NYT Tells It As It Is About Red Meat

It does seem to miss the point (4.00 / 3)

Finding a Culprit

A question that arises from observational studies like this one is whether meat is in fact a hazard or whether other factors associated with meat-eating are the real culprits in raising death rates. The subjects in the study who ate the most red meat had other less-than-healthful habits. They were more likely to smoke, weigh more for their height, and consume more calories and more total fat and saturated fat. They also ate less fruits, vegetables and fiber; took fewer vitamin supplements; and were less physically active.

But in analyzing mortality data in relation to meat consumption, the cancer institute researchers carefully controlled for all these and many other factors that could influence death rates. The study data have not yet been analyzed to determine what, if any, life-saving benefits might come from eating more protein from vegetable sources like beans or a completely vegetarian diet.

The results mirror those of several other studies in recent years that have linked a high-meat diet to life-threatening health problems. The earliest studies highlighted the connection between the saturated fats in red meats to higher blood levels of artery-damaging cholesterol and subsequent heart disease, which prompted many people to eat leaner meats and more skinless poultry and fish. Along with other dietary changes, like consuming less dairy fat, this resulted in a nationwide drop in average serum cholesterol levels and contributed to a reduction incoronary death rates.

So we have them eating and living less than ideal lifestyles, study hasn't analyzed benefits to adding healthier items to the diet, and those that were aware of the studies of factory farmed beef effects who changed their diet, including more lean meats, had healthier results. And the point of the study was?!

Totally agree with your comments. We actually have a government (Bloomberg) who does try and control our diet to an extent. I really don't mind. It means more farmers markets and fresh foods accessible to lower income folks (along with the rest of us), balancing junk food offered with healthy food, banning trans fats, sodas in schools, getting calories and nutritional info on the menus in fast/convenient food places, and now he's going after excessive sodium. The city also has smoking programs and times of year to get with the programs for free (we're in that period now). And he also has the million trees project. My friend is all excited. They got some new trees on her street about 2 weeks ago. Cherry and apple were included {grin} She was so cute in her excitement telling me how happy they were it started raining later in the day after the trees had been planted, lol!~  As far as I'm concerned, these are positive changes. And they go hand in hand with health care etc. You're right, the government is currently in control of our diet, in the absolute least way by being complicit to big Ag/producers and lobbyists. And also not letting their knowledge of food (hey, how many on the Hill eat organic whenever they can?) dictate their actions, or if they have lack of knowledge, not learning more of a basic human essential.

---

by: nycstray @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 04:20:51 AM UTC

Did you catch the line that the study (4.00 / 2)

carefully controlled for all of those factors (i.e. lack of exercise, etc)? So it really seems to be the meat that did it.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 05:38:21 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

No, I didn't catch that line. (4.00 / 1)

I didn't catch that they controlled anything, they just tracked, is how I read it. (and how could they control the group if they were free to eat as they wanted, etc?) And several things don't quite mesh to me. One is the significantly lower rate of women with heart problems. I thought heart problems were high in women?

And then look at the amounts they are talking about:

Red meat consumption ranged from a low of less than an ounce a day, on average, to a high of four ounces a day, and processed meat consumption ranged from at most once a week to an average of one and a half ounces a day.

Umm, an OUNCE a day to FOUR ounces?!  Processed meat once a week?! When you add in breakfast lunch and dinner, and look at the center aisle in the grocery store (plus fast food restaurants, and the average American), that seems awfully low. I would think the lack of exercise, overweight, smoking etc plays a bigger part than those numbers (or they aren't being truthful when recounting their eating habits). Along with what else they ate. I'm "guessing" saturated fats are the issue here. Someone monitoring their diet for healthiness and eating more lean meat is prob doing the same with the rest of their diet and not hanging out in the center aisles and sitting on their duff smoking  ;) And don't forget, these folks were answering questionnaires and the study was "observational".

And this makes me wonder the objectiveness  ;)

Anyone who worries about global well-being has yet another reason to consume less red meat. Dr. Popkin, an epidemiologist at the University of North Carolina, said that a reduced dependence on livestock for food could help to save the planet from the ravaging effects of environmental pollution, global warming and the depletion of potable water.

