What's so bad about eating red meat?

LasTime

When I read about things that are unhealthy like smoking, drinking and fast food, I am weary of the fact that red meat is usually listed. In a way I would consider this to be part of a healthy balanced diet. I hear it's because of the cholesterol in the fat.

The main red meat I usually eat is mince. But when I get mince, I get round steak minced seperately with the fat cut off. By doing this, you're guaranteed to have about 90% of the fat removed, if the butcher does a proper job. So what's the problem? I know that with processed food like rashers, it's different as there's apparently fat mixed in with the non fatty part.

I'll never get over how my Dad always says "but you're not getting good value that way because you've to pay for the fat too", and that it's tastier with the fat. You can't change old people. I do love watching the butcher cut off those fatty parts and seeing all the future blocked arteries I'm avoiding right before my eyes!

Alf Veedersane

Unless you're eating it every day there's nothing wrong with there being fat on it.

LasTime

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Unless you're eating it every day there's nothing wrong with there being fat on it.

Every little bit counts. We need all the help we can get.

I eat it about 2/3 times a week. Since I eat other sources of red meat like stir-fry and steak on occasion, I'd want to be making an effort with the mince.

ford2600

LasTime wrote: »

Every little bit counts. We need all the help we can get.

I eat it about 2/3 times a week. Since I eat other sources of red meat like stir-fry and steak on occasion, I'd want to be making an effort with the mince.

Anthony Colpo has a good blog post on red meat. The main trust being that s lot of red meat eaters also ignore other health advice about smoking, excessive alcohol etc.

He also writes about cholesterol

Lee_Torre

LasTime wrote: »

When I read about things that are unhealthy like smoking, drinking and fast food, I am weary of the fact that red meat is usually listed. In a way I would consider this to be part of a healthy balanced diet. I hear it's because of the cholesterol in the fat.

The main red meat I usually eat is mince. But when I get mince, I get round steak minced seperately with the fat cut off. By doing this, you're guaranteed to have about 90% of the fat removed, if the butcher does a proper job. So what's the problem? I know that with processed food like rashers, it's different as there's apparently fat mixed in with the non fatty part.

I'll never get over how my Dad always says "but you're not getting good value that way because you've to pay for the fat too", and that it's tastier with the fat. You can't change old people. I do love watching the butcher cut off those fatty parts and seeing all the future blocked arteries I'm avoiding right before my eyes!

I agree with you, remove the fat with a knife and you have some quality protein with not too much fat depending on the type of steak.

When I'm bulking though, nothing better than a fatty steak! I agree with your dad in that senses, it DOES taste better.

Thoie

I think it's more about the quantity of red meat that we eat. We eat a lot more than our poor forefathers ever did.

The recommended portion size for red meat is about 65g - that's just over 2 ounces. If you think about the size of a steak you get in a restaurant, they're usually 8, 10, 12 oz. Most people would usually estimate a pound of mince for 4 people - about double the recommendation.

Alf Veedersane

LasTime wrote: »

Every little bit counts. We need all the help we can get.

I eat it about 2/3 times a week. Since I eat other sources of red meat like stir-fry and steak on occasion, I'd want to be making an effort with the mince.

I wouldn't go out of my way unless it was gonna make it better. Mince is fair enough. But nice bit of marbling in a rib eye can't be bet .

Only 65g?! Wat

Chancer3001

I eat red meat every day

cc87

Personally I'm wary of any study or body that states red meat can be harmful to health. The studies all these warnings are based off, are generally quite poor. The large studies with thousands of participants are tough to draw any solid conclusions from as there are so many other factors at play and even how the participants report their diet has a massive impact on the results. These studies do not, for example, distinguish between a take-away curry, burger from MaccyDs and a home-cooked fillet steak, they are all considered red meat. Whether the diet is recorded through a food diary or weekly phonecalls influences reporting of food intake.

There are no controlled trials, to my knowledge, that have shown red meat to have a negative effect on health.

All in all, in a balanced diet red meat has its place and overthinking the little bits of fat is an unnecessary heartache

Lee_Torre

cc87 wrote: »

Personally I'm wary of any study or body that states red meat can be harmful to health. The studies all these warnings are based off, are generally quite poor. The large studies with thousands of participants are tough to draw any solid conclusions from as there are so many other factors at play and even how the participants report their diet has a massive impact on the results. These studies do not, for example, distinguish between a take-away curry, burger from MaccyDs and a home-cooked fillet steak, they are all considered red meat. Whether the diet is recorded through a food diary or weekly phonecalls influences reporting of food intake.

