Reducing meat in my diet
Options
ninerbuff
Posts: 48,660 Member
Being open minded and learning through studies has helped to not only keep me fitter, but healthier as well. Although diabetes doesn't run on my side of the family, I still believe that avoidance of it by doing the necessary things possible to reduce risk is something we should all attempt.
That said, one of the markers for many with diabetes is the about how much animal consumption they have in their diets. Most people believe it's sugars and carbs that cause diabetes, however so many studies out there associate consumption of animal products with diabetes. I personally had to look over a few studies with vegetarians and diabetes and meat consumption with diabetes and it's pretty obvious that those who consumed more meat products had higher risk for diabetes than vegetarians by a pretty wide margin.
So that in mind, I've been trying to just reduce the amount of animal products we eat daily, since I do practially all the cooking at home. Trying to reduce it down to no more than 3 times a week.
Anyway here's a couple of studies that I read that helped to steer me this direction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
That said, one of the markers for many with diabetes is the about how much animal consumption they have in their diets. Most people believe it's sugars and carbs that cause diabetes, however so many studies out there associate consumption of animal products with diabetes. I personally had to look over a few studies with vegetarians and diabetes and meat consumption with diabetes and it's pretty obvious that those who consumed more meat products had higher risk for diabetes than vegetarians by a pretty wide margin.
So that in mind, I've been trying to just reduce the amount of animal products we eat daily, since I do practially all the cooking at home. Trying to reduce it down to no more than 3 times a week.
Anyway here's a couple of studies that I read that helped to steer me this direction.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3942738/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5998345/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Replies
-
Thanks for posting the studies! I've found the same, that animal consumption appears to be linked with both diabetes and cardiovascular disease.0
-
I'll be frank: On a quick skim the studies don't seem to have controlled well for confounding factors, and are primarily based on broad statistical correlations. IMU there's a statistical tendency for non-eaters of meat to be either more health-focused or generally clean-living than the general population. (Yes, it's cranky of me to skim rather than reading closely: I'm vegetarian, have been for almost 49 years, so my motivation to understand the studies' details is low, realistically.)
It also appears that the studies are primarily retrospective and rely on self-reported eating, which is a common flaw in this sort of research, because literally controlling or closely monitoring humans' intake over long time periods is prohibitively expensive.
Overall, I'm a skeptic that it's exactly the "not eating meat" thing that's really the root issue, even though - maybe because? - I'm vegetarian. Having delved pretty deeply into vegetarian nutrition for almost half a century now, I feel like good nutrition is very slightly more difficult for plant-based eaters (or anyone limiting animal-sourced protein) than it is for omnivores who pursue truly balanced nutrition (as opposed to simply eating as they've been raised to eat and other people around them eat, without giving nutrition a lot of mental bandwidth).
It probably is true that common developed world eating patterns involve more than essential amounts of meat, probably favor fatty/fried/rich (indulgent) meats and perhaps include more processed meats (which seem to have a correlation with some health problems), and have a profound (and IMO unappreciatedly injurious) shortfall in the veggie/fruit category. IMU overeating to the point of excess bodyfat is one of the key causes of increased incidence of T2D in the general population (one of the studies points out the correlation of meat-eating with overweight, which doesn't surprise me purely from a normative behavior standpoint). I suppose the tradeoffs may differ for someone with a genetic predisposition to T2D, but I haven't read much about that so admit I'm under-informed about that.
True, I as a vegetarian didn't/don't have diabetes or pre-diabetes, even when I was overweight/obese for around 30 years - but I don't have family history of it, and I was athletically active for over 1/3 of that time period, which probably helped maintain blood sugar in a healthy range even as my blood pressure and lipids got riskily high. (They've been fine since about half way through weight loss, BTW - eating the same range of foods, just fewer calories.)
