Althouse: "Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death..."

March 12, 2012

"Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death..."

"... according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years."

74 comments:

Mike and Sue said...: Bull...; 3/12/12, 10:03 PM
rcocean said...: I'm skeptical of the math involved.

But I'll stay away from Hot dogs in any case.; 3/12/12, 10:12 PM
David said...: "Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet.""

So glad to know that. It tells me a lot about your study too.; 3/12/12, 10:15 PM
1775OGG said...: Ah come on! Nathans are great and tasty too! But mechanically separated wienies probably should be avoided except when truly hungry and everything else is gone!; 3/12/12, 10:18 PM
traditionalguy said...: That is a level of nonsense that would make an AlGore Warmist blush.

Cooked red meat Lamb and Beef is medicine to the human body. Sure, too much of anything can cause overweight problems among some non exercisers.

But the protein megadose you get from eating lamb and beef is a very good part of a healthy diet.

Pork is not good for your health. That's a white meat.

Fish is OK. Eat Mor Chikin.

The usual fake science which is all religion aims slipped into this propaganda article...eliminating the Hoax Harm from of Cow made Pollution coupled with turning strong men into weak vegans doing yoga.; 3/12/12, 10:20 PM
Sorun said...: Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions...

We need to consider the effect trading off cow farts for human farts if humans adopt a more vegetarian diet.

I eat mostly chicken breasts, which I cook on the grill. They're great in salads, on a sandwich, in chili, on spaghetti, etc. I never tire of them.; 3/12/12, 10:22 PM
Petunia said...: Good. That means I'll be dead sooner than I thought, and probably won't have to worry whether I can put an IV catheter in my own hand and get the euthanasia solution in.; 3/12/12, 10:26 PM
Palladian said...: Bullshit.

And even if it isn't, who cares? Who wants to live forever eating tofu patties?; 3/12/12, 10:35 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Dont cry for me Argentina

Argentina has the world’s highest beef eating consumption rate in the world, at 65 kilogram per capita annually.The people from the United States eat 40 kilogram per year and those in Europe only 17 kilogram. Argentina is the third largest exporter of beef in the world after Australia and Brazil.; 3/12/12, 10:39 PM
Synova said...: I wonder how many more years my 102 year old grandmother would have had if she didn't eat beef?

Seriously... who, in the real world, eats red meat daily who isn't eating a cheeseburger?

I probably did as a kid (at least near enough) since we had our own cattle, but while I love a nice rare steak or beef roast and we're not scraping for groceries, it's expensive. (We don't have salmon every day either, or shrimp.)

So... fast food cheese burgers...

... and the conclusion that red meat is unhealthy.; 3/12/12, 10:39 PM
Dante said...: I like the part about heating being the culprit. Isn't it the health department that said "Better cook that meat done, done?"

Why, yes it is:
http://www.foodsafety.gov/keep/charts/mintemp.html; 3/12/12, 10:44 PM
Nichevo said...: Thanks Lem, this is important. The Argies have us beat 65-40? I see I haven't been doing my job! Time to step up, laddie...; 3/12/12, 10:45 PM
MadisonMan said...: As if vegans aren't smug enough.; 3/12/12, 10:47 PM
chickelit said...: Did Breitbart eat a lot of red meat?; 3/12/12, 10:48 PM
Anonymous said...: For once I'm going to agree with the conservatives here, total baloney. Red meat contains L Carnitine and many other essential nutrients and healthy fats. It's the PUFAs that clog arteries, not saturated fats.

There is also a move away from statins and the notion that it's all cholesterol that causes heart disease. It's inflammation. Ask far VAP test when you have a lipid panel drawn next time. Also wise to have a CRP drawn to determine your inflammation level.

People would be wiser avoiding all wheat products, PUFAs and sugar.; 3/12/12, 10:50 PM
crosspatch said...: Trouble is, nearly every single one of these "studies" turns out to be bogus.; 3/12/12, 10:52 PM
Anonymous said...: Breitbart probably ate a lot of carbohydrates.; 3/12/12, 10:55 PM
Steven said...: Well.

