E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSNBC's Robert Bazell shares his thoughts on a new study, which claims that red meat, any type or amount, drastically increases a person's risk of dying early.
By Robert Bazell
NBC News
It is far from a shocking revelation that red meat is not health food. But a new study from the highly respected researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health offers some of the best and most detailed evidence yet that a daily serving of meat can increase risk of heart disease or cancer.
The Harvard scientists followed almost 84,000 women and 38,000 men in the Nurse’s Health Study and Health Professional’s Follow-Up Study for 28 years. It found those eating a daily serving of red meat were 13 percent more likely to die in the study period, and approximately 14 percent more likely to develop heart disease or cancer. Those numbers go up to 20 percent more deaths and an estimated 18 percent more heart problems and cancer for those who reported eating a daily serving of processed meats such as hot dogs, salami and bacon.
In the realm of health risks, these are not huge numbers. Daily cigarette smoking adds risk of some 2,000 to 4000 percent for these hazards. But across the U.S. population, Americans love of meat likely accounts for about 1.5 million excess deaths every decade, according to research from the National Institutes of Health.
According to the American Meat Institute, Americans consume on average 65 pounds of pork and a similar amount of beef per person every year. Those numbers have changed little over the past two decades. At the same time, chicken consumption has climbed sharply to around 80 pounds a year, while turkey logs in at 15 pounds a year. We’re eating more birds, but no fewer mammals.
The Harvard research is very credible, even though it is a so-called “observational” study. The highest level of proof is a “controlled trial” where half the people would eat meat and the other would not. That’s obviously not practical for multi-decade dietary study. The Harvard researchers have a long track record with their observations of nurses, doctors, and other health professionals. Blood tests confirm that what people report as their diet tends to be accurate -- as are their health records.
In addition, these results neatly coincide with a decade long study published in 2009 of more than 500,000 people from the National Cancer Institute. That confirmation strengthens the argument enormously.
In an editorial in the same issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine with the Harvard study, Dr. Dean Ornish, the preventive medicine guru of the San Francisco Bay area, points out that red meat is harmful not just to our bodies, but also to the planet. It takes enormous amounts of plants, requiring energy-intensive fertilizers, to fatten cattle and pigs. Ornish cites a study finding that the amount of energy required to produce a Quarter Pounder with Cheese equals burning 7 pounds of coal.
Ornish -- who once opposed most fat in the diet -- now agrees with the Harvard group that there are “good fats,” such as fish oil and vegetable oils and “bad fats,” including the saturated fats found in meat and the industrially created trans fats. Ornish concludes there is an emerging consensus of what constitutes a healthy diet: little or no red meat; more “good carbs,” such as those in fruits vegetables and whole grains; fewer “bad carbs,” such as refined sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and white flour; more good fats and fewer bad fats. And to the extent possible, we should eat less of everything, especially junk food.
Those conclusions, the product of decades of many big research projects, will likely stand for a long time. So, we know what a healthy diet is. The question is: Will our taste buds and will power allow us to stay with it?
Bon appétit.
Robert Bazell is NBC's chief science and medical correspondent. Follow him on Facebook and on Twitter @RobertBazellNBC
Related story:
Leave a Comment:
I'm sorry but the tone of this article just REEKS of agenda, specifically the veggie/peta agenda. The message is get them used to rejecting RED meat and then go after them and GET them to quit eating all meat. We'll use the health excuse since the moral outrage hasn't/isn't working.
No more than the agenda of the Beef Council to get you to eat it. I like beef. If you eat it every day, you're a moron.
It's too expensive. I can't remember that last time I ate it. I think it was in December when I fixed a roast.
I don't have the money to spend on that.
Abyssoft,
So you're saying that Harvard scientists followed almost 84,000 women and 38,000 men for 28 years in order to create propaganda for an completely unrelated organization? Seems like a lot of work, resources, and time for something they will never profit from. Why didn't they make the study must more damming than it is? 13 percent is hardly worth crying conspiracy.
I honestly don't care. I'm going to die either way so I might as well enjoy my nicely grilled steaks here and there. So what if I die a year or two earlier? I'll die happier. Like they always say, those are the years you can't remember your name or who it was that pooped in your diaper. I'd rather die early.