There are no controlled trials, to my knowledge, that have shown red meat to have a negative effect on health.

All in all, in a balanced diet red meat has its place and overthinking the little bits of fat is an unnecessary heartache

It's true. Many times, people don't look past the fact that it's a "study" before believing the "findings", studies can be tweaked and presented in whatever manner is desired by leaving out certain information, testing on a specific subset of subjects that don't reflect the majority and many other ways.

papu

Thoie wrote: »

I think it's more about the quantity of red meat that we eat. We eat a lot more than our poor forefathers ever did.

The recommended portion size for red meat is about 65g - that's just over 2 ounces. If you think about the size of a steak you get in a restaurant, they're usually 8, 10, 12 oz. Most people would usually estimate a pound of mince for 4 people - about double the recommendation.

We also have allot more internet , are less active , and rely on motor transport more.

Everything in moderation.

Lee_Torre

papu wrote: »

We also have allot more internet , are less active , and rely on motor transport more.

Everything in moderation.

True, moderation is key. Even too much water can kill you. Can't live life scared to enjoy the good things.

MightyMandarin

Thoie wrote: »

The recommended portion size for red meat is about 65g - that's just over 2 ounces.

but, but, WAT ABOUT THE GAINZZ??!

Lee_Torre

MightyMandarin wrote: »

but, but, WAT ABOUT THE GAINZZ??!

I hear you, that aint enough to make no gainzzz, I'm tryin to make all KINDZZZZZ... Lol.

Thoie

MightyMandarin wrote: »

but, but, WAT ABOUT THE GAINZZ??!

Well, if you're heavier, you can have more

The 65g is for an average person weighing about 80kg. If you weigh 160kg, feel free to have twice as much red meat.

fungie

There was a BBC Horizon on this recently enough for those interested.

rubadub

ford2600 wrote: »

The main trust being that s lot of red meat eaters also ignore other health advice about smoking, excessive alcohol etc.

Thats an issue with lots of these studies, they make out like group A's only "vice" is the thing they are testing against, and that group B is identical in every other way, i.e. their other "vices" or hazardous pastimes will all be identical.

e.g. some study was saying women who even drink just 1 glass of wine per day were at risk healthwise. While I would think tee-total women are more likely to exercise, not smoke and eat healthier in general.

I think that BBC documentary tried to address this point, they picked some religous community who I think did not drink or rarely drank and a lot of whom were veggies, could have been mormons. But I think the point still stood that the 2 groups were not equal in all other ways.

Bruno26

The key is finding out what the cattle were fed on and where they spent their lives. If entirely grass fed and in fields then there is zero wrong with eating red meat every day.

If they were raised in feedlots as in industrial beef production in USA then I would not eat any red meat. Cattle are meant to live in fields and eat grass not live in feedlots and eat grain.

We are lucky in Ireland that we can get quality red meat. Ask the butcher about the above.

spurious

Bruno26 wrote: »

The key is finding out what the cattle were fed on and where they spent their lives. If entirely grass fed and in fields then there is zero wrong with eating red meat every day.

If they were raised in feedlots as in industrial beef production in USA then I would not eat any red meat. Cattle are meant to live in fields and eat grass not live in feedlots and eat grain.

We are lucky in Ireland that we can get quality red meat. Ask the butcher about the above.

Exactly. Much of the bad rep red meat has is as a result of tests on the dreadful hormone boosted postbox red stuff they sell in the US.

generic2012

spurious wrote: »

Exactly. Much of the bad rep red meat has is as a result of tests on the dreadful hormone boosted postbox red stuff they sell in the US.

That's a spurious post.

norwegianwood

Nothing wrong with red meat, or animal fats in general as part of a balanced diet. I'm studying cardiovascular disease in college at the moment and a lot of the research that condemned the consumption of fat is very sketchy and outdated. You'd be more at risk from eating a high carb, low fat diet that had excessive calories because obesity is the primary risk factor for those complications.

daithi1970

The Horizon programme alluded to more or less stated that unprocessed red meat is fine-its the processed stuff like rashers ,sausages, chorizo, sliced ham etc that does the damage..see the link below..



http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/110651/BBC_Horizon_2012_Eat_Fast_and_Live_Longer/

generic2012

norwegianwood wrote: »

Nothing wrong with red meat, or animal fats in general as part of a balanced diet. I'm studying cardiovascular disease in college at the moment and a lot of the research that condemned the consumption of fat is very sketchy and outdated. You'd be more at risk from eating a high carb, low fat diet that had excessive calories because obesity is the primary risk factor for those complications.