"We stopped updating the dietary variables when the participants reported a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus, stroke, coronary heart disease, angina, or cancer because these conditions might lead to changes in diet."; 3/12/12, 10:55 PM
edutcher said...: Yeah, Nathan's are great, but they have the world's greatest cheese fries - which probably poses a hazard also.

Ah, well...; 3/12/12, 10:59 PM
Kevin Walsh said...: Nobody gets out of this world alive. SOMETHING is gonna kill ya.

What would the docs who warn us about this and that prefer we die OF?; 3/12/12, 11:00 PM
Anonymous said...: Judging by how much nutritional information has been officially handed out over the last few decades, I'm confident that I can ignore this.; 3/12/12, 11:02 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Reading correlational studies -- any number in any discipline -- appears to significantly increase the risk of ignorance.; 3/12/12, 11:06 PM
Skippy said...: The Seventh Day Adventists men who follow a vegetarian diet and are thin as rails live something like seven years longer than meat-consumers. Went to a class many years ago sponsored by a Seventh Day Adventist health organization and the doctor said, "If you want to kill your husband, feed him beef and ice cream."
Those with slow murder on their minds might consider that...; 3/12/12, 11:09 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Not eating red meat is strongly correlated with being a health nut. Being a health nut is strongly correlated with exercising.

My bet is that the exercising overcomes benefits lost from cutting red meat out of the diet and leads to the longer lifespans. There's nothing like exercise for health, no foods can match its benefits. (Though I do think red meat is very good for people.); 3/12/12, 11:10 PM
Skyler said...: My dad always told me that mashed potatoes are poisonous because everyone who eats them dies someday.; 3/12/12, 11:38 PM
LoafingOaf said...: The science says that the less red meat you eat the better for your health, and you should consider cutting back on red meat.

Some Sarah Palin fan called "Freeman Hunt", talking out of her butthole, says "I do think red meat is very good for people". Some fatso Sarah Palin fan called "Palladian" also talks out of his butt, declaring the science "bull" but then says even if it's not no one should care.

Make your own choices, but they should be INFORMED decisions. Those Sarah Palin worshippers tend to want to keep people misinformed. It's like they're on a jihad about it.

And right-wingers generally continue to attack Michelle Obama because she pushes healthy diets. She's a "Food Nazi" or something...blah blah blah.....; 3/13/12, 12:32 AM
Methadras said...: This just in, you will die. Film at 11.; 3/13/12, 1:09 AM
Alex said...: LoafingOaf - I don't eat much read meat these days. Mostly chicken, turkey, fish. Red meat is more of a treat.; 3/13/12, 1:10 AM
Palladian said...: Ahh, I see Sarah Palin's Pussy still has a firm hold on "LoafingOaf's" worried brain. WHO THE FUCK MENTIONED SARAH PALIN?!

It's funny, I don't think I've mentioned Sarah Palin, or even thought much about her, for months. Yet, every minute of every day, she haunts LoafingOaf's tiny mind, pushing her stiletto heel upon his cerebellum again and again, each another loud fateful rap on the door of his undoing.

He reads the words "eating red meat" and a jolt shoots through his body: "SARAH! MUST... COMMENT... ABOUT... SARAH... PALIN!" Red meat makes him think of Sarah Palin... chocolate grinders make him think about Sarah Palin. The Venerable Bede makes him think about Sarah Palin.

Alas! Another chance to shout THE SCIENCE IS SETTLED. Away to the keyboard! I must make a a gibbering ass of myself, again! LEAVE ME ALONE, SARAH! MEAT MONSTER! HYPOCRITE LECTEUR! MON SEMBLABLE! MON FRÈRE!; 3/13/12, 1:27 AM
Palladian said...: Back on planet earth, and dedicated to Dr Dean Ornish and Michelle Obama, here's a delicious French bistro meal I cooked last week.; 3/13/12, 1:31 AM
Darrell said...: Drinking water--any amount and any type--appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death.; 3/13/12, 2:20 AM
Darrell said...: So that's why the Obama Administration is pursuing policies that have almost put red meat out of the reach of average citizens pricewise. He cares about you.