Based on my reading over the years, I think the health benefits of eliminating meat tend to be oversold, and the health benefits of eating large amounts of veggies/fruit are underemphasized. Generally (as some of these papers point out), many meats are more calorie dense and fiber-sparse than veggies/fruit and even grains, something that makes excess calories easier to slip into. That alone might contribute significantly to a correlation between meat-eating and T2D via excess body weight. I suspect, too, that the micronutrient/phytochemical contributions of plant foods are underappreciated by the average person.
For sure, it seems odd to me that fully plant-based eating would be the healthful ideal, when that diet requires supplementing at least one essential nutrient (B-12), tends to make some others challenging, and has been statistically rare over the sweep of natural selection during which humans evolved. (I understand that you're not saying you want to go to fully plant-based eating.)
It's not my intention to talk you out of reducing or eliminating meat specifically or animal protein generally: After all, I haven't intentionally eaten any meat myself since 1974. I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so.
I'm wondering what your motivation for this post was: Were you looking for feedback or debate on the ideas, were you posting to convince others that reducing meat is a good plan for them too based on your research, or . . . ?
Just my curmudgeonly opinions throughout, of course.
Best wishes, sincerely!5 -
Well Niner, I live in Italy and we're eating Mediterranean. That means meat 2 or at most 3 times a week, and using fish and eggs to fill in. For us it's a healthier option. I agree with Ann that fruits, vegetables, and legumes are important. Let us know how it goes.1
-
I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so
Best wishes, sincerely!
While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.1 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so
Best wishes, sincerely!
While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.
Sure. Meat per se, as a comprehensive broad category? Personally, I'm not seeing a persuasive case.
I said this:It probably is true that common developed world eating patterns involve more than essential amounts of meat, probably favor fatty/fried/rich (indulgent) m)eats and perhaps include more processed meats (which seem to have a correlation with some health problems)
I don't think we're saying anything wildly different. I think the statistically average developed-world person probably eats more than optimal red and (especially) processed meat.
I'm no self-optimizing paragon, for sure, but I feel like quite a few people here are more loosey-goosey than I. Whether they/you/I are more nearly right objectively . . . every individual is going to find some formula (I hope) that they can live with.
Humans are adaptive omnivores. That's not a panacea, but it's helpful2 -
I know plenty of people who eat meat daily and are the epitome of health. I also know people who eat meat daily and are riddled with health problems. I don't think there is enough non-biased research and I believe there are many other variables that are not accounted for. I think that if two people had the exact same genetics, lived in the exact same household, did the exact same job, same exercise, same activities, had the same children, spouses, pets and social circle that the 1 eating less meat would be slightly better off. The type of meat as well as the origin would also have to be controlled though. And the likelihood of being able to run that type of long term study is next to impossible because we don't live in bubbles. So unless there are multiple sets of identical twins willing to sign up for a 100% controlled study from the day they are born, I don't see it happening.2
-
sollyn23l2 wrote: »I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so
Best wishes, sincerely!
While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.
That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers1 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so
Best wishes, sincerely!
While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.
That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers
I don't need to, that's the purpose of the class 1 designation for processed meat. They've done the research, because they're the scientists. That being said, that's specifically processed meat. I don't take issue with meat as a whole.0 -
sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so
Best wishes, sincerely!
While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.
That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers
I don't need to, that's the purpose of the class 1 designation for processed meat. They've done the research, because they're the scientists. That being said, that's specifically processed meat. I don't take issue with meat as a whole.
No of course you don't have to look and probably why you agreed with the conclusions of those initial 3 studies, because science. Cheers.1 -
neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »neanderthin wrote: »sollyn23l2 wrote: »I'll be frank: I'm just skeptical that there's a persuasive science-based health/nutrition basis for doing so
Best wishes, sincerely!
While I totally agree with you that there's no reason to cut meat out entirely, processed meat is a class 1 carcinogen. Class 1 means there is undeniable, incontrevertible evidence that it causes cancer. Colorectal cancer, specifically. Red meat is only a probable carcinogen, so the evidence isn't as strong.
