Need info why too much red meat is bad?

[Robosco]

I'm trying to understand why too much red meat is bad for you. I've kept reading from nutrition advocates to limit the consumption of red meat because it's been linked to cancer and CHD.

I wonder what exactly is in red meat that's supposed to be bad for you? I've searched the web but I kept getting the runaround. I'm guessing they're talking in general. By saying "red meat", they meant all forms of red meat. It's hotdogs, cheeseburgers, processed meat, and charred bbq that are high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and preservatives. Am I correct?

What about lean red meat such as pork tenderloin? I eat tons of skinless chicken thighs. I trim off all the visible fat. I've calculated the macros and find that the cholesterol and saturated fat levels are just a tad higher than eating white meat, but fall within the guidelines.

[cls91]

Its a disproved misconception, similar to how egg yolks are bad for cholesterol. Its mainly because of the saturated fats being linked to various diseases, which has been disproved many times by now.

Read meat is fine to eat; but obviously too much of anything is bad (ie. puts you over your caloric targets)

[EfficientLiver]

It's not.

Continuing to eat in large surpluses (with or w/out red meat) and not exercise is bad for obese people with high cholesterol, high blood pressure, clogged arteries, and family history of heart disease.

[odinseye84]

Too much red meat is bad because because most of it comes from grain fed cows, stuffed in a small little cage, pumped full of growth hormones, then antibiotics to counter the udder infections.

Then it is likely dyed, injected with gas and possibly soaked in ammonia and other disgusting chemicals. Depending on what it becomes of course it can be overly processed.

Lean, grass fed, hormone (rBGH) and antibiotic free beef = superior.

[determined4000]

Too much red meat is bad because because most of it comes from grain fed cows, stuffed in a small little cage, pumped full of growth hormones, then antibiotics to counter the udder infections.

Then it is likely dyed, injected with gas and possibly soaked in ammonia and other disgusting chemicals. Depending on what it becomes of course it can be overly processed.

Lean, grass fed, hormone (rBGH) and antibiotic free beef = superior.

this
most folk dont buy quality grass fed beef and you should avoid any processed red meat or meat cooked with trans fatty oils (resturants and fast food places)

[loganhart]

Hnnngggggggggg

[MarcAWilson]

People think red meat is bad because it is high in dietary cholesterol, and high blood cholesterol levels have shown to have a correlation with high blood pressure, heart disease and a myriad of other cardiovascular disorders.

However, ironically blood cholesterol levels are not related to dietary cholesterol intake. So red meat is fine.

part of the confusion over dietary fat and cholesterol came out of the focus on blood cholesterol levels and heart disease that really got rolling in the 70′s and continued well into the 80′s. And when that was combined with the fact that many of the ‘off-limit’ high-fat foods (such as eggs) were also high in dietary cholesterol, it’s actually easy to see where the confusion comes from.
Now I’m actually not going to get into the big debate/argument/controversy over the role of blood cholesterol in heart disease. Sufficed to say that I think both groups of extremists, both those that think blood cholesterol is the primary concern as well as those who think it is no concern at all are misguided; I find this is true of most extremist stances. At best, I think blood cholesterol levels are one of several factors that contribute to the development or not of heart disease; but there are certainly others. I’ll leave the topic at that.
In any case, what is often forgotten is that the body actually makes more cholesterol (in the liver) than most people would eat in a day. As well, the body tend to adapt to changing dietary cholesterol intakes. When you eat less dietary cholesterol, the body will make more; when you eat more, the body makes less.
And this is why a lot of the concern over dietary cholesterol per se is a bit misplaced; for most people the intake of dietary cholesterol has little to no impact on blood cholesterol on the first place. It’s worth mentioning that a certain percentage of people seem to be responders to dietary cholesterol intake in terms of how their blood cholesterol is affected.
Rather, it is the intake of specific types of triglycerides that seems to have a far larger role on blood cholesterol levels; exercise also plays a role and there are strong genetic factors which determine blood cholesterol levels as well.

