is meat unhealthy?

[jfoldbar]

so one of my employees suddenly decided to go vegan cause he read somewhere that meat is unhealthy. 

so im wondering if anyone knows of any unbiased studies to prove this?

i tried to google is but i thought of a few problems with any results i found.

 

lets say for example if you eat a t-bone 2-3 times a week, and some study shows this is unhealthy, have they taken the whole (meat and fat) steak into account? have they taken the cooking method (fry) into account.?

so you could get what i think is a perfectly healthy piece of beef. trim off all fat and fry in olive oil. Or, you could leave all the fat on and overcook it till its half burnt in a cheap vege oil.

if any studies havnt taken this into account i dont think they are giving the full picture.

[koti]

Eating a steak 3 times a week and sitting in front of your PC and sleeping 24/7 would be unhealthy. Red meat in excess contributes to acidification and might cause conditions like gout. If say youre a workout lover and train hard 4,5 times a week not consuming a hefty amount of meat will get your body in trouble. Its all subjective and depends on various factors. Humans are omnivorous so a simple answer would be no, meat is not unhealthy. If you eat 6 pounds of apples a day 7 days a week for a month that would surely get you in trouble too but it wouldnt be wise to state that apples are unhealthy now would it.

[swansont]

Paraphrase of a USENET signature (i.e. from decades ago)

Red meat is not bad or you. Blue-green furry meat is bad for you.

[Phi for All]

How the meat is prepared is going to be a controlled parameter in any testing, and personally I don't think that's the important part in this context. When reports suggest "red meat is unhealthy", it's a popular spin to grab attention. What the studies actually suggest is that red meat increases certain risk factors in certain people with regard to some serious medical conditions. Red meats are also more associated with injected hormones that may cause problems. Meats and fish tend to be pro-oxidants, so they rather work against many medical recommendations, which makes the vegetarian and vegan approach appealing. And what fast food has done to red meat is a crime. I don't trust their "meat" at all.

But red meats are safer from fecal contamination because we don't eat the skin of the cow. For those restricting methionine for cancer therapy, red meat is better than chicken or fish. It poses a lower risk for prostate cancer, but a higher rate for colon cancer. Plant foods have the least PCB contamination, but red meat is the lowest of the animal proteins, with milk, eggs, and fish having increasingly more. I'd say moderation and a healthy lifestyle are probably more important parameters to think about. 

Here's something to think about. A study on pregnancies determined that vegan women have twins at a rate 5 times less than women who eat meat. One could argue that meat eaters are more fertile, or are more capable of supporting more offspring. On the other hand, multiple pregnancies are difficult and pose a much higher risk on mother and babies. One could argue that veganism is safer.

[EdEarl]

Like most US laws, food products sold by corporations get lots of positive press. In the case of foods, the FDA recommendations are biased in favor of fast foods. For example,

Quote

Experts Say Lobbying Skewed the U.S. Dietary Guidelines

While many doctors and scientists have applauded some of the new guidelines—especially the recommendation to eat less added sugar—they also say some of the guidelines, which received mixed reviews, are out of step with the latest medical research, particularly when it comes to the consumption of red and processed meat.

There are vocal meat eaters on this forum, but evidence mounts that meat and meat products are not the most healthful foods.

[Phi for All]

21 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

There are vocal meat eaters on this forum, but evidence mounts that meat and meat products are not the most healthful foods.

"Not the most healthful" is pretty diplomatic, thanks. But I still think you're blaming the meat for what is essentially mismanagement on our part. If we don't require better quality from fast food vendors, or if we choose to eat steak and potatoes 3/wk while binging Netflix, can we really blame the meat? 

[EdEarl]

1 minute ago, Phi for All said:

"Not the most healthful" is pretty diplomatic, thanks. But I still think you're blaming the meat for what is essentially mismanagement on our part. If we don't require better quality from fast food vendors, or if we choose to eat steak and potatoes 3/wk while binging Netflix, can we really blame the meat? 

From what I've read, yes.

