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

[Obee1]

When studies just say "red meat" and only look at end outcomes, it leaves a lot of important information out.

The individuals who were sampled, were they eating steaks or burgers?
If burgers:
-Home made
Or
-Fast food

These studies often leave this information out. They just conclude "red meat bad" because people that put down 2 fast food burgers a week end up getting cancer and heart disease.
It's not the red meat that did it, it's the rest of the McDonald's meal you ate alongside it.

You're welcome to prove me wrong, but i don't think you can. The data is always lacking outside variables in these studies; the sample group is often already well on their way to heart disease because 'Muricuh.

*hence the thread title "shoddy research"

Healthy user bias is a common tactic used by activist "researchers." Ancel Keys gets proven wrong time and again. Let's not forget that the sugar lobby paid Harvard scientist to rig their findings to show saturated fat as the main driver of heart disease instead of sugar. Even in the 70's actual research showed sugar to be responsible for many or even most metabolic disease.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

 

[BackInTheGame78]

Healthy user bias is a common tactic used by activist "researchers." Ancel Keys gets proven wrong time and again. Let's not forget that the sugar lobby paid Harvard scientist to rig their findings to show saturated fat as the main driver of heart disease instead of sugar. Even in the 70's actual research showed sugar to be responsible for many or even most metabolic disease.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

Again like I said above, the only study that I would buy if it showed issues would be one where they did a organic grass fed beef study versus not.

Those foods are so different from a nutritional and inflammatory profile they shouldn't even be considered the same food.

 

[EyeBRollin]

When studies just say "red meat" and only look at end outcomes, it leaves a lot of important information out.

The individuals who were sampled, were they eating steaks or burgers?
If burgers:
-Home made
Or
-Fast food

These studies often leave this information out. They just conclude "red meat bad" because people that put down 2 fast food burgers a week end up getting cancer and heart disease.
It's not the red meat that did it, it's the rest of the McDonald's meal you ate alongside it.

That's not what the studies look at. They isolate the variables. For example, there's the fat profile of red meat, along with heme iron, TMAOs, nitrates (for processed meat), or just comparing protein sources among a population. As for carcinogenic concerns, with the exception of colorectal cancer, the carcinogens appear to stem from compounds created in the cooking of meat, not the fact that it is red meat itself.

So to recap, if we take a sample population with say, 30% calories from fat, then compare heme iron among that group and notice a positive correlation with CVD, it's clearly a red meat association.

 

[EyeBRollin]

Healthy user bias is a common tactic used by activist "researchers." Ancel Keys gets proven wrong time and again. Let's not forget that the sugar lobby paid Harvard scientist to rig their findings to show saturated fat as the main driver of heart disease instead of sugar. Even in the 70's actual research showed sugar to be responsible for many or even most metabolic disease.

I think we can move past the conspiracy theories and use the latest research. The main driver of heart disease is serum concentration of Apo-B over time. Apo-B is the protein contained on all atherosclerotic lipoprotein particles in the blood. If you have metabolic disease, your particle count is fvcked up and has been for years.

 

[Obee1]

I think we can move past the conspiracy theories and use the latest research. The main driver of heart disease is serum concentration of Apo-B over time. Apo-B is the protein contained on all atherosclerotic lipoprotein particles in the blood. If you have metabolic disease, your particle count is fvcked up and has been for years.

I have no interest in debating you EyeBRollin, as the last time we had this discussion you produced very little research. You were able to regurgitate some science but you showed very little understanding. The one study you cited was debunked several times by the researchers peers. Anytime you are given evidence contrary to your dogmatic beliefs, you start in on the ad hominin attacks on the doctors and researchers. I'll settle for just one of the many studies I asked you for to support one of your dumber statements. Please produce the research to support your argument that having calcium in your coronary arteries is a good thing. Until you produce the study or admit you made a stupid statement, you can troll someone else's post. I have no idea why your rebuttal to my quote is a disjointed statement about Apo-B. Maybe you felt the need to throw around some more of your pseudo-intellectualisms. Most of my questions are rhetorical. I'm not interested in anything you have to say unless it has that calcium research attached. Merry Christmas.

 

[EyeBRollin]

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

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.

 

[logicallefty]

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.

 

[EyeBRollin]

I'm not gonna debate you dude, I truly don't care about this enough.

If you think red meat is bad for you, that sounds like a 'you' problem.

There is no problem. Populations that consistently eat red meat do not live as long as blue zone populations (east Asia, the Mediterranean, USA adventists). It’s just the facts. Do with that information what you’d like.

 

[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.