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/nut...ts-part-1.html

[Huckleberry101]

Its a disproved misconception, similar to how egg yolks are bad for cholesterol. Its mainly because of the saturated fats being linked to various diseases, which has been disproved many times by now.

Read meat is fine to eat; but obviously too much of anything is bad (ie. puts you over your caloric targets)

It is not a disproved misconception. The main issue is not regarding saturated fats and cholesterol but to the higher incidence of certain cancers in relation to higher processed and red meat consumption. Yes I know correlation is not indicative but looking at it rationally there may be some link.

[Robosco]

It is not a disproved misconception. The main issue is not regarding saturated fats and cholesterol but to the higher incidence of certain cancers in relation to higher processed and red meat consumption. Yes I know correlation is not indicative but looking at it rationally there may be some link.

Is it the red meat itself that is the culprit or is it the whole package that's traditionally associated with red meat (high sat fat, high cholesterol, processed meat, charred, fried)? I get the feeling that when they say "red meat", they meant it as the worse possible definition of red meat like cheeseburgers and fried chicken. What about if someone eat skinless chicken thighs with all the fat trimmed out? What about pork tenderloin? Lean cuts of beef?

[Huckleberry101]

Is it the red meat itself that is the culprit or is it the whole package that's traditionally associated with red meat (high sat fat, high cholesterol, processed meat, charred, fried)? I get the feeling that when they say "red meat", they meant it as the worse possible definition of red meat like cheeseburgers and fried chicken. What about if someone eat skinless chicken thighs with all the fat trimmed out? What about pork tenderloin? Lean cuts of beef?

It may be with the cooking process generating Heterocyclic amines, or the high amount of Heme iron that is present in red meat. Both have been associated with an increased risk of Colorectal cancer in populations that consume red and processed meat regularly.

You seem concerned about your red meat intake but there is really nothing more to be drawn other than what I've mentioned and the epidemiological studies. I consume red meat regularly, but if it seems a risk to you maybe consume on the odd occasion.

[cls91]

It is not a disproved misconception. The main issue is not regarding saturated fats and cholesterol but to the higher incidence of certain cancers in relation to higher processed and red meat consumption. Yes I know correlation is not indicative but looking at it rationally there may be some link.

I agree with the other posts but thats making assumptions on the quality of meat the OP is buying. Regardless of the quality, people are always concerned about the saturated fat content which is why I was addressing that.

"What about lean red meat such as pork tenderloin? I eat tons of skinless chicken thighs. I trim off all the visible fat. I've calculated the macros and find that the cholesterol and saturated fat levels are just a tad higher than eating white meat, but fall within the guidelines."

^hence why I thought OP was referring specifically to the saturated fat aspect

[ironmaniac508]

Some have already mentioned what I am about to bring up as potential arguments

1. Could the process of cooking red meat change it on a molecular level, potentially make it harmful?
2. Is red meat, no matter what form, inherently bad just because of what it is?
3. Can we consider the ridiculous amount of hormones and antibiotics as a risk factor?
4. How about the feed....industrial raised cows are usually not pasture raised, they label beef as "grass fed" and charge more for it. Does this diet make the meat unhealthy (change omega 3 to 6 etc.)?
5. Are people that eat meat less likely to consume healthy plant based foods, creating what we see as a health risk?

I follow a plant based diet, with the exception of fish pill, and I believe the best thing is to consider the following cultures.

- Masai of Tanzania and Kenya, their very life revolves around the raising of their cattle herds. The majority of their calories come from meat, blood and dairy, with the remainder from various plant based foods they would find. They have a relatively low caloric intake, a lean body weight and a very high level of daily activity.


- Okinawans- Eat no dairy or red meat as a main part of their diet. Have an active lifestyle, don't eat processed carbs as readily as americans, consume fewer calories. http://www.okicent.org/study.html

[Huckleberry101]

I agree with the other posts but thats making assumptions on the quality of meat the OP is buying. Regardless of the quality, people are always concerned about the saturated fat content which is why I was addressing that.

