New meta-analysis: Meat intake does not appear to increase risk of heart disease

Humans have been eating meat for millions of years, and so we should be well adapted to it. Nevertheless, some people still believe the somewhat absurd theory that eating meat can produce diseases like heart disease.

The flimsy scientific support for this idea is mostly based on selected observational studies (i.e. statistics), that are unable to prove cause and effect. And even these weak studies are highly conflicting. For example it’s been shown that – adding all studies together – people in Asia who eat more meat get significantly less heart disease,1 a finding clearly incompatible with the theory.

Now the first, to my knowledge, meta-analysis of higher-quality studies (RCTs) has been published. It finds zero evidence for any negative effects of meat on risk factors for heart disease, including cholesterol.

AJCN: Total Red Meat Intake of ≥0.5 Servings/d Does not Negatively Influence Cardiovascular Disease Risk Factors: A Systemically Searched Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

I’m not surprised. Still, this should kill the bizarre idea that humans could get sick from eating real food like meat.

Brink on the juicy steaks. Especially from grass-fed animals, to make the meat good for the climate too.

Related low-carb controversies



The Secret Diet of the Fittest Senior Citizen on the Planet

Top videos about meat, health and the environment

Can Red Meat Kill You? – Nina Teicholz
Grass-Based Health and the Ruminant Revolution – Dr. Peter Ballerstedt
Is Low-Carb Bad for the Environment? – Answers to Common Questions

One comment

  1. Bob Niland
    The fulltext at that link is paywalled. Is it available anywhere else? Meta muddles are highly unlikely to be worth paying the ransom.

    Questions lead right off with: what is the definition of "red meat"?

    In a lot of these meta-mehs, it's a definition relaxed enough to include highly processed junk with some token bovine participation. Then we move on to things like burgers, and their load of ancillary toxins like wheat buns, sauces with sugars, n6 fats, etc.

    There's a further confounder in that people who are ignoring the red meat scare are doing so for two entirely distinct reasons that affect wider food choices. Most of them are probably also indulging in some actually risky choices (smoking, excess drinking, etc.), which biases outcomes in that cohort. Others may be eating it because they know it's not a problem, but in the context of a cautious diet (there aren't enough of these latter so far to influence these epidemiological studies).

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts