get breast cancer and you know their total cholesterol were 127, but the chances we could ever get Americans down that low with diet and exercise are not good".
KIRK HAMILTON: But what would the diet be if you didn't have drugs and you could get everybody to do exactly what you wanted diet-wise in the United States? How would you reverse the heart disease?"
"DR. WILLIAM CASTELLI: Well you'd have them on a pure vegetarian diet and not getting fat on the vegetarian diet."
Heart Disease Risk: Cholesterol and Lipids in 2011
What Do We Really Know?
http://www.prescription2000.com/Interview-Transcripts/2011-02-18-will...
Searching for Marion Nesle's " Why Calories Count: From Science to Politics I came across This comment from Margaretrc
"Just because calories count–and they do–doesn’t mean we have to count them. If that’s what you want to do, then fine, but it isn’t necessary. If you eat the way we were designed by evolution to eat, calorie counting becomes superfluous. If you want to eat mostly grains and other starches, then yes, you will need to count calories and/or monitor portions. I don’t, so I don’t. I have maintained my weight/size for at least 7 years, but I didn’t do it by counting calories–that never worked for me and believe me, I tried. I did it by eating real food in amounts that satisfied my hunger. Over the past year, I have actually lost weight–and inches–by eating more fat and fewer carbs. Perhaps I will eventually read Dr. Nestle’s book. I’m always interested in science. But it will have to wait until I finish several other books I already have lined up."
I think while ordinary people continue to relate online their own personal experience of what happens when you avoid those refined carbohydrates that raise blood glucose high and fast eventually the scientists and researchers will understand there is an easier way than calorie counting.
For those who still don't "Get it" (the CIH Carbohydrate Insulin Hypothesis) there is a simple explanation at CalorieGate Adam Kosoff will send you a free PDF report if you leave your email on his comments section.
I don't understand why you are worried about Neu5Gc
Sure we know that the human propensity to develop diet-related carcinomas is contributed to by local chronic inflammation resulting from interaction of metabolically-accumulated dietary Neu5Gc with circulating anti-Neu5Gc antibodies.
But we all know how to reduce or prevent chronic inflammation by correcting vitamin D3, omega 3, melatonin and magnesium deficiency states and stop eating those foods like omega 6 rich foods, wheat, sugars that promote inflammation.
Surely we can all manage an anti inflammatory diet/lifestyle?
Look at those tables showing % high cholesterol... it is striking how the % of people with high cholesterol seems to go up as red meat consumption goes down... in a very consistent fashion.
Perhaps this is another data point to suggest that high levels of cholesterol = longer life and less disease?
"If you eat the way we were designed by evolution to eat, calorie counting becomes superfluous."
This is exactly what Nestle denies, with some nice arguments. A personal anecdote is not enough to disturb the vast machine of conventional wisdom, which has just been buttressed by Nestle and endorsed by Nature.
We are going to get zero mainstream change unless someone makes a serious Taubes-like effort to refute Nestle. At the moment, the CIH seems dead, but none of its adherents appear to know it; Nestle has staked us through the heart.
All the progress we think we have made will easily be lost once Nestle's book starts rolling out across the landscape in a major way. We have about 3 weeks. Ignoring Nestle won't work.
Dwight Lundell --whom Andreas links to in his most recent post-- is talking here about carbs and omega 6s, but logically I see no reason not to also treat neu5gc the same way:
Inflammation is not complicated -- it is quite simply your body's natural defence to a foreign invader such as a bacteria, toxin or virus. The cycle of inflammation is perfect in how it protects your body from these bacterial and viral invaders. However, if we chronically expose the body to injury by toxins or foods the human body was never designed to process,a condition occurs called chronic inflammation. Chronic inflammation is just as harmful as acute inflammation is beneficial. What thoughtful person would willfully expose himself repeatedly to foods or other substances that are known to cause injury to the body?
I understand your fear. But the truth will out. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but eventually. I would love to have my friends say (in my lifetime), "Wow, you were right!" But that's really not what's important.
IF - IF - Nestle is right - which I don't think she is - that's good to know. I'm after the truth.
