Brown begins: "Eating red meat - any amount and any type - appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years."
Eating any amount of any type of red meat increases the risk of premature death, a new study says. (photo: William Thomas Cain/Getty Images)
All Red Meat Is Bad for You, New Study Says
13 March 12
A long-term study finds that eating any amount and any type increases the risk of premature death.
ating red meat - any amount and any type - appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.
For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat - picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards - to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.
Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.
"Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.
Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%; and fish, 7%.
Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren't sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.
The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk.
In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.
Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.
But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.
"If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week," he said. "That would have a huge impact on public health."
A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day.
Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn't eat bacon or other processed meats.
Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study.
"There's a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important - that it should be part of a healthful diet," said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. "These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better."
UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.
"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."
Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet."
In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |













Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
The people I know like me, who infrequently eat red meat, go to health clubs, play sports, and are within five or ten pounds of their ideal body weight. While many daily red meat eaters are the ones in their cubicles having Diet Coke and Twinkies for lunch.
I am now of the former lifestyle; I used to be of the latter. So, to me it ain't the red meat; it's the extra 50 pounds that kills you early! Without the perspective of the lifestyle of the survey participants, these findings are useless.
My family has a history of heart attacks. I cut out meat to reduce the possibility of one. Frankly, I don't care what anyone else eats - that's your choice.
Fish is unfortunately often contaminated with very high mercury content. This results from acid rain leaching mercury out of the mountain rocks, and into, say trout streams in the Rocky Mountains.
This problem exists as well for ocean fish such as tuna, and for species that inhabit both ocean and fresh waters such as salmon.
In addition, to say that we should never eat meat fails to explain why human beings are designed with meat cutting (canine) as well as grinding "vegetarian" teeth. We are designed to be omnivores. If eating meat poses any problem at all, we need to more closely examine the meat.
Statistics can be illusive, and seem in many cases to be constantly changing. View recommendations for things such as fats and butter over the past three decades. Statistics have swung back and forth like a pendulum.
Each person does well to listen to their own body on dietary matters.
Nothing said here though about Pink Meat, i.e. Pink Slime -- the ammonia-soaked gut sludge ground up with whatever else is not fit for Alpo. Pink Slime must be OK because the USDA says it's fine for school lunchrooms. Hope that means the Senate Dining Room, too!
Actually, worry about meat -- red, pink, shiny green, whatever is all foolish -- we of the 99 percent never see it. It will soon be extinct anyway, as genetic-tampere d corn, wheat, etc. cuts back on its consumers' reproductive fertility -- livestock's and ours.
See how our problems take care of themselves, if we just stay docile and let the brilliant feds handle things?
There will always be those who beat the odds - but they are not the norm.
Public health should be governed by science, not anecdotal evidence. It is impossible to take one person and extrapolate that to the population as a whole.
The Harvard School of Public Health is about as reliable as you can get.
A single exception hardly makes a rule. Individual anecdotes are irrelevant.
If 95% of people have their lives shortened by eating significant amounts of red meat, and your mother had a long life in spite of it, all you are doing is proving that your mother was one of a very small group of people who weren't affected negatively.
It is widely known now that drugs taken for epilepsy during pregnancy can cause severe birth defects. My mother bore five children, all of us normal (and all of us with high IQs). Does that therefore mean that because WE were born without defects that the risk for others is zero?
You need to go back to school!
http://www.diabetes.org/living-with-diabetes/treatment-and-care/ask-the-expert/ask-the-dietitian/archives/are-rice-cakes-allowed.html
To put this in perspective, 2 plain rice cakes have 15 grams of carbohydrates which is about the same as two clementine oranges.
Let the lawsuits begin.
Only in America, land of the free ... and I guess the brave part entails eating red meat. Sounds very American, where the brave eat red meat and shoot up unarmed civilians throughout the world.
It's illegal to say beef is bad. Illegal to speak your mind. Illegal to protest. Illegal to reveal criminal activity, atrocity, and war crimes. War criminals and perpetrators of banking fraud are either immune from investigation and/or prosecution or beyond the law. Its illegal to smoke marijuana. Legal to smoke chemically enhanced tobacco. Legal to eat beef.
For profit prisons. Leasing of public lands and wilderness ... for (private) profit. Privatized profit. Socialized (corporate) loss.
What does this have to do with beef. Everything. Haven't you been listening. It's the slippery slope. Deny the science. Obscure facts. Encourage confusion and apathy.
Play on people's vices, tendencies, wants, weakness, and ignorance.