[StringJunky]

25 minutes ago, EdEarl said:

Like most US laws, food products sold by corporations get lots of positive press. In the case of foods, the FDA recommendations are biased in favor of fast foods. For example,

There are vocal meat eaters on this forum, but evidence mounts that meat and meat products are not the most healthful foods.

Moderation and variety is the key I think. Everything has an LD₅₀  (will kill 50%) rating. water has an LD50 of 6L.

[EdEarl]

14 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Moderation and variety is the key I think. Everything has an LD₅₀  (will kill 50%) rating. water has an LD50 of 6L.

Moderation is OK. That water has an LD50 of 6L and is necessary for human life is relevant, how? Lead has an LD50 of 450 mg/kg of body weight, but it is toxic at any amount.

[StringJunky]

Just now, EdEarl said:

Moderation is OK. That water has an LD50 of 6L and is necessary for human life is relevant, how? Lead has an LD50 of 450 mg/kg of body weight, but it is toxic at any amount.

Meat is not bad per se. Something as apparently innocuous and essential as water can kill you. Yours is an ideological position that is not wholly empirically based or at the least not balanced, it would seem. Your history on the subject of meat-free diets shows that you are evangelistic about them.

[EdEarl]

Calling me names doesn't change the science.

[StringJunky]

I'm not calling you names but I am pulling you up on your ideological position.

[John Cuthber]

4 hours ago, EdEarl said:

Moderation is OK. That water has an LD50 of 6L and is necessary for human life is relevant, how? Lead has an LD50 of 450 mg/kg of body weight, but it is toxic at any amount.

Then you are sick or dead- because you certainly contain some lead.

Also, re "is meat unhealthy?" Ordinarily, it's not just "unhealthy- it's been dead for a while by the time you eat it"

The evidence is fairly strong that a diet with lots of meat in it is associated with a shorter life.

[EdEarl]

1 hour ago, John Cuthber said:

Then you are sick or dead- because you certainly contain some lead.

Also, re "is meat unhealthy?" Ordinarily, it's not just "unhealthy- it's been dead for a while by the time you eat it"

The evidence is fairly strong that a diet with lots of meat in it is associated with a shorter life.

I think small doses of lead may kill some of your cells without being fatal.

Edited August 2, 2017 by EdEarl

[jfoldbar]

13 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

 

The evidence is fairly strong that a diet with lots of meat in it is associated with a shorter life.

lots of anything may not be healthy though. is this the fault of the meat that the eater eats too much?

[EdEarl]

6 minutes ago, jfoldbar said:

lots of anything may not be healthy though. is this the fault of the meat that the eater eats too much?

Overeating is not restricted to meat eaters, and that meat is unhealthful is not related to overeating.

[John Cuthber]

21 hours ago, EdEarl said:

I think small doses of lead may kill some of your cells without being fatal.

And if your thought isn't testable, then it's not science.

[CharonY]

I am always surprised how the discussion on this topic devolves every time. The discussion could very well end by stating that a varied diet with low amount of meat is associated with better health outcomes. Depending on the individual, some variations are healthier than others. If one had to choose between only meat diet or only vegetable diet, the latter is associated with better health. However, especially those that are prone to certain deficiencies (including children, elderly, etc.) benefit from at least some levels of meat (at which the negative effects of high-meat diets virtually vanish) or at least require supplements (which in itself can be problematic). 

[BanterinBoson]

On 8/2/2017 at 11:44 AM, StringJunky said:

Moderation and variety is the key I think. Everything has an LD₅₀  (will kill 50%) rating. water has an LD50 of 6L.

Does air have an LD50? lol

I wonder what the time interval is for the water.  If water is delivered quickly enough, a gram should be plenty for LD100   But seriously, what does LD50 on water actually mean?  Is it dilution of salts in the body or the sheer volume of liquid that kills?  Or something else?  Water isn't deadly, but it's like an aphorism with a deeper meaning.

But yeah, moderation in all things, including moderation.

_____________________________________________________________________

Regarding meat, I think folks must rely on modern technologies to be vegan, such as: vitamins, farming for the quantities of food necessary to compensate for lack of meat, vast array of kitchen equipment, and knowledge of nutrition in general to know what one needs to eat in order to compensate for what would otherwise be a balanced diet; therefore, veganism isn't what we would describe as "natural" by the definition standards of most people.  Although, with sufficient skill, determination, and resources, one could be a healthy vegan.