"What about lean red meat such as pork tenderloin? I eat tons of skinless chicken thighs. I trim off all the visible fat. I've calculated the macros and find that the cholesterol and saturated fat levels are just a tad higher than eating white meat, but fall within the guidelines."

^hence why I thought OP was referring specifically to the saturated fat aspect

In regards to saturated fat being an issue then yeah I agree it is a misconception.

[Huckleberry101]

Some have already mentioned what I am about to bring up as potential arguments

1. Could the process of cooking red meat change it on a molecular level, potentially make it harmful?
2. Is red meat, no matter what form, inherently bad just because of what it is?
3. Can we consider the ridiculous amount of hormones and antibiotics as a risk factor?
4. How about the feed....industrial raised cows are usually not pasture raised, they label beef as "grass fed" and charge more for it. Does this diet make the meat unhealthy (change omega 3 to 6 etc.)?
5. Are people that eat meat less likely to consume healthy plant based foods, creating what we see as a health risk?

I follow a plant based diet, with the exception of fish pill, and I believe the best thing is to consider the following cultures.

- Masai of Tanzania and Kenya, their very life revolves around the raising of their cattle herds. The majority of their calories come from meat, blood and dairy, with the remainder from various plant based foods they would find. They have a relatively low caloric intake, a lean body weight and a very high level of daily activity.


- Okinawans- Eat no dairy or red meat as a main part of their diet. Have an active lifestyle, don't eat processed carbs as readily as americans, consume fewer calories. http://www.okicent.org/study.html

1. Yes, due to the presence of heterocyclic amines. But they are also present in other meats and fish when cooked although I don't think to the same extent as red meat.
2. No red meat is clearly not inherently bad. As with anything it's the dosage(amount) of something that makes it potentially hazardous.
3. Not sure what information exists on this.
4. Again I couldn't say.
5. What makes plant based foods healthy opposed to animal based? If you're getting at the fact that maybe studies do not appreciate that copious red meat eaters also lead a generally unhealthy lifestyle- being sedentary, smoking and excess alcohol intake etc. then yeah I'd say that would contribute to skewed results pointing the blame at processed and red meat. But as said, maybe there is something within the red and processed meat- HCA's and Heme iron that are a concern.

[WonderPug]

People think red meat is bad because it is high in dietary cholesterol, and high blood cholesterol levels have shown to have a correlation with high blood pressure, heart disease and a myriad of other cardiovascular disorders.

It's ironic how mislead the general population is, despite getting sicker and sicker following the conventional guidelines.

For for thought:

[ironwill2008]

I'm trying to understand why too much red meat is bad for you.

Have yet to see anything definitive proving it is.

[ironmaniac508]

@Huckleberry

For #5- Lets say a person eats nothing but animal products and little to no vegetables, fruits, legumes etc. I wont dig into micronutrient intake, but consider the potential for not consuming enough fiber and what comes with such a deficiency.

[Huckleberry101]

@Huckleberry

For #5- Lets say a person eats nothing but animal products and little to no vegetables, fruits, legumes etc. I wont dig into micronutrient intake, but consider the potential for not consuming enough fiber and what comes with such a deficiency.

I think if you do a bit of digging there is information on this and IIRC fibre intake had little to no effect on colon cancer rates.
A higher intake of fruits and vegetables, especially cruciferous vegetables I'd suggest would lower risk of illness although I couldn't give you any direct evidence. But again if you do a bit of searching you may find some.

[WonderPug]

@Huckleberry

For #5- Lets say a person eats nothing but animal products and little to no vegetables, fruits, legumes etc. I wont dig into micronutrient intake, but consider the potential for not consuming enough fiber and what comes with such a deficiency.

FYI: The Inuit had done so for numerous generations and experienced remarkable health, but that health declined rapidly when a Western diet was introduced.