Disgruntled Man:
Have you ever watched anyone die of heart disease or cancer? It may not matter to you when you die, even if it is sooner than you may think, but as you die a slow, painful, frustrating death that is also hard on your family in ways you do not understand, you may change your mind! However, by then, it will be too late. Slow suicide is never pretty and it accentuates your lack of self-control and responsibility. Either your insurance company will be passing the costs of such costly deaths on to the rest of us. But what do you care! And what an example to those younger! It may serve you well to first see someone about the "disgruntled man."
Abyssoft, you'll really be "sorry" when you're given the "agenda" of surgery, radiation, and chemotherapy by your doctor. Why not reject that eventuality now, while you still have the chance? After cigarettes, diet is the number two thing we can all do to lengthen our lives and feel better each day while we're doing it. And please, no comments about your grand parents who smoked, drank, ate pigs, and then lived to be 100.
Another article full of hot air.
Not one word about how Red Meat supports brain centres responsible for independent thinking and decision making.
Next
I really really hope that Rush Linbaugh has a whopping helping of red meat each and every day.
Abyssoft: umm... but what if eating meat really IS bad for you? Like... I don't eat meat, haven't in thirty years, and really don't give a rat's ass if you do... I'm just saying that the red meat you see in the grocery is red because they douse it in carbon monoxide, and probably has been injected with hormones and antibiotics. If I DID want to go eat meat, I'd fresh kill it. At least I would know where it came from and know the cost of taking a life. Think about pimento loaf or bacon and the process it took to get it into a package.... My experience has been that most people don't think too far down that line. For all they know, pimento-loaf grows from trees...
The ones who are committing suicide by eating unhealthy diets are just making more room for the future healthy generations: a kind of self-inflicted poetic justice.
The actual irony comes when you consider that these are the very people who believe in "the survival of the fittest" to the extreme, almost as if it was a religion! Wow. Just wow.
Beef = not harmful = No further grant money.
Beef = WILL KILL YOU = Lots of grant money to study the threat to public health.
Harvard scientists have mortgages too......
Agenda? Its just a projection of what is already happening. Join the picket line...
Gumps, "ditto" your comment on fat boy Limbaugh.
I'd like to see a similar study done for people who, say, eat sugar every day as opposed to people that don't.
Or who eat French Fries. Or even those who eat 5 servings of fruit and 5 servings of vegetables.
These "observational studies" are generally not worth much.
People have been eating meat since the cavemen. They're not all of a sudden getting fatter, diabetic, nor heart-disease-prone because of it.
Absolutely. Notice how that don't tell you exactly how or why red meat is bad for you other than the fact that it contains saturated fat? All animal products contain saturated fatws and you can buy cuts of red meat that are as lean as white chicken. So, what exactly is the "magical" ingredient that makes red meat so bad as opposed to chicken and fish? That can't tell you because there is no such animal (no pun intended).
Abyssoft - How does it feel to be so paranoid and bitter that you see an agenda in everything? You probably also believe that the US government planned 9/11 and the moon landing was filmed in a Hollywood studio.
There is no reference whatsoever in this article about becoming a vegetarian or ceasing the raising of meat and chicken for food. It merely states observations.
As for you holier-than-thous who don't eat read meat or believe that those who do are committing slow suicide and increasing insurance premiums, how much beer and alcohol do you consume in a week? How many cigarettes do you smoke per day? How many times do you eat junk food per week? How much of your food contains high fructose corn syrup? There are no guarantees in life except that we are all going to die someday. Being a vegan doesn't mean that you will never contract cancer. There are too many other parameters involved, including the kind of DNA your parents provided for you. The best diet to follow is moderation in everything and everything in moderation.
This just in:
Stepping out your front door on a daily basis raises your risk of early death.
JP88 is typical of the right wing lunatic fringe way of thinking - if the results of a study doesn't agree with your prejudices then it must've been funded by someone who has an agenda. So, go ahead JP - eat all the beef you want.
@Jack Waggoner: I agree with what you said about eating meat since caveman days and what I've learned about what is actually the main cause of obesity, diabetes & heart disease plus cancers are not only the bad carbs Dean Ornish says to stay away from but also the whole grains he recommends.
