Beef is fine. Processed meat is not.

aakaakaak

I found another excellent link on the forums today.

In short:
Beef is not associated with coronary heart disease, stroke or diabetes millitus with 95% confidence.
Processed meat IS associated with a 42% higher risk of CHD and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus with 95% confidence.
Neither beef or processed meat are associated with an increased risk of stroke.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/121/21/2271.long

Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Renata Micha, RD, PhD; Sarah K. Wallace, BA; Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, DrPH

Background— Meat consumption is inconsistently associated with development of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and diabetes mellitus, limiting quantitative recommendations for consumption levels. Effects of meat intake on these different outcomes, as well as of red versus processed meat, may also vary.

Methods and Results— We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of evidence for relationships of red (unprocessed), processed, and total meat consumption with incident CHD, stroke, and diabetes mellitus. We searched for any cohort study, case-control study, or randomized trial that assessed these exposures and outcomes in generally healthy adults. Of 1598 identified abstracts, 20 studies met inclusion criteria, including 17 prospective cohorts and 3 case-control studies. All data were abstracted independently in duplicate. Random-effects generalized least squares models for trend estimation were used to derive pooled dose-response estimates. The 20 studies included 1 218 380 individuals and 23 889 CHD, 2280 stroke, and 10 797 diabetes mellitus cases. Red meat intake was not associated with CHD (n=4 studies; relative risk per 100-g serving per day=1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.81 to 1.23; P for heterogeneity=0.36) or diabetes mellitus (n=5; relative risk=1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.92 to 1.46; P=0.25). Conversely, processed meat intake was associated with 42% higher risk of CHD (n=5; relative risk per 50-g serving per day=1.42; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 1.89; P=0.04) and 19% higher risk of diabetes mellitus (n=7; relative risk=1.19; 95% confidence interval, 1.11 to 1.27; P<0.001). Associations were intermediate for total meat intake. Consumption of red and processed meat were not associated with stroke, but only 3 studies evaluated these relationships.

Conclusions— Consumption of processed meats, but not red meats, is associated with higher incidence of CHD and diabetes mellitus. These results highlight the need for better understanding of potential mechanisms of effects and for particular focus on processed meats for dietary and policy recommendations.

verdemujer

I don't suppose they could say why that is? I bet because it would be speculation. But what does processed meat have - sodium. Why? It's a preservative. What else does some processed meats have extra of - sugar. Now that seems weird but it's true. Sugar is also a preservative. In old times (and I'm talking really old) people had few choices to perserve meat - salt it (brine), sugar it (another type of brine), smoke it, dry it or eat is as fast as possible. Did they get a lot of preserved (processed) meat? Not really. The more money you had, the more you had access to that type of food. And the historic sciencists are discovering that the more money you had and the more access a person had to preserved food, the more often you see many of the same diseases we have today. So - it's not the processed food that is bad - its the amounts we eat. Cooking meat straight off the cow/fowl/pig is always going to be healthier than eating something that has been processed. And that would include the ground meats - many of those have added chemicals to keep the meat from browning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_preservation


http://www.livestrong.com/article/488908-health-effects-caused-by-preserved-food/

And if you really want to know how studies of ancient bodies are done and what all they are learning (and conversly how little we have changed as a species), here you go.

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/files/2012/12/Paleodermatoses.pdf

aakaakaak

Notice I said "associated with" not "cause of". These studies could be looking at a symptom, not a cause. I.E. someone who buys a steak is probably less likely to by a box of Twinkies and a 2-liter or regular soda than a guy who eats Slim-Jims and hot dogs. I can't guarantee this is the truth of the matter, but it is a hypothesis.

garlic7girl

Well, all I can say is I ate some organic ground beef the other day in form of a hamburger and thought I had died and gone to heaven the flavor ot the actual beef was stupendous....now when I used to go to McD's Wendy's etc it NEVER tasted like that!
Our way of 'processing' foods to me is sooooooo different then the way the Native Americans and other cultures way of doing it. Our manufatures do things in ways to make money not make ways for health.

rocky503

I don't have journal article to site but nitrates and nitrites are part of the the problem with processed meats. They are associated with colon cancer as I recall. I love meat and eggs, but eat it in moderate amounts (almost daily) along with some bacon or sausage once in a while.

I think the difference in our modern diet is more than looking at one component. So stating people have always eaten preserved meat and they have done just fine isn't a good conclusion. Since now you have the consumption of process meats WITH a very high sugar intake (something like 120+ pounds a year per person in the US, which has skyrocketed just from the early 1970's) which is crowding out better nutrients like the micros: vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and fiber PLUS inactivity. So in our current food environment processed meats may have more of a negative effect than it did previously when you think in human history we have eaten a lot of roasted smoky beasts. So for me the closer the food item is to it's original form generally the better it is for me weather it be meat, grains or sugars.

aakaakaak

I don't have journal article to site but nitrates and nitrites are part of the the problem with processed meats. They are associated with colon cancer as I recall.

Here you go. I found one. There are several other studies related to it linked on the right side. This one may or may not be contradicted:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10074917

The gist of the article says its the nitros that increase your risk of colorectal cancer, but NOT for glioma (head and neck cancer).

"A significant positive association was observed between intake of NDMA and subsequent occurrence of colorectal cancer with a relative risk (RR) between the highest and lowest quartiles of intake of 2.12 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04-4.33]. Of various sources of N-nitroso compounds, intake of smoked and salted fish was significantly (RR = 2.58, 95% CI 1.21-5.51) and intake of cured meat was non-significantly (RR = 1.84, 95% CI 0.98-3.47) associated with risk of colorectal cancer. No similar association was observed for intake of other fish or other meat. No significant associations were observed between NDMA intake and cancers of the head and neck combined or of the stomach or between nitrate or nitrite intake and risk of cancers of the gastro-intestinal tract. Our results are in line with the idea that N-nitroso compounds can induce colorectal cancer in humans."

Excellent topic to bring up.

rocky503

Hey, thanks for taking the time to find an article. I read tons of this stuff regularly so it swims around in my head but I don't keep track always of where it came form once I've digested it.