That's from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the studies are available that will show the "incontrovertible evidence" that you seem positive will prove this, maybe you could link one for us, thanks. Cheers
I don't need to, that's the purpose of the class 1 designation for processed meat. They've done the research, because they're the scientists. That being said, that's specifically processed meat. I don't take issue with meat as a whole.
No of course you don't have to look and probably why you agreed with the conclusions of those initial 3 studies, because science. Cheers.
🤣 Actually, I have looked at them. What I meant was I don't need to publicly post them for you to publicly disagree with. You're welcome to post and disagree with them yourself if you'd like.1 -
Here's a Q&A on the carcinogenicity of red meat and processed meat from the WHO
https://iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf
Q. Processed meats are classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this
mean?
A. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other
words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually
based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from
epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.
A nugget of science: Epidemiological studies are observational studies of populations around the world and the impact of nutrition on health, which can never show causation, only correlation. Sufficient evidence from an observation, really, lol. That didn't stop the WHO from this obvious misclassification and trust me in the scientific community most scientists just shake their heads at this one, the media, not so much. Much like those 3 studies above. Cheers
4 -
Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.2
-
neanderthin wrote: »Here's a Q&A on the carcinogenicity of red meat and processed meat from the WHO
https://iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf
Q. Processed meats are classified as Group 1, carcinogenic to humans. What does this
mean?
A. This category is used when there is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity in humans. In other
words, there is convincing evidence that the agent causes cancer. The evaluation is usually
based on epidemiological studies showing the development of cancer in exposed humans.
In the case of processed meat, this classification is based on sufficient evidence from
epidemiological studies that eating processed meat causes colorectal cancer.
A nugget of science: Epidemiological studies are observational studies of populations around the world and the impact of nutrition on health, which can never show causation, only correlation. Sufficient evidence from an observation, really, lol. That didn't stop the WHO from this obvious misclassification and trust me in the scientific community most scientists just shake their heads at this one, the media, not so much. Much like those 3 studies above. Cheers
We came to 2 different conclusions based on what they said 🤷♀️ it happens.1 -
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-Howrileysowner wrote: »Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
Even studies with American Diabetes Association lean towards animal meat as strong evidence that it's connection with diabetes is strong. I'll NEVER give up meat. I'll just have to make better choices on things like fat content and try to keep away from processed meats (hot dogs, deli meats, etc.) as possible to reduce risk. What I am interested in is how reducing it will affect inflammation in my body. I'm at the age at aches an pains last longer and come on faster. Will experiment on how my joints and body feel while I adjust my diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
3 -
I eat meat 6 days a week, and on the 7th have either pizza or French toast with scrambled eggs. Hate hotdogs, very rarely have processed lunch meat.
Diabetes doesn't run in my family, but high blood pressure does. So long as I monitor my sodium intake and keep hitting the gym, I've been able to keep mine in check without meds.
Here's hoping you get the results you're looking for. As for me, pass the plate of chicken, please.0 -
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-Howrileysowner wrote: »Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
Even studies with American Diabetes Association lean towards animal meat as strong evidence that it's connection with diabetes is strong. I'll NEVER give up meat. I'll just have to make better choices on things like fat content and try to keep away from processed meats (hot dogs, deli meats, etc.) as possible to reduce risk. What I am interested in is how reducing it will affect inflammation in my body. I'm at the age at aches an pains last longer and come on faster. Will experiment on how my joints and body feel while I adjust my diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
Niner, Tracy Brown is the head of the ADA who has diabetes and the first person in charge in it's 80 year history to actually have diabetes. Her diabetes is in remission and she attributes it to her low carb diet, and recently the ADA has endorsed a low carb diet as a possible intervention of care.
Your conclusions from your research is a bit flawed. In those studies your looking at populations that eat the standard American diet that also consume a lot of meat and in the quartile that have the worst health which also consume a lot of ultra processed foods in general. This particular quartile is the one always used, for obvious reasons. The diets and the demographic that eat vegetarian have what's called the "healthy user bias" who for various reason are trying to improve all aspects of their being, which is used for comparison, and we don't need to be a subscriber to 221B Baker St. to draw what those conclusions might be when comparing.