[ironmaniac508]

That chart doesn't mean anything,

There is no info about the following

1. HDL-LDL ratio
2. Total caloric intake and caloric expenditure
3. Preventive death/medicine...this chart shows mortality from cardiovascular disease not the number of cases seen in those nations. Do people in Mauritania have access to stents and bypass surgeries as readily as we do in the west?
4. Potential nutritional deficiencies that also play a part
5. Omega 3-6 ratio

[WonderPug]

That chart doesn't mean anything,

There is no info about the following

1. HDL-LDL ratio
2. Total caloric intake and caloric expenditure
3. Preventive death/medicine...this chart shows mortality from cardiovascular disease not the number of cases seen in those nations. Do people in Mauritania have access to stents and bypass surgeries as readily as we do in the west?
4. Potential nutritional deficiencies that also play a part
5. Omega 3-6 ratio

Very high intake of dietary fat, with moderate protein intake and very low CHO intake is very strongly associated with dramatically improve blood lipids and other risk factors, especially in the obese population where must studies have been focused.

To learn more, please review:

Shai I, et al. Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, mediterranean, or low-fat diet. N Engl J Med 2008;359(3);229–41.

Gardner CD, et al. Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and learn Diets for Change in Weight and Related Risk Factors Among Overweight Premenopausal Women. The a to z Weight Loss Study: A Randomized Trial. JAMA. 2007;297:969–977.

Brehm BJ, et al. A Randomized Trial Comparing a Very Low Carbohydrate Diet and a Calorie-Restricted Low Fat Diet on Body Weight and Cardiovascular Risk Factors in Healthy Women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003;88:1617–1623.

Samaha FF, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2074–81.

Sondike SB, et al. Effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on weight loss and cardiovascular risk factor in overweight adolescents. J Pediatr. 2003 Mar;142(3):253–8.

Aude YW, et al. The National Cholesterol Education Program Diet vs a Diet Lower in Carbohydrates and Higher in Protein and Monounsaturated Fat. A Randomized Trial. Arch Intern Med. 2004;164:2141–2146.

Volek JS, et al. Comparison of energy-restricted very low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets on weight loss and body composition in overweight men and women. Nutrition & Metabolism 2004, 1:13.

Yancy WS Jr, et al. A Low-Carbohydrate, Ketogenic Diet versus a Low-Fat Diet To Treat Obesity and Hyperlipidemia. A Randomized, Controlled Trial. Ann Intern Med. 2004;140:769–777.

Nichols-Richardsson SM, et al. Perceived Hunger Is Lower and Weight Loss Is Greater in Overweight Premenopausal Women Consuming a Low-Carbohydrate/High- Protein vs High-Carbohydrate/Low-Fat Diet. J Am Diet Assoc. 2005;105:1433–1437.

Krebs NF, et al. Efficacy and Safety of a High Protein, Low Carbohydrate Diet for Weight Loss in Severely Obese Adolescents. J Pediatr 2010;157:252-8.

Summer SS, et al. Adiponectin Changes in Relation to the Macronutrient Composition of a Weight-Loss Diet. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2011 Mar 31. [Epub ahead of print]

Halyburton AK, et al. Low- and high-carbohydrate weight-loss diets have similar effects on mood but not cognitive performance. Am J Clin Nutr 2007;86:580–7.

Dyson PA, et al. A low-carbohydrate diet is more effective in reducing body weight than healthy eating in both diabetic and non-diabetic subjects. Diabet Med. 2007 Dec;24(12):1430-5.

Keogh JB, et al. Effects of weight loss from a very-low-carbohydrate diet on endothelial function and markers of cardiovascular disease risk in subjects with abdominal obesity. Am J Clin Nutr 2008;87:567–76.

Volek JS, et al. Carbohydrate Restriction has a More Favorable Impact on the Metabolic Syndrome than a Low Fat Diet. Lipids 2009;44:297–309.

Partsalaki I, et al. Metabolic impact of a ketogenic diet compared to a hypocaloric diet in obese children and adolescents. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab. 2012;25(7-8):697-704.

Daly ME, et al. Short-term effects of severe dietary carbohydrate-restriction advice in Type 2 diabetes–a randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2006 Jan;23(1):15–20.