I don't think the issue is meat, in and of it's self. I think it's the saturated fat issue (along with overeating, lack of exercise, etc), which goes way beyond meat. And, meat can contain healthier fats, depending on what is fed. Imnsho {grin}, it's processed food as a whole. Notice the "study" also noted lack of fresh healthy foods.

I'm sorry, I'm going to stick stubbornly by my "processed food" is the problem, not any one individual item. I mean really, is someone better off eating a processed diet but switching up beef for factory farmed chicken and polluted fish? That makes no sense to me. Dawg only knows what those chickens are eating (and how safe they are) and farmed fish are eating melamine laced feed, wild fish, well, whole 'nother set of toxins/earth destruction. I'm asking this honestly because I don't know . . .  is KFC healthier than McD's? Because that's kinda what it gets down to in our processed world.

I eat meat. Not every day of the week, but when I do it usually does exceed 4oz if I'm having a steak, stew, etc. (but if you average it over a week . . ) But it's pastured beef. I also eat pork (now a red meat again?!) a few times a month. Poultry also (free range from  a local). I actually do more research these days on the seafood I eat, lol!~ I do NOT eat processed food though. And in the past few years of eating more local and being with a CSA, my fresh food menu has grown. Things like Kale etc which for many are regional veggies and not a staple of the American diet. How often do you see processed food with something like kale? Our diet has been restricted down to a censored level as a whole. Growing up in suburban CA, kale just wasn't on the menu along with many other items (parents from mid-west). Once they started making food more uniform, we lost. certain regions have their "foods" in their diet, but they miss out on other foods. And big production that wants to sell nationwide and is convenient, cuts all those foods out. I really wish we had a comparable study from pre-processed. There was a great link that I no longer have that showed families from different areas with a week or months worth of food. And also one that showed an American family then and now. The amount of fresh food in both compared to American now was pretty obvious.

---

by: nycstray @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 07:20:31 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oh, I don't mean they controlled for it (4.00 / 1)

by controlling the peoples diets. They statistically controlled for it when they did the calculations.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:24:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

As for whats the problem, processed food vs. meat (4.00 / 2)

I'm interested in checking out a book called "The Queen of Fats: Why Omega-3s Were Removed from the Western Diet and What We Can Do to Replace Them" because it might be that. I'm not of the mind that it's any one food either per se, but our system of basing the entire food system on corn/soy. Which kind of goes hand in hand with your idea of processed foods as the problem.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:27:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, I think we're basically on the same page (4.00 / 2)

but I'm dead tired and brain compromised, so may not be reading and communicating well :)

I also would be interested in reading that book. I really think the problems are so freakin' obvious if we would just take a good look at history. Obviously we would need to factor other things in with past vs present, but with our food supply becoming more artificial, I think we have a damn good starting point. Just looking at manufactured vitamins and what they don't have that a natural source would have. Momma Nature is here for a reason . . . . . actually, lots of minute but essential reasons ;) And the crap they do to food to make it "grocery store ready", YIKES!!!  If you never want to eat store bought chicken again (once you get past the factory farms) do a bit of research on 'chicken washing' .  Or listen to the FDA/USDA change their safety overnight when it comes to big producers (live blogs during the melamine/pet food "issue" and the infant formula/dairy/melamine issue) {shudder}

Yet again, I have to give a shout out to my mom for not using much processed food, cooking from scratch and most importantly, teaching us well when it came to the kitchen/dinner table.

---

by: nycstray @ Fri May 01, 2009 at 08:55:14 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

well this is kind of (0.00 / 0)

good news for me.  I do limit my red meat to 2-3x per week, and it's usually hamburger once a week (organic, grass fed) and steak (lean sirloin for the most part).  sometimes it's hamburger or steak 2x a week, but usually we just eat it once a week.  I've always thought my red meat consumption kind of high, but I guess not compared to the "average" american.

---

by: chicklet @ Sat May 02, 2009 at 03:40:11 AM UTC