Yes, it's really too bad that people who are miserable with their fatness may get nudged down an unhelpful path by this book, but suppressing bullshit is as bad as suppressing truth.
Let it start a good debate!
Part of the problem with LCHF is the emphasis on pastured meat (chicken, milk, etc) and organic produce. Most of the animal products sold in America are from corn or soy fed animals and most of the produce is not organic. Yet all the popular Paleo/LCHF proponents are always emphasizing the unhealthiness of these foods. How can people feel comfortable eating more fatty foods or leafy vegetables if those foods are supposedly so unhealthy? Many of the paleo proponents make regular meat, milk, and eggs seem as unhealthy as bread and soda.
There are too many people who simply cannot afford or do not have access to organic/pastured food and wild-caught fish. I do not have easy access to pastured meats and organic produce because I don't own a car. And even if I did have a vehicle, I would not be able to afford organic/pastured food. In my area, organic vegetables are three or four times more expensive than non organic. I cannot afford beef or chicken that costs $10.00 per pound. So I do my best. I buy low fat meats and add a lot of healthy oils like coconut, and olive. Also, I take cod liver and fish oils to get omega-3 to balance the high level of omega-6 in many fatty foods. Instead of eating the toxic farm-raised fish that is available, I eat canned pink salmon; canned pink salmon is still wild caught from Alaska. It is a cheaper grade of salmon, but it is still healthy.
Right now, the LCHF movement seems very elitist. If we want more people to adopt this healthier way of eating, then we have to be realistic and stop scaring them away by telling them to eat only organic foods, pastured meats and wild-caught fish. I believe that LCHF is better even with all the toxins in regular foods
I am lucky enough to have easy access to a local farmer/butcher and while I agree that grass-fed is more expensive per pound, I find that there is less waste and because it is more nutritious I am satisfied with less... remembering that we don't just eat for energy/calories.
*It might have been in this one... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L3M75cYpx2w
Also keep in mind that organ meats are much more affordable than prime cuts. If I understand it properly, the balance between O6 and O3 oils matter, so in case somebody has to rely on grain-fed meat sources, probably adding O3 supplement could be helpful. In USA only conventional beef is produce with the Bovine Growth Hormone supplementation, but pork and poultry are not. As far as I know, lamb is grass-fed.
Thanks for that info. The balance of omega3/omega6 is important. Omega 6 is an essential fatty acid. Too much omega 3 will cause blood thinning if not balanced with omega 6.
I can't get organ meats or lamb in the grocery stores near me and except for bacon, I cannot stand the taste and smell of pork. I like goat's meat, but I have it only when I visit my family, who live 250 miles away. I eat beef and chicken most of the time. Beef, chicken and pork are the only meats that the grocery stores near me sell. Once in a while they have turkey parts. I long for oxtail, which I used to eat in my country of origin. Hopefully, one day I will be able to move on to a place that offers more options than I have now.
I just want to add that the easiest organ meat to eat is the beef tong. I boil it first till it is tender, remove the tough skin under running cold water , than make the tong into chilly, or stir-fry it with soy souse and garlic, turn it into beef-stroganof. The texture is amazing, never gets stringy like regular beef. I am not originally from USA. In my native country beef tong costs the same as beef tenderloin and is a very desirable piece of meat. I use in soups chicken hears and pig feet, make a pate from chicken livers(gently boiled livers+ sauteed onion+butter) , cook a beef liver once a week, it all cost very little. I understand for another person who didn't eat and cook such dishes from childhood it could be too exotic, but it really makes sense from the price and nutritional point of view. If you make a first little step like making a big pot of soup with slow cooked bones and odd pieces of meat and some veggies, and use it during the week, or probably put most of it into a freezer in small portions, it will make your food more nutritious at little cost for you.
The soup seems like a really good idea, especially since I could make enough to last a whole week or longer if I freeze it. But is it possible to make a good tasting soup without starchy vegetables and beans? I like my soups thick. I ate bean/pea soups a lot when I was younger. And when i was a vegetarian I made different types of lentil soup. Without starchy vegetables, soups are watery and not very filling.