The problem with studies like this is that while they may hold true for large numbers of people, they cannot be translated to recommendatins for individuals with any accuracy. Red meat may cause 13% more deaths, but unless we can determine in advance which 13% it is, we can do very little about it except punish the 87% who would not die early. These findings can be good information for nutritionists, public policy formulators, and other researchers. But really, if you had to bet cash money, the safe bet would be on red meat.
@Abyssoft
This article does read very slanted. I don't eat red meat daily, but I'm sure not going to stop enjoying an occasional burger or steak because of an observational study. Much of the problem with eating meat is eating all the processed crap. It's worse when the 'raw' meat has been processed to an extent.
13-14% increased risk of cancer and heart disease vs. 2,000-4,000% for smokers? I'd be more concerned about Joe-pack-a-day
Oh I like this, this is so stupid and wrong. Read it again, it says "Can increase". Yup, not does increase. Another useless study that does not tell us anything of interest.
Yeah, yeah, all crap. Look at the folks in Europe - they are still living. Should be dead from eating all the ham pork, cold cuts, beef, deer, sausages from who knows what etc. Did not happen, eh! So there - another BS study to serve certain entities and individuals.
CRAP
Well you know, every person that eats eventually dies. So I am going to stop eating and live forever! ...not
There are just too many variables to claim much certainty.
I looked further into this.
It's not the meat itself killing you. It's the nitrites injected artificially into the meat that turns carcenogenic in your body.
Buy organic or nitrite free.
My question is why do they bring up the amount of pork people in eat in the same sentence as red meat but then not say anything about whether pork is good or bad for you. Pork is not considered red meat, so why mention it in the same vein as red meat to start with. This smacks of some agenda against eating all meat. Also, they bring up the amount of chicken and turkey we eat but make no mention about the health impacts. Are these meats good or bad for you?!?! They seem to imply that only eating fish along with fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is good for you. The tone of the article seems to imply that chicken and turkey are also not good for you, although it does not make any statements either way. This smacks of having some agenda here to push not eating any meat with the exception of fish, a recommendation for which there is no scientific justification. I hate articles and studies that are incomplete like this, leaving certain things to allusions where they know that direct statements to match the agenda can not be made because the science would not back them up.
I drive way too fast to worry about this stuff...
Americans might possibly acquire long term adverse effects by whatever they eat, that is a maybe, a mighta-be, a cudda! One indisputable fact is that Americans are being swiftly enslaved by "authoritarian, repressive"government! To hell with the obammis, barack and mooschell, to hell with Progressive, power mongering politicians of both parties, to hell with every gutless "go along to get along American" that sits idly by as the freest nation on Earth is being put to death by radical progressivism!
probably from all the Krappola additives which either the beef is treated with or the steers injected with (see "Pink Slime). PLus it's hard to afford a steak these days.
Of course red meat is bad for your health... we've known this for a long time now. Just like climate change, religious superstition, and the obesity epidemic, there are some topics on which many people simply choose to ignore the facts. Huge numbers of people willingly participate in a fantasy universe of fantastical gods and mythology rather than join the rest of us in reality. This is why many people will attack vegetarians and claim a grand conspiracy to take away their meat rather than face the truth.
The study stated, "It found those eating a daily serving of red meat.."
How many people eat beef every day? Like journal said, beef isn't the cheapest meat on shelf, so anyone eating red meat everyday probably has a lot of money for other unhealthy stuff to go with it.
Everything in moderation, including moderation.
Hamburgers are cheap = red meat. Cheap, low quality beef is found in lot's of foods.
Jack Waggoner: "People have been eating meat since the cavemen. They're not all of a sudden getting fatter, diabetic, nor heart-disease-prone because of it."
The average lifespan of a caveman was 16 years.
It's garbage science like this that is causing the health problems we have now. And the "reporting" on this is just as bad. I'm to the point that I'd like to see ALL OBSERVATIONAL ONLY STUDIES stopped from being presented to the public as they MEAN NOTHING and cause misinformation and confusion!
