Another (potential) strike against red meat

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.)

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

/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!

Good, because I don't eat red meat.

Life is 100% fatal

Good time to be vegetarian.

no it isnt

Yah it is

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?

I have never seen those people 'bang on about the importance of evidence'. The ones that I have seen do that, for the most part, actually debated the specifics.

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.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

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.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

yep, and that's exactly why the OP called it a "potential strike against red meat", and didn't say "why red meat is bad"

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.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?

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.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?

at what cost?

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.

The study does not suggest that it is red meat in and of itself but proposes a carnitine-bacteria mechanism. Nor is the idea that meat "quality" has any impact supported/denied.

A hypothesis is built: bacteria -> increase TMA -> increase TMAO -> increase atherosclerosis. That should be easy to test either by increasing the specific bacteria or eliminating it and looking downstream. This is the study in a nutshell, not red meat is bad.

And it is one atherosclerosis factor - is it more important than maintaining a healthy weight? Not currently. The study doesn't even begin to address the multi factorial elements.

The study did use antibiotics in humans to suppress the bacteria. Guess what happened?

at what cost?

Huh?

Standing in sun light MAY lead to skin cancer.

@Zyntx - was was referring to the biological cost, not the financial cost. Not a fan of antibiotics, though yes, in some cases, they're a necessary evil.