Then people confuse right and wrong from personal choices and personal responsibility, from what is legal and "legal" to say from what should be legal -- not criminal -- and what should be legislated.
What does it mean that red meat is bad? That people should be able to say that beef sucks and it is bad and others can still choose to eat it.
This is nonsense. I haven't eaten meat, red white or pink for 40 yrs. and enjoy good health. I also avoid doctors, pharmaceuticals and processed foods. Your friend may have reduced her salt intake to the level of creating a sodium/potassiu m imbalance or perhaps she was simply living immoderately on her favorite, potassium rich foods. A well rounded diet need not include any meat.
Meatless diets have been examined for decades and have shown no deleterious affects. There may be other issues regarding your friend than her not eating meat.
Absolutely so. Vegetarians must also supplement in order to get the required 22 Essential Amino Acids.
The supplemental Aminos come either from beef or from tofu, but without them, again, the health will go out of balance.
Listen to your own body. There is no "once plan fits all" dietary regimen.
Legumes and grains, when eaten together, get you your NINE (not 22) essential amino acids.
Eat Grapenuts and Soy Milk everyday and you are done.
I am interested in emigrating. Should Thailand be on my list of possibilities?
I avoid all fried foods. The chemical composition of oils changes at high temperature, reducing their nutritional value and producing carcinogenic compounds. Tofu and other non-fermented soy products are also not recommended (they've been associated with Alzheimer's in Japanese studies). Fermented soy products (tempeh, nato, miso, tamari) seem to be ok. Also avoid homogenized dairy products. All essential amino acids are available in a vegan diet, but I include some dairy and eggs. Above all, stay away from sugar and white flour. These are industrial products and have no nutritional value beyond calories.
Crunching data from questionnaires is bad science or really not science at all. It is bad sociology. What were they other factors in people's lives?
People are inclined to take a phrase "was associated with" as a proof. It is not. It is a hunch or a supposition.
Medicine seems to have fallen prey to these statistical surveys and they come out with contradictory results all the time. In a year there will be a study showing that red meat is associated with heart and brain health. None of this is medicine or proof. these researchers get huge grants to do this work and they really seem to care how silly their reports are.
To say we are "designed" for anything is ridiculous. Any particular genetic strain has succeeded because its traits allow it to flourish in the circumstances in which it has evolved. As those conditions change, these traits can become more or less valuable. New traits evolve through mutation. Those that are beneficial help individuals to survive and procreate, making the mutation the new norm in the new conditions. Humans have evolved in many different environments with many different dietary resources. To think we are all suited by "design" to be omnivores is simplistic and wrong. Think of the many millions in India who eat no meat compared to the Inuit who subsist almost entirely on animal protein.
Statistics tell us (so that we know) there is a correlation between eating red meat and dying early. Duly noted.
As long as we don't understand (that's science) the mechanism that leads from one to the other, the knowledge itself is quite weak.
This does not mean we should not pay attention to what stats have to say, especially for those of us who research the stuff, but we should not jump to conclusions.
Pan is correct in saying that there was nothing in the study that seemed to indicate that eating red meat was anything but damaging. You don't have to know the mechanism to say "that's a bad thing".
I KNOW that the Harvard School for Public Health is pretty awesome (my spouse has an Master in Public Health). I UNDERSTAND statistics.
110,000 people is an awesome sample group and to follow them for more than 20 years is similarly awesome. To ignore the results is to turn your back on science.
Well put. It seems that most people are unwilling to correlate what they consume with their health and well being.
The worlds food supply is also qite suspect in regards to production practices. From soil health to animal and plant health it doesn't look real promising for main stream agriculture.
Modern chemicals or genengineering aren't the answer.
"The participants in the particular study were also less likely to be physically active, more likely to smoke, drink alcohol and have a higher body mass index. They were more likely to have a higher energy intake and ate less whole grains, fruits and vegetables," she said.
Australians on the other hand tend to eat red meat fresh, cooked from scratch and with plenty of vegetables, she said.
"The scientific evidence to support the role of lean red meat in a healthy diet is robust; nothing in this study proves otherwise," she said.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/huge-study-shows-red-meat-boosts-risk-of-dying-young-20120313-1ux48.html#ixzz1p4VoSoxb
Who is "she"?
"Veronique Droulez, marketing nutrition manager for Meat and Livestock Australia"
Who is "Meat and Livestock Australia"?
'Meat & Livestock Australia (MLA) is a producer-owned company, working in partnership with industry and government to achieve a profitable and sustainable red meat and livestock (cattle, sheep and goats) industry in Australia."