What do you eat with the chicken liver? When I was a child, my mother's chicken liver was delicious and we ate it with rice or bread. But I don't eat rice and bread anymore.
@moreporkplease, Marion Nestle is, sadly, well respected and you are right. If her book makes headway, and it probably will, it will be a huge set back. However, I don't think that means the end of CIH or LCHF. Most of us who believe in the science of this WOE are not going to believe Dr. Nestle just because she is rather famous and perhaps well respected. As I said, I may read her book some day (I'll borrow it from the library--I won't buy it) just to see where her science is, but I'm not confident she is all that well versed--despite her high level of education in it--in scientific principals. For example, she jumped on that bogus study that made news (and the blog circuit) a few months ago where they over fed three different groups the same number of extra calories. Like most, she touted that it meant that where our calories come from doesn't matter--it's all about the calories. Well I and many here took a close look at that study and it doesn't show that at all. My level of education in biochemistry is not that much less than hers and I disagree with her most heartily on much of what she says about diet and nutrition and I base it not only on personal experience, but on science--biochemistry, for one, which says the CIH is right. She may inflict a serious wound to LCHF and CIH, but she won't kill it--as long as we stay strong and keep propagating our message. And I have no doubt people who have read Gary Taubes' GCBC or WWGF will accept his science over hers because it simply makes more sense. My question (and I've asked Dr. Nestle this) is why would humans be the only animal on the planet that have to count calories? And only here in the US (and maybe the UK)? One thing in Dr. Nestle's favor--from excerpts I've read and stuff I've read on her blog, she is just as anti sugar as we are. She just hasn't made the connection that healthywholegrains and potatoes are a source of sugar to the body.
A vegetable soup with meat , based on a good broth is never watery. I use a pressure cooker a lot to cook bone broth faster, but it is not necessary. You may leave a pot with pig feet, a beef heart and probably a turkey leg on a stove for hours until bones will be easily disintegrated in joints. I just use a colander to remove meat and bones, trough away bones and chop meats. I think if you put one potato per a gallon of soup, it will not be too heavy in carbs but the soup will be thicker. Often I saute finely chopped root veggies(carrots, parsley, onion) in some fat before adding it to my soup . While I do it I reheat the broth with meat and some bay leave and black pepper, cook in the broth chopped cabbage or you can just use several different frozen packs of whatever veggies you like, when veggies are cooked, add sauteed things and sliced tomato and shredded celery, check salt, take from the heat. Sometimes I just put a very hot soup in sterilized in a microwave mason jars, put lid on it and keep it in a refrigerator without freezing.
I also almost always have a gallon of self-made sauerkraut which works as an instant salad.
I like to eat chicken livers with sauteed onions and carrots with a cauliflower on the side.
http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2012/03/23/association-does-not-mean-cau...
Association does not mean causation
I'd also recommend reading all his posts.
And then adjust to how much mucles you have and how active you are!
Or numbers.. 1 to 2 grams a kilo a day of proteins.. count 20% proteins for a mixed animal meat/egg/chees!
I think its 0,5 to 1 gram a pound a day?
Also, I don't need to lose weight. I'm just doing this for health. I lost a stone of weight via a low-carb diet about 31/2 years ago.
And one do need minimum 0,5 gram a pound a day over a longer period.
If one go by those numbers, one need a food calculator.. becuse there is proteins in almoste everything.
http://www.fineli.fi/food.php?foodid=871&lang=en
http://www.fineli.fi/food.php?foodid=714&lang=en
http://www.fineli.fi/food.php?foodid=11565&lang=en
http://www.fineli.fi/food.php?foodid=713&lang=en
Have three groups eat a Big Mac SuperSize Meal for lunch and dinner for 90 days.
Group 1 replaces the Big Mac with a portion of grilled chicken instead
Group 2 replaces the french fries with carrots insted
Group 3 replaces the soda with water instead
I think you'd find out what is causing obesity and disease in this country. Not saying Big Macs or French Fries are good for you but they aren't killing people at nearly the scale soda is.