Everyone knows about B12, but what about vitamin A?  Have they standardized the standard yet or are they still upping the number of carrots one has to eat per day in order to supply the necessary retinol?  

As some carotenoids can be converted into vitamin A, attempts have been made to determine how much of them in the diet is equivalent to a particular amount of retinol, so that comparisons can be made of the benefit of different foods. The situation can be confusing because the accepted equivalences have changed. For many years, a system of equivalencies in which an international unit (IU) was equal to 0.3 μg of retinol, 0.6 μg of β-carotene, or 1.2 μg of other provitamin-A carotenoids was used.[50] Later, a unit called retinol equivalent (RE) was introduced. Prior to 2001, one RE corresponded to 1 μg retinol, 2 μg β-carotene dissolved in oil (it is only partly dissolved in most supplement pills, due to very poor solubility in any medium), 6 μg β-carotene in normal food (because it is not absorbed as well as when in oils), and 12 μg of either α-carotene, γ-carotene, or β-cryptoxanthin in food.

Newer research has shown that the absorption of provitamin-A carotenoids is only half as much as previously thought. As a result, in 2001 the US Institute of Medicine recommended a new unit, the retinol activity equivalent (RAE). Each μg RAE corresponds to 1 μg retinol, 2 μg of β-carotene in oil, 12 μg of "dietary" beta-carotene, or 24 μg of the three other dietary provitamin-A carotenoids.[51]  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Equivalencies_of_retinoids_and_carotenoids_.28IU.29

So how many carrots is that?  More than I want to eat per day.  If the RDA is 900 micrograms retinol, then x12 = 10,800 micrograms beta carotene.  If the average carrot has 3500 micrograms beta carotene, then that's 3 carrots per day.  And that's assuming they know what they're talking about.

"Be careful reading health books; you may die of a misprint" Mark Twain

Wiki goes on to say:

Because the conversion of retinol from provitamin carotenoids by the human body is actively regulated by the amount of retinol available to the body, the conversions apply strictly only for vitamin A-deficient humans. The absorption of provitamins depends greatly on the amount of lipids ingested with the provitamin; lipids increase the uptake of the provitamin.[52]

The conclusion that can be drawn from the newer research is that fruits and vegetables are not as useful for obtaining vitamin A as was thought; in other words, the IUs that these foods were reported to contain were worth much less than the same number of IUs of fat-dissolved oils and (to some extent) supplements. This is important for vegetarians, as night blindness is prevalent in countries where little meat or vitamin A-fortified foods are available.

Supplements are better than fruits a vegetables?!?  Holy cow!

Next is vitamin D from sunshine, but if one doesn't get enough, maybe because of higher latitudes or avoidance of the sun altogether, then what dietary source could a vegan possibly have?  (Other than mushrooms artificially exposed to UV light, since mushrooms generally prefer the shade).  Vitamin D is found mostly in fatty fish, but also in the fat of animals exposed to the sun.  Lard used to be a source of vitamin D.  https://www.vitamindwiki.com/"Free+range"+lard+has+500+IU+vitamin+D+per+teaspoon  But who eats lard anymore?

Next is K2; another meat vitamin.  A vegan could find K2 in fermented foods, but who does their own fermenting and does it properly?  There is no K2 source in the grocery store other than meat, cheese, eggs.  Of course, humans convert K1 to K2, but the medical community doesn't seem to guess at the conversion factor like with carotene to retinol.

From: https://chrismasterjohnphd.com/2016/12/09/the-ultimate-vitamin-k2-resource/

First, we don’t actually know that much about how the conversion takes place, but it seems to be inefficient and highly variable according to genetics and health status, making it unreliable.

Second, cholesterol-lowering statin drugs and certain osteoporosis drugs inhibit the conversion, making it even less reliable in people who are taking these drugs.

Third, research shows vitamin K2 is better than vitamin K1 at supporting many different aspects of our health. If we easily converted as much K1 to K2 as we needed, we wouldn’t observe these superior benefits of K2.

