The Growing Case Against Red Meat

In more news that has steak-lovers feeling deflated, a study published in this week's issue of the Archives of Internal Medicine finds that people who indulge in high amounts of red meat and processed meats, including steak, bacon, sausage and cold cuts, have an increased risk of death from cancer and heart disease. The findings add power to the growing push — by health officials, environmentalists and even some chefs — to cool America's love affair with meat.

The analysis of more than half a million Americans between the ages of 50 and 71 found that men in the highest quintile of red-meat consumption — those who ate about 5 ounces of red meat a day, or roughly the equivalent of a small steak, according to lead author Rashmi Sinha — had a 31% higher risk of death over a 10-year period than men in the lowest consumption quintile, who ate less than 1 ounce of red meat per day, or approximately three slices of ham. Men in the top fifth also had a 22% higher risk of dying of cancer and a 27% higher risk of dying of heart disease. In women, the figures were starker: women in the highest quintile of consumption had a 36% increased 10-year risk of death compared with women who ate little red meat; eating lots of meat was also associated with a 20% higher risk of dying of cancer and a 50% higher risk of dying of heart disease. (Read "A History of Beef, Times Two".) ........................

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1887266,00.html

No votes yet

Chris,

How much red meat does Bob Latta consume????? we NEED to know EVERYTHING about congressman Latta. :) Should we be concerned????????

speak for Bob, but I consume a bunch of red meat. I love it! Maybe his spokesperson will put out a presser on it. Good questions. We are a tough crowd here.

You don't win friends with salad!

With all the problems that red meat obviously cause, it is time for Ohio to pass a law that makes eating red meat illegal.

Tax the hell out of red meat and trans fats like you've done with cigarettes.

After all, if it saves "just one life" then it's worth it.

And what about 2nd hand meat? Those poor children who are forced to inhale red meat fumes after some inconsiderate meat eater in a restaurant orders death on a plate.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

mmmmmmmmmmmmmm beef! :)

Someone asked Ted Nugent once what his favorite recipe was. He said, "kill something, and add fire".

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

For example, instead of a double quarter pounder at McDonalds, order a McSurf N' Turf:

The health benefits of eating fish cancel out the increased risk of heart disease and stroke associated with the quarter pounder patty. And don't forget to wash it down with a diet soda.

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

I take this study with a grain of salt. I have eaten red meat and potatoes for thelast 70 years, my brother for 86 years and my mother lived till she was 93. Personally I live to eat, not eat to live.

deere1

I take this study with a grain of salt

Make sure it is only a grain. Too much salt will send your blood pressure soaring.

Think Mount Vesuvius about to blow:
If you've ever seen Toledo Mayor Carleton S. Finkbeiner about to explode--and I think some of us here have--you know what I mean...

Well played, Helen

Pink Slip

People who believe these so-called studies, which are merely schemes for researchers to extort money from gov't--meaning we the taxpayers pay them to scare us) are naive to say the least.

How many studies do we the taxpayers have to fund to learn that we are all going to die?

Don't we all know that if A doesn't kill us then B will and if not B, then C will send us to our graves? Why is it necessary to spend all this money to say that this or that will kill us? Especially when further studies prove just the opposite?

Remember all the research on eggs that led to the invention of "Eggbeaters"? First, eggs were bad, then they found out that they're o.k. Maybe they're bad again, I don't know. Who can keep up with it?

PhD's are granted based largely on the candidates coming up with new research in their fields of study. It often turns out to be controversy just for the sake of being controversial which leads to each trying to out-do another. The problem is that it's not for the sake of getting at the truth, it's about the money. That is not to say that money is bad, but when truth becomes a means to an end (money), then that is a problem.

These studies 1.) are a way to get money, 2.) lead to gov't involvement into people's personal lives 3.) to make it appear that gov't "cares" and is doing something about the inevitably of death and 4.) potentially lead people away from the truth, 5.) lead to skepticism and despair.

There's an old saying I've heard and that is, "there is one sickness from which you will never recover--your last one."

Hmmmm, I guess you're calling me naive, then? It's important not to conflate the media coverage of science with the actual research itself. If you dig into the primary research, you'll usually find that the results are rarely as prescriptive as the media make it out to be. The media has to add sizzle, so they question, beef up (pun intended) controversy where little may exist, or stretch to add in implications that may not really be there. And then there are the BAD studies, for sure, that aren't to be believed at all.

A lot of research dollars come from the government, but to say that scientists pursue research to extort money from the government is like saying soldiers aren't patriotic because they're paid for the work they do for the United States, or teachers don't care about kids because they collect a paycheck. Science is as much a calling as anything else - spend a dinner with a table of physicists and talk about string theory, and sit back watch the arguing. You need money to do research, but the money is the means by which they're able to do the work, not the end itself. Now, corporate R&D is another story. By-and-large, the basic science research being done in campuses around the country is done by curious people who are investigating questions that interest them and they think is important (which others may NOT think is important, but that's another story as well.).

And sure, the government (and many private agencies) take the results of research and try to do something with it. Sure, overstepping their bounds oftentimes. But if that's the case, it's not the fault of the scientific studies, it's a fault in how our regulatory agencies involve themselves in our lives.