Maybe try looking for studies that show a whole food omnivore diet compared with a vegetarian diet and see what you find. Whole foods are whole foods basically but a vegetarian diet can be any combination whole food and ultra processed and when we really look at ultra processed foods the majority of those foods have a combination of refined carbohydrates, sugar, salt and vegetable fats, which are all classified as vegetarian and most people will probably have an opinion about ultra processed foods that are not very flattering. Hopefully this makes you pause for a minute to do more research and the fact that Ann being a lifetime vegetarian is skeptical should be a good indicator that more is going on than meets the eye. Cheers
4 -
You can find “articles” saying pretty much everything is bad for you.
Common sense dictates that lean meat is beneficial in the diet for most people as Cavemen were big on eating meat however they’re all dead now so maybe there’s some truth to it 🤷🏼♂️
2 -
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-Howrileysowner wrote: »Niner, as much as I admire you, I cannot agree with this as a way to reduce your likelihood of diabetes. When you find clinicians like Dr. Eric Westman who for at least 20 years has used keto diets to deal with diabetes with excellent clinical results. Similarly, there are other doctors doing the same thing. For me, clinical evidence over 20 years trumps observational studies. If you want to decrease meat consumption, by all means, do, but saying it will reduce your likelihood of diabetes seems a stretch at best.
Even studies with American Diabetes Association lean towards animal meat as strong evidence that it's connection with diabetes is strong. I'll NEVER give up meat. I'll just have to make better choices on things like fat content and try to keep away from processed meats (hot dogs, deli meats, etc.) as possible to reduce risk. What I am interested in is how reducing it will affect inflammation in my body. I'm at the age at aches an pains last longer and come on faster. Will experiment on how my joints and body feel while I adjust my diet.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
If inflammation is the big deal to you, in a context where you are already very active with exercise and at a healthy body weight, I think it might be a good idea to consider where you might be able to increase intake of foods high in Omega-3s (like the fatty cold-water fish, some types of seeds, etc.) and high in micronutrients/beneficial phytochemicals (mostly veggies and fruits, seeds, some grains).
It seems reasonable to reduce intake of processed meats, sure . . . but I think it would be useful to focus more on how to replace those (or other) calories with foods that may be anti-inflammatory.
I know nothing about your veggie/fruit intake, maybe you're already up at the 10 servings per day that some pretty mainstream sources are now suggesting may be useful. Most people (according to studies) aren't even getting the common base recommendation of 5 servings daily.
In general, it seems like people (not just you) often focus hard on getting "bad foods" out of their eating routine, focus less on getting beneficial things into their routine. That's odd to me.2 -
Diabetes use to be called "adult onset diabetes" where diabetes was a disease of the old and I'm old enough to remember that, and it wasn't a health factor basically not too long ago, but unfortunately now kids are getting diabetes and it's increasing year after year, so the meat must be different now than it was in, say the last 50 or 60 years, wonder what they're doing to meat that it's now causing diabetes.
Red meat consumption has gone down about 30% since the 70's from basically telling people that it will cause disease, so people are eating less but diabetes continues to go higher every year, so basically from an "observational point of view", it must be the chicken that's causing diabetes because consumption of chicken has gone up by 160%, it's basically more than doubled, makes sense, right?
I would also suggest to go to google scholar and look at studies on ketogenic and low carb diet on inflammation and diabetes. If there was any population that eats more meat, I'm not aware, so I suspect we should see a direct connection (correlation) to increased diabetes and all inflammatory diseases associated with inflammation in all of these populations, makes sense, right? Cheers
0 -
Niner--I'm with you. The Blue Zones are all areas that control their meat intake. Eating meat 2-3 times a week is the norm there. They are healthier. Once diabetes is in place perhaps keto is the way, but better not to go there.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 975 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions