Another (potential) strike against red meat

DatMurse

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.

Actually one meal of red meat causes damage to our bodies. Our bodies try to heal from it (takes 6 hours) but we're consuming it again before it gets the chance. Thus the damage over time (long time) causes cancer and heart disease. This has been studied extensively. A great nutrition website that is not paid for by big corporations (is trustworthy and nonprofit) is THE PHYSICIANS COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE MEDICINE. Their site is pcrm.org. Another is nutrtitionfacts.org

One meal causes what kind of damage, exactly?

It causes damage to your endothelial cells lining your veins and arteries

are you relating it to cholesterol intake?
that only applies to people who live in a sedentary lifestyle.

You do realize that protein REPAIRS cells.

what is the science behind it?
You are spitting nonsense

lithezebra

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

There are bacteria that thrive gleefully on alcohol.

Matt_Wild

This is why this 'study' is utter tripe. Read on:


The very first line of the study’s text reads:

“The high level of meat consumption in the developed world is linked to CVD risk, presumably owing to the large content of saturated fats and cholesterol in meat1,2. However, a recent meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed no association between dietary saturated fat intake and CVD, prompting the suggestion that other environmental exposures linked to increased meat consumption are responsible3.”

See the numbers “1″, “2″ and “3″ at the end of the first and second sentences? These are citation numbers referring to the studies allegedly confirming what those sentences are saying. So let’s take a look at these studies.

Study “1″ can be found here - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946797/pdf/nihms-229256.pdf.

It was the Nurses’ Health Study and, yes, the researchers claimed that red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of CVD and diabetes. This was not an RCT but an epidemiological study, which means it was a load of uncontrolled, confounder-prone slop. As I have explained many times before, epidemiological studies are hopelessly subject to innumerable confounding factors over which the researchers have absolutely no control (and don’t give me this bollocks about “multivariate analyses”, which is simply an abbreviated way of saying “sophisticated mathematical chicanery that convinces epidemiologists they have god-like powers and can endow their work the same kind of robust validity seen with carefully conducted RCTs”).

So what I want you all to do now is open the PDF for the NHS paper (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2946797/pdf/nihms-229256.pdf) and scroll down to pages 11 and 12 to view Table 1, which contains the baseline characteristics of the participants (to avoid contorting your neck, right click on the table and select “Rotate Clockwise”). Remember what I said about these garbage epidemiological studies being hopelessly prone to confounders? The NHS is a textbook classic example – we can clearly see that as red meat consumption went up, so too did smoking rates, trans fat intake, and history of angina/diabetes/blood pressure. And as red meat intake increased, levels of physical activity decreased.

In other words, subjects in the higher red meat clearly lived unhealthier lives and possessed several other unhealthy traits totally unrelated to red meat intake.

Here’s a few facts for our red meat-hating brethren in the epidemiology community to ponder:

–The primary source of trans fats are refined vegetable fats (you know, the same fats our idiotic health authorities told us were “heart healthy”, then quietly backed away from when mounting evidence showed otherwise).

–Smoking, meanwhile, involves ingestion of noxious gases from nicotine-containing products, primarily cigarettes. In my four-plus decades on this crazy blue ball called Earth, I’ve yet to see someone roll a topside steak, light it up, and draw on it like a Marlboro. In other words, red meat has nothing to do with smoking, and to blame the effects of the latter on the former is sheer idiocy.

–Any claim that red meat intake causes physical inactivity is similarly absurd. In fact, given its high concentrations of B-vitamins, creatine, iron, and carnitine (critical for energy production, idiotic statements about CHD from clueless researchers notwithstanding), we would reasonably expect red meat intake to facilitate, rather than impede, strenuous exercise.

–There is no reliable evidence whatsoever to support any notion that angina, diabetes and high blood pressure are caused by red meat intake. They are, however, promoted by smoking, inactivity, and trans fat intake, all of which increased among the NHS subjects along with rising red meat intakes. These ailments are also strongly linked to such factors as high refined carbohydrate intakes, stress, ambient pollution, and high bodily iron stores – none of which were reported in Table 1.

