Reducing meat in my diet

ninerbuff
ninerbuff Posts: 48,488 Member
edited June 2023 in Food and Nutrition
Being open minded and learning through studies has helped to not only keep me fitter, but healthier as well. Although diabetes doesn't run on my side of the family, I still believe that avoidance of it by doing the necessary things possible to reduce risk is something we should all attempt.
That said, one of the markers for many with diabetes is the about how much animal consumption they have in their diets. Most people believe it's sugars and carbs that cause diabetes, however so many studies out there associate consumption of animal products with diabetes. I personally had to look over a few studies with vegetarians and diabetes and meat consumption with diabetes and it's pretty obvious that those who consumed more meat products had higher risk for diabetes than vegetarians by a pretty wide margin.
So that in mind, I've been trying to just reduce the amount of animal products we eat daily, since I do practially all the cooking at home. Trying to reduce it down to no more than 3 times a week.
Anyway here's a couple of studies that I read that helped to steer me this direction.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

9285851.png
«1

Replies

  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Thanks for posting the studies! I've found the same, that animal consumption appears to be linked with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,400 Member
    Well Niner, I live in Italy and we're eating Mediterranean. That means meat 2 or at most 3 times a week, and using fish and eggs to fill in. For us it's a healthier option. I agree with Ann that fruits, vegetables, and legumes are important. Let us know how it goes.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,578 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so

    Best wishes, sincerely!

    While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,953 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so

    Best wishes, sincerely!

    While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.

    Sure. Meat per se, as a comprehensive broad category? Personally, I'm not seeing a persuasive case.

    I said this:
    It probably is true that common developed world eating patterns involve more than essential amounts of meat, probably favor fatty/fried/rich (indulgent) m)eats and perhaps include more processed meats (which seem to have a correlation with some health problems)

    I don't think we're saying anything wildly different. I think the statistically average developed-world person probably eats more than optimal red and (especially) processed meat.

    I'm no self-optimizing paragon, for sure, but I feel like quite a few people here are more loosey-goosey than I. Whether they/you/I are more nearly right objectively . . . every individual is going to find some formula (I hope) that they can live with.

    Humans are adaptive omnivores. That's not a panacea, but it's helpful
  • BeanieBean93
    BeanieBean93 Posts: 56 Member
    I know plenty of people who eat meat daily and are the epitome of health. I also know people who eat meat daily and are riddled with health problems. I don't think there is enough non-biased research and I believe there are many other variables that are not accounted for. I think that if two people had the exact same genetics, lived in the exact same household, did the exact same job, same exercise, same activities, had the same children, spouses, pets and social circle that the 1 eating less meat would be slightly better off. The type of meat as well as the origin would also have to be controlled though. And the likelihood of being able to run that type of long term study is next to impossible because we don't live in bubbles. So unless there are multiple sets of identical twins willing to sign up for a 100% controlled study from the day they are born, I don't see it happening.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,871 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so

    Best wishes, sincerely!

    While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.

    That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,578 Member
    edited June 2023
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so

    Best wishes, sincerely!

    While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.

    That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers

    I don't need to, that's the purpose of the class 1 designation for processed meat. They've done the research, because they're the scientists. That being said, that's specifically processed meat. I don't take issue with meat as a whole.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,871 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so

    Best wishes, sincerely!

    While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.

    That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers

    I don't need to, that's the purpose of the class 1 designation for processed meat. They've done the research, because they're the scientists. That being said, that's specifically processed meat. I don't take issue with meat as a whole.

    No of course you don't have to look and probably why you agreed with the conclusions of those initial 3 studies, because science. Cheers.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,578 Member
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so

    Best wishes, sincerely!

    While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.

    That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers

    I don't need to, that's the purpose of the class 1 designation for processed meat. They've done the research, because they're the scientists. That being said, that's specifically processed meat. I don't take issue with meat as a whole.

    No of course you don't have to look and probably why you agreed with the conclusions of those initial 3 studies, because science. Cheers.

    🤣 Actually, I have looked at them. What I meant was I don't need to publicly post them for you to publicly disagree with. You're welcome to post and disagree with them yourself if you'd like.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,871 Member
    edited June 2023
    Here's a Q&A on the carcinogenicity of red meat and processed meat from the WHO
    https://iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf

    Q. Processed meats are classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this
    mean?

    A. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other
    words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually
    based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
    In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from
    epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.


    A nugget of science: Epidemiological studies are observational studies of populations around the world and the impact of nutrition on health, which can never show causation, only correlation. Sufficient evidence from an observation, really, lol. That didn't stop the WHO from this obvious misclassification and trust me in the scientific community most scientists just shake their heads at this one, the media, not so much. Much like those 3 studies above. Cheers


  • rileysowner
    rileysowner Posts: 8,083 Member
    Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,578 Member
    Here's a Q&A on the carcinogenicity of red meat and processed meat from the WHO
    https://iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf

    Q. Processed meats are classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this
    mean?

    A. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other
    words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually
    based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
    In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from
    epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.


