Health & Wellness

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 23rd, 2020 8:03 pm
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
zoro69 wrote: More every day

"'The World Is Finally Losing Its Taste For Meat', Says Bloomberg
'Two consecutive years of decline [in meat production] is unprecedented and could be the start of something durable'"

https://www.plantbasednews.org/culture/ ... -bloomberg
What has this got to do with this thread?

I see you were complaining about people trolling plant based food threads.
zoro69 wrote: Unfortunately the same trolls have to weigh in on RFD. Every single time.
Can you not see that is exactly what you are doing?
So many posts, and not one evidence based study that is relevant to this thread.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 19, 2001
8422 posts
2097 upvotes
8 more recent studies

"Making optimal decisions on your diet choices is one of the most important parameters of achieving and maintaining long-term health. Unfortunately, the media loves to twist poor quality data and a barrage of erroneous reports have claimed it is safe again to load your plates with meats, cheeses, butters, and eggs. Nothing could be further from the truth"

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/powerful ... n-md-facc/

"Conclusions
In just a short time span, 8 new research studies join a 9th recent analysis that confirmed that dietary choices lower in saturated fats from eggs, butter, lard, meats of all kinds and certain baked goods can slash heart disease risk. The 8 studies presented here indicate that the benefit is widespread, extending to brain health, kidney health, diabetes risk, and healthy aging and longevity. If you have been hesitating to adopt a plant diet, or if you are following a meat heavy ketogenic or Paleolithic diet, it is clear that the science indicates the one path to dietary health. That path is to spend your dollars in the produce department."
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
Kahn seems to be throwing the kitchen sink at it.
None of these are new "studies" , some aren't studies at all, and most of those that are don't conclude what he is claiming they conclude.

They are mining data from old studies and attempting to find correlations. As said before, this can be a good first step at forming a hypothesis,
but data mining is not evidence. It is analogous to curve fitting

None of the studies meet the requirements of evidence based science standards, none of the studies found a correlation HR >2, none of them demonstrate any causation, and only one even presents a possible mechanism of action.


1) Observational data from 2011-2014 NHANES was re-analysed. The conclusion is "Experimental manipulations are needed to determine the potential causal relations of these associations" fair statement. The regression analysis they used, found a (very weak) positive correlation.

2) Observational data from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging (CLSA) was analysed. Long-term immigrants had higher verbal fluency test scores than their Canadian-born counterparts. This study didn't say anything about meat being bad for you.

3) Observational data from 1993-1997 in the Chicago Health and Aging Project (CHAP) and from 1997-2005 in the Memory and Aging Project (MAP) was analysed. Neither of these studies showed a correlation with meat consumption having negative outcomes.

4) US National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study from 1995 to 2011 was analysed. -0.36% [95% CI, -0.48% to -0.25%] for men and -0.33% [95% CI, -0.48% to -0.21%] for women. Seriously?

5) Not a study. It is a deep dive search of published articles that supported what they were looking for. They compiled 416 published articles,( it doesn't say how many they rejected) This is the antithesis of science based methodology, included for volume.

6) This is not a study. It is a review article, by Dr. Barnards "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" a vegan evangelist group.

7) This one is interesting, as they post a possible mechanism of action.
Meat intake increases production of nitrogenous end-products, worsens uremia, and may increase the risk of constipation with resulting hyperkalemia from the typical low fiber intake. A plant-dominant, fiber-rich, low-protein diet may lead to favorable alterations in the gut microbiome, which can modulate uremic toxin generation and slow CKD progression, along with reducing cardiovascular risk.
Interesting, and I will follow up as the evidence (intervention studies) I have seen has indicated the opposite of this, with lowering of fiber showing a reduction of gastrointestinal issues such as IBS, constipation, etc.

8) is a post hoc analysis of observational data from EPIC-InterAct. It shows a possible correlation with benefits to increased vitamin C. It says nothing about meat being deleterious.