So yes, in the NHS, red meat was indeed “associated” with higher rates of CHD, but in the same way a woman who unwittingly marries a serial killer is “associated” with violent crime. The latter is not responsible for her husband’s murderous behaviour, and the former is in no way responsible for the otherwise unhealthy behaviour of its most voracious consumers.

So why would people who consume more red meat exhibit generally unhealthier lifestyle and dietary habits?

It’s simple. People who care less about their health, and ignore exhortations to avoid trans fats/smoking/inactivity are also more likely to ignore recommendations to avoid or limit red meat consumption. And so red meat is eaten in higher amounts among these subjects, allowing dodgey epidemiologists who think health research is all about clever statistical shenanigans to create “associations” between red meat and all sorts of health ailments. They then pronounce these associations as causal rather than statistical, blatantly ignoring one of the most fundamental rules of good science:

ASSOCIATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.

Health-conscious people, by the way, will also be more likely to eat poultry compared to red meat, which is why this source of animal flesh was associated with a lower risk of CVD in the NHS.

There’s one more thing I’d like to point out about the NHS paper. If you look at the “Body Mass Index” scores among the various quintiles of red meat consumption, they are pretty much identical. But scroll down to the “Calories” data, and you’ll see that as red meat intake increases, so too does the self-reported calorie intake. So what we are supposed to believe from this hogwash is that people who eat less red meat maintain the same level of overweight as people who eat higher amounts, despite eating 700 less calories per day!


So if the self-reported calorie intakes are way off the mark, what else in the NHS data is wildly inaccurate? Who knows. Like I said, it’s just a mass of totally uncontrolled, dubiously reported (a single dietary questionnaire every four years) and hopelessly confounder-prone data, ripe for dredging and misinterpretation by those happy to accept weak statistical odds ratios as physiological fact.

Anyway, let’s leave the bad joke that is the NHS red meat paper and move onto reference “2″ - http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.full.pdf

Before I discuss this paper, I want to reiterate that the Nature Medicine paper authors cite it in support of their claim “high level of meat consumption in the developed world is linked to CVD risk“.

The reality is it showed nothing of the sort, as you can see for yourself by clicking here. This paper was a meta-analysis examining the pooled data from not one, not two, but 20 epidemiological studies dealing with red meat and CVD and/or diabetes risk. Yessirree, a genuine all-you-can-eat epidemiological extravaganza encompassing data for some 1,218,380 individuals and 23,889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10,797 diabetes cases.

And what did it find? “Red meat intake was not associated with CHD…or diabetes mellitus”. Nor was it associated with stroke.

Processed meat intake was associated with a 1.42 and 1.19 increased risk of CHD and diabetes, respectively, but not stroke. Whether this is because of an unhealthy consumer phenomenon similar to the one we saw for red meat in the NHS, or a genuine detrimental effect of processed meat, or whether we should just ignore the results period because 1.42 and especially 1.19 are pathetically weak hazard scores considering the confounder-prone source, is an entirely different discussion. What matters here is that, despite the massive data-dredging opportunity it presented, the most massive analysis to date found no relationship between red meat and heart disease.

But the Nature Medicine authors cite it as showing that red meat is associated with CHD. Why would they say this when it is patently untrue? The NM paper has 23 listed contributors from a mix of institutions including Cleveland Clinic, University of California–Los Angeles, Cleveland State University, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Wake Forest School of Medicine in North Carolina, Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute in Oakland, California.

Are we to seriously believe none of these 23 researchers read the meta-analysis in its entirety?

Are we to seriously believe none of them saw the words “Red meat intake was not associated with CHD“?

So why have they cited the meta-analysis in support of a statement patently at odds with its findings?

It gets worse.

