Ok to eat Red Meat 4 times a week....No Cancer Risk.....

[capjak]

As a scientist I have always questioned much of observational research that concludes this is good or this is bad.....Here is an attempt to review some of those studies......I can not support or disprove these statements but it is not surprising that the observational studies are suspect......

"You DON'T need to cut out red meat: Scientists say official advice on eating less beef, pork and lamb is based on bad evidence and having it four times a week poses 'NO cancer risk'
-Researchers from Canada, Spain and Poland issued the contradictory advice
-It goes against the stance of the NHS and the World Health Organization
-Red and processed meats are officially classed as 'probably cancer-causing'
-But the scientists said past research is been of too low quality to direct people

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/...bROLtDKVIGcFyStTmAGTyel7I7woyD8COZGOpurze8GdQ

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/...AfIqua4Oqvz26By5cUqRkNjvzi8s37uYU1AhA5_WwK3TM

 

[audreyh1]

The problem with the probably carcinogenic status of red meat by the WHO is that it is based purely on observational studies, and controlled trial evidence was ignored. Why were controlled trials ignored? Well their carcinogens group IARC has the attitude that it’s not ethical to do controlled trials on something that’s a possible toxin. Why this means ignoring trials that have already been done, I can’t imagine. None of the controlled trials indicate any relationship between red meat and cancer. Only the observational studies do and many of them lump processed meat and red unprocessed meat together. And even those the risks are tiny. Relative risks might look large, but the absolute risks are small (that is what inflates relative risk), so it doesn’t matter much at all, even for processed meat.

Given the food politics in the public health nutrition area I take their pronouncements with a big grain of salt.

 

[RAE]

Relative risks might look large, but the absolute risks are small (that is what inflates relative risk), so it doesn’t matter much at all.

Yes, very true, and this is what many people (and the media, who report this stuff) miss. The absolute risk of eating red meat is very, very small, and my guess is that even that is based on studies that lump processed meat and red meat together, which makes no sense. I can believe that eating some processed meats (lunchmeat, etc) frequently may not be the best idea, and I can also believe that eating heavily charred meat regularly is not a good idea either. But unprocessed red meat, cooked properly, is an extremely nutrient-dense, healthy food to eat. It's a real, whole food, humans have evolved to consume it, and that's good enough for me.

 

[Winemaker]

If we weren't supposed to eat meat, why do we have incisors? Not everyone had access to apples and corn on cob over the past thousands of years.

 

[Senator]

If we weren't supposed to eat meat, why do we have incisors? Not everyone had access to apples and corn on cob over the past thousands of years.

And why would it taste so good, especially bacon.

 

[dadu007]

Much of nutrition research and policy (e.g. McGovern's Food Pyramid from the 70s) has been the result of political and lobbyist pressures and NOT science. Don't get me started.

 

[mh]

And why would it taste so good, especially bacon.

The cholesterol , fat, etc elements are always what I thought were more germain. Those problems tend to show up later in life when our early ancestors were long dead due to other elements.

 

[mamadogmamacat]

I'm enjoying one of my periodic eat a lot of bacon weeks (sometimes stretches out to as long as two weeks) myself. Started it just before this "publicity" hit the media sources. One difference this time is that there was actually some disagreement among the "scientists" that got a bit of media attention. Whatever, I've tuned out, except for the entertainment/observation of human nature aspects, all such main stream media stories, and do my own research, and frankly my own experimentation on what works for my body.

 

[Mdlerth]

The late Steve Irwin would have an opinion

Isn't there an evolutionary connection between diet and eye placement? I'm certain I read somewhere that full-time herbivores (giraffes, deer, rabbits, pigeons) have eyes positioned more toward the sides of their heads for a wider view of the perimeter so they can spot the carnivores wanting to eat them.

Conversely, full-time carnivores (lions, wolves, owls) and even part-time meat-eaters (bears, chickens) have forward-looking eyes for improved depth perception to better track prey.

Humans have eyes looking forward, and I'm sure it's for more than just girl-watching at the beach.

 

[LRDave]

My problem with red meat is the environmental impact and the poor conditions the animals are raised in (and die in). All the cancer and nutrition stuff always sounded like hokum to me....

 

[audreyh1]

Isn't there an evolutionary connection between diet and eye placement? I'm certain I read somewhere that full-time herbivores (giraffes, deer, rabbits, pigeons) have eyes positioned more toward the sides of their heads for a wider view of the perimeter so they can spot the carnivores wanting to eat them.

Conversely, full-time carnivores (lions, wolves, owls) and even part-time meat-eaters (bears, chickens) have forward-looking eyes for improved depth perception to better track prey.

Humans have eyes looking forward, and I'm sure it's for more than just girl-watching at the beach.

Yes, humans are obviously predators. Our eyes are pointing forwards just like owls and hawks and cats and dogs. Humans hunted many animals to extinction over the past 100,000 years.

 

[LRDave]

Yes, humans are obviously predators. Our eyes are pointing forwards just like owls and hawks and cats and dogs. Humans hunted many animals to extinction over the past 100,000 years.

While we have always hunted, thank Allah we are omnivores and also have those big molars back there to chew up tough vegetable matter as well as tough flesh.

The omnivores will always beat the herbivores & the carnivores.....

 

[Beststash]

Sounds to me like the beef lobby has been busy! Reminds me of the battle between Oprah and the Texas Cattle Feeders Association.

 

[Red Badger]

Isn't there an evolutionary connection between diet and eye placement? I'm certain I read somewhere that full-time herbivores (giraffes, deer, rabbits, pigeons) have eyes positioned more toward the sides of their heads for a wider view of the perimeter so they can spot the carnivores wanting to eat them.

Conversely, full-time carnivores (lions, wolves, owls) and even part-time meat-eaters (bears, chickens) have forward-looking eyes for improved depth perception to better track prey.

Humans have eyes looking forward, and I'm sure it's for more than just girl-watching at the beach.

100 percent. Plus, there's a correct way to do it. The Wayne Gretzky approach. Don't look where she is, look where she is going to be.

 

[Markola]

I figure my best approach to food is the same as my investing approach: Diversify to reduce risks.

 

[OldShooter]

... Diversify to reduce risks.

+1

Plus (from observation): Everything that is "out" will be "in" again at some point. So nothing to worry about.

 

[Senator]

My problem with red meat is the environmental impact and the poor conditions the animals are raised in (and die in). All the cancer and nutrition stuff always sounded like hokum to me....

If you have ever seen nature in action, you will know that there is no more brutal death that what nature gives out all the time. A crocodile eating a wildebeest, a wolf eating a moose, a hawk eating a rabbit.

Mother nature issues very brutal, horrific deaths, and most animals are consumed alive.

 

[RAE]

My problem with red meat is the environmental impact and the poor conditions the animals are raised in (and die in).

This is one of the reasons our family eats mostly grass-fed meat that we get from a local farmer, and also wild game meat (venison, mostly). Actually I just harvested a deer yesterday, and we will be picking up our grass-fed beef and lamb in about 2 weeks.

 

[audreyh1]

Sounds to me like the beef lobby has been busy! Reminds me of the battle between Oprah and the Texas Cattle Feeders Association.

You can accuse any lobby/industry or any political group of "being busy" whenever a new report on public health and food/nutrition comes out. That's just noise unless the group actually funded the research/analysis or the organization publishing the research. They spell out in the article who did the meta analysis/review.

 

[Red Badger]

This is one of the reasons our family eats mostly grass-fed meat that we get from a local farmer, and also wild game meat (venison, mostly). Actually I just harvested a deer yesterday, and we will be picking up our grass-fed beef and lamb in about 2 weeks.

+1. We buy only from local farmers or the local farmers market. We pay a higher price for our food, but our belief is that food is our "first medicine." We also believe in true animal husbandry. Something the USDA and big Agra abandoned many years ago.

 

[HFWR]

One quick way to reduce over-population is to return to subsistence farming...

 

[brewer12345]

I understand beef is red meat. What qualifies as "red" meat out of the following?

- Pork (the other white meat)
- Lamb/mutton
- Venison
- Elk
- Pronghorn
- Squirrel (the other, other white meat)
- Rabbit
- Jackrabbit
- Dove
- Pheasant
- Grouse
- Possum
- Beaver
- Raccoon

I think I will eat what I like/shoot/grow as long as it isn't processed. Scientists can't apparently agree on anything when it comes to nutrition.

 

[audreyh1]

I understand beef is red meat. What qualifies as "red" meat out of the following?

- Pork (the other white meat)
- Lamb/mutton
- Venison
- Elk
- Pronghorn
- Squirrel (the other, other white meat)
- Rabbit
- Jackrabbit
- Dove
- Pheasant
- Grouse
- Possum
- Beaver
- Raccoon

I think I will eat what I like/shoot/grow as long as it isn't processed. Scientists can't apparently agree on anything when it comes to nutrition.

I think all mammals will count as red meat - pork, lamb, etc.

Birds - well that's hard to say. Poultry like chicken and turkey are considered white meat. I've never heard of any birds referred to as red meat, but duck meat is pretty dark and the breast is kind of red. Doves - who knows.

For beef - it is red because it is high in heme iron, and some people consider that to be a potential cause of some health problems. But pork is not nearly as red, and I suppose lower in heme iron.

I think it's marginal, thus scientists can't agree. And a lot of nutrition research and publications are biased due to funding, resistance to change, and to food politics/personal eating philosophy of the scientists themselves. You aren't going to find agreement. Some of it is like religion.

 

[Car-Guy]

I don't eat any red meat. Being from Texas, I like mine very well done....

However, I do find it funny that all of a sudden it seems to be ok to eat red meat now that all the meatless options are coming out everywhere. I had a Burger King impossible burger the other day and honestly couldn't tell the difference between it and the real thing. It looked and tasted the same to me.

Anyway, at my age, I'm not going to worry about it regardless of what they say.

 

[donheff]

Since I hate vegetables I have assumed the risk for my whole life and eaten lots of red meat, including bacon and processed deli foods, to stay healthy. Good to know the CV and other risks are less than I already concluded. I wish I could stand vegetables because I would rather eat less meat for ethical and environmental reasons.