MLA is not a "disinterested" party and I would LOVE to see the "scientific evidence" that was not, well, evident.
Ms. Droulez did not offer any "scientific evidence" - she merely argued that the study didn't prove otherwise without providing any evidence. That isn't science. That's marketing.
Please explain how the study is "prejudiced"? What "living habits" are you talking about? And why would that make any difference? We're talking about death from cardiovascular disease, cancer, etc. Are you saying death is prejudiced?
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287
meat, fish, fruit, vegetables, only,
was what they as nomad-hunters were
eating.
NO bread,maize, rice, butter, cheese or sugar.
Try it and you don´t go back!
Mind you, they didn't have "studies" and were in a basic survival mode. Probably never figgered out how to make bread, butter or cheese -not too bright these folks. And they died out as a sub-species, didn't they and if I remember a-right, their life-span was pretty short (25-40 years)?
Wonder what their evolutionary survivors "Homo sapiens" ate. I'll bet it was pretty much the same but they learned to cull, cook and preserve eventually, including bread butter and cheese (three of the great gifts of culinary development).
I've heard that cooking is what separates us from the other species and I'd kind of go along with that but nothing is absolute in our evolution. And we all have different needs in our diversity. Try telling an Inuit that Seal-meat and it's accompanying blubber is bad for them and that they should be vegetarian in THAT climate. So it goes on but this "study" is just another way of keeping certain academics employed and the rest of us confused and even guilty, in my 'umble opinion.
Take a walk around any Walmart or Costco or airport. There's enough collective lard in any one of these venues on any given day to stanch the flow of the Colorado River at Hoover Dam. For every fit, nutritionally sound individual among the "99%", there are many thousands of obese, sedentary, nutritionally clueless, fast-food addicted adults, and tragically, more and more kids. Surveying any busy food court in a typical American shopping mall is enough to make you lose your appetite real fast.
Perhaps I sound like a food snob, but after fighting weight most of my life, and recently finding a new lease through regular exercise and renewed focus on improving my lousy diet, I realize how insidious this whole problem has become for so many people.
Those who eat meat and potatoes know nothing but meat and potatoes.
I've had a more varied diet and "discovered" foods that I absolutely love now because I'm vegetarian.
A balanced diet and ENJOYMENT of good food, common sense and having some cooking skills seems to be the best path. I have a theory that if you only eat for fuel, you'll chow on any over-processed crap that is on offer and miss out on one of the great enjoyments in life.
And much of the red meat on offer in the US is so stuffed with hormones and shelf-life enhancing stuff, factory-farmed in unnatural conditions, it' almost deserves to be re-categorized ("Dead meat"???).
I might also suggest supporting local farmers and try growing stuff yourself even if only in a window box; there's a lot of joy in that alone.
I mean, how much of the produce -even allegedly "Green" you buy at the supermarket has been subjected to similarly enhanced processing?
The native peoples of this country pretty much lived on wild red meat fresh and dried and they had pretty long lives until the invaders got them hooked on commodity rations like plastic cheese and mangy flour which has taken them to the shortest life-spans in the nation.
And then there is the "Monsanto factor" which pretty much compromises anything that it is grown in the vicinity of with GM spores.
Any good studies on processing and GM crops -you bet but they don't get blown up into major issues like this nonsense.
Both “nuts instead of beef or pork” and “poultry or whole grains” are problematic (the latter PARTLY because of the term “or”).
Poultry bears harmful aspects similar to "red" meat's. But most (NOT all) whole grains do not bear any unhealthful chemistry. [Wheat & rye are trouble because of their gluten (quality & quantity), fat (quality & quantity), ratio of chlorine & acid-forming minerals versus alkaline/acid-b inding minerals, phosphate quantity, greatly-phospha te-favoring phosphate/sulfa te ratio.]
Nuts are harmful if regular part of diet. Average nut is 60% fat (E.G., hazelnut/filber t 60.75%, macadamia 75.77%, almond 49.42%, pine nut 68.37%, cashew 43.85%). Most nuts bear much Beta-Sitosterol (toxic if much).
The matter is very complex (a complex matter of ENTIRE diet) — as my follow-up comment will adumbrate. The study was abysmally simplistic.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nuts/HB00085
Beta-Sitosterol is found in pecans, Serenoa repens (saw palmetto), avocados, Cucurbita pepo (pumpkin seed), Pygeum africanum, cashew fruit, rice bran, wheat germ, corn oils, soybeans - I found nothing that indicated that it is "toxic".