Why can't these guys post a simple repeatable experiment that shows meat having negative effects? Or at least present a reasonable mechanism of action?
This is elementary to accomplish with any other foods that are considered "bad for you".
Last edited by qman23 on Aug 5th, 2020 4:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
Almost forgot...the "9th" study, that Kahn uses to claim that saturated fat is evil,
a recent high-quality review identified the risks of these foods and the high saturated content they contain.
is the Cochrane report.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32428300/

Here is what it actually concluded....

" long-term trials suggested that reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 21% (risk ratio (RR) 0.79"
but
" We found little or no effect of reducing saturated fat on all-cause mortality (RR 0.96;


here is perfect example of the misuse of relative vs absolute risk. and also why it is important to understand RR limitations in observational studies.
If you conclude that saturated fat is what caused the cardiovascular events, then you must also conclude that reducing saturated fats makes you more likely to die of other things. (all cause mortality has a higher correlation)
People who reduced their saturated fat intake were just as likely to die, or get heart attacks or strokes, compared with those who ate more saturated fat.

Secondly, it is an example of cherry picking supporting evidence as it also concluded....

"There was little or no effect on cancer mortality, cancer diagnoses, diabetes diagnosis, HDL cholesterol, serum triglycerides or blood pressure, and small reductions in weight, serum total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and BMI. "

Yet Kahn includes this study to support one thing, while also claiming that meat causes diabetes and cancer.
Last edited by qman23 on Aug 5th, 2020 4:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
Follow up with #7 above. PLADO
(Plant-Dominant Low-Protein Diet for Conservative Management of Chronic Kidney Disease)

It is specifically about the use of low protein diets for those with chronic kidney disease.
All protein, plant or animal is nitrogenous, and the study fails to demonstrate there is any difference between excess plant vs excess animal protein.

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/20 ... 1/download
Deal Addict
Aug 17, 2008
1081 posts
492 upvotes
This thread is getting tiring, and I'm sure no one is going to change their position.

I hesitate to post precisely because no one will change their minds. But this point about "sufficient evidence" .... it will never be possible to get sufficient evidence.

Here's a great, and well-balanced article that basically explains the differing viewpoints well:
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the ... meat-study

Some key points:
  • it's basically impossible to run the kind of trial that would definitively prove that red meat was good or bad. Realistically, this would involve randomizing then feeding meat/no meat to thousands of people for decades which is a) unethical and b) impractical in the extreme.
  • nutrition science is far harder than most people assume.
  • In the study in the very first post in this thread... did not say that red meat isn't harmful - what they've said is that the current level of evidence is not sufficient to make recommendations about red meat consumption either way.
  • Previous studies have instead said that we have enough evidence to know that red meat - particularly if it's processed - probably causes harm, and since there are definitely alternatives that don't carry the same risks we should tell people to switch to those instead.
  • It's a very subtle point - no one is saying that red meat is definitely harmless, and they're certainly not saying that it's good for your health. The argument really boils down to how confident we can be when we say that red meat is bad for your health.
  • The real message from this study seems to be that a variety of eating patterns are probably fine for your health. If you want to eat red meat, that is probably not that harmful. If you want to cut it out entirely, you're probably totally justified also.
I think that last point is the most balanced point of view. Not that there is no evidence red meat is bad for you.

Myself, I agree with this balanced view. While the level of scientific proof is hard to achieve, as I posted once before, if you look at the regions of the world where the local populations have well above average, healthy life spans, they are all local regions where the diet has less meat consumption (not none, but less). I have reduced my meat consumption, but I will never go 100% vegeterian or vegan, as I do enjoy eating meat. It's all about balance.
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
139 upvotes
multimut wrote: This thread is getting tiring, and I'm sure no one is going to change their position.

I hesitate to post precisely because no one will change their minds. But this point about "sufficient evidence" .... it will never be possible to get sufficient evidence.