Lead people away from the truth? What is the truth? Scientific research is about digging into juicy questions and trying to get better and better approximations of what is going on in the world around us. In fact, the interesting thing about science is that whatever you believe right now about the world around you, it's wrong. Not totally wrong, mind you. But science of the next 50 years will reveal more intricacies of our world that will prove a lot to be incomplete. And 50 years after that, the next paradigm will prove that to be incomplete. But its the process of getting deeper and deeper understanding that makes science so exciting to many. Science will always contradict itself - the process is meant to be that way. Argument, discourse, and slowly-built consent are key contributors to the foundation of knowledge, and it happens over time.

I didn't mean to come off sounding like I was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Of course there's legitimate science. Not many people would argue with that so I did not think it was necessary to start there in my previous post, but there is also science that gets mixed up with something else.

My point was not about all scientific research in general. The context is about this particular news story and others like them which lead to people 'getting their panties all into a twist'.

These kinds of "Chicken Little" stories turn people into nutcases who are possibly predisposed to OCD. I was addressing why I think that is not an accident. It's intentional in order to mold and shape society into thinking and behaving one certain way, vis a vis, Orwell. It's ironic that "group-think" ends up being detrimental to science itself, but that's what's going on.

Science is not a sacred cow. As in all fields there is good and bad. Unfortunately, these days, most of the bad seem to get themselves elected to office. But that's another subject.

My point was about how scientific research is sometimes misued and abused by certain kinds of people (not just the media, or government, but some scientists themselves) in order to compel people to change their behavior by using the force of government in many cases.

In a free society, people are supposed to be free to choose for themselves in spite of scientific evidence and in spite of the consequences. Even if it means that one of the consequences turns out to be an early death.

Yes, of course give out the research, but then people should be left alone to decide for themselves whether or not they accept any good or bad consequences. Instead we have government dictating to schools about what kids shoud eat based on the food pyramid. Since when did it become the government's job to tell people what is best for us?

If you are a scientist, you should know that the so-called fight against global warming (regardless if it's man-made or a natural cycle) is futile because of the law of entropy (2nd law) which says that eventually all usable energy will be used up. Saving energy saves money, it's prudent to do so, but doing so will not save the planet because the sun too, is heading toward maximum entropy. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent it.

However, people spend a great deal of their lives and other people's money trying to save the planet while they cannot even save themselves from their own deaths.

So what business is it for a scientist or the media or governent dictating to people what they should or should not eat, smoke, or drink, or what kind of energy they should use? What do these kinds of people gain by doing so?

If the research was merely released to the public and it was left at that, then no big deal. But it never seems to end there. Also in many cases, it turns into some kind of ban on this or that.

That's not the fault of all scientists, it's only some scientists who are to blame who have certain unscientific agendas which are fuelled by politics, egos or some other unknown motivations. I'm sorry if I didn't make that distinction in my previous post or that I was not clear.

If you are a scientist, you should know that the so-called fight against global warming (regardless if it's man-made or a natural cycle) is futile because of the law of entropy (2nd law) which says that eventually all usable energy will be used up. Saving energy saves money, it's prudent to do so, but doing so will not save the planet because the sun too, is heading toward maximum entropy. There is nothing anyone can do to prevent it.

Do you really think there are scientists out there claiming we can/should "save the planet"? I don't hear that. What I hear is that we are making are planet increasingly uninhabitable for ourselves. And if we do play a part in this, we can certainly play a part in decreasing these activities.

(I apologize for commenting off-thread, but I find this misrepresentation worrisome)

Pink Slip

This is not a case against red meat. It's a case against eating TOO MUCH red meat.

We're omnivores and we evolved eating meat and vegetables. So that's what should be on your meal plan.

The healthiest diet is the paleolithic one. Barring that, choose the Mediterranean one.

I"m no scientist or doctor, but it seems to me, that people have been eating red meat (and eggs, butter, cream, lard, etc.) since time began practically - and in the end, they died - just as in the end, even the most devoted vegan will DIE. I have read too many articles & studies that claim that there are more cases of cancer (among so many other things, like add, adhd, ashesma (sp), bi-polar disorder, arthertits (sp), autism, etc.) than ever before in history. Many of these diseases have laid blame to smoking, red meat, preservatives, etc.. Makes me wonder about the smoking cause because there are fewer smokers now, than ever before in this country & yet the 'diseases' grow in numbers, that they blamed smoking on. There are just too many people who live to very old age, who eat what they want (see above), smoke, drink, etc. for me to believe this hype. My grandmother died very old from the big "E" & never was near smoking in her life. Go figure. My guess is that this fear mongering has more to do with cow 'emissions' that 'damage' the environment - the global warming & green fanatics with an agenda. Of course we can't discount the additives & processing of today's foods. Fifty years ago, you could actually read a food label & foods were made HERE in the USA. Not long ago, I got a pkg of ground chuck at Krogers that read "product of Mexico" & had to shake my head. My daughter bought a bottle of Apple Juice & the label's contents said it was made from apple juice concentrate & then listed about 15 countries.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
<