Fact is that every actual controlled study/experiment proves that red meat and saturated fats actually are, for most people, some of the healthiest foods they can eat. That doesn't include processed meats though, ie; stuff like bologna, hot dogs, fast food hamburger, etc. That stuff isn't real meat.
It's the sugars and processed grains like bread, cereal, etc. that cause obesity, diabetes, cancer and on and on. Too bad our "for profit" health care industry only cares about protecting it's money interests and not the health of the public.
If you are still eating low fat and lots of grain products, you better start reading now. Start here with a critique of this so-called "study". http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/
"Beef. It's whats for Dinner".
I can't wait till they come out with that Petri Dish Steak, Yummmm!
Where's the Beef?
A good steak is more expensive then a Gallon of Gas now!
The beef industry is a menace to the ecology of the planet just as the article hinted at (for many documented reasons including petroleum as major ingredient and water/air pollution issues). What many people don't realize is that a good steak is more than a gallon of gas, but not by that much, and when you consider each pound of steak takes gallons of gas to produce you start to see the problem with the math. Not only is red meat bad for the populace but also remains relatively cheap because it is subsidized by the same populace it is damaging. Just another example of the kinds of crazy policies that result when you run a government like a religion.
I am skeptical of this "study." I would be very interested to see a study evaluating how eating organic free range beef not loaded with antibiotics, growth hormones, and chemicals such as RACTOPAMINE (which is fed to cattle and is known to injure the heart) fared.
Apparently, Ractopamine is also fed to turkeys and pigs. I really wish big pharma and big chemicals would stay out of our food chain. It gets really tiresome and expensive having to "hunt" for organic or natural foods which has not been tampered with. : (
Do yourself and your family a favor. Look up Ractopamine and its side effects and ask the question, do you really want to ingest this drug and do you want your children to eat this?
agenda article and study.. plain and simple
What "agenda" does the Harvard School of Public Health have for this study? There's no doubt in my mind that red meat cannot be healthy, if for no other reason than due to the massive amounts of antibiotics and hormones that are fed to these animals. I haven't eaten any red meat for over 35 years now and I don't miss it at all!
Dan has an agenda of his own, eat meat 3x a day for 50 years and wonder why he has chest pains after eating so much 'health food'.
Some people just have a lot of pent up guilt. I figure if I wind up dying early, my death will at least be delicious.
Granted, I don't eat red meat for every meal, but that's because I like to have a little variety.
I think it was George Burns who said that if he followed his doctors instructions on what to eat he wouldn't live any longer it would just feel like it. I want the government to stay out of my refrigerator.
Dan is fifty and still going? good for him! I guess he isn't entitled to an opinion though?
Lady Cat
"I think it was George Burns who said that if he followed his doctors instructions on what to eat he wouldn't live any longer it would just feel like it. I want the government to stay out of my refrigerator."
Fine with me, but if you become ill after years of smoking, eating and drinking God knows what, despite government warnings and attempted intervention, please don't ask the rest of us to foot your bill, via higher healthcare costs. Anyone who drives recklessly through life, despite posted "signs", doesn't merit an EMT.
It only took a small bunch of comments until I found the first moron that again had to bring up and mention the name 'god'. Stop talking about fantasy worlds and start talking about what the real world is. You are god if you really, really need to make one up. No, you are not going to 'heaven' when you die. You are going nowhere but to your constituent parts, atoms and molecules.
As long as someone doesn't intentionally do harm to others, i could not in good conscious allow someone to suffer for their mistakes to themselves intentional or otherwise.
I wish I could remember the title and author (good bet it was either John Varley or Spider Robinson), but there was a science fiction story where your past behaviour was a determining factor as to whether or not you (and your family) qualified for medical treatment. A child in the family developed a medical condition of some kind that was linked to soil. The fact that his grandfather had worked in the garden once without wearing gloves 'proved' that this current situation was their own fault. Because of this his entire line was deemed no longer eligible for medical coverage. So Nikolaus, watch that line of reasoning, that is a slippery slope indeed.
I wish people would quit already with the "If you abuse your body, don't expect me to pay for your medical care"crap.
People who never smoked die of lung cancer, and people who eat right and exercise have heart attacks.