Here's a great, and well-balanced article that basically explains the differing viewpoints well:
https://www.sciencealert.com/here-s-the ... meat-study

Some key points:
  • it's basically impossible to run the kind of trial that would definitively prove that red meat was good or bad. Realistically, this would involve randomizing then feeding meat/no meat to thousands of people for decades which is a) unethical and b) impractical in the extreme.
  • nutrition science is far harder than most people assume.
  • In the study in the very first post in this thread... did not say that red meat isn't harmful - what they've said is that the current level of evidence is not sufficient to make recommendations about red meat consumption either way.
  • Previous studies have instead said that we have enough evidence to know that red meat - particularly if it's processed - probably causes harm, and since there are definitely alternatives that don't carry the same risks we should tell people to switch to those instead.
  • It's a very subtle point - no one is saying that red meat is definitely harmless, and they're certainly not saying that it's good for your health. The argument really boils down to how confident we can be when we say that red meat is bad for your health.
  • The real message from this study seems to be that a variety of eating patterns are probably fine for your health. If you want to eat red meat, that is probably not that harmful. If you want to cut it out entirely, you're probably totally justified also.
I think that last point is the most balanced point of view. Not that there is no evidence red meat is bad for you.

Myself, I agree with this balanced view. While the level of scientific proof is hard to achieve, as I posted once before, if you look at the regions of the world where the local populations have well above average, healthy life spans, they are all local regions where the diet has less meat consumption (not none, but less). I have reduced my meat consumption, but I will never go 100% vegeterian or vegan, as I do enjoy eating meat. It's all about balance.
I am thoroughly enjoying this thread.
It's great to see @qman23 calmly and clearly pointing out the fallacies being used to defend an otherwise unsupportable ideology.

Yes, nutrition science is complex which is even more a reason to apply rigorous scientific methods.
A decade long double blind RCT isn't required. An intervention study or a repeatable animal study demonstrating harm could be sufficient. This has been done to demonstrate plant toxicity levels, but experiments have repeatedly failed to show any negative results from red meat consumption. Replicated rat studies consistently show that animal products added to standard rat chow diet can dramatically improve both resiliency and longevity. So what are these alternatives you speak of that don't carry risks?

if you look at the regions of the world where the local populations have well above average, healthy life spans, they are all local regions where the diet has less meat consumption

As I posted before, this is complete nonsense. Where are you getting this from? The cherry picked Buettner's blue zones?
Hong Kong has the longest lived people and the highest consumption of red meat.
Mormons live as long as Adventists without the meat restrictions.
Okinawan traditional diet was misrepresented, and since been re-analyzed showing centenarian longevity is directly correlated with an increase in pork consumption.

Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria also amazingly had a dramatic reduction of over 80% in supercentenarians once the government mandated birth certificate records.
Birth certificates are hazardous to your longevity, and your heirs support cheques.


the designated ‘blue zones’ of Sardinia, Okinawa, and Ikaria corresponded to regions with low incomes, low literacy, high crime rate and short life expectancy relative to their national average. As such, relative poverty and short lifespan constitute unexpected predictors of centenarian and supercentenarian status, and support a primary role of fraud and error in generating remarkable human age records.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
Thanks,
I was not familiar with that study.
I will add it to my growing list of reasons as to why one should tread softly when making conclusions solely from epidemiological data.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
multimut wrote:
[*]In the study in the very first post in this thread... did not say that red meat isn't harmful - what they've said is that the current level of evidence is not sufficient to make recommendations about red meat consumption either way.
Correct. That is exactly what the best evidence says. It did not say that red meat isn't harmful.
But, it equally did not say that red meat is or may be harmful.

So why is the normative default belief that less meat is better than more meat?
This is predicated on a belief that red meat is deleterious in some way. This is what is being challenged here is the premises of this common belief

In any other field of science, a negative finding is just that. A negative finding.
For instance, non-ionizing EMF exposure was studied for possible negative effects, after epidemiological correlations suggested it might be causal to various illnesses.
The science done can not tell us it is safe. It only tells us that it is not specifically harmful.