Westman EC, et al. The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low- glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutr. Metab (Lond.)2008 Dec 19;5:36.

[ironmaniac508]

FYI: The Inuit had done so for numerous generations and experienced remarkable health, but that health declined rapidly when a Western diet was introduced.

Yeah and when a "western diet" was introduced they probably no longer engaged in their traditional lifestyles, became increasingly sedentary and were most likely poor. Obesity rates are higher among the poor of the U.S because they buy cheap, caloric dense foods that offer no nutritional value. Chips, soda, milk, processed meats, mcdonalds etc. They eat an abundance of fat, salt and sugar.

[WonderPug]

Yeah and when a "western diet" was introduced they probably no longer engaged in their traditional lifestyles, became increasingly sedentary and were most likely poor. Obesity rates are higher among the poor of the U.S because they buy cheap, caloric dense foods that offer no nutritional value. Chips, soda, milk, processed meats, mcdonalds etc. They eat an abundance of fat, salt and sugar.

FYI: Activity level is not strongly correlated with body weight and exercise has consistently been shown to offer little if any benefits in terms of weight loss endpoints. Also, the Inuit diet went from very high fat, when they were a health population, to relatively lower fat consistent with the dietary recommendations common in the States.

[ironmaniac508]

FYI: Activity level is not strongly correlated with body weight and exercise has consistently been shown to offer little if any benefits in terms of weight loss endpoints. Also, the Inuit diet went from very high fat, when they were a health population, to relatively lower fat consistent with the dietary recommendations common in the States.

If you are active all day your caloric expenditure will much higher than if you sat on your butt. I am not talking about recreational exercise, I am talking about people who labor for hours a day.

The dietary recommendations in the U.S might be towards the lower fat spectrum but does that mean the average American actually eats like that? Obese people are not fat because of the RDA they are fat because they eat caloric dense foods and are completely sedentary.

[ironmaniac508]

This site uses a source that is listed from records dating to the early 19th century.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...-of-inuit.html

Not exactly what I would call a long life expectancy, granted there are a lot of holes but to say they are remarkably healthy has no basis due to the short lifespan.

The paleo diet works because why?....Because it denounces processed foods in favor of natural foods. Processed foods are high in sugar and many of them are also high in fats (chips, ice cream etc.).

[WonderPug]

^^^ FYI: The Inuit had a higher life expectancy compared to peoples in developed parts of the world during that time period.

In other words, it looks like the Inuit didn't live long lives because you're comparing them to current life expectancies, not life expectancies at that time.



And they did so with virtually no access to traditional medical care and in vastly harsher conditions.

[ironmaniac508]

^^^ FYI: The Inuit had a higher life expectancy compared to peoples in developed parts of the world during that time period.

In other words, it looks like the Inuit didn't live long lives because you're comparing them to current life expectancies, not life expectancies at that time.



And they did so with virtually no access to traditional medical care and in vastly harsher conditions.

If you read the site, excluding infant mortality the life expectancy was 43.5 years of age.....so including the infant mortality we are looking at a much lower number. I would have to look up life expectancy in other parts of the world at that time but there is most likely little to no difference.

[Mobraelite]

its only bad because of hippie liberal *******s claiming it to be


and under every article you read about it there a new vegan or new whatever diet program to buy along with their supplements

just another marketing scam, dont fall for that crap

[WonderPug]

If you read the site, excluding infant mortality the life expectancy was 43.5 years of age.....so including the infant mortality we are looking at a much lower number. I would have to look up life expectancy in other parts of the world at that time but there is most likely little to no difference.

Life expectancy (excluding infant mortality) was ~37.5 years during that period.

Thus, under dramatically harsher conditions and largely without medical intervention, their average life expectancy with significantly longer.

[GrowMacGrow]

I agree with WP. Red meat is fine to eat every day or a number of times daily, it was the introduction of the crap western diet that has all the chemicals and unnatural fats in combination with red meat that leads to sever health issues.