So what are you proposing we do? Look through every sick person's medical records and say "You smoked, so you are on your own." "You were a non-smoker, so we'll pay for your care." ??
That line of reasoning is ridiculous. It is just a way for health nuts to feel superior.
"Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index (Table 1). In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy but lower intakes of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables."
I highly doubt that articles such as these will affect any change whatsoever. The bottom line is that we are all going to die. Everything we do from riding on a plane, to walking out to get the mail has an inherent risk. The idea that if we gave up everything that might hasten our demise we'd live a lot longer may be true, but I doubt most would be willing to do it.
Doesn't matter what we're willing to do. If it's unhealthy, we'll get taxed more and pay more for medical insurance as soon as majority of us stop doing it.
If someone threatens to "hasten our demise", we'll willingly throw away our privacy and freedoms.
Most of "us" are willling to make changes like these. I will not be surprised when I'm forced to autograpgh the "beef-eater" disclosure form.
If you are eating it in moderation, then the risk is moderate as well. On the other hand, do you think it is fair for the middle group of people who exercise and eat relatively healthy to be paying 30% more a year to counterbalance the segment who smokes, drives like @!$%#, eats like @!$%#, drinks 5 gallons of soda a week, and requires 10x the payouts for chronic healthcare problems?
Nope. Which is why I truthfully and willingly signed the form and laughed off the smoking cessation/wellness programs that were offered to get me a discount. I smoke, I'm considerate of others when I do and I now pay more for the burden we smokers have put on the healthcare system. Those things give me solace because now my smoking habit doesn't impose on anyone. Personally, I can't wait until insurance companies monitor all vehicles, monitor what we put in our body (especially alcohol) and how we excercise, among other things. If we're going to be charged more for our unhealthy habits, there's plenty of them out there to keep the insurance companies' shareholders seeing their annual increases. I'm pretty certain that obesity and smoking won't be the last things we pay more for.
Seriously, I'm not complaining about it (but probably will continue to be a wisea$$ from time to time). I'm not worried about what people make me pay - that's for society to decide, as it always has been.
Thats the tradeoff in a society I guess, you could be completely free and take the risk, pay 100% of the bill if something happens or combine pools of risk and hedge up that risk against complete financial doom if any one of 1000 things happen to you. What kind of world would we live in if every time a person needed an xray, every time they got in a car crash, every time they had a baby they were financially ruined for the next 40 years?
I don't follow that logic. Getting the mail has an inherent RISK, but eating red meat every day is not a risk, it's a daily step toward early death. Same as cigarettes. If I go out and get the mail every day for 30 years, I'm not going to have my doc tell me at the end of that period... if only you hadn't gone out to get the mail so much! 1 in 3 people will get cancer... but vegetarians are 40% less likely to get cancer, and vegans fare even better than that. I'm not sure what the figures are on mail-getters, though ;)
I have always considered that the best rule is "Moderation in all things, including moderation."
Well there is a difference between surviving and thriving. But I do agree that it is only for the select few to thrive. It does no good for the planet for millions of people to live until they are 100. The masses shall mearly survive. . . and that they are happy doing it, good for them.
Here's a rock solid statistic: 100% of everybody who has ever eaten food will die or has died.
From the article:
13 percent? Not that I eat beef EVERY DAY, but I don't think that's a number to worry about. And daily exercise will probably offset alot of that. I'll take my chances.
I'm going happy, hello Ribeye!!!
You need to change your name from William of Rites to Last Rites.
If you think you will die quickly of heart disease or cancer, you are in for a BIG surprise. Most deaths are slower than molasses. They are painful, too. They wipe our the finances of families and cost other insured additional costs. Someone else pays for your selfish attitude in many ways!
Imagine wanting to walk to the corner or toss a ball with your grandchildren and not be able to catch your breath to do it and you are only 50 or 60 years old. By the time you reach 60, you realize that life is not over at all, but you can do nothing but watch your body give up on YOU!
People who say they want to die happy yet continue to stress their hearts and other organs do not project what happy-go-lucky people they are. They only what ignorant and stubborn choices produce.
