"The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.
"Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.
"But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.
"If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.
“The certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low,” said Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and leader of the group publishing the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
"The new analyses are among the largest such evaluations ever attempted and may influence future dietary recommendations. In many ways, they raise uncomfortable questions about dietary advice and nutritional research, and what sort of standards these studies should be held to.
"Already they have been met with fierce criticism by public health researchers. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them.
"Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”
"Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group advocating a plant-based diet, on Wednesday filed a petition against the journal with the Federal Trade Commission. Dr. Frank Sacks, past chair of the American Heart Association’s nutrition committee, called the research “fatally flawed.”
"While the new findings are likely to please proponents of popular high-protein diets, they seem certain to add to public consternation over dietary advice that seems to change every few years. The conclusions represent another in a series of jarring dietary reversals involving salt, fats, carbohydrates and more.
"The prospect of a renewed appetite for red meat also runs counter to two other important trends: a growing awareness of the environmental degradation caused by livestock production, and longstanding concern about the welfare of animals employed in industrial farming."
You noticed that I uncharacteristically withheld my opinion.
I wanted to see if as many people responded as to my recent chicken post (72) [1]. I figured that two-thirds would reject the new study out of hand. I didn't want to add any spin - but since you ask ...
I am not a fan of Ancel Keys. Much of what Americans "know" about heart disease & diet has come from research conducted by his disciples. It was impossible to get funding if one had contrary views. Some even took money from BigSugar to quash a competing view that sugar might be bad for the heart.
Dr. William Castelli was the 3rd director of the Framingham Heart Study (ongoing since 1948). Writing in 1992 [2]:
"Most of what we know about the effects of diet factors, particularly the saturation of fat and cholesterol, on serum lipid parameters derives from metabolic ward—type studies. Alas, such findings, within a cohort studied over time have been disappointing, indeed the findings have been contradictory. For example, in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's serum cholesterol. The opposite of what one saw in the 26 metabolic ward studies, the opposite of what the equations provided by Hegsted et al and Keys et al" ...
Walter Willett & others heavily invested in the Keys legacy are predictably upset by the new study. Willett has long been a proselytizer. At some point, the message becomes more important than the facts.
I don't eat much meat of any kind. The new study will not change my eating habits. However, there is a local restaurant that supposedly has Tournedos Rossini on the menu [3]. It's been 50 years since I last ate that. I might just risk that again when my wife & I celebrate our 52nd. LOL
My attempts to eat healthier have been stymied by unexpected weight loss. Beef and ice cream might be considered health foods for those of us who might otherwise end up underweight.
My husband was also losing weight to hyperthyroidism. We finally have that corrected but he is still drinking nutritional shakes to maintain. I gained weight trying to cook enticing meals to fatten him up.
You gained weight. That's funny. (Maybe). I tried nutritional shakes. Got most of one down and threw the rest away. If they work for hubby great. I think ice cream would work just as well. 2 scoops (chocolate chip) have been recommended by a world renowned expert. 3 scoops for your hubby. Enjoy.
Red meat, per se, may be ok but if one is on a fat, especially saturated fat, restricted diet due to arterial sclerosis I would think that red meat should be limited if only due to its relatively high saturated fat content.
These type of misleading studies are nothing new in USA. People do these type of sensational studies to get attention OR to get money from meat industry
I vividly remember that cigarette industry were funding such fake research until their last years. They came up with false research saying cigarettes are good for brain and prevent dementia.
Phillip Morris was buying time until they could get people addicted to cigarettes in developing countries as Americans already realized that cigarettes are toxic and demand for cigarettes started plunging. Phillip Morris ended up becoming Altria..a food company.
In pathological capitalist society, people can publish flawed and false research to make quick money. KFC, McDonald and others might have directly or indirectly funded this fake research
Heaven forbid, what other sacred cows are about to be torpedoed???, human caused climate change, drinking wine or any alcohol has sound medical and societal benefits, smoking marijuana is healthier than vaping electronic cigarettes, we must aggressively treat with RP or RT every PCa diagnoses.......
When scientific issues become political grandstanding by no nothing politicos scrounging for dollars and votes, as we permit and enable these insane behaviors, we will reap what we sow.
Once again a confusing conclusion from the so called experts. My own education on the subject is that the "char" that tastes so good on the outside of a grilled/seared steak etc and smoking meats is the real bad part. I guess if you want to boil a filet mignon, it might not be so bad for you.
I eat whatever I want whenever I want. I figure we all have an experation date on us and this beast we all battle makes life as miserable as possible between side effects and pain we all endure. I'm going to enjoy everyday of the rest of my life surrounded by family,friends, and yes occasionally a great Porterhouse.
Shades of the flawed 2013 study attributing high grade prostate cancer to fish oil!
Factory farmed beef contains omega 6's.
The meat from free range, grass fed beef, living in a pasture doing cattle things contains omega 3's and conjugated linoleic acid. CLA inhibits cancer and promotes weight loss.
I have been a vegan for twenty-two months except for a bit of beeswax used in the outer casing of some supplements. When I was an omnivore I chose shoulder steak. Any fat on shoulder steak is on left the edge by the butcher. It is easily removed. If one purchases factory farmed shoulder steak after eating the free range grass fed steaks it seems as tender as a ribeye. The pasture raised cattle get plenty of exercise and aren't confined to pens, therefore, they have muscle! Bring your teeth!
I wonder what Ruth Heidrich who wrote, "Forks Over Knives", would think of this study?
Garp41 an astute observation! There needn't be a funded, short term study of a year, five years or ten years to determine the effects diet has on a population. You correctly pointed out that there are populations that for generations have avoided diseases because of their diet. LearnAll I am with you! Nine out of ten doctors smoke Camels! Follow the money!
I always wondered about these things and did try the vegetarian thing. I did not enjoy it . I felt weaker. I believe the mediterranean diet is great. Moderation in anything is the issue. We need more protein as we get older. Organic humanely raised and killed is best. The other issue is enjoyment. I do enjoy my eating of healthy food no matter what it is!
Hmm... I heard the same thing! It seems that they use saturated fat to provide the flavor, but no real meat. Hell, I'm a card carrying carnivore (my dear wife is a vegetarian and would never touch the stuff).
Obviously, they wouldn't use saturated fat from animal sources, but it is possible to replicate the profile of beef fat using plant sources. e.g. stearic acid is also found in cocoa butter. Chocolate made with high levels of cocoa butter might be beneficial to men with PCa.
However, you might be referring to burgers that use coconut oil.
It used to be that "saturated fat" was code for "animal fat". Nabisco & others were free to use tropical oils (palm & coconut) to make cookies. You can't make cookies without saturated fat. Eventually, U.S. vegetable oil producers launched a cynical campaign accusing companies of using unhealthy saturated fats. (As though cookies are otherwise healthy!) The companies had no choice but to find ways to turn domestic polyunsaturated oil into something that was saturated & also didn't taste disgusting.
These days, coconut oil no longer has the "saturated" stigma.
However, Dr. Myers has said that it's a "crazy idea" for men with PCa to use coconut oil.
My own feeling is that men with PCa should avoid myristic acid, whatever the source - & coconut oil is 17% myristic acid.
There are no obvious conflicts in the disclosures. No need for me to pile on, plenty of others have. I'd just note that this metastudy doesn't say meat is good for you. It says the evidence is fairly weak to counsel a directive to decrease meat consumption.
You know what they say--"absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
The "Carnivore Diet"--Will it "Eat Cancer" or Will it Help "Cancer Eat You?"
The impact of moderate wine consumption on the risk of developing prostate cancer
