Too much red meat will kill you – study
Those of us who eat more red meat and processed meat face a greater risk of death by heart disease and cancer, according to a new study.
Said to be the largest study to date, more than half a million American men and women between the ages of 50 and 71 participated for ten years from 1995, with the results published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
During the follow-up period 47,976 men and 23,276 women died.
Red meat was defined as beef, pork, bacon, ham, hamburger, hot dogs, liver, pork sausage, steak, and meats in foods such as pizza, stews, and lasagna.
White meat included turkey, fish, chicken, and chicken mixtures.
Processed meat was white or red meat that was cured, dried, or smoked, such as bacon, chicken sausage, lunch meats, and cold cuts.
Lead study author Rashmi Sinha from the US National Cancer Institute called the increased risk modest, but said the findings support the advice of health groups to limit red and processed meat intake to decrease cancer risk.
However, the author of an accompanying editorial describes the risks found in the study as more than "modest."
Those who ate the most red meat consumed about 130 grams a day - the equivalent of a small steak or a quarter-pound hamburger.
Men who ate the daily equivalent of a quarter-pounder hamburger over 10 years had a 22% higher risk of dying of cancer and a 27% higher risk of dying of heart disease compared to those who ate the least red meat, around 150 grams per week.
Women who ate large amounts of red meat had a 20% higher chance of dying of cancer and a 50% higher chance of dying from heart disease than the women who ate less.
Interestingly, for processed meats, the increased risks for large quantities were slightly lower overall than for red meat, while people whose diets contained more white meat like chicken and fish had lower risks of overall and cancer death.
Ms Sinha says that 11% of all deaths in men and 16% of deaths in women could have been prevented if participants cut their red meat consumption to that eaten by the lowest intake group, and heart disease deaths could have been decreased by 11% in men and 21% in women by limiting red meat intake to the amount eaten by the lowest intake group.
Most Popular
Sponsored Links
- Talk to FleetPartners now and make the right decision about your vehicle fleet solution.
- Meet the SpaceseatTM, a new way to fly long-haul with Air NZ from November 2010
- Aviemore: " Grab an exclusive lake frontage land in South Island"
- Get your business banking up and running with Bizpac Essentials. Click here to find out more.
- Get 2.99%p.a. for 6 months on balances transferred to The Warehouse Rewards MasterCard. Conditions apply
.jpg)
Latest
- Cruise ship company expands into NZ
The good, the bad and the ugly - NBR 24/7's plays of the week- $19m claim but can Bill Birnie pay the bill?
- Bank seeks to liquidate Heatley-linked company
- What role for Auckland in primary economy?
- Jade’s profit slumps, but new product on the way
- Rich Listers and their ways
- Fletcher gears up for volume bounce-back
- Economy not much better than households think
- Telecom shares hit new low, but worse to come - analysts
NBR Services
.jpg)
Comments
yet another load of Cr_p
What a load of bollocks, this is an American study - they don’t eat meat they eat crap, product dressed to look like meat that’s then deep fried - no wonder they die.
You cannot run drivel like this without putting it into context!
We as NZ’ers eat lots of red meat, most of its 100 times healthier than anything the majority of this group eats , I notice there is no demographic – no doubt most were lower income which would increase the risk due to cheaper meals and more fat.
No doubt someone paid a lot for this expensive exercise in time wasting.
Too much red meat will kill you – study
And tonight I could be killed in a car accident on the way home!
I think that if one exercises moderation in all things and just gets on with enjoying life then one will probably live the longest, and the happiest.
Philip
Read meat
why oh why cant people publishing these studies outside USA not understand the fundamental differences between grain fed US beef and range fed A'sian beef!!!! It is so important that the study referred to above is about as much use to NZ'ers as knowing how to ride a horse on an urban motorway.
Study demographics
The group were said to be members of AAAP, indicating they were healthier than average, and the study was also adjusted for lifestyle factors such as smoking and exercise.
Red Meat
The most exciting item in this report is that a percentage of deaths in both men and women can be prevented, and not just deferred.
If eating hamburgers for 3650 days increases the risk of dying of cancer by 11% (eg from a 9% chance to a 10% chance), then your chances of dying of something else increase by 11%. If average life expectancy increases by only a short period (not addressed by this report) then there is precious little incentive to switch to processed meats or veganism.
Too much red meat will kill you!
Well no fare of that In NZ now at the price it is in the Supermarkets!Too much red? I cant even afford A decent feed of mutton these days,steak? well thats A feed of the past.
But wait, there's moret
...
Ms Sinha says that 11% of all deaths in men and 16% of deaths in women could have been prevented if participants cut their red meat consumption to that eaten by the lowest intake group.
So,... that means you just go on, and on, and on. I guess getting smellier by the year, with less and less (live) friends, but increasing numbers of smelly ones. What a load of drivel.
Fresh fruits
From my perspective, fresh fruits would be the best prevention & insurance of all.
Red meat study
Hello every one, including journalists.
This study is published in 'The Archives of Internal Medicine'.
So it is not mend for the common man to read.
It is important for the health profession and is part of the big picture.
That's all.
However, if you want to moan about it, moan about it.
