Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Dr Sneh Khemka

GET UPDATES FROM Dr Sneh Khemka
 

The Vegetarians Win Again - Or Maybe Not...

Posted: 22/03/2012 23:00

It's not exactly breaking news, but the most recent study to link high red meat consumption and early death seems to have gained more light in the media than usual.

Once again, the nation is faced with images of slabs of red meat slapped across the papers and web, with headlines telling us to put down the bacon sandwich or be prepared to risk heart problems, cancer and an early death.

But are the percentages we're being bombarded with really as extreme as the new study is making out? And could such research be encouraging people to cut out an important component of a balanced diet altogether?

The study in question was undeniably large - Harvard researchers followed more than 100,000 people for around 28 years, collecting data about their diet and lifestyle periodically. Analysing the results, the researchers suggest that adding just a single portion of red meat to your daily diet would increase your risk of early death by 13%. For processed meat, the figures came out even higher, rising to a scary 20%.

And the risks associated with developing cardiovascular disease and cancer also came out at equally alarming figures.

Considering similar warnings from numerous studies over the years, I can't argue the fact that red meat should be enjoyed in moderation, and processed meat has been linked time and time again to poor health. But the statistics in the headlines are causing unnecessary alarm and confusion. How much red meat should we actually be eating? Should we even eat it at all?

It would be easy for the everyday reader, glancing over the papers, to take away the message that eating a bacon sandwich everyday would give you a one in five chance of dying. In reality, your risks are nowhere near this - once again an example of the daily papers loving a juicy statistic.

Reading the Harvard research paper, it's hard not to think about 'cause and effect'. In simple terms, was red meat consumption really the cause of the disease and mortality rates observed? In a study where all the participants self-reported their diet, and, as quoted in the paper, "the study did not update dietary information during follow-up", I'd say it's not a guarantee. This is where the phrase 'reading behind the headlines' is highly appropriate.

All this bad press for red meat could potentially cause many to cut it out completely. What happened to the promotion of a balanced diet? Red meat is packed with essential nutrients, such as iron, zinc, vitamin D, B3 and B12, just to name a few. Cutting out red meat could certainly reduce your risk of some diseases, but could all this exaggerated media attention cause the health conscious to become nutritionally deprived?

And let's not forget that this study was conducted in America, a country well known for its high consumption of processed foods. It would be much wiser for us Brits to listen to the advice of organisations on our home soil. The Department of Health recommends that we have no more than 70g of red meat a day. In food terms that's one lamb chop, three slices of ham or a rasher of bacon. Sounds realistic to me...

The British Heart Foundation is also still encouraging the inclusion of red meat in our diet, but with a far more sensible message - keep it in moderation (no more than two or three portions a week), choose leaner cuts and use healthier cooking methods, such as grilling. Surely this is what the population should be reading in the papers, instead of misleading statistics and exaggerated data.

I'm certainly not denying that a high consumption of meat is linked to disease. We are faced with this fact regularly, and it's a wise idea to cut down on the bacon for breakfast if it's become a regular occurrence. But it seems that as soon as we're told something is bad for us, the next morning's papers are saying it's not. So, don't throw out the barbeque just yet. You never know what tomorrow's headlines may bring. It could well be 'Barbequing food is the healthiest option.'

I'm off to enjoy some lightly grilled lamb chops, slightly rare, and I might just have some chips as well...

 

Follow Dr Sneh Khemka on Twitter: www.twitter.com/drsneh

FOLLOW UK LIFESTYLE
It's not exactly breaking news, but the most recent study to link high red meat consumption and early death seems to have gained more light in the media than usual. Once again, the nation is faced wi...
It's not exactly breaking news, but the most recent study to link high red meat consumption and early death seems to have gained more light in the media than usual. Once again, the nation is faced wi...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 8
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
09:44 PM on 03/25/2012
Cont'd.

Part 2:

And for a broader view of what's wrong with the kind of epidemiological study that's the subject of this article, read the following:

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by Dr. John Ioannidis, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ ,

and the following article from The Atlantic about Dr. Ioannidis's work: "Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science" http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269/ ,

and the following article by Gary Taubes and Charles Mann: "Epidemiology Faces Its Limits" http://geography.ssc.uwo.ca/faculty/baxter/readings/Taubes_limits_epidemiology_Science_1995.pdf
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
09:43 PM on 03/25/2012
Part 1:

The author says, "I'm certainly not denying that a high consumption of meat is linked to disease. We are faced with this fact regularly, and it's a wise idea to cut down on the bacon for breakfast if it's become a regular occurrence. "

Ahem. If the author is implying that red meat CAUSES disease and that this is a FACT we're faced with regularly (rather than a CLAIM we're faced with regularly because of "associations" -- and weak ones at that -- that some epidemiological studies have found), then he is as guilty of promoting "bad science" as the others he criticizes in this article.

For some very cogent analysis of what's REALLY wrong not only with the study the author is talking about but also with the way the media has reported about it (including right here at HP by the site's "Medical Editor"), read the following discussions:

"Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science" http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/#utm_source

"Science, Pseudoscience, Nutritional Epidemiology, and Meat" http://garytaubes.com/

Cont'd.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
08:16 PM on 03/23/2012
What an offensive piece of pseudo-science. Overall, red meat is bad for you. Yes it contains some nutrition, but nothing you can't get from a more healthy source. Eating less red meat is still bad for you - just not as bad as eating it three times a day.

Red meat is also very bad for the environment. If we all gave up meat it would be more beneficial than all of us giving up cars!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
elcerritan
My bio is not micro
09:46 PM on 03/25/2012
The article is "pseudo-science," but not for the reasons you think.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
07:48 PM on 03/23/2012
The British Heart Foundation recommends eating no more than two or three portions of red meat A WEEK.

When so many people in the UK are risking their lives by eating red meat two or three times A DAY, it is irresponsible to write an article that is confusing the issue by seeming to be encouraging people to eat red meat.

Then again, looking at your job title, your vested interests are clear.
12:45 PM on 03/23/2012
While I agree that this survey is largely cobblers, I'm surprised you mention that it was conducted in America as support for your argument. The survey was conducted by Americans, using both American and British data sources.
09:21 AM on 03/23/2012
Eating a bacon sandwich every day gives you a 100% chance of dying, the same as not eating a bacon sandwich every day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Wagland
Resistance is fertile
08:12 PM on 03/23/2012
That bit made me laugh as well. Hard to believe a medical director of Bupa thinks somebody could have a one-in-five chance of dying!