Visit a nursing home and find a 50-yr-old with heart failure. Ask the person atwhat age they began to notice symptoms and how they denied them. Ask a colon cancer patient how much red meat he/she ate before finding the cancer. Do you know what it is like to be hooked up to a Foley bag? Constant oxygen? How medications can give you diabetes and other conditions just to get you comfortable for a few months before they stop working? Morphine can only work for so long.
Happy-go-lucky is not an impressive way to be when it serves as a cover for slow suicide.
AnIndividual,
You are as extreme as you are monotonous. As the relative of someone who suffered from depression and DID commit suicide, your habit of equating eating habits with a bonafide death-wish would be even more offensive if it didn't so clearly spring from your personal agenda and ignorance.
Rush Limbaugh is a shock jock trying to make his point by offending, and so are you. I'm ignoring you both.
Anidividual, just a silly post you made. Unless of course you are talking about your own experience and having remorse & guilt over your own choices in life. Most likely though, with your negative attitude you would die an early death no matter what choices you made in life.
Anindividual, get off your high horse.
It's not just the saturated fat and cholesterol; it's also the high levels of iron. The body hoards iron, which is a powerful oxidant. What I'd like to see is a parallel study which factors iron intake into the statistics.
Some of us need that iron-my anemia got so bad last summer, I had to be transfused with two units of blood
Chuck-3638144 you do know that iron is essential for our survival and that our bodies cannot produce it right? Iron is what makes both our blood and red meat red. We cannot live without blood and therefore cannot live without an iron intake
Abyssoft,
So you're saying that Harvard scientists followed almost 84,000 women and 38,000 men for 28 years in order to create propaganda for an completely unrelated organization? Seems like a lot of work, resources, and time for something they will never profit from. Why didn't they make the study must more damming than it is? 13 percent is hardly worth crying conspiracy.
The basis was a relatively lowball figure of 1 serving of red meat a day, most people eat at least 2-10 which probably exponentially raises the risks.
"most people eat at least 2-10"
Where did you get those numbers from? I call BS. I eat meat everyday and at more than one meal, but not beef due to its cost. Beef's on the menu for 2-4 meals per week despite the fact that I love it. I'm much more likely to eat pork or chicken which is usually much cheaper at the supermarkets in my area.
Beef is not the only red meat, and from my experience in life, virtually everyone eats at least 2-3 servings a day of some kind of meat.
Why is it that a Good Steak is more expensive then a Gallon of Gas even though it is renewable and sustainable and Gas is not?
We should start riding Cows to and from work and then when we are hungry we'll take em to the Butcher Shop.
We'll kill two birds with one stone...
Because it isn't, as logic should lead you to know if you bothered to think about it. A good steak is renewable with a world population of about a billion and 5-20 years of unadulterated growing time. When you got a billion people a day wanting a good steak, it is only possible with cutting corners on the growth, nutrition, and quality of that steak, combined with a lot of wasted grain, water, land, and pollutant runoff.
Fight global warming - eat more BEEF!!!
You going to eat it raw?
Those darned Harvard scientists and their secret agendas.
And the President is a Muslim ....
Quote your own studies to the contrary or stop making assumptions based on your own 'agenda'
No liberal elite is gonna tell me my beef is bad for me. Next they'll be telling me that 60 beers a day is a bad thing. Before you know it, those damned liberal elites will be telling me my favorite dessert of lead paint with arsenic salt is somehow bad for me. Get government out of my life!
By god, back in MY day, they FED us paint chips, and we were glad to get them!
You didn't hear US complaining!
/sarc/ LOL
Everything and anything you eat can kill you in some way. Best to not think about it and just enjoy the things you like.
What a way to go. Burrrrrrrp!
Hopefully people have more common sense and critical thinking abilities than the author of this article clearly believes they do. Observational studies like this can only show an association, but not what caused the association. Just because there is an association between eating red meat and having health problems, does not mean that the red meat is the cause of the health problems. Think about it.....do you eat a hamburger patty by itself, or do you eat it on a bun made of white flour, smothered in condiments made with high fructose corn syrup and a multitude of chemical additives?
It has been long established that people who eat red meat often tend to be less health conscious than those who avoid it. After all, we've had it pounded into our heads for decades that red meat is bad for us, so the people who avoid it for health reasons tend to also avoid other known risk factors for disease, like smoking, alcohol use, and sedentary lifestyles. Those are major confounding factors that for some reason were not mentioned in this article at all!