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2329812
Why do you believe the Mayo Clinic's position is "science"? The Mayo Clinic does not oppose eating meat; yet much science shows meat-eating unhealthful. The Mayo Clinic's position does not account for fat content of nuts.
You argue illogically. Beta-Sitosterol is not transmuted to harmlessness because it is a constituent of avocado, pumpkin seed, or anything else. Your argument just begs the question of whether it is harmful.
My comment did not say Beta-Sitosterol is harmful. It said it is harmful if present "much" in a food & one eats the food regularly.
Concerning whether Beta-Sitosterol is toxic, see E.G., (& note "E.G.,") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta-Sitosterol#Side-Effects — AND the sources cited there.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2329812 does not support your belief, but impeaches it.
The source is the US government, which includes FDA & USDA that give us toxins like myriad net-harmful drugs & carcinogenic food-colorings & pesticides & herbicides & multiply harmful GMO crops & regulations that bar labeling of GMO-bearing food-products.
Also, if you READ (scrupulously) the study reported at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2329812, you will see (if you are capable of logic & bear adequate relevant education) that the study does NOT show Beta-Sitosterol harmless (PARTLY because of the study's design) but presents evidence suggesting harm.
This supplements my reply's content related to the Mayo Clinic.
In the Mayo Clinic web page you cited, one sees the assertion that nuts are great sources of Omega-3 fatty acids and unsaturated fats. But one does not see any recognition of the fat quantities of nuts or even all the qualities of the various particular fatty acids nuts bear - except that nuts have unsaturated fat and Omega-3 fatty acids.
The Mayo Clinic's Omega-3 fatty acids assertion is very misleading, even ultimately false.
Nuts do NOT contain USABLE Omega 3 fatty acids. Their Omega 3 fatty acids are ALA type. ALA is not usable unless converted into EPA, DHA, or DPA.
The conversion rate is 3%-5% in women & 4%-6% in men. Average nut APA quantity is about 20g per 100g. Even if 6% conversion, usable Omega 3 would be only 1.2g per 100g.
Compare, E.G., Chinook salmon: ALA 3.357g per 100g (converts to 0.2g usable); EPA 1.1g per 100g (all usable); DPA 0.301g per 100g (all usable); DHA 0.944 (all usable): total usable 2.55g per 100g (more than twice that of the average nut).
The Mayo Clinic's unsaturated fat assertion is equally misleading, even false. Any fine oil (E.G., grapeseed) supplies much more unsaturated fat. Macadamias maybe the fattiest nuts (75.77g fat per 100g). Their unsaturated fat is 60.38g per 100g. Grapeseed oil's is 86g per 100g.
Mayo Clinic "science"?????? ?
Diet is UNhealthful if NOT
35%-40% locally-in-seas on FRESH vegetables/legu mes (but very little or no nightshades) (Particulars depend on individual constitution.)
25%-30% organic brown rice, whole oat, whole barley, whole millet, little or no corn. (Particulars depend on individual constitution.)
5%-10% dried beans & seaweed (Particulars depend on individual constitution.)
2%-5% sesame, pumpkin, sunflower seeds
10%-15% WILD salmon, scallop (no tripolyphosphat e), CLEAN-water oyster & mussel (Particulars depend on individual constitution.)
PURE sea salt
Green tea
West Europe olive & grape seed oils; sesame oil; no other oil
Artesian or well-filtered water (never plastic-stored)
no more than 3 eggs/week (& only FERTILE, free-range-fowl egg)
no dairy except a LITTLE organic yogurt or aged West-Europe or 100% organic cheese (not made/stored in plastic)
no alcohol except well-filtered vodka & 100% organic or West Europe beer or wine
no soft drinks or other such
no processed food
little vinegar (only balsamic or organic brown rice)
few or no nuts
no soy, except if fermented & organic
little or no sweet fruit (1.5% or more fructose)
little raw food or juice (except cranberry juice used to cure urinary tract infection)
(a) Except the named oils, oysters, mussels, and sesame seeds, all ingredients must be organic or wild.
(b) Raw organic honey and, occasionally, organic maple syrup are okay (the only safe sweeteners).
(c) Every person has near-unique diet needs, including cooking methods.
(d) Ingredient-choi ces and cooking methods must depend partly on season, weather, and time of day.
(e) Various (organic) spices (leaf, seed, other) can be healthful, if they fit the person's condition and constitution, the season, the weather, etc.
Many other considerations abound. This is not a venue appropriate for thorough examination.
RSS feed for comments to this post