He wants gasoline to at least reach $8/gallon, according to remarks made by Cabinet members.
That's how much he cares.; 3/13/12, 2:44 AM
gadfly said...: There is nothing like conclusive photographic evidence to put this stupid vegan-influenced study to bed once-and-for-all.; 3/13/12, 3:09 AM
gadfly said...: Then there is the "cows cause global warming" claim by the author, Doctor Dean Ornish:

Many people are surprised to learn that animal agribusiness generates more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined. The livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions than transportation as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent (18% vs 13%). It is also responsible for 37% of all the human-induced methane, which is 23 times more toxic to the ozone layer than carbon dioxide, as well as generating 65% of the human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the global warming potential of carbon dioxide. Nitrous oxide and methane mostly come from manure, and 56 billion food animals produce a lot of manure each day.

But according to a far more qualified expert, the infamous skeptic, Lord Monckton:

What about the methane from cattle? Should we give up eating meat to Save The Planet? ... Lord Monckton, as always, had the data to hand. In the past decade, he said, methane concentration had risen by just 20 parts per billion, which might cause 1/350 C° of warming. This was too little to matter. Leave the cows alone.; 3/13/12, 3:40 AM
Anonymous said...: Loafing Oaf, I agree that we should respect science, but there are so many studies paid for by different food industries that we need to be skeptical. Also reading many studies conducted by non biased entities are a good idea.

I have a friend who has been a vegetarian for most of his adult life, he was just diagnosed with diabetes. I have diabetic friends who adopted a low carb diet and have reversed their diabetes or significantly cut back on insulin.

I'm a liberal who believes in global warming caused by greenhouse gases. Let's not fall into the pattern of dismissing science we think doesn't agree with the liberal agenda out of hand.

As a liberal we need to not emulate the group think mentality of other well known ideologies. Also as a liberal let's be big enough to agree with conservatives when they are actually right about something.; 3/13/12, 5:54 AM
Anonymous said...: Also Freeman Hunt is on to something with her assertion that exercise is great for you. Studies show that exercise doesn't burn a whole lot of calories, but it does something far better, it actually changes the mitochondria of the cell, allowing it to function better. So on the cellular level as well as on the level of improving strength and stamina, do by all means exercise.

Breitbart was doughy, pale and often ashen in appearance, I doubt it was anger that killed him, it was his lifestyle.; 3/13/12, 6:08 AM
Anonymous said...: So much for the Paleo diet.; 3/13/12, 6:38 AM
Moose said...: Meat in any quantity when part of the standard carbohydrate heavy "healthy" diet is pretty bad.
Given the effects of carbs on insulin production, any fats you eat are pretty much guaranteed to harm you rather than help you.; 3/13/12, 6:51 AM
lemondog said...: Sin taxes:

tobacco – done
alcohol – done
soda pop – various local
bad (junk) food
red meat
next.........

Quit yer beefin'........it’s for your own good.......! plus it will help pay for trillion $$$ deficits!; 3/13/12, 6:54 AM
Moose said...: Isn't pork white meat?; 3/13/12, 6:54 AM
SGT Ted said...: Ya right. Utter bullshit on stilts.; 3/13/12, 8:06 AM
dreams said...: I'm not buying it. I believe the high carb diet is the main cause of western diseases.; 3/13/12, 8:16 AM
SGT Ted said...: "Red meat is bad for you" is a anti-meat, pro-Animal rights propaganda line. At this point in time, there's no science that backs their claims.

There's more evidence that vegetarian diets are unhealthy.

This isn't science; its advocacy.; 3/13/12, 8:17 AM
dreams said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/13/12, 8:21 AM
dreams said...: "As a liberal we need to not emulate the group think mentality of other well known ideologies. Also as a liberal let's be big enough to agree with conservatives when they are actually right about something."

With an open mind even liberals can grow and become more conservative.; 3/13/12, 8:33 AM
traditionalguy said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 3/13/12, 8:34 AM
traditionalguy said...: Viagrafor all...The religion of food specializes in regulation of diet.