    A nugget of science: Epidemiological studies are observational studies of populations around the world and the impact of nutrition on health, which can never show causation, only correlation. Sufficient evidence from an observation, really, lol. That didn't stop the WHO from this obvious misclassification and trust me in the scientific community most scientists just shake their heads at this one, the media, not so much. Much like those 3 studies above. Cheers


    We came to 2 different conclusions based on what they said 🤷‍♀️ it happens.
  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,488 Member
    Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
    https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How

    Even studies with American Diabetes Association lean towards animal meat as strong evidence that it's connection with diabetes is strong. I'll NEVER give up meat. I'll just have to make better choices on things like fat content and try to keep away from processed meats (hot dogs, deli meats, etc.) as possible to reduce risk. What I am interested in is how reducing it will affect inflammation in my body. I'm at the age at aches an pains last longer and come on faster. Will experiment on how my joints and body feel while I adjust my diet.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

  • nossmf
    nossmf Posts: 8,903 Member
    I eat meat 6 days a week, and on the 7th have either pizza or French toast with scrambled eggs. Hate hotdogs, very rarely have processed lunch meat.

    Diabetes doesn't run in my family, but high blood pressure does. So long as I monitor my sodium intake and keep hitting the gym, I've been able to keep mine in check without meds.

    Here's hoping you get the results you're looking for. As for me, pass the plate of chicken, please.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,871 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
    https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How

    Even studies with American Diabetes Association lean towards animal meat as strong evidence that it's connection with diabetes is strong. I'll NEVER give up meat. I'll just have to make better choices on things like fat content and try to keep away from processed meats (hot dogs, deli meats, etc.) as possible to reduce risk. What I am interested in is how reducing it will affect inflammation in my body. I'm at the age at aches an pains last longer and come on faster. Will experiment on how my joints and body feel while I adjust my diet.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    Niner, Tracy Brown is the head of the ADA who has diabetes and the first person in charge in it's 80 year history to actually have diabetes. Her diabetes is in remission and she attributes it to her low carb diet, and recently the ADA has endorsed a low carb diet as a possible intervention of care.

    Your conclusions from your research is a bit flawed. In those studies your looking at populations that eat the standard American diet that also consume a lot of meat and in the quartile that have the worst health which also consume a lot of ultra processed foods in general. This particular quartile is the one always used, for obvious reasons. The diets and the demographic that eat vegetarian have what's called the "healthy user bias" who for various reason are trying to improve all aspects of their being, which is used for comparison, and we don't need to be a subscriber to 221B Baker St. to draw what those conclusions might be when comparing.

    Maybe try looking for studies that show a whole food omnivore diet compared with a vegetarian diet and see what you find. Whole foods are whole foods basically but a vegetarian diet can be any combination whole food and ultra processed and when we really look at ultra processed foods the majority of those foods have a combination of refined carbohydrates, sugar, salt and vegetable fats, which are all classified as vegetarian and most people will probably have an opinion about ultra processed foods that are not very flattering. Hopefully this makes you pause for a minute to do more research and the fact that Ann being a lifetime vegetarian is skeptical should be a good indicator that more is going on than meets the eye. Cheers
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 1,595 Member
    edited June 2023
    You can find “articles” saying pretty much everything is bad for you.

    Common sense dictates that lean meat is beneficial in the diet for most people as Cavemen were big on eating meat however they’re all dead now so maybe there’s some truth to it 🤷🏼‍♂️

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,953 Member
    ninerbuff wrote: »
    Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
    https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How

    Even studies with American Diabetes Association lean towards animal meat as strong evidence that it's connection with diabetes is strong. I'll NEVER give up meat. I'll just have to make better choices on things like fat content and try to keep away from processed meats (hot dogs, deli meats, etc.) as possible to reduce risk. What I am interested in is how reducing it will affect inflammation in my body. I'm at the age at aches an pains last longer and come on faster. Will experiment on how my joints and body feel while I adjust my diet.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png

    If inflammation is the big deal to you, in a context where you are already very active with exercise and at a healthy body weight, I think it might be a good idea to consider where you might be able to increase intake of foods high in Omega-3s (like the fatty cold-water fish, some types of seeds, etc.) and high in micronutrients/beneficial phytochemicals (mostly veggies and fruits, seeds, some grains).

    It seems reasonable to reduce intake of processed meats, sure . . . but I think it would be useful to focus more on how to replace those (or other) calories with foods that may be anti-inflammatory.

    I know nothing about your veggie/fruit intake, maybe you're already up at the 10 servings per day that some pretty mainstream sources are now suggesting may be useful. Most people (according to studies) aren't even getting the common base recommendation of 5 servings daily.

    In general, it seems like people (not just you) often focus hard on getting "bad foods" out of their eating routine, focus less on getting beneficial things into their routine. That's odd to me.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,871 Member
    edited June 2023
    Diabetes use to be called "adult onset diabetes" where diabetes was a disease of the old and I'm old enough to remember that, and it wasn't a health factor basically not too long ago, but unfortunately now kids are getting diabetes and it's increasing year after year, so the meat must be different now than it was in, say the last 50 or 60 years, wonder what they're doing to meat that it's now causing diabetes.

    Red meat consumption has gone down about 30% since the 70's from basically telling people that it will cause disease, so people are eating less but diabetes continues to go higher every year, so basically from an "observational point of view", it must be the chicken that's causing diabetes because consumption of chicken has gone up by 160%, it's basically more than doubled, makes sense, right?

    I would also suggest to go to google scholar and look at studies on ketogenic and low carb diet on inflammation and diabetes. If there was any population that eats more meat, I'm not aware, so I suspect we should see a direct connection (correlation) to increased diabetes and all inflammatory diseases associated with inflammation in all of these populations, makes sense, right? Cheers



  • snowflake954
    snowflake954 Posts: 8,400 Member
    Niner--I'm with you. The Blue Zones are all areas that control their meat intake. Eating meat 2-3 times a week is the norm there. They are healthier. Once diabetes is in place perhaps keto is the way, but better not to go there.