The Risks of Red Meat: Why We Have Beef with Beef
Maybe somewhere between professionals who tell us “red meat causes cancer” and people who claim “only eating meat” changed their life, meat is simply just an important part of the picture. Rumor has it meat is unhealthy because it’s high in cholesterol, high in fat, and we’re advised to eat more chicken and turkey than burgers and steaks. Per usual, there’s a lot of information being left out of the conversation — so here’s some you may not have heard yet.
THE FEAR OF CHOLESTEROL AND FATThe anti-fat, anti-cholesterol approach to health started in the 1950s when heart disease started to soar through the roof. That’s when Ancel Keys entered the conversation — and continues to be the man whose research serves as the basis for all our dietary guidelines to this day). Not only did he claim the cholesterol we eat raises levels of cholesterol in our blood which is then deposited into the plaque — but after years of trying to prove his theory, he self-admittedly found that no matter how much cholesterol he fed his volunteers, the level of cholesterol in their blood was unchanged.
Since cholesterol was no longer to blame for heart disease, Keys conducted the Seven Countries Study which showed as calories from fat increased, deaths from heart disease also increase.
He cherry picked results from 7 countries, leaving out 15 other countries that showed high consumption of fat but lower instances of heart disease.
The 7 countries show correlation not causation — none of the research showed that eating fat increased cholesterol, or that cholesterol caused plaque.
DOES THE SCIENCE REALLY PROVE "MEAT CAUSES CANCER?"The theory “red meat causes cancer” comes from the WHO’s 2015 IARC report (or read their press release and/or Q&A) which was the result of 22 experts reviewing 800+ studies on red meat, processed meat, and cancer to make an official statement about the risk of cancer based on red meat or processed meat consumption — they found sufficient evidence to classify processed meat (cured, smoked, preserved) as a Group 1 (known) carcinogen and claims every 50g of processed meat you eat (not even ¼ lb) increases your risk of colon cancer by 18%.
Recommended reading: “Deli Meat: Isn’t Real Meat”
BUT FOR RED MEAT? They found limited evidence red meat causes cancer, positive associations of cancer with red meat consumption, and classified it as a Group 2A (probable) carcinogen. The question is: does that prove red meat causes cancer? Here’s some fine print to think about before you decide:
The experts only used 14 out of 800 “observational epidemiology” studies to conclude their findings…
Only 1 out of the 14 studies showed statistical significance, but it had ridiculous amounts of biases that skews results and ruins it’s credibility (it only observed one group of people who typically also smoked, drank alcohol and soda, and had a sedentary lifestyle if they ate red meat — how can we conclude someone who is sedentary, smokes, drinks soda, and eats red meat has a higher risk of cancer because of the steak and not one of the other behaviors? Ya can’t. And this is what makes unhealthy user bias a huge problem with epidemiology studies. Ya can’t blame the red meat for what the soda, smoking, and sedentary lifestyle have contributed to.¹ ² ³ ⁴
The problem with the observational epidemiology studies they used is that they’re just that: observational. They take a portion of the population, give them a questionnaire, and compare the answers. There’s no control group (a baseline to compare results to), no placebo (a fake intervention to prevent psychological biases), and no actual intervention tested to measure the impact. These studies can only correlate a behavioral pattern with health outcomes, and correlation doesn’t equal causation (look at these examples of silly correlations spuriouscorrelations.com). These studies are a great starting point for a hypothesis, but it can’t claim one outcome is more likely than another. Bottom line? Just because those who eat red meat appear to have worse health doesn’t mean it was the meat that caused the problem.
The experts ignored the other 700+ “interventional” studies which are the most credible type of studies, also known as a randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled study. And tell a way different story). These studies expose a large group of subjects to a specific intervention (adding or removing something, use a placebo group as a control to compare results to, and review all the results after a set amount of time to measure more or less of whatever they’re studying (cancer, heart disease, etc). The participants are randomly assigned to each group, and none of the participants or researchers know who is receiving what.
WHAT ABOUT THE BLUE ZONES?“Blue Zones” are another popular point made to justify red meat as unhealthy because these regions of the world have extremely long life expectancies and “eat red meat sparingly.” But there are other regions of the world that eat meat and have longer life expectancies (like Hong Kong, the world’s third largest consumer of beef per capita, eating 1 lb. of meat per day).
IS THERE (WELL DONE) RESEARCH ON EATING MEAT THAT SHOWS NO INCREASED RISK OF DISEASE, OR EVEN BETTER, DECREASED RISK OF DISEASE?They induced colon cancer in rats and fed them bacon, chicken, beef, or their standard chow for 100 days with no increase in colon cancer relative to the control group.
37 diabetics were split into two groups: one group got 30% of their caloric intake from animal protein, and the other group got 30% of their caloric intake from plant protein. Not only was there no increase of inflammatory markers with animal protein, and actually an increase in gastrointestinal inflammation with plant protein.
60 participants were split into two groups: one group ate their normal everyday diet, and the other group replaced plant carbohydrates with 8oz of red meat. Markers of inflammation and oxidative stress decreased when red meat replaced carbohydrates.
Neu5Gc is a molecule we men and women no longer produce in our body. But because we eat animals that do produce the Neu5Gc molecule and our body produces antibodies to it, it’s believed these antibodies lead to inflammation or damage. But a study of over 200,000 kidney transplant patients (who receive significant doses of Neu5Gc) showed no increase in colon cancer in 38,000 patients who received the Neu5Gc compared to those who had not.
An meta-analysis of interventional studies on heme iron (the mechanism in red meat some think causes cancer) proved the methodologies of these studies were extremely flawed: they proved potential to induce pre-cancerous lesions only in calcium-deficient models, they used amounts of heme iron that exceeded normal dietary intake of meat, and they showed the consumption of red meat produced n-nitroso compunds very different from those shown to be carcinogenic.
An meta-analysis of interventional studies on heme iron (the mechanism in red meat some experts think causes cancer) proved the methodologies of these studies was extremely flawed: they induced pre-cancerous lesions only in calcium-deficient models, they used amounts of heme iron that exceeded normal dietary intake of meat, and they showed the consumption of red meat produced n-nitroso compunds very different from those shown to be carcinogenic.
Some experts worry because studies show cancer mutates mTOR which causes too much cell-growth/proliferation (aka, cancer). So experts often suggest liming animal proteins in fear the leucine inside them may directly increase mTOR making it go into overdrive and increase risk of proliferation/cancer. But studies show activation of mTOR by insulin (carbs) is way more robust than protein and lasts three to four times as long as it’s activation by leucine!
There’s a lot more to the scary story we’ve been sold,
EVERYDAY AMERICAN
Welcome! I’m Danika.
Middle-class, low-maintenance woman from the outskirts of town who didn’t keep trusting a broken, ass-backwards system to tell me the whole truth or what’s best for me. The internet can be so bittersweet sometimes, but I hope this space becomes a resource that inspires you to simplify the most important foods, make the most informed decisions & stress less about living perfectly!
Craving a realistic, root-cause approach to real food? Maybe we’re your cup of tea.