Not eating "unclean food" becomes the highlight of righteousness for all religions. A few examples are as follows:

Not drinking/eating alcohol is added by Baptists.

Not eating pork is added by Muzzies and Hebrews.

Not eating at McDonalds is added by liberals.

Not eating/drinking coffee or tea is added by Mormons.

Not eating grits is added by Yankees.

Not eating red meat is added by Hindus.

Seeking righteousness from man's diet is as old as religion itself.

Where have you been? Living in a Bubble?; 3/13/12, 8:35 AM
virgil xenophon said...: I'm with you all the way, Petunia!!

A buddy of mine has assured me that when I'm sitting in a wheel-chair on the second floor of a nursing home looking out of a window overlooking the parking-lot as I drool on myself, he'll come and quietly slip the cyanide capsule between my teeth and deftly take my jaw in one hand and my skull in the other and crunch down..lol; 3/13/12, 8:39 AM
themightypuck said...: Hi5 gadfly. Time to put into action the Nigella Lawson diet.; 3/13/12, 8:50 AM
Freeman Hunt said...: The science says that the less red meat you eat the better for your health, and you should consider cutting back on red meat.

Oh really? How about a link?

This one doesn't establish that. If you can find one that does, I'll give you a quarter.

I eat tons of red meat and saturated fat. I do this based on science. My HDL and triglycerides are incredible.; 3/13/12, 8:51 AM
virgil xenophon said...: SGT Ted is right, this is advocacy. But gadfly wins the thread with his hands-down, ABSOLUTELY IRONCLAD PROOF that the paleo diet is the ONLY WAY TO GO in the form of his UNCONTESTIBLE PHOTOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE. LOL!!!; 3/13/12, 8:56 AM
carrie said...: But does it also increase the chance of living longer? Just about all of my red meating eating, butter eating parents, aunts, uncles and grandparents lived into their 90s and 100s. So, it seems to me that eating red meat might increase your chance of living longer than average too. What my relatives didn't do was drink alcohol. It is ludicrous to link one aspect of a livestyle with longevity since there are so many things in a livestyle that can impact longevity.; 3/13/12, 9:01 AM
Triangle Man said...: Reading correlational studies -- any number in any discipline -- appears to significantly increase the risk of ignorance.

Trouble is, nearly every single one of these "studies" turns out to be bogus.

eat tons of red meat and saturated fat. I do this based on science. My HDL and triglycerides are incredible

Studies show that exercise...

To summarize, we only believe studies that confirm our preconceived notions.; 3/13/12, 9:22 AM
Triangle Man said...: This isn't science; its advocacy.

Nonsense. Although animal rights advocates may try to use information like this to their advantage, the authors of this study have no link to that political movement. They suggest that eating less red meat by substituting healthier proteins (Eet mor chikn) could lead to a longer life based on their observations over nearly three decades in tens of thousands of people.

As an observational study, the results may be influenced by unmeasured variables, but if you want to make decisions about your diet based on evidence, this is the best evidence that currently exists. Also, unless someone pays for a 30 year randomized trial of red-meat eating, then observational studies will be the only evidence we will have; 3/13/12, 9:29 AM
Joe said...: Diets were assessed through questionnaires every four years.

Several years ago I was invited to take part of the same type of study from, I believe, the American Cancer Institute. I accepted. Then I started filling out the first questionnaire. It was obviously rigged to give the results they wanted and it asked several questions* that had no chance of being accurate. I threw it away and withdrew.

(*I was in my forties and it asked questions about thing from my teens. Oh, yeah, that's going to be accurate.