Study “3″ can be found here - http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.full.pdf

This study did not deal specifically with red meat intake; rather, it examined the relationship between CVD and saturated fats in general (i.e. not just from red meat, but other meats, dairy products, etc). This was also a meta-analysis, incorporating epidemiological data for 347,747 subjects, 11,006 of whom developed CHD or stroke. Contrary to decades of dedicated anti-saturate brainwashing, there was no relationship between saturated fat intake and CHD, stroke or CVD risk.

Now, I need you to re-read the first 2 sentences of the Nature Medicine paper – c’mon, humour me, it’s important:

“The high level of meat consumption in the developed world is linked to CVD risk, presumably owing to the large content of saturated fats and cholesterol in meat1,2. However, a recent meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies showed no association between dietary saturated fat intake and CVD, prompting the suggestion that other environmental exposures linked to increased meat consumption are responsible3.”

Did you notice the subtle but very dodgey sleight of hand performed by our anti-carnitine crew? The first sentence claims an association between meat intake and cardiovascular disease, but the second sentence claims this relationship is not explained by saturated fat intake. Despite having red meat squarely in their sights, they’ve also carefully slotted the word “meat” into the sentences rather than “red meat”, so they can technically claim study “2″ in support, even though it only found an association for processed meat (red meat by far is the richest source of carnitine; the carnitine content of processed meat varies widely due to its use of various meats, fillers and often high fat content; white meat contains negligible amounts).

So the reality is one of the studies allegedly showing a relationship between red meat intake and CVD was hopelessly confounded by other unrelated factors, while the much larger and all-encompassing meta-analysis showed no relationship of red meat – irrespective of its saturated fat content – with CVD. Yet the authors falsely claim otherwise, then lead into the saturated fat argument to pave the way for their carnitine hypothesis.

In other words, their carnitine hypothesis is based on a false premise. They go on to claim that carnitine may be the real explanation for the relationship between red meat and CVD, but there is no relationship between red meat and CVD!

So the underlying assumption upon which they build their carnitine theory is utter rubbish. I’m sure you guys don’t need me to remind you what happens to elaborate structures built on quicksand…

neanderthin

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

Matt_Wild

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

EvgeniZyntx

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

neanderthin

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

Sounds like carnitine is the devil and will kill us, just kidding.The body regulates carnitine and excess is excreted and since the body can make carnitine anyone that is deficient the kidneys will conserve it to find homeostasis. Now if someones gut bacteria is messed up, that can cause problems it appears. Context and dosage is another bugger of a confounder.

myofibril

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

The full article is here and it's not just the intro he takes issue with...

http://anthonycolpo.com/bullsh*t-study-of-the-year-carnitine-causes-heart-disease/

ETA: replace the * obviously for the full link

tamrod2

That's the ticket lol!

EvgeniZyntx

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

The full article is here and it's not just the intro he takes issue with...

http://anthonycolpo.com/bullsh*t-study-of-the-year-carnitine-causes-heart-disease/

ETA: replace the * obviously for the full link

Thanks, will read.

Note - based on the title, the reader missed the point of the study. It isn't that carnitine causes HD, it's that if HD is present it might be a carnitine metabolism by bacteria. I.e. bacteria cause HD.

Edit: see neanderthin's post above.

myofibril

Thanks, will read.

Note - based on the title, the reader missed the point of the study. It isn't that carnitine causes HD, it's that if HD is present it might be a carnitine metabolism by bacteria. I.e. bacteria cause HD.

Edit: see neanderthin's post above.

No probs.

He addresses TMA within the body of the article.

bcattoes

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

What does "lets be having you" mean? Is that English?

bcattoes

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

The full article is here and it's not just the intro he takes issue with...

http://anthonycolpo.com/bullsh*t-study-of-the-year-carnitine-causes-heart-disease/

ETA: replace the * obviously for the full link

I read enough of the article to get the gist. If you choose to believe that type of information and believe that epidemiological studies do not provide valuable data, and/or that the researchers conducting them don't account for other diet and lifestyle factors (such as smoking) when analyzing the data, then honestly I don't see what we have to discuss. We have complete opposite views on what constitutes "valid" scientific research.