Excessive calories is by far the main contributor. Why didn't you include high fat diet with excessive calories, which is the usual diet? I don't understand how people see a high calorie diet and talk about the macro-nutrient composition as the problem.

Bruno26

The thread is about red meat!
Only saw some of horizon. Did he address how cattle are fed and raised? If not then any conclusions are worthless. Its all about how cattle are fed and their environment.

norwegianwood

generic2012 wrote: »

Excessive calories is by far the main contributor. Why didn't you include high fat diet with excessive calories, which is the usual diet? I don't understand how people see a high calorie diet and talk about the macro-nutrient composition as the problem.

No sorry the point I was trying to make was that it doesn't really matter where the nutrients come from, just that a low fat high carb diet is still sometimes recommended to maintain heart health, but no matter what your macronutrient source, if calorie intake is excessive it's going to cause problems down the line due to obesity.

rubadub

Bruno26 wrote: »

Did he address how cattle are fed and raised?

they did

generic2012 wrote: »

Excessive calories is by far the main contributor. Why didn't you include high fat diet with excessive calories, which is the usual diet?

They spoke of the possible dangers of lean red meat in it, for the same calories. Basically saying if you ate 500kcal of lean meat you might be worse off than 500kcal of fatty meat.

There was some substance that lean red muscle tissue was high in and said to be damaging, this substance was not high or possibly not even present in the likes of chicken. So if eating lean red meat at the same calorie rate you were ingesting more of this substance, as I don't think the fat contained much if any of the substance.

Bruno26

LasTime wrote: »

When I read about things that are unhealthy like smoking, drinking and fast food, I am weary of the fact that red meat is usually listed. In a way I would consider this to be part of a healthy balanced diet. I hear it's because of the cholesterol in the fat.

The main red meat I usually eat is mince. But when I get mince, I get round steak minced seperately with the fat cut off. By doing this, you're guaranteed to have about 90% of the fat removed, if the butcher does a proper job. So what's the problem? I know that with processed food like rashers, it's different as there's apparently fat mixed in with the non fatty part.

I'll never get over how my Dad always says "but you're not getting good value that way because you've to pay for the fat too", and that it's tastier with the fat. You can't change old people. I do love watching the butcher cut off those fatty parts and seeing all the future blocked arteries I'm avoiding right before my eyes!

Your Dad is right. We should listen to the older generation sometimes. There is nothing wrong with fat. It's actually good for us. I reckon there is more chance of getting blocked arteries by not eating some fat. You should read The Omnivores Dilemma by Michael Pollan. It addresses all our concerns about red meat. If I lived in US I'd be very reluctant to eat red meat unless I knew exactly how it was produced.

deadlybuzzman

norwegianwood wrote: »

Nothing wrong with red meat, or animal fats in general as part of a balanced diet. I'm studying cardiovascular disease in college at the moment and a lot of the research that condemned the consumption of fat is very sketchy and outdated. You'd be more at risk from eating a high carb, low fat diet that had excessive calories because obesity is the primary risk factor for those complications.

Is there many reputable studies out there looking at things like how insulin levels and inflammation can affect things like the build up of cholesterol in the arteries?
I heard some interesting people on rob wolf's podcasts putting forward this view but after reading the book bad science I've no faith in my own reading non cochrane reviewed studies

Alf Veedersane

So testing has begun: I had a sirloin steak for dinner.

Je ne regrette rien.

I may or may not have had 400g of beef for dinner

fight the system!!!1

jh79

Bruno26 wrote: »

The thread is about red meat!
Only saw some of horizon. Did he address how cattle are fed and raised? If not then any conclusions are worthless. Its all about how cattle are fed and their environment.

How does this affect the quality of the meat?

ford2600

jh79 wrote: »

How does this affect the quality of the meat?

Cattle are a herd animal and ruminants; they ingest large volumes of grass and then sit and chew it. "Chewing the cud" which is how they breakdown the grass.

Fed lots in the USA fed concentrates to the cattle and keep them enclosed in lots packed together. IMHO mass produced chicken/pig meat is as bad.

Grass fed beef/lamb FTW. Wild venison if your a red neck like me!

Roughly USA produces 20% of world beef from memory.

jh79

ford2600 wrote: »

Cattle are a herd animal and ruminants; they ingest large volumes of grass and then sit and chew it. "Chewing the cud" which is how they breakdown the grass.

Fed lots in the USA fed concentrates to the cattle and keep them enclosed in lots packed together. IMHO mass produced chicken/pig meat is as bad.

