Another (potential) strike against red meat

meerkat70

It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.

I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.

Oishii

The study specifically identifies "long-term (5-year) vegetarians and vegans" not just vegetarians and vegans.

So, maybe I'm ok: omnivore for just over a decade, vegetarian for the next decade or so and pescatarian for well over a decade now (with a blip for pregnancy cravings which were cured by the fact I don't LIKE meat).

DatMurse

It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.

I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.

Personally I know the weakneses of the study

The study has not been done in a controlled isocaloric environment to compare the two.
Since carnivorous people do take up most of the population. They are much more likely to consume food such as mcdonalds, burger king, or caloric dense foods.

There are too many variables left from this study that are not discusses such as being in a isocaloric state.
The BMI from the test subjects are also overweight and we do not know the effects of it on someone who is already healthy.


There are also studies that talks about carnitine and the effects of heart health. So these studies need to be replicated because the studies have a lot of open ended questions

JessHealthKick

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

unless they're your own, then nom nom nom pesticides!

yellowabc

Speaking from a scientific standpoint, the study is actually quite well done, and the authors performed a number of additional observational and interventional studies that helped strengthen the presumptive but not proven association between carnitine consumption, the action of gut flora, and production of TMA and thereby TMAO, an established atherogen.

This is an intriguing study that supports an alternative mechanism of red meat consumption-associated atherogenesis, one that challenges the conventional wisdom. A degree of healthy skepticism is natural and indeed justified. As with any solitary study, there will be limitations due to study design as well as a need for follow-up studies to confirm/refute the findings, as well as to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms. But to simply discount it altogether, citing that it has flaws or limitations (which all studies have to some degree) or is as yet unsupported by other studies, is as equally erroneous as relying upon it as gospel.

Paradigm shifts in scientific thought occur all the time. When a study, however rigorously performed, significantly challenges the established thinking, it is generally greeted with a high degree of skepticism. As a case in point, the bacterial infection hypothesis of peptic ulcers was widely discounted at the time, but eventually was accepted as truth and earned the initial proponent(s) a Nobel Prize. More importantly, this new understanding of the mechanism of peptic ulcer formation led to a more rational management for peptic ulcers that avoided prolonged medical treatment or potentially risky surgery in favor of specific and effective treatment in the form of antibiotic therapy.

In the same way, if the weight of accumulated evidence builds in favor of the carnitine-bacterial production of TMAO hypothesis, this paradigm shift will spur new lines of research into the development of targeted therapies that specifically block the synthesis or action of TMAO. Accordingly, just as we now have statins to help manage high cholesterol, we may in the future have agents that can block TMAO. This isn't to advocate counteracting poor eating habits by taking pharmaceuticals, but in the future those carnivores/omnivores among us (myself included) may be able to enjoy that occasional steak while avoiding some of the negative health impacts that have been traditionally associated with its consumption.

Cheers!
-- yellowabc

JessHealthKick

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

^^^This is brilliant! :laugh:

I'll remember that for my pork syabusyabu tomorrow night, thank you! :drinker:

Sarauk2sf

It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.

I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.

Interesting. I have not actually seen that in this thread.

meerkat70

It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.

I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.

Interesting. I have not actually seen that in this thread.

Are you sure? The first few pages seemed to me to be largely focused on 'ah, rubbish, I'm going to carry on eating meat, and vegetarians are silly'... Perhaps we read a different thread?

haroon_awan

Agree with Matt Wild on this. The quality of the meat would be an important factor.
yellowabc, well said.

Also, I'm sure this won't be that much of an issue in high intensity and high volume training program in a relatively well trained individual will.

I think we should all shut up and watch this beautiful woman sing JT's Suit and Tie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_3hKVxOcRI

meerkat70

Speaking from a scientific standpoint, the study is actually quite well done, and the authors performed a number of additional observational and interventional studies that helped strengthen the presumptive but not proven association between carnitine consumption, the action of gut flora, and production of TMA and thereby TMAO, an established atherogen.

This is an intriguing study that supports an alternative mechanism of red meat consumption-associated atherogenesis, one that challenges the conventional wisdom. A degree of healthy skepticism is natural and indeed justified. As with any solitary study, there will be limitations due to study design as well as a need for follow-up studies to confirm/refute the findings, as well as to further elucidate the underlying mechanisms. But to simply discount it altogether, citing that it has flaws or limitations (which all studies have to some degree) or is as yet unsupported by other studies, is as equally erroneous as relying upon it as gospel.

