THE OTHER RED MEAT: Both pork and beef have been implicated as upping people's risk for getting type 2 diabetes, even when consumed in small portions once a day.
Image: iStockphoto/TheCrimsonMonkey
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
Sugary soda and other sweet treats are likely not the only foods to blame for the surge in diabetes across the U.S. New research out of Harvard University supports the theory that regular red meat consumption increases the risk of getting type 2 diabetes.
An average of just one 85-gram (three-ounce) serving of unprocessed red meat—such as a medium hamburger or a small pork chop—per day increased by 12 percent the chances a person would get type 2 diabetes over the course of a decade or two. And if the meat was processed—such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon—the risk increased to 32 percent, even though serving sizes were smaller.
The new study, published online August 10 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, is not the first to find the link between red meat and diabetes risk. But it is the largest and one of the first to look separately at unprocessed and processed meats.
"On a gram-per-gram basis, unprocessed red meat is still better," says Frank Hu, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health and co-author of the new paper. "But unprocessed red meat is still associated with a significantly increased risk."
More than 8.5 percent of U.S. adults have been diagnosed with diabetes, and in some counties in the so-called "diabetes belt" in the South, the numbers exceed 11.2 percent. The rates are expected to keep climbing in the coming years.
Hu suggests that based on the analysis there is indeed a "disease burden that can be attributed to consumption of either processed or unprocessed red meat."
It's what's for dinner, for many
A U.S. adult consumes an average of more than 45 kilograms (100 pounds) of red meat a year. "There's no question that consumption of red meat is too high," Hu says, suggesting nuts, whole grains and low-fat dairy products as healthier alternatives. And diabetes is not the only reason to switch to lighter forms of protein. People who ate 113 grams (four ounces) of red meat a day are more likely to die from any cause over 10 years, according to a 2009 Archives of Internal Medicine study of half of a million people.
Of course, eating red meat for a week "is not going to give someone diabetes—we're talking about habitual consumption," Hu says. And for those uncertain about trading in a filet mignon for a fistful of almonds, the researchers behind the new paper also list poultry and fish as alternatives, although Hu cautions that other research also supports the move to a more plant-based diet.
"It really confirms what other studies have suggested," says Elizabeth Seaquist, director of the Center for Diabetes Research at the University of Minnesota, who was not involved in the new study. The new report analyzed health and dietary information from three large-scale cohort studies (the "Health Professionals Follow-Up Study," and the "Nurses' Health Study I and II"), which encompassed some 200,000 adults. It combined that data with previous studies for a meta-analysis that covered a total of 440,000 men and women who were followed for 10 years or more.
Seaquist puts great confidence in the findings based on the study's sample size, but notes that as an epidemiological study like this one should, it "raises more hypotheses than gives us answers."
The additional incriminating evidence for this category of food seems to swing the pendulum away from refined carbohydrates as the only culprits in advancing diabetes. And the new paper "will heighten awareness of the potential for different dietary components to contribute to diabetes," Charles Burant, director of the Metabolomics and Obesity Center at the University of Michigan Medical School, who also was not involved in the new paper.
For people who have been following the research, however, "the findings are not particularly surprising," Hu says. In fact, despite the big play that sugars and other highly processed carbohydrates have gotten, red meat is actually "one of the most well-established dietary risk factors," he notes.
Size matters
One of the tricky aspects of lifestyle studies like this one is that unhealthful behaviors often go together, making it tough to tease them apart to see if one is having a larger effect than others. And in the studies, those who reported eating the most red meat also tended to have other risk factors for diabetes, such has having a higher body mass index (BMI), smoking and not getting much physical activity. "People who eat a lot of meats tend to gain more weight," Hu says.
So the new findings might be more "a reflection of poor dietary intake by people who eat meat," Burant says. Seaquist explains more plainly that perhaps "people who eat red meat end up eating French fries with it."