Thus, back to this recent "study"; who is going to remember their diet for the last four years? One actual study did look at this very issue and found that people are extremely bad at estimating their food intake. If I remember right, the difference was about 30%. Now that I'm recording my diet on myfitnesspal, I'd tend to agree [I actually save packages and/or receipts from lunch and use them to enter my food totals. I've also discovered how easy it is to "forget" those little snacks.]); 3/13/12, 9:31 AM
Triangle Man said...: @carrie

They took alcohol use into account. Here is a complete of variables they "controlled" for in the analysis:

Total calories of intake
whole grains
fruits
vegetables
age
body mass index
race
smoking status
alcohol intake
physical activity level
multivitamin use
aspirin use
family history of diabetes, heart attack, or cancer
personal history of diabetes, hypertension, high cholesterol
menopause status and hormone use in women; 3/13/12, 9:33 AM
Triangle Man said...: @Joe

Diet recall questionnaires are not precise measurements, but they can do a reasonably good job of categorizing people as to their intake, and especially for comparing the extremes. These questionnaires are validated against other methods like 24-hour diet diaries. With an every-four-year approach, they can look at people who are consistently high versus consistently low also.

Given that there is a lot of "noise" in the system, isn't it more remarkable that they detect a signal, not less?; 3/13/12, 9:38 AM
Triangle Man said...: But does it also increase the chance of living longer?

@carrie

Because everyone dies eventually, what they are measuring is the risk of "earlier" death. I would have preferred to see the results translated into an average number of years gained/lost to make this clear.; 3/13/12, 9:39 AM
bandmeeting said...: Paleo and proud. I eat fat like crazy. 5'9" 135lbs of muscle.; 3/13/12, 9:41 AM
SGT Ted said...: As a liberal we need to not emulate the group think mentality of other well known ideologies.

I admire your sentiment, but groupthink is part and parcel for liberal ideology of all stripes, especially your adherence to AGW hypothesis. I don't even consider AGW as a theory at this point as none of the theoretical claims made by the AGW crowd have materialized.

USA OUT OF MY FREEZER AND COOKBOOKS!!; 3/13/12, 9:55 AM
SGT Ted said...: When we went away from a meat centric diet asnd pushed the bogus "food pyramid" of huge helpings of grains and other carbs, our kids got fatter and more unhealthy over the next 20 years.

This is undisputable.

Far too many "food studies" are proven bullshit over time, usually spondored by those who stand to make money from the "results". All of them do it, including the "pure food" and "organic" freaks.

Anti-meat studies are usually junk science pushed by competing businesses, like the Soy industry or "animal rights" fanatics.

A lengthy questionaire that is a self reported history of ones diet isn't a science experiment, because they don't know what these people really ate or in what quantities. There is NO control, despite claims to the contrary. If so, then we will have the actual foods consumed by quantity and frequency, as provided by the experimenters for their control group. Oh, they didn't do that? Then this isn't science.

Pretending this is real science doesn't make it real science. It just shows you as gullible, if you buy into it.; 3/13/12, 10:11 AM
Anonymous said...: I also eat plenty of red meat and animal fats, butter, cream, cheese, full fat Greek yogurt.

My triglycerides are lower than what they've been my entire adult life. My HDL is terrific, my LDL is higher than accepted levels, but are of the type A pattern which are the light and fluffy variety as opposed to the small dense which are the ones that adhere to blood vessel walls. The particle size testing( VAP)drawn with a lipid panel is what will tell you need to know about your total cholesterol. My fasting blood sugars were heading into the pre diabetic range, they ate completely normal now.

Now that is evidence based medicine.

Plus I lost over 30 pounds eating fatty red meat and delicious dark chocolate, what could be better? It is the Paleo way of life.; 3/13/12, 10:22 AM
Triangle Man said...: Now that is evidence based medicine.

However remarkable a women you are, Ms. Oopenheimer, your personal experience is as utterly irrelevant as medical evidence as the testimonials of homeopathic remedy users.; 3/13/12, 10:41 AM
Triangle Man said...: A lengthy questionaire that is a self reported history of ones diet isn't a science experiment, because they don't know what these people really ate or in what quantities. There is NO control, despite claims to the contrary. If so, then we will have the actual foods consumed by quantity and frequency, as provided by the experimenters for their control group. Oh, they didn't do that? Then this isn't science.