So we build towers and use cell phones. Or, some people choose to wear tinfoil hats.
The avoidance of meat for health reasons, rests on similar quality evidence that the hat wearers are using to justify their hats.
Except there is little evidence that wearing tinfoil is harmful, whereas there is evidence that avoiding meat can be.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 19, 2001
8422 posts
2097 upvotes
Plant-based meat lowers some cardiovascular risk factors compared with red meat, study finds
A diet that includes an average of two servings of plant-based meat alternatives lowers some cardiovascular risk factors compared with a diet that instead includes the same amount of animal meat, Stanford Medicine scientists found.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2 ... -meat.html
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
zoro69 wrote: Plant-based meat lowers some cardiovascular risk factors compared with red meat, study finds
A diet that includes an average of two servings of plant-based meat alternatives lowers some cardiovascular risk factors compared with a diet that instead includes the same amount of animal meat, Stanford Medicine scientists found.
http://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2 ... -meat.html
Let the back pedaling begin. After years of claiming it was/is the saturated fat that causes the issues, from the article,
“The question is, if you’re adding sodium and coconut oil, which is high in saturated fat, and using processed ingredients, is the product still actually healthy?”
Then it was LDL cholesterol as a correlative risk factor, until it was recognized that lowering LDL caused an increase in all cause mortality.

Now looking at another potential correlative risk factor,
"there seems to be a connection between higher levels of TMAO and an increased risk of cardiovascular disease, but the connection has yet to be definitively proved. "
*This small study was funded by an unrestricted gift from Beyond Meat

This is going to be a tough row to hoe, if only because the carnitine in meat that is supposed to raise TMAO levels has been demonstrated for years to improve cardiovascular function.
" in chronic heart failure patients, long-term oral treatment with propionyl-L-carnitine improves maximum exercise duration and maximum oxygen consumption"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15591005/

Secondly, why single out red meat for this "risk factor", when chicken creates the same amount?

And why not cauliflower and peas? Their bias is showing.
And most certainly you must avoid seafood! That stuff must be an instant heart attack in the making.
Fruits-and-Vegetables.jpg
Seafood-Invertebrate-1024x741.jpg
Deal Addict
Jun 27, 2006
1374 posts
1513 upvotes
Toronto
qman23 wrote: Thanks,
I was not familiar with that study.
I will add it to my growing list of reasons as to why one should tread softly when making conclusions solely from epidemiological data.
Wasn't a lower meat consumption and shorter life expectancy the result of WWII where a large part of the population died due to fighting with US forces and a general lack of available food/livestock as a result of the war?

Overall, these areas have tended to consume fewer processed foods regardless of red meat consumption. Which may have a higher correlation to health issues than red meat itself.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
There are far too many confounds in epidemiology to draw causative inferences, and as I said I'm not familiar with that study.

Edit : from the study,
In Ikaria, the oldest-old have:

-a below-median wage (over 95-98% of cases),
-moderate to high alcohol consumption
-an average 7.4 years of education,
-a 99% rate of smoking in men.

ergo, the secret to a long life is to drink, smoke and quit school? lol

Also, from the paper,.
Japan has…among the highest quality data for the oldest-old” ...............
a 2010 investigation of Japanese records revealed that 238,000 centenarians were actually missing or dead.
There are either a lot of people misplacing their granny, or a lot of fraud going on.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
zoro69 wrote: "Importantly, the researchers found that the risk of heart failure hospitalizations was 41 percent lower among people who adhered to the plant-based diet."

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articl ... ed-desktop
Cherry pick much?
from the article you just posted...

".... sticking to a diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and fish can slash heart failure risk by 41 percent. By contrast, a diet rich in fats, fried foods, processed meat, and sugary drinks can raise the risk of this condition."

Comparing a whole food diet to a southern diet says nothing about the healthfulness of meat.
The same study also concluded that a meat heavy convenience diet was NOT associated with increased heart failure risk.


Critical reasoning skills can be learned with a modicum of effort, but you have to at least READ the articles you post, not just the headlines.

link to study,
Last edited by qman23 on Aug 25th, 2020 9:53 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top