Fact: Pork fat is mostly monounsaturated, the same kind of "heart healthy" fat found in olive oil. You know, the stuff we're supposed to eat more of, according to the experts?
Fact: Fat from animals eating their natural diets (as opposed to animals rasied in CAFOs, which make up the vast majority of the meat we eat) has a more favorable fatty acid composition. Beef fat from grass-fed cows has nearly equal amounts of omega-3 and omega-6. In comparision, chicken fat is much higher in omega-6, even when raised on a natural diet.
Fact: People ate more saturated fat and cholesterol 100 years ago than they do now, and they had way less heart disease and cancer.
Don't fall for the propaganda these jokers are pushing. And it is total propaganda....trying to reassure you that you can trust the "experts". Unfortunately, the "experts" are being influenced by industry, as usual, so they can't be trusted. Red meat is good for you. Just make sure you get it from local farmers who raise it the right way.
They also tended to eat relatively little of it compared to what we eat today, and the other food they ate was also more nutritious. They also didn't sit on their ass 12 hours a day and they lived 20 years less.
Um, phreak: What industry do you think is influencing the people you are calling "experts" that are spending years conducting a study at probably the most respected university in the world? What would that industry be? You say red meat is good for you, how about a smoke after dinner too?
We can talk all day about which oils are better than others and there are better ones.
HOWEVER! Oil is oil is oil is oil. Ask any heart surgeon about oil and what he/she sees when a patient is opened.
“If I'd known I was going to live this long, I'd have taken better care of myself.”
Eubie Blake
wow, you are dead wrong, oil is not oil is not oil. Just do some reading on omega 3, 6 , 9, epa, dha, etc.
Talk to some heart surgeons about cooking oils rather than read health food store magazines which are actually advertisements. I was referring to cooking oils if you will reread the context of the discussion.
Uh, no. Canola oil is not olive oil is not coconut oil. At least one of those burns very efficiently in the body and is good for you. And one of those is usually rancid and causes inflammation and oxidation of LDL. I'll give you a guess as to which ones they are, and I'll even give you a hint. The government gives crap advice.
Let's not forget trans-fats which were oils and did more damage than saturated fats.
like I said: talk to a heart surgeon, ask him what he sees
What umphreak said.
Something has got to kill ya!
What they fail to mention is whether the red meat is grain-fed "industrial" meat or grass-fed beef. Grass-fed beef is actually not that bad for you and can be heatlhy. It has less fat and tons more Omega-3's. Cows are not meant to eat a lot of grain, it increases certain amino acids in their blood/tissue that causes increased inflammation (chronic inflammation=cancer, heart disease, etc.). In turn, when we eat it, it also increases those same amino acids in our bodies. They need to be more specific in the article and/or research study.
I look forward to the day when these researchers put two and two together to realize that it's actually the grains in our diets that are killing us, not the meat.
You can't raise 5000 cows in 6 months on grass, unless you own 10x the acreage most of these ranchers are using. It comes down to simple economics, if you want all our beef grass fed we either need to eat 1/10th as much or charge 10x the price.
Good posts Ben & Eddie, the problem with most people is they do no research on what they are putting in their bodies. Nor have they ever actually experimented what works for them as far as their own health goes.
@knight, I'm cool with either scenario you describe. I don't give a rats fanny if they raise 5000 cows in 6 months. I don't want grain fed, I want grass fed. If your simple economics is producing something that is BAD for people to eat, then simple economics can go hang. Yes grass fed is more expensive, my health is worth it to me. If you are willing to sacrifice your health for cheap beef, that is your problem, not mine.
I remember when my mom made diner and I would ask her, What's this?
She would say, "It's Sh!t on a shingle, eat it' there are Kids in China Starving to Death!"
In China today they're probably eating Steak and Tails now...
Dear ole Mom, Bless her Heart!
Was this study done with grain fed beef or free range grass fed?
Well grain comes from plants so the quality of meat from either source is probably equal. personally i suspect meat that comes from animals eating grain probably has more energy in it because grass is a low energy food source.