Better stop breathing that
Better stop breathing that pollutant-laden air while you are at it. How many reports are there out there about how airborne pollutants cause cancer?
What rubbish, I eat at
What rubbish, I eat at least 1.5kg of Argentina beef each week plus two bottles of Malbec and have done for the past six years and my medical report is perfect. There is red meat and red meat and America food is amongst the most unhealthy in the world. Just look at them.
NZ vs. US stats
> healthier than anything the majority of this group eats
NZ'ers have 19% more heart disease than the USA:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_hea_dis_dea-health-heart-disease-d...
It's not the hormones, it's not about being range fed - it's about the meat. I hate the fact, too. I love a good steak. But I've also watched family die of cancer and heart disease, and it's not a nice way to go. The book "The China Study" is a very interesting overview of the science.
participants
I noticed that ages of participants were between 50 and 71. No wonder there were lots of deaths. We don't live long enough these days. Why did they not try the 30 to 40 age brackets?
Red meat
I wonder what would happen if they factored in the cancer-promoting polyunsaturated fats used in most vegetable oils used to cook the meat.
Polyunsaturated fats also become unstable at high temperatures, as opposed to the supposedly "bad" saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil that have a higher melting point AND are higher in heart-healthy Omega 3, while the vegetable oils are stacked with inflammation-promoting Omega 6, which we get far too much of already in our diets thanks to our obsession with eating obesity and diabetes-causing grain products.
Omega 6 is also found in large quantities in grain-fed beef (which, as mentioned above, is commonly used in the US), while grass-fed beef (what New Zealanders mainly eat) is loaded with much more Omega 3.
If red meat really is so bad then why did red meat and saturated fat-consuming cultures like the Maasai and the Australian aborigines have such longevity and low-to-non-existent rates of cancer and heart disease before white folk turned up and introduced their dieting "wisdom" (and alcohol)?
Why has consumption of meat gone down over the past few decades in Western countries, while heart disease and cancer have skyrocketed?
I know there are other factors involved, but I just wish researchers would pay as much attention to the lethal effects of vegan diets, and the nutrient-stripping properties of legumes and grains as they do to finding any possible harm that may come from eating red meat in order to back up their existing prejudices.
vegetarian?
It sounds like lead study author Rashmi Sinha from the US National Cancer Institute is a vegetarian.
Not a vegetarian.
The lead author is not a vegetarian and explicitly does not advocate removing red meat from the diet, rather, she advocates cutting red meat consumption back and increasing white meat, fruit, and vegetable consumption.
"Lethal effects of vegan
"Lethal effects of vegan diets"? Niko, you need to do your research.
See Dr Neal Barnard, or The China Study, or Dr Michael Klaper.
Vegan diets reverse diabetes, lower cholesterol and prevent heart disease and obesity.
Vegan diets are not lethal. I suggest you read The China Study and skim the work of Barnard and Klaper before making such sweeping statements. There are plenty of living vegans who refute your point by their very existence.
"lethal" vegan diets
Wikipedia: A 2006 study found that in people with type 2 diabetes a low-fat vegan diet reduced weight, BMI, total cholesterol, and LDL cholesterol and did so to a greater extent than the diet prescribed by the American Diabetes Association.
People who avoid meat are reported to have lower body mass index than those following the average Canadian diet; from this follows lower death rates from ischemic heart disease; lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.
You can get everything you need (in terms of nutrients) from a vegan diet aside from B12, which is plentiful in fortified foods such as soy milk and cereals. At the same time, you avoid cholesterol (which is only found in animal products) and lower your risk of disease.
Vegan diets are not lethal (aside from one weird case involving a baby and two eccentric parents) and to say so is fearmongering.
Vegan diets
Vegan diets are technically lethal as there is no natural plant source of vitamin B12, which is essential for human health. The ONLY, and I repeat, ONLY, natural source of B12 comes from animal products.
Sure, you can take supplements and drink fortified soy milk (don't get me started on the dangers of drinking soy milk), but the fact remains that if you had been on a vegan diet before these innovations you would have died within years, once the B12 stores from your meat-eating years had run out. How can a diet that kills you without artificial supplementation be healthy?
True vitamin A (retinol) can also only be found in animal products. Plus, the idea that low cholesterol levels are good for you is another myth that took off following Ancel Keys' misguided research that led to the low-fat craze that set us up for an explosion of diabetes. And speaking of which, if you want to treat or prevent diabetes, the best way is to lower your carbohydrate intake and increase your consumption of protein and fat, which is difficult to do unless you consume at least some animal products in your diet.
Let's be honest and name the real killers in our diets: white bread and fizzy drink.
The leading cause of vitamin
The leading cause of vitamin B12 deficiency disease is lack of intrinsic factor (i.e. body's inability to absorb the vitamin), not a lack of B12 consumption (B12 is recycled by the body). This is regardless of meat eating habits.
The average person in Western society consumes 400% of their recommended daily intake of protein - so that throws your diabetes theory out the window.
Cholesterol - hello, open heart surgery! Clogged arteries!
Why is it that veganism is considered "insane" but cutting people open and putting them on cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives is "medically conservative"?
I've often wondered why people get so defensive when faced with the prospect of veganism. I've concluded it's because they're presented with the possibility that you can live healthily without killing animals – and that there's nothing to justify it any more. That's pretty scary, if you have to stand up and say "I eat meat (and kill animals) to satisfy my appetite, not because I need it". Then moral factors come into play - which, for some people, is too much to cope with.
Niko, you'll have to admit that no-one ever died from eating too much fruit and veg. But too much meat (as evidenced by the article above) can be bad for you.
More myths
May I point out that the majority of heart disease patients have normal to low cholesterol levels? And as for the recommended daily intakes, I'm supposed to eat 300g of carbohydrate per day, which is equivalent to seven McDonald's BLT Bagels. No wonder we've got diabetes! I agree putting people on cholesterol-lowering drugs is insane, high cholesterol is NOT a bad thing! What is the real risk factor for heart disease? Triglycerides! What causes them to accumulate in our blood? Carbohydrates!
So maybe if we paid as much attention to the dangers of bread as we did to the dangers of red meat we may solve many of our health problems, rather than getting in useless arguments about veganism when we both agree eating plenty of fruit and vegetables is good for you.
This is my first time on the
This is my first time on the NBR website and Niko I dont know who you are but you need to relax, buddy.
steak
From the story on Stuff: http://www.stuff.co.nz/life-style/2289972/Study-links-red-meat-to-premat...
"Sinha's team noted that meat contains several cancer-causing chemicals, as well as the unhealthiest forms of fat."
It doesnt matter how much we try to justify it to ourselves, meat is unhealthy (as your article shows), regardless of other factors such as high fruit and veg intake.
Eric is right - the China Study is a well-researched presentation of why not to eat meat.
I'm trying to cut down and eventually get to a vegan diet - all the evidence points to that as the healthiest diet of all. Preferably a raw vegan diet, have a look at the guy Tim Orden, search youtube for Running Raw.
Relax
I am very relaxed, thanks to the high levels of B12 in my diet. B12 deficiency causes anger and depression, as does low cholesterol. In Japanese culture high cholesterol is considered a good thing, and seeing the Japanese live longer than anyone else on the planet I'm inclined to believe them.
Meat does not contain the unhealthiest forms of fat. Saturated fat has never been proven to be dangerous; in fact, the most dangerous forms of fat are trans fats, which are found in hydrogenated vegetable oils, which as I mentioned earlier are commonly used in the preparation of meat.
If you stuff yourself with burnt grain-fed, Omega 6-loaded beef cooked in vegetable oil then yes, you will probably get cancer. If you eat New Zealand-grown grass-fed, non-hormone-added, Omega 3-rich beef or lamb (lamb is better as it is higher in alpha-lipoic acid), cooked in virgin coconut oil while also consuming a wide variety of colourful vegetables and cutting out bread, pasta and potatoes from your diet your health will improve instantly (as mine did when I tried it).
Vegetarians have never been able to explain how cultures such as the Maasai, the Australian aborigines and the Innuit have managed such longevity and good health, with cancer and disease virtual unknowns, while consuming red meat, saturated fat-loaded diets. The fact is that all red meats are not created equal, and studies that only look at 'red meat' as one homogenous group are intellectually dishonest.
The biggest risk factor for cancer worldwide is grain consumption. We feed grains to our cattle and they become fat and diseased, then we not only eat grains but also eat the meat from these same fat and diseased animals, and then express surprise we're fat and diseased! We as a species are reaping what we've sown, in every sense of the word.
Sorry, but...
I'm afraid I'm going to trust the science of researchers such as Barnard, Campbell and Klaper and the PCRM as a whole over the dubious health claims of a journalist.
The study quoted in the article underlines what modern medicine now knows to be true: meat is not good for you.
Sadly, the meat and dairy industries still have millions of dollars to spend on advertising to make you think otherwise.
Studies show that eating
Studies show that eating meat makes you defensive.
Research
Mark, I suggest you go beyond what is reported in the media (no disrespect intended to my fellow journalists), and check out the research of people such as Weston A. Price and Viljhalmur Stefansson, which showed the remarkable health of "primitive" meat-loving civilizations compared to disease and obesity-ravaged Western populations that spend half their time looking for reasons not to eat meat.
I NEVER disputed the study's results, just asked why factors such as grass-fed versus grain-fed weren't accounted for, and why so much attention is always given to finding negative health effects of meat while people ignore the severe health consequences of following a food pyramid that encourages you to eat six or more servings of grain products a day. THAT will kill you far quicker than having one too many steaks for dinner.
Why don't you write an
Why don't you write an article about those issues then?
why not write an article?
Probably because vegetarianism and veganism is supported (and scientifically backed up by) the Dietitians of Canada and the American Dietetic Association, the American Medical Association and Dr Benjamin Spock (pediatrics) among many others, whereas the Weston A. Price foundation is listed on Quackwatch.org and Stefansson died in 1962, so he's hardly up with the play.
An excess of grains will
An excess of grains will kill you but an excess of steak won't?
Readers, please don't buy into this rubbish.
Post new comment