New study slams "years of shoddy research" about Red Meat...finds it is not "bad for you" nor is it a health risk

[EyeBRollin]

40% of Americans are obese. Do you think that possibly skews the outcome metric you're using?

The outcome metric in this case is longest live populations in the world. Correct, you don’t find obese centenarians. You also don’t see centenarian populations that feature red meat as a dietary staple. In fact, as East Asians and the Mediterranean shift away from the cultural diets to adopt more meat heavy western diet, their longevity craters with it. Coincidence?

 

[obelisk]

Not true. You should research Blue Zones far more to understand the research bs going on with them to prove their narrative. Residents in Hong Kong and Kobe eat some of the highest amounts of meat in the world and live the longest.

 

[Scaramouche]

Hi Obelisk,
Yes Hong Kong and Kobe,an important factor here is that they don't burn their meat,often marinate it....When I last checked this area out,the Uraguayans were the biggest red meat eaters in the World and had quite reasonable longevity...Burn or smoke your meat and you get big time health issues.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Hi Obelisk,
Yes Hong Kong and Kobe,an important factor here is that they don't burn their meat,often marinate it....When I last checked this area out,the Uraguayans were the biggest red meat eaters in the World and had quite reasonable longevity...Burn or smoke your meat and you get big time health issues.

There’s that, as well as how much of the meat consumption is generational. Older generations that grew up eating less meat will skew the statistics relative to the current generations that are heavy meat eaters.

 

[Obee1]

That’s not what I said, and a good way to take things out of context. In other words you are lying.

Calcification of existing plaque due to statin therapy, is preferable to having undetectable soft plaque. Soft plaque ruptures and cause heart attacks. Calcified plaques are stable. But you can regurgitate your strawman argument.

I have little interest in debating you as well. I don’t care if you eat 10 lbs of red meat per week. It’s your body. The evidence shows association between red meat, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Do what you want with that information.

 

[EyeBRollin]

View attachment 11806

Great, you’ve demonstrated that you cannot read:

“Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing”

Please produce the research to support your argument that having calcium in your coronary arteries is a good thing.

Nice try, though.

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Not true. You should research Blue Zones far more to understand the research bs going on with them to prove their narrative. Residents in Hong Kong and Kobe eat some of the highest amounts of meat in the world and live the longest.

Which goes along with organic grass fed beef as nature intended is far better than the beef from grain fed cows that can't move inside a pen barely big enough for them to move and that never see the light of day.

This is the study that needs to be done. It would be like saying all fats are bad without looking at the differences between trans fats and olive oil.

Organic grass fed beef is high in Omega 3 and Vitamin K2 among other things...grain fed beef is many times higher in Omega 6 and other pro-inflammatory compounds.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Which goes along with organic grass fed beef as nature intended is far better than the beef from grain fed cows that can't move inside a pen barely big enough for them to move and that never see the light of day.

This is the study that needs to be done. It would be like saying all fats are bad without looking at the differences between trans fats and olive oil.

Organic grass fed beef is high in Omega 3 and Vitamin K2 among other things...grain fed beef is many times higher in Omega 6 and other pro-inflammatory compounds.

That analogy is kind of a stretch. Trans fats and olive oil are drastically different chemically.

 

[Obee1]

Great, you’ve demonstrated that you cannot read:

“Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing”


Nice try, though.

LMAO, you are incredible. Given I was paraphrasing from memory I think I did damn good. I only went back and grabbed your post when you said I lied. Given what we were debating in that previous thread, I would say I was accurate. But okay, you don't like my paraphrasing. Let's use your version. Please help me to help you demonstrate that you give credible information by producing receipts/ research, anything proving, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing.” If you can't do that maybe just attach your credentials and qualifications. Don't become distracted by my words and comeback with more pretentious nonsense. Let's focus on your words, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing." Dude, you seem smart but it's difficult to have a healthy debate when you only speak in platitudes while you try to force feed your "my way or the highway wisdom." If you're not going to produce a white paper or something, and you're not going to admit you were wrong, at least admit you could have worded it different.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Please help me to help you demonstrate that you give credible information by producing receipts/ research, anything proving, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing.”