Grass fed beef/lamb FTW. Wild venison if your a red neck like me!

Roughly USA produces 20% of world beef from memory.

But how does this make the meat bad for you ?

Bruno26

jh79 wrote: »

How does this affect the quality of the meat?

Cattle are meant to eat grass not corn or grain. Grass fed cattle are healthy. Corn / grain fed cattle are not healthy / as healthy. Google Michael Pollan for definitive answers.

Alf Veedersane

bluewolf wrote: »

I may or may not have had 400g of beef for dinner

fight the system!!!1

Proper paleo, innit.

Eat enough eat in one sitting in case you have a bad week on the hunting front.

jh79

Bruno26 wrote: »

Cattle are meant to eat grass not corn or grain. Grass fed cattle are healthy. Corn / grain fed cattle are not healthy / as healthy.

Why would Horizon need to consider this sure what influence could this have on whether meat is healthy or not ?

Alf Veedersane

jh79 wrote: »

Why would Horizon need to consider this sure what influence could this have on whether meat is healthy or not ?

Of course what the animal ingests has an influence on the quality of meat and it's effect on people.

How could it not?

jh79

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Of course what the animal ingests has an influence on the quality of meat and it's effect on people.

How could it not?

Taste but beyond that there is no reason to believe that Irish grass fed beef is healthier than other type.

Bruno26

jh79 wrote: »

Why would Horizon need to consider this sure what influence could this have on whether meat is healthy or not ?

Grass fed cattle are healthy. Corn fed cattle in US feedlots are given antibiotics to keep them alive until big enough to slaughter. Think about it- which beef would you prefer to eat?

ford2600

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Of course what the animal ingests has an influence on the quality of meat and it's effect on people.

How could it not?

Changing their social structure completely, feeding them an alien diet could have no effect on meat quality/hormones/fat composition and levels. Don't worry about the trans fats before you fry it in some lovely healthy vegetable oil

Don't worry about the daily drugs needed to combat the effects of removing chewing the cud from diet.

Meat is meat. You'll be grand.

jh79

Bruno26 wrote: »

Grass fed cattle are healthy. Corn fed cattle in US feedlots are given antibiotics to keep them alive until big enough to slaughter. Think about it- which beef would you prefer to eat?

Any evidence that the use of antibiotics produces beef that is in any way less healthy, what is in the meat that makes it less healthy?

ford2600

jh79 wrote: »

Taste but beyond that there is no reason to believe that Irish grass fed beef is healthier than other type.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/16500874/

Bruno26

jh79 wrote: »

Any evidence that the use of antibiotics produces beef that is in any way less healthy, what is in the meat that makes it less healthy?

A long but excellent description of industrial beef production in USA.

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/

jh79

Bruno26 wrote: »

A long but excellent description of industrial beef production in USA.

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/power-steer/

Doesn't explain why you consider this meat to be less healthy and why the Horizon program should have covered this.

Bruno26

jh79 wrote: »

Doesn't explain why you consider this meat to be less healthy and why the Horizon program should have covered this.

Ok you didn't read it then. It does. It doesn't matter what animals are fed- at the end of the day meat is meat isn't it!!

jh79

Bruno26 wrote: »

Ok you didn't read it then. It does. It doesn't matter what animals are fed- at the end of the day meat is meat isn't it!!

.

Evidence from a limited number of U.S. studies suggests that beef from both grass/forage-fed or finished and grain-finished cattle contributes a wide variety of important nutrients to the U.S. diet and consumption of either can be compatible with efforts to improve the cardiovascular health of Americans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013004944?via=ihub

Bruno26

jh79 wrote: »

.

Evidence from a limited number of U.S. studies suggests that beef from both grass/forage-fed or finished and grain-finished cattle contributes a wide variety of important nutrients to the U.S. diet and consumption of either can be compatible with efforts to improve the cardiovascular health of Americans.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013004944?via=ihub

I see who paid for that study! Very impartial indeed.

jh79

Bruno26 wrote: »

I see who paid for that study! Very impartial indeed.

Not a study, a review of other studies. So are they wrong?

jh79

ford2600 wrote: »

Changing their social structure completely, feeding them an alien diet could have no effect on meat quality/hormones/fat composition and levels. Don't worry about the trans fats before you fry it in some lovely healthy vegetable oil

Don't worry about the daily drugs needed to combat the effects of removing chewing the cud from diet.

Meat is meat. You'll be grand.

A small difference in fat content it seems, so a perfectly safe nutritional source.

Bruno26

jh79 wrote: »

Not a study, a review of other studies. So are they wrong?

Yes.