Paradigm shifts in scientific thought occur all the time. When a study, however rigorously performed, significantly challenges the established thinking, it is generally greeted with a high degree of skepticism. As a case in point, the bacterial infection hypothesis of peptic ulcers was widely discounted at the time, but eventually was accepted as truth and earned the initial proponent(s) a Nobel Prize. More importantly, this new understanding of the mechanism of peptic ulcer formation led to a more rational management for peptic ulcers that avoided prolonged medical treatment or potentially risky surgery in favor of specific and effective treatment in the form of antibiotic therapy.

In the same way, if the weight of accumulated evidence builds in favor of the carnitine-bacterial production of TMAO hypothesis, this paradigm shift will spur new lines of research into the development of targeted therapies that specifically block the synthesis or action of TMAO. Accordingly, just as we now have statins to help manage high cholesterol, we may in the future have agents that can block TMAO. This isn't to advocate counteracting poor eating habits by taking pharmaceuticals, but in the future those carnivores/omnivores among us (myself included) may be able to enjoy that occasional steak while avoiding some of the negative health impacts that have been traditionally associated with its consumption.

Cheers!
-- yellowabc

I agree, it's early days on this study, but there does seem to be a largish body of evidence building up that makes the hypothesis at least interesting to look at.

I also think (in reference to the other post about processed vs 'cleaner' meats) that it's important to remember that processed meats are found outside burger king and macdonalds. There's a European study, came out a couple of weeks ago, that highlighted specific higher risks associated with sausages, for instance

For me, this comment from this blog is perhaps the most important thing to focus on:

"What's lost in all the hysteria is the fact that the study at hand could in fact provide insights into the often-touted involvement of the gut microbiome in the etiology of all sorts of diseases... this, and not the "red meat is fill in whatever you like for you" debate, is what could actually help us to reduce the number of CVD related deaths on both an the large nation- and world-wide, as well as on a personal level."

http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/meaty-news-choline-carnitine-bacteria.html?spref=fb

neandermagnon

It does amuse me a little that the very same people who, in a fitness related thread, will be banging on about the importance of 'evidence' and 'research' dismiss 'evidence' and 'research' without any thought or argument, when it doesn't fit with their particular view on the world.

I don't care who does and doesn't eat read meat, for the record. But the dodgy logic on this thread entertains me.

One research paper is not enough to prove a theory, especially not one that disagrees with current theories/huge numbers of other studies. It should not be just dismissed, it should be a reason to conduct further studies and investigate more. Yellowabc's post explains this in detail.

So just because people are not saying "oh, I'd better stop eating red meat right now" on the basis of this study, does not mean they're not being scientific. They are. The first thing to do with any research paper is to appraise it... when I was at university, learning how to appraise research papers was a large part of a 20 credit module (normal modules were just 10 credits) which just shows how important a skill it is. IMO it should be taught in high school, at least to a basic degree (and in fact understanding the limitations of and identifying problems in the design of scientific experiments is already taught in high school, albeit at a more simple level).

I haven't seen the actual paper yet so I'm reserving my judgement on it, but a few appraisal questions that I've asked myself from reading about this study are:

- how well the researchers controlled for other lifestyle factors that may have led to atherosclerosis
- what kind of red meat they were eating (wild meat vs organic farmed meat vs industrial farmed fresh meat vs processed meat)
- was it done on humans or animals
- was there any cross-cultural aspect to it (e.g. comparing red meat eaters in the USA with modern hunter-gatherer populations that eat a similar quantity of red meat)
- etc

Even if it was a very well designed study, it still begs a lot of questions for further research such as:

- does it make a difference if the meat is traditionally/organically farmed
- does this still happen in hunter-gatherers and other people who eat only or mainly wild meat
- does anything else in a person's diet limit this effect, e.g. whether eating certain other foods with the red meat stop this from occurring
- how did the human race survive for 3 million years eating red meat if it has this effect (which leads to questions regarding wild vs farmed vs industrial meat, and/or whether anything else in a hunter-gatherer or scavenger-gatherer diet would stop this from occurring)


So you see, questioning research and asking further questions about it is a very necessary part of the scientific method.