I was referring to what they call the statin paradox:

Findings of the analysis, published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2015;65:1273-1282), include the following:
• Patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) who are treated with statins experience an increase in coronary calcification, an effect that is independent of plaque progression or regression.
• Paradoxically, high-intensity statin therapy is associated with the largest increases in coronary calcification despite promoting atheroma regression.

The increase in calcification revealed by the analysis may represent a means by which statin therapy stabilizes coronary plaque to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, says the study’s senior investigator, Steven Nissen, MD, who adds that this hypothesis remains to be proved. “We found that as plaques were getting smaller with statins, they were calcifying,” explains Dr. Nissen, Chairman of the Robert and Suzanne Tomsich Department of Cardiovascular Medicine at Cleveland Clinic. “It’s exactly the opposite of what you might think intuitively,” he continues. “This is an important observation that tells us that statins work to stabilize plaques by converting softer, cholesterol-laden plaques that are prone to rupture into more stable calcified plaques that are relatively inert. It explains the paradox of why serial measurement of calcium doesn’t necessarily work to track the progression of disease, and it explains to some extent how statins work.”

 

[OngBak]

LMAO, you are incredible. Given I was paraphrasing from memory I think I did damn good. I only went back and grabbed your post when you said I lied. Given what we were debating in that previous thread, I would say I was accurate. But okay, you don't like my paraphrasing. Let's use your version. Please help me to help you demonstrate that you give credible information by producing receipts/ research, anything proving, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing.” If you can't do that maybe just attach your credentials and qualifications. Don't become distracted by my words and comeback with more pretentious nonsense. Let's focus on your words, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing." Dude, you seem smart but it's difficult to have a healthy debate when you only speak in platitudes while you try to force feed your "my way or the highway wisdom." If you're not going to produce a white paper or something, and you're not going to admit you were wrong, at least admit you could have worded it different.

Its called Narcissism, highly disagreeable even if you are right. Its either their way or nobodies. Doesnt know what he is talking about and cant do much then protect his fragile ego from the nonsense

 

[EyeBRollin]

Now to get back on topic:

This study stands out for actually giving us a look at protein sources with respect to CHD risk.

In this prospective cohort study with 26 years of follow-up, we observed that a higher consumption of red meat was associated with an increased risk of CHD. The positive association was independent of established dietary and nondietary cardiovascular risk factors as well as fruit and vegetable intake. When compared with red meat, intakes of dairy, poultry, fish, and especially nuts were associated with substantially lower risk of coronary disease.

Diagram below is helpful:



What this means is.. if you replace a serving of fish with high fat dairy, the risk for CHD increases. If you replace a serving of red meat with a serving of beans, the risk for CHD decreases significantly.

Granted, this study's test subjects were women. Still, the discussion needs to be had when discussing food choices of what the replacement is. Is red meat better for us than sugar and refined carbohydrates? Absolutely. However, when compared with other protein sources, there are less risky options.

 

[OngBak]

I was referring to what they call the statin paradox:

Thank you again for wasting our time with the another graph you thought to be helpful and made on women? What kind of woman are we talking about, low class, middle class, upper class. What kind of red meat did they consume over time? What kind of diet did they pursue overall? Was it highly processed red meat with thousand additives and ingredients or rather natural with none of them and preferably grass fed? I think I dont have to remind you that you are victim of the conformation bias. The studies arent reliable as the ones who are up to date, the studies you attached above are falsifiable to the standards that are up to date. All studies must be falsifiable..

 

[OngBak]

I pay no attention to any food studies what so ever. My body tells me everything I need to know. Regarding red meat, I can eat as much pork as I want and feel just fine. Beef, I can only eat in moderation. If I eat too much, I feel like crap. That's the only study I need.

Absolutely, how you feel when you eat certain foods should tell a lot how healthy it is for YOU.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Thank you again for wasting our time with the another graph you thought to be helpful and made on women? What kind of woman are we talking about, low class, middle class, upper class. What kind of red meat did they consume over time? What kind of diet did they pursue overall? Was it highly processed red meat with thousand additives and ingredients or rather natural with none of them and preferably grass fed?

Try reading it.

I think I dont have to remind you that you are victim of the conformation bias. The studies arent reliable as the ones who are up to date, the studies you attached above are falsifiable to the standards that are up to date. All studies must be falsifiable..