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

myofibril

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

Fair dues.

You too.

ps: I do think epidemiology studies have value just not as much as RCTs. I agree with Mr Colpo on many things but not all

EvgeniZyntx

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

Fair dues.

You too.

ps: I do think epidemiology studies have value just not as much as RCTs. I agree with Mr Colpo on many things but not all

An RCT on meat eating. Right. It about using the right tools, I personally believe in in vivo micro cellular assay studies. Epidemiological studies have their limited role, but so do RCT. Don't throw one out for the other.

myofibril

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

Fair dues.

You too.

ps: I do think epidemiology studies have value just not as much as RCTs. I agree with Mr Colpo on many things but not all

An RCT on meat eating. Right. It about using the right tools, I personally believe in in vivo micro cellular assay studies. Epidemiological studies have their limited role, but so do RCT. Don't throw one out for the other.

Agreed and I don't intend to...

However, it is harder to draw definite conclusions from epidemological studies so before changing my position I will wait to see how further evidence and studies play out.

neanderthin

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

Fair dues.

You too.

ps: I do think epidemiology studies have value just not as much as RCTs. I agree with Mr Colpo on many things but not all

An RCT on meat eating. Right. It about using the right tools, I personally believe in in vivo micro cellular assay studies. Epidemiological studies have their limited role, but so do RCT. Don't throw one out for the other.

I agree epidemiology and RCT's have limitations, with the former being a platform for a paycheck if your a researcher. Funny enough the Author Stanley Hazen and the facility The Cleveland Clinic Foundation are seeking a patent T for TMA tests that will purportedly determine whether people are at risk of developing CVD, diabetes, insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome, or fatty liver, all the popular ones it appears. Now if your audience are red meat eaters as opposed to bad gut bacteria syndrome lol, they would probably find their office waiting room more crowded, wouldn't you say. It's like the wild west.........covered wagons selling something, everywhere.

Matt_Wild

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

The full article is here and it's not just the intro he takes issue with...

http://anthonycolpo.com/bullsh*t-study-of-the-year-carnitine-causes-heart-disease/

ETA: replace the * obviously for the full link

I read enough of the article to get the gist. If you choose to believe that type of information and believe that epidemiological studies do not provide valuable data, and/or that the researchers conducting them don't account for other diet and lifestyle factors (such as smoking) when analyzing the data, then honestly I don't see what we have to discuss. We have complete opposite views on what constitutes "valid" scientific research.

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

Read the whole article. It explains EVERY SINGLE nugget of info you have disagreed with.

redraidergirl2009

The way people are getting worked up over this you'd think they just outlawed red meat or something lol

bcattoes

Matt, epidemiology is the weapon of mass delusion.

I just like the truth! LOL

OP - come on - lets be having you?

Wow, someone wrote a feckload of text to try to undermine an intro sentence in a study.
Its an intro sentence and does have weakness however the research and the paper remain interesting on the proposed mechanisms.

The full article is here and it's not just the intro he takes issue with...

http://anthonycolpo.com/bullsh*t-study-of-the-year-carnitine-causes-heart-disease/

ETA: replace the * obviously for the full link

I read enough of the article to get the gist. If you choose to believe that type of information and believe that epidemiological studies do not provide valuable data, and/or that the researchers conducting them don't account for other diet and lifestyle factors (such as smoking) when analyzing the data, then honestly I don't see what we have to discuss. We have complete opposite views on what constitutes "valid" scientific research.

But good luck to you on your goals. I can agree to disagree.

Read the whole article. It explains EVERY SINGLE nugget of info you have disagreed with.

What "nuggets" have I disgreed with?