Another (potential) strike against red meat

bcattoes

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_135662.html

Compound in Red Meat, Energy Drinks May Have Heart Disease Link
Gut bacteria break down carnitine into another substance that damages blood vessels, study finds

SUNDAY, April 7 (HealthDay News) -- A compound found in red meat and added as a supplement to popular energy drinks promotes hardening and clogging of the arteries, otherwise known as atherosclerosis, a new study suggests.

Researchers say that bacteria in the digestive tract convert the compound, called carnitine, into trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO). Previous research by the same team of Cleveland Clinic investigators found that TMAO promotes atherosclerosis in people.

And there was an another twist: The study also found that a diet high in carnitine encourages the growth of the bacteria that metabolize the compound, leading to even higher TMAO production.
...

darkguardian419

Bacon is still better.

2FatToRun

The person above is a genius!

I just read your profile and I STAND behind this comment lol

TYFYS

corn63

*yawn*


You'll always be able to find research one way or the other.

tcunbeliever

I like this part:

"Even after consuming a large amount of carnitine, vegans and vegetarians did not produce significant levels of TMAO, while omnivores did, according to the study in the current issue of the journal Nature Medicine."

So, even being part-time vegetarian has health benefits!

soldier4242

Could red meat be trying to kill your children? Are makers of red meat advocates of some religion other than yours? Is red meat part of a scheme to bankrupt the nation? More at 11.

Tw1zzler

Commie propaganda.

Abells

i love red meat - bacteria and all -- I don't even wash my veggies

toaster6

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

bcattoes

Bacon is still better.

Bacon is red meat.

bcattoes

I like this part:

"Even after consuming a large amount of carnitine, vegans and vegetarians did not produce significant levels of TMAO, while omnivores did, according to the study in the current issue of the journal Nature Medicine."

So, even being part-time vegetarian has health benefits!

It doesn't say they consumed it from meat.

LavenderBouquet

While red meats do have much higher levels of carnitine, you could potentially get "unsafe" levels from white meat, dairy, and other animal products as well. Carnitine is important for the body as well, just like anything it's important in moderation. I don't think it makes sense to point at red meat and scare people away from it.

Yellerie

Bacon is still better.

Bacon is red meat.

Since when did Bacon become red meat? It's usually Pork (the other white meat) or Turkey (again white meat)

bcattoes

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.

TheStephil

Bacon is still better.

Bacon is red meat.

Bacon is awesome.

BEERRUNNER

I eat my steak with a bottle of red wine. This way I am assured that all bacteria is alcoholized and neautralized! :drinker:

bcattoes

Bacon is still better.

Bacon is red meat.

Since when did Bacon become red meat? It's usually Pork (the other white meat) or Turkey (again white meat)

Strictly speaking bacon is always smoked and cured pork belly (though people may at times label other things such as turkey made to taste similar as "bacon"). While the pork council marketing department may call pork "the other white meat", it is generally considered red meat by nutritionists and researchers.

bcattoes

I eat my steak with a bottle of red wine. This way I am assured that all bacteria is alcoholized and neautralized! :drinker:

LOL Sounds reasonable. Follow-up study is needed though. Now where can I sign up for that?

ApexLeader

just keep your body fat percentage low and you probably don't have to worry about heart disease

Klem4

I eat my steak with a bottle of red wine. This way I am assured that all bacteria is alcoholized and neautralized! :drinker:

Sounds like a good plan to me.

Every week there is always something new that's bad for you. meh.

toaster6

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.

Perhaps I should have worded it better but the amount given was for red meat consumed per day. The study followed people who had a certain amount of red meat per day and found problems with their health. The amount was very high-- higher than I've ever seen anyone consume in a day. It also mentioned that a lesser amount consumed on a daily basis was not problematic. Doesn't worry me either way as I don't much enjoy the flavor of red meat anyway.

bcattoes

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.

Perhaps I should have worded it better but the amount given was for red meat consumed per day. The study followed people who had a certain amount of red meat per day and found problems with their health. The amount was very high-- higher than I've ever seen anyone consume in a day. It also mentioned that a lesser amount consumed on a daily basis was not problematic. Doesn't worry me either way as I don't much enjoy the flavor of red meat anyway.

Are you sure it's the same study? This study was done on patients undergoing heart evaluations and found the link, rather at people eating red meat. Though, it did turn out that they ate red meat, that was not the focus.

neanderthin

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.