I have confirmation bias with respect to red meat? That's interesting. I don't have dog in the fight. You are the one arguing for exceptions to the data. Every cancer and cardiovascular agency advises against eating a lot of red meat. The longest living humans in the longest living regions of the world.. do not feature red meat as a dietary staple.

Absolutely, how you feel when you eat certain foods should tell a lot how healthy it is for YOU.

How scientific. Fat people feel good drinking soda and eating ice cream.

 

[OngBak]

Try reading it.



I have confirmation bias with respect to red meat? That's interesting. I don't have dog in the fight. You are the one arguing for exceptions to the data. Every cancer and cardiovascular agency advises against eating a lot of red meat. The longest living humans in the longest living regions of the world.. do not feature red meat as a dietary staple.



How scientific. Fat people feel good drinking soda and eating ice cream.

You are, just contact any good scientist and he will tell you the same. This is science 101.

I also dont have to remind you, how absurd your thinking is.. Fat People dont feel good, they justify/rationalize their decisions due to low-self esteem. Do you really believe fat People with poor diet feel good, healthy and vital? Then you must be out of common sense

 

[Obee1]

I was referring to what they call the statin paradox:

Thank you EyeBRollin, you may have a soul after all. I'm familiar with the paradox. I'm ready to drop it if we can agree that a better way of phrasing it would be stable plaque is bad, unstable plaque is really bad. To say calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing would be to suggest that if my CT scan showed 0 then my Dr would recommend that I try to increase my calcium score. Or if my CT score were 500 I'm good to go, when in fact the probability of having a heart attack in the next 5 years is high.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Thank you EyeBRollin, you may have a soul after all. I'm familiar with the paradox. I'm ready to drop it if we can agree that a better way of phrasing it would be stable plaque is bad, unstable plaque is really bad. To say calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing would be to suggest that if my CT scan showed 0 then my Dr would recommend that I try to increase my calcium score. Or if my CT score were 500 I'm good to go, when in fact the probability of having a heart attack in the next 5 years is high.

Yes, I thought that was implied with what I said. Plaque is bad. IF one has plaque, better it is stable than unstable. Statins, for all their bad internet rap, stabilize the plaque.

Back on the topic of red meat - I'd like to see in the future RCTs that examine different types of red meat. Probably far off. What are the differences between pork, beef, lamb, goat, venison, etc. Some religions swear off pork for hygienic reasons. Thoughts?

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Now to get back on topic:

This study stands out for actually giving us a look at protein sources with respect to CHD risk.



Diagram below is helpful:

View attachment 11815

What this means is.. if you replace a serving of fish with high fat dairy, the risk for CHD increases. If you replace a serving of red meat with a serving of beans, the risk for CHD decreases significantly.

Granted, this study's test subjects were women. Still, the discussion needs to be had when discussing food choices of what the replacement is. Is red meat better for us than sugar and refined carbohydrates? Absolutely. However, when compared with other protein sources, there are less risky options.

Again, unless they SPECIFICALLY show this with Grass Fed Organic Beef, I think they are missing the mark by treating them equally. They aren't and from a health standpoint are so different they shouldn't even be considered the same food.

Likely would see much different results with Grass Fed Organic Beef specifically

 

[EyeBRollin]

Again, unless they SPECIFICALLY show this with Grass Fed Organic Beef, I think they are missing the mark by treating them equally. They aren't and from a health standpoint are so different they shouldn't even be considered the same food.

Likely would see much different results with Grass Fed Organic Beef specifically

I don't think they'll ever do a study that differentiates the two. It seems overly specific and difficult to implement. Then there is the socioeconomic accessibility considerations of such a study.

I would speculate the difference is analogous to the differences between wild caught fish and farmed fish. Nutritionally there are some differences but overall they still generally provide mostly the same nutrients. Organic grass-fed beef I am sure is healthier, but probably isn't "moving the needle" as much as you think.

Another analogy that surprised me was comparing olive oil, vegetable oil, and canola oil and their affect on lipids. Olive oil should be much healthier, right? Overall, canola oil lowered lipids the most.. but the difference between all of the unsaturated seed oils (including olive oil) was negligible. The benefit was most pronounced when comparing any of them to a tropical oil like coconut oil.