The quality of the meat is the same? Are you kidding me? Feeding nothing but grains to cows make them fat and sick. The meat from grain-fed cows practically ends up washed in hormones, antibiotics and Omega-6.
Not the same at all. Grass-fed cows are healthy cows.
And grass-fed beef from grass-fed cows is actually GOOD for you, too. (just look up quality research done on the nutritional benefits of grass-fed beef.
This study is probably funded by corporate grain farmers pushing an "eat more whole grains, meat is bad" agenda. It's not just the cows that get fat and sick from grains. They're not good for people either.
Happy to see there are actually some informed people posting on here. Corporations push the grain agenda and most people eat it up.
How odd, i was taught that humans were designed by nature to need meat because it is a source of long term energy and is thus healthy. I have been taught this all the way through college, so I dont understand why this article says it has been long known that meat is not health food. I was also taught in a history class that when humans figured out how to cook meat their life expectancy and health increased dramatically.
It doesn't say meat isn't healthy for you. It says that consuming a serving of red meat everyday isn't healthy for you. Those are two different statements.
Our ancestors did eat meat, when they could get it. They also went periods of time without meat and just ate fruits, veggies and grains. Also, to get meat they burned thousands of calories. . .they didn't just go to the drive-in window and say "burger". Also, the meat they ate had been grazing on pesticide free grasses and plants and was loaded with healthier fats. Don't get me wrong. . . all was not perfect, there were no antibiotics or modern medicine either. But on the question of meat this is actually a no-brainer, really.
" Ornish cites a study finding that the amount of energy required to produce a Quarter Pounder with Cheese equals burning 7 pounds of coal."
Nice comparison (here is the agenda, everyone)...now, how much sunlight is required, since that is the main power source used to grow plants, pigs and everything else?
You know coal and oil also are a product of sunlight.
And thats a fact, Jack!
If we were all lost at Sea for Months, we would be eating our dead comrades for sustenance...
And some people do it by choice without being lost at sea... What is your point? Few people go months at time where they can't eat something more healthy, and a serving of meat here and there isn't that bad for you either. The problem is that the western diet is almost exclusively meat which is what makes it unhealthy.
"The problem is that the western diet is almost exclusively meat which is what makes it unhealthy."
What a load of crap...in the western diet the vast majority of calories come from carbohydrates and those are mostly from grains since most people don't eat enough fresh veggies. You are right about one thing, the western diet is unhealthy but it is because of the consumption levels of refined carbs, not meat.
would have to agree with the article when it comes to store bought meat. With the way the feed lots treat the cattle is just wrong. But as long people buy the beef they wont' change it.
However, if you are talking about home grown beef, they are full of @!$%#. Beef from cattle raised not in feed lot with no drugs is so much better for you.
Every time I go to Micky Dees, I always ask for the Heart Attack in a bag...
And you will be the most current object of the old funeral home or morgue joke:
"Which one is next?"
"The heart attack in the bag."
AnIndividual, please enlighten us all with your healthy diet suggestions, just for shizz & giggles.
wow. AnIndividual sounds like a really uplifting person to have around.
i'm not sure if the article reeks of agenda, but AnIndividual sure does.
observation study? hmmmmmmmmm.
what were the ages and weights of these participants? did they eat veggies and fruits? grains? did they have genetic factors and family histories of these diseases?
again hhmm.
they never give relevant information on the diets other than they ate meat? and your point would be what?
hhmmmm.
beef boards and eat the other white meat aside, this is crap.
b.s. gets just as much press as legitimate articles and studies.
so harvard, or not, "bite me"
I'm trying to locate the actual article so left to someone's interpretation of it. I'm no proponent of heavy meat consumption, but the tone of this article bugs me.
You either want a short life eating what you love or a long life hating what you eat...
in other news... being alive today brings you one day closer to death
Do you live to eat or eat to live?
On some days I live to eat, especially after watching Iron Chef!
On other days I feel guilty that I Lived to eat and then I try to Eat to Live...
You are literally what you eat.
So I am a whole food non-processed healthy individual, saturated in alcohol..lol!
@ AnIndividual
Then you must spend alot of time on your knees.