Randomized experiments are not the only valid study design. There are many important scientific questions that can not or should not be answered by a randomized study.; 3/13/12, 10:45 AM
William said...: Our mayor, Nanny Bloomberg, was until just recently pushing the health benefits of taking a 81mg aspirin daily. It turns out that your chances of developing a GI bleed from such a regimen are much greater than the prevention of a heart attack or stroke by such intake. They now say that unless you're in a high risk group, you should forgo the baby aspirin....We have an imprecise understanding of diet, economics, and God, but, for all that, we are willing to go to great lengths to inflict our beliefs on others.; 3/13/12, 10:48 AM
lemondog said...: Rocks!........USDA approved diet.

Plenty of fibre and minerals.

Added incentive: IRS rehabilitation clean up credit available.

We analyzed data from 2 prospective cohort studies: the HPFS (initiated in 1986, n = 51 529 men aged 40-75 years)....

Study 1986 to 2008 = 22 years. At the inception what was % of older men (say 62 or so) to overall and what % of these older men died by the study conclusion?; 3/13/12, 10:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Triangle man, not if my experience matches the experience of thousands of people, in a scientific study not funded by any food lobbies. There are things to be learned by these studies, one needs to do their homework when reading them though.

My experience is in no way unusual, people all over the world are seeing chronic conditions improve with this diet change away from the SAD.

William is correct about the risks of taking a baby aspirin daily. If you don't have your blood pressure under control, the risk of a fatal bleed is increased significantly.; 3/13/12, 11:01 AM
Triangle Man said...: Triangle man, not if my experience matches the experience of thousands of people, in a scientific study not funded by any food lobbies.

You dismissed a large high-quality study published in a top peer-reviewed medical journal and substitute your personal experience. You may be right, but the only way to know is through another study. Sgt. TED probably won't believe the results of that one either I assume because he doesn't want anyone telling him what to do.; 3/13/12, 11:33 AM
dreams said...: High carb diets are the cause of high
triglycerides which is very bad for heart disease.; 3/13/12, 11:35 AM
Mattman26 said...: Triangle Man, I understand your position; and surely individual results, by themselves, are not statistically significant.

However, these studies tend to be so flawed as to be meaningless. Does that make me smarter than a bunch of Harvard MDs and PhDs? Maybe not, but you don't have to swallow what they say whole. These same researchers released a study last year supposedly demonstrating that processed meats (sausages, cold cuts) were linked to death, but unprocessed meat was not.

Things to bear in mind: Self-reported studies carry extreme limitations; and any other kind of study is all but impossible to do over the long haul. Next: Correlation is not causation; it's just not. And finally (for now, at least): How do they "control" for confounding factors (weight, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, genetic predisposition, etc.) I don't know, and neither do you. But you can bet there's enough wiggle room in those controls to come up with about any result you'd like.

Garbage in, garbage out, my friend. Add a dash of save-the-planet predilection, and now it's just highly seasoned garbage.; 3/13/12, 12:03 PM
Triangle Man said...: @Mattman26

All I am saying is that there is value to these studies and they should not be dismissed out of hand because "correlation is not causation", or because a questionnaire is used.; 3/13/12, 12:09 PM
Mattman26 said...: Triangle Man, all I am saying (and trying to explain) is that you are wrong. That's all.; 3/13/12, 12:13 PM
Triangle Man said...: @Mattman26

Correlation can be a result of causation. If you can rule out chance and limit the influence of a well-characterized set of biases, you can glean useful information about the relationship between exposure and disease from an observed association.

If you are interested to know how to live a long and healthy life, you need to have a study or rely on charlatans. Since a randomized trial is not always possible or desirable, one could conduct a well designed cohort study like the ones in the published report to characterize people according to their exposure and then follow them over time to observe what happens to them. You can then compare the rates of disease in people who are exposed to the rates in people who are not exposed.

A healthy level of skepticism and concern for the validity of the measures is warranted, but does not eliminate the value of the information presented.; 3/13/12, 2:32 PM
Triangle Man said...: And finally (for now, at least): How do they "control" for confounding factors (weight, exercise, alcohol, tobacco, genetic predisposition, etc.) I don't know, and neither do you. But you can bet there's enough wiggle room in those controls to come up with about any result you'd like.

I do know how they do this.; 3/13/12, 2:33 PM