Being a vegan seems a lot of work, a lot of attention to detail, a lot of reliance on technology, and perhaps a lot of reliance of genetic proclivity to make necessary conversions.

Animals do the conversion work for us, just like they used to pull plows.  Herbivores do a particularly good job of converting vegetation into necessary nutrients and I believe humans evolved to be reliant on animals after millennia of eating them.  And the dense source of nutrition that hunting provided led to time being available for activities other than eating which led to language, science and art.  Vegans spend too much time in the kitchen and like cows spend all day eating; there isn't enough time left to develop cognitively.

 

On 8/2/2017 at 5:44 AM, jfoldbar said:

lets say for example if you eat a t-bone 2-3 times a week, and some study shows this is unhealthy, have they taken the whole (meat and fat) steak into account? have they taken the cooking method (fry) into account.?

People who eat steak also tend to make similar decisions, that's why I hate these correlation studies.  For instance, steak eaters may also choose to eat more processed foods.  Perhaps they are less inclined to exercise.  Those types of studies are very misleading.

Seventh Day Adventists are vegan and live longer than the general population.  Well, almost any group that pays particular attention to being healthy is going to live longer than the general population.  The study says nothing except people who try to be healthy, on average, live longer than people who do not necessarily try.  7th day adventists also do not smoke or drink, they're not as stressed in life, and they garden, work outside, and watch what they eat.

Studies show coffee drinkers live longer.  Maybe it's because they took the time to make coffee rather than rush to start the day?  Maybe it's not the coffee at all.  Or maybe it is; who knows.

[Sensei]

On 2.08.2017 at 0:07 PM, swansont said:

Red meat is not bad or you. Blue-green furry meat is bad for you.

So true. Not so long ago, I watched TV document on Discovery Channel about XIX century New York butchers.

One of them specialized in buying rotten pig heads, and making from them sausages.

Scientists were asked to reproduce his process on TV document.

They showed how to "upgrade" rotten meat, so it does not smell bad, and does not look bad..

They used just newly discovered in XIX century chemical compound that's is killing microorganisms. That "fixed" smell.

They literally started from rotten pig head and ended up with indistinguishable from regular sausages.

Unbelievable what people will do for money..

Edited September 21, 2017 by Sensei

[Prometheus]

This is the most comprehensive review of the effect of food, nutrition and physical activity on cancer (should be updated soon). Meat starts on page 116.

[EdEarl]

On 8/2/2017 at 11:57 AM, StringJunky said:

I'm not calling you names but I am pulling you up on your ideological position.

The idea I have about veganism is it is good for people. I don't object to killing one's food and still get hungry for a Chick Filet once in a while. Though, the longer I eat vegan, the less I care about meat. What ideological position am I supposed to have?

[Phi for All]

2 hours ago, EdEarl said:

The idea I have about veganism is it is good for people. I don't object to killing one's food and still get hungry for a Chick Filet once in a while. Though, the longer I eat vegan, the less I care about meat. What ideological position am I supposed to have?

The same one I have about stamp-collecting, or religion? It's just not something you participate in. It doesn't have to be good or bad, it's just not for you.

[Thorham]

5 hours ago, EdEarl said:

The idea I have about veganism is it is good for people. I don't object to killing one's food and still get hungry for a Chick Filet once in a while. Though, the longer I eat vegan, the less I care about meat. What ideological position am I supposed to have?

You're supposed to have any ideological position you want, however, veganism is about avoiding all animal products as much as possible in order to contribute as little as possible to animal suffering and death. It's a misconception that it's a diet (for example, steaks from a steak tree would be perfectly vegan).

[EdEarl]

Oh, tell my Doctor, who recommended veganism for my health. Since starting a vegan diet, my blood pressure normalized (120/70ish), even though I'm over 300 lbs. Recently my diabetes meds have been too much, and expect to be diabetes free one day. If other people are motivated by animal suffering, fine, live and let live. I kill bugs in the house and have cats to eliminate mice.

See: Forks over Knives
and: What the Health
on Netflix, Forks is also on youtube