As to why you see less of this with established scientific theories, it's because there's already a huge body of evidence supporting it, explaining how and why it works, and how it is applied in the real world, etc etc etc. In other words, it's not just one study, it's a whole body of evidence. Yes scientists can and do argue against the prevailing theories... but they don't expect anyone to overturn established theory based on one study alone... they expect for the new theory to be tested and retested and if it stands up to that testing, to be tested some more, explained (i.e. research to find out why it works like that), applied to real world situations, tested some more, and if it withstands all that it's probably true and then it becomes accepted, and the old theories are rejected.... but not without putting all of what was discovered about them into context (e.g. how Newton's laws still work on earth (and are still used even in rocket science, even though they're not totally correct and don't work at light speed or close to black holes etc... Einstein's theories replaced Newton's in terms of explaining how it all works, but as Newton's laws are correct on earth and planets generally, they're still used on earth for practical applications.)

meerkat70

neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.

This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.


(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)

twelfty

http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/952664-red-meat-doesn-t-matter-if-lean-clogs-arteries

neandermagnon

neandermagnon, as I noted in my previous post, there's a groundswell of this kind of research now - and my point was simply that it might require a bit more thought than the kind of 'who cares, I like my bacon' posts that characterised the earlier part of my thread.

This isn't an isolated study though - to suggest it is is simply wrong. Use google scholar.


(and clearly I didn't make it clear enough in my first post: I don't have any particular issue with people eating red meat, or any other kind of meat.)

your reply to the other post hadn't appeared when I replied.

the idea that red meat in and of itself causes these problems is problematic in the face of other evidence (like that it's sulphur and/or other things in processed meat that result in changes in gut bacteria, not the actual red meat itself)... I haven't read every single study, I went to university ten years ago, I'm not claiming that I know everything about it, but you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study.

if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.

*probably a lot more than that, because chimps eat monkeys and maybe australopithecines did too before humans even evolved, but I'm not aware of any specific evidence to prove that they did... Homo habilis ate red meat (there's archaeological evidence to prove it) and all human species since then.

Lupercalia

/SNIP

For me, this comment from this blog is perhaps the most important thing to focus on:

"What's lost in all the hysteria is the fact that the study at hand could in fact provide insights into the often-touted involvement of the gut microbiome in the etiology of all sorts of diseases... this, and not the "red meat is fill in whatever you like for you" debate, is what could actually help us to reduce the number of CVD related deaths on both an the large nation- and world-wide, as well as on a personal level."

http://suppversity.blogspot.co.uk/2013/04/meaty-news-choline-carnitine-bacteria.html?spref=fb

I think that's really interesting as well!

meerkat70

you can't say that someone is being unscientific just because they don't change their diets on the basis of one study

I didn't.

bcattoes

http://examine.com/blog/media-sensationalism:-meat-is-bad-for-your-heart/


"TL;DR?

The study found that in genetically modified mice, a high (but not impossible) dosage of l-carnitine did double plaque buildup. This may or may not be related to TMAO, we cannot say. This may or may not happen in humans, we cannot say. Overall? It's just preliminary research that should only interest other researchers, not the layperson.
At this time, restricting your carnitine consumption is not a prudent response for most people."

The study also found that in human subjects who were not long-term vegetarians, carnitine increased serum TMAO levels. It's important to realize that part of the study involved actual humans.

How bad is that? That's what we don't know. But TMAO does appear to be associated with cardiovascular disease.

Exactly, and if anyone had bothered to read the article it says that. I guess most people don't understand how nutrition research works. A single study faling to "prove" something does not make it invalid, debunked or bad data. If it did, 99.9999999% of all studies would be bad.

bcattoes

if red meat itself was that bad, then that leaves a big problem from an evolutionary point of view, i.e. because every species of human ate it in one form or another... which is why I find it very hard to believe that red meat in and of itself causes this problem. I'm inclined to think it's more likely to be a balance issue, i.e. red meat without certain other things in the diet, or farmed and/or industralised/processed red meat that's the issue. 3 million years* of eating wild red meat is not likely to result in red meat in and of itself being bad for humans.

I think this is an interesting point. The opposite could also be true. That red meat is and always has been "that bad". Atherosclerosis is the "bad" most often associated with red meat. This typically takes decades to develop. It is only since the use of medical procedures and drugs that prevent or reverse atherosclerosis that man has begun to live beyond the time it would take for it to develop and kill.

rizzaG

Good, because I don't eat red meat.

smantha32

I don't care. I'm eating it anyway.