Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Red Meat Is Not (Necessarily) Bad For You
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Red Meat Is Not (Necessarily) Bad For You

post #1 of 18
Thread Starter 
http://www.wbur.org/2010/05/18/red-meat

Quote:
The researchers looked over nearly 1,600 studies and were startled to find that even though the health risks of red meat seem well-established, the evidence for that is actually mixed.

"More surprising, we found that all of the studies had either looked at total red meats or processed red meats, but very few of the studies had looked at unprocessed red meats separately," said researcher Dariush Mozaffarian, an assistant professor at the Harvard School of Public Health and Harvard Medical School.

Unprocessed red meat means beef, lamb or pork that hasn't been preserved with smoking, curing, salting or chemical additives. Processed meats include bacon, hot dogs, sausage and most cold cuts. When the researchers did distinguish between the two, what they discovered (PDF) seems to turn current nutritional advice on its head.

"We found that processed meats were associated with higher risk of heart disease and diabetes, and then unprocessed red meats were not," Mozaffarian explained.

Summary: Researchers have found that some red meats are more equal than others. Unprocessed red meats (e.g. STEAK, muthafuckas!) are actually not bad for you at all, but processed red meats (e.g. bacon, ) are even worse for you than originally thought.

Opinion: It's steak night, baby. But Pio is screwed.
post #2 of 18
Awesome--thanks for posting.
post #3 of 18
Guess I should cut back on all the jamon and lomo.

Good to know that my daily protein requirements aren't giving me bowel cancer, though.
post #4 of 18
Crap. So all those bacon-wrapped filets are basically me shooting myself in the foot.
post #5 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrG View Post
Crap. So all those bacon-wrapped filets are basically me shooting myself in the foot.

no... more like shooting yourself in the asshole.
post #6 of 18
Has anyone else come to feel about food science the same way you do about global warming...err..climate change? You know there's something to it but no one can agree quite what it is. I mean, you get these long lived, healthy groups of people that eat lots of butter, animal products etc. You get these other groups that eat mainly starch and veggies.

Then you get the US, Canada, the UK, etc. that all seem to be killing themselves with their diets.

I think people need to use their common sense. If your diet is keeping you at a healthy weight and your blood work looks good, you're probably not putting yourself at risk with what you're currently eating.
post #7 of 18
What do ya know, the charcutier gets all bent out of shape when you tell him that curing and smoking is what makes meat unhealthy.
post #8 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Has anyone else come to feel about food science the same way you do about global warming...err..climate change? You know there's something to it but no one can agree quite what it is. I mean, you get these long lived, healthy groups of people that eat lots of butter, animal products etc. You get these other groups that eat mainly starch and veggies. Then you get the US, Canada, the UK, etc. that all seem to be killing themselves with their diets. I think people need to use their common sense. If your diet is keeping you at a healthy weight and your blood work looks good, you're probably not putting yourself at risk with what you're currently eating.
The problem is that most of these studies use crappy methodologies and therefore produce bullshit data.
post #9 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by kwilkinson View Post
What do ya know, the charcutier gets all bent out of shape when you tell him that curing and smoking is what makes meat unhealthy.

Oh, I'm not bent out of shape. All things in moderation and that means I do now ingest material portions of veg/green leafy in my diet.

Also, the article (maybe the study) was a little shallow. They clearly lumped all sausages into "sausage." You and I both know that a fresh homemade sausage contains no preservatives and no more salt that you would season a piece of meat with, hence should fall into the "unprocessed" category per this report. Further, they reference nitrates but not nitrites. Commercial processors and charcutiers doing dry cured use nitrates. Hot smoking a sausage you use nitrites...which you should still ingest in moderate amounts no doubt.

Lastly, I wonder if the choice in meats is some proxy for overall lifestyle, as influenced by cultural and SES?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcg View Post
The problem is that most of these studies use crappy methodologies and therefore produce bullshit data.

Agreed.
post #10 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Has anyone else come to feel about food science the same way you do about global warming...err..climate change? You know there's something to it but no one can agree quite what it is. I mean, you get these long lived, healthy groups of people that eat lots of butter, animal products etc. You get these other groups that eat mainly starch and veggies. Then you get the US, Canada, the UK, etc. that all seem to be killing themselves with their diets. I think people need to use their common sense. If your diet is keeping you at a healthy weight and your blood work looks good, you're probably not putting yourself at risk with what you're currently eating.
We know for a fact that weather is cyclical and is subject to variance, and I don't think that can be disputed. We know that there are billions of people in the world and while they share similar traits in some aspects everyone is different; I'd guess the way diet affects people is also subject to variance. There are studies that show smoking reduces the risk of breast cancer in women, along with a million other studies that contradict a million other studies. The Cliffs Notes for any scientific study are: Take it with a grain of salt because scientists, like the media, are fools of randomness.
post #11 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcg View Post
The problem is that most of these studies use crappy methodologies and therefore produce bullshit data.
Pretty much. I didn't want to spend any time on this topic, but the main problem with the cited study is that it created an artificial catch-all category for anything that wasn't pure dead cow. I mean, if I salt my steak is it 'processed'? What if it's frozen? Cooked on charcoal? At which point is it 'processed'? It's another in the heap of Soritean paradoxes that comprise these classifications. Additionally, they didn't address sociological factors which make up the bulk of dietary problems in regards to health.
post #12 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Has anyone else come to feel about food science the same way you do about global warming...err..climate change? You know there's something to it but no one can agree quite what it is. I mean, you get these long lived, healthy groups of people that eat lots of butter, animal products etc. You get these other groups that eat mainly starch and veggies.

Then you get the US, Canada, the UK, etc. that all seem to be killing themselves with their diets.

I think people need to use their common sense. If your diet is keeping you at a healthy weight and your blood work looks good, you're probably not putting yourself at risk with what you're currently eating.
not really. i believe in climate change. nutrition, i've got my doubts about. ask any serious nutritionist and they'll tell you that the things we don't understand so far outweigh the things that we do that it's pitiful. a friend (phd nutritionist) once confessed that nutrition today is where medicine was when it was practiced by barbers.
post #13 of 18
Eat whole, unprocessed, foods, and you'll be golden.
post #14 of 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by bwong337 View Post
Eat whole, unprocessed, foods, and you'll be golden.

Ah, the quintessence of diet and alchemy in one pithy post. Thank you.
post #15 of 18
Wow, sausages and bacon with their 200+ chemical additives are worse for you than a grilled sirloin steak, unbelievable! I really didn't need a team of Harvard researchers to tell me this.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Styleforum › Forums › Lifestyle › Social Life, Food & Drink, Travel › Red Meat Is Not (Necessarily) Bad For You