Perhaps I should have worded it better but the amount given was for red meat consumed per day. The study followed people who had a certain amount of red meat per day and found problems with their health. The amount was very high-- higher than I've ever seen anyone consume in a day. It also mentioned that a lesser amount consumed on a daily basis was not problematic. Doesn't worry me either way as I don't much enjoy the flavor of red meat anyway.

Are you sure it's the same study? This study was done on patients undergoing heart evaluations and found the link, rather at people eating red meat. Though, it did turn out that they ate red meat, that was not the focus.

Can you link the study? The one I saw today was on mice.

bcattoes

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.

Perhaps I should have worded it better but the amount given was for red meat consumed per day. The study followed people who had a certain amount of red meat per day and found problems with their health. The amount was very high-- higher than I've ever seen anyone consume in a day. It also mentioned that a lesser amount consumed on a daily basis was not problematic. Doesn't worry me either way as I don't much enjoy the flavor of red meat anyway.

Are you sure it's the same study? This study was done on patients undergoing heart evaluations and found the link, rather at people eating red meat. Though, it did turn out that they ate red meat, that was not the focus.

Can you link the study? The one I saw today was on mice.

I don't have the link but it says it was publiched in Nature Medicine. Maybe they have an online editition. But the NIH article says

Hazen's team looked at nearly 2,600 patients undergoing heart evaluations.

so it must be a different one.

Do you have a link to the mice study?

Edit: 'cause I can't type for *kitten*

bcattoes

Can you link the study? The one I saw today was on mice.

Maybe it is the same study. I found this http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3145.html

neanderthin

I don't remember the study or the exact amount, but I read that the amount of red meat needed to cause such issues was quite high. I definitely remember the amount being higher than the amount of meat my carnivorous boyfriend eats in an entire day.

Well yes, surely one would not expect one day of eating red meat (or anything else) to have lasting health consequences. It's nearly always a pattern of eating over time that has consequences.

Perhaps I should have worded it better but the amount given was for red meat consumed per day. The study followed people who had a certain amount of red meat per day and found problems with their health. The amount was very high-- higher than I've ever seen anyone consume in a day. It also mentioned that a lesser amount consumed on a daily basis was not problematic. Doesn't worry me either way as I don't much enjoy the flavor of red meat anyway.

Are you sure it's the same study? This study was done on patients undergoing heart evaluations and found the link, rather at people eating red meat. Though, it did turn out that they ate red meat, that was not the focus.

Can you link the study? The one I saw today was on mice.

I don't have the link but it says it was publiched in Nature Medicine. Maybe they have an online editition. But the NIH article says

Hazen's team looked at nearly 2,600 patients undergoing heart evaluations.

so it must be a different one.

Do you have a link to the mice study?

Edit: 'cause I can't type for *kitten*

Here's the Natural Medicine link, but not the full study.

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3145.html

bcattoes

Here's the Natural Medicine link, but not the full study.

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nm.3145.html

Yeah, that appears to be that same one. I would imagine the full study is or soon will be available on pubmed since the NIH published a release about it.

Matt_Wild

How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.

Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.

All a bit simple IMO.

bcattoes

How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.

Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.

All a bit simple IMO.

It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?

WendyTerry420

That's interesting. I read a study a while back that L-carnitine is good for your heart.

ETA: I think this is the one that I read.
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/carnitine-l-000291.htm

Matt_Wild

How were the animals fed? What was in the feed? What hormones were added to the meat? Where was the meat from? What was the source of drinking water? etc etc.

Lots of variables, not covered by the study. No doubt there was also variance in the diets of said people... which again, could cause a variance in how they respond to the meat (e.g. natural variances in the populace across the world due to foods they consume(d) in that area over last 50-100 years etc.

All a bit simple IMO.

It's just one study. But since the problem appears to be the carnitine I wonder how much some of those variables matter. Does grass fed meat have less carnitine than factory farmed?

Yes it does, different nutrient levels in food = different results possibly.

And indeed, who were the people tested? What ethnicity etc?

No every race, ethnicity etc have the same digestive setup down to natural variances based on foods consumed in area. Which then moves you into another question - is the area the test done new to the types of red meat or levels of it?

To make a good assessment, these variances must be taken into account.