Rights & Permissions
See what we're tweeting about
30 Comments
Add CommentThere is also a great deal of research that points to high levels of carbohydrate consumption, especially refined, sugar-filled carbohydrate foods that are a major cause of obesity leading into diabetes. Limiting these foods, not meats, would make a huge dent in the number of new cases of diabetes and go a long way for current diabetics to manage their disease.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“Processed foods and food chemicals have "Given" innocent people diabetes and Obesity. The illness is "given" to you. A filmmaker proved this on British Television. Food Chemicals destroy the bodies ability to make good insulin. It is possible to reverse and REVERSE diabetes with a "Specialized Diabetes" diet and no drugs
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was reported in The Philadelphia Daily News See here http://www.phillyburbs.com/your_news/blogs/borderline-diabetes-diet-why-the-right-diet-may-save-your/article_8093bc3c-4a6c-11e0-87dd-0019bb30f31a.html”
This appears to be uncharacteristically sloppy health reporting on behalf of SciAm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst, there should be a link through to the original paper.
Secondly, there's a profound difference between risk of getting diabetes over a period of time and the *increase* in risk over this time attributed to eating red meat.
Your second paragraph states:
"An average of just one three-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat—such as a medium hamburger or a small pork chop—per day increased by 12 percent the chances a person would get type 2 diabetes over the course of a decade or two. And if the meat was processed—such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon—the risk increased to 32 percent, even though serving sizes were smaller."
It mentions the *increase* in risk without mentioning the baseline risk. If that baseline risk is, say, 10%, then "one three-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat—such as a medium hamburger or a small pork chop—per day" would raise that to 11.2%.
It's all too easy for many readers to believe their absolute risk is 12% rather than the adjusted baseline.
Adding to this is the error of using the word "to" instead of "by" in the sentence: "And if the meat was processed—such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon—the risk increased *to* 32 percent, even though serving sizes were smaller."
This explicitly suggests the absolute risk is 32 per cent, rather than an increase from the baseline of 32 per cent.
As a science journalist myself, I shudder when seeing these errors in the mainstream press. But seeing it in SciAm is a shock. I do hope that you might update this article with more information about the baseline rates and provide a link through to the original paper.
i do not believe this. why? because next week a new study will likely claim red meat is good for diabetics. moderation is the key in all things.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis seems unlikely, at least from my research and my personal experience.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince switching to a diet heavier in meat and much lighter in refined foods and sugar, I've slightly lost weight (and I'm eating quite a lot, perhaps 3000 calories a day or more, on average) and my body composition has been slowly changing - I'm skinnier, so it's not muscle weight that I've lost.
Insulin is produced as a response to sugar/starch, not protein/fat, and insulin is the primary mechanism for determining how the body handles what is in the bloodstream.
I'm quite suspicious of this article, with its vague phrasings and lack of verifiables. I would suggest reading Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat to anyone interested in how the conflicting nutritional advice we've received over the past fifty years has actually damaged our health instead of helping.
This is just the tip of the iceberg concerning the health implications of eating meat, especially when we are by design herbivores, more specifically frugivores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll processed foods are problematic health wise. If we stick to the raw food model that exists in nature instead of kidding ourselves with our addictive foolish behaviour humanity might stand a chance!
My research indicates that anyone who eats has a 100% risk of dying within 120 years. This also pertains to those who breath, have sex (or don't have sex), drink water or sweat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am so tired of seeing people panic over these types of articles which attempt conclusions from statistical data from populations that are not controllable. I doubt that the population studied was restricted to eating just red meat. The also undoubtedly ate carbs and a lot of other things as well.
What I would like to see is a methodology that would allow me to evaluate my own metabolism and find what I need to do to optimize my own diet. I had a problem where my wife heard that colesterol was super bad for you and tried to completely remove them from my diet. Considering that my colesterol at the time was under 120, the resulting lowering of my colesterol reduced the amount of "good" colesterol to the point that the normal levels of "bad" colesterol had a higher "bad" effect and I ended up with a blockage in my heart. Since then, my cardiologist requires me to eat foods high in colesterol to get my "good" colesterol back up to where it could protect my heart.
I just wish the general population would learn NOT to react to these vague findings and self treat themselves based on too little information. See a doctor or nutritionalist if you suspect you have a problem and stop worrying about these so called "risks". A balanced diet is a good starting place but get professional guidance before reacting to these types of studies.
We're not herbivores.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTry living a week on grass (which you can't digest).
(For the sake of producing actual references rather than opinion, I offer The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith as a quick summary.)
Do you know what a frugivore is? Read the China study, Darwin or the 80/10/10 diet for references. If you cannot eat something in its raw state, nature did not intend for you to eat it!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe dose is the poison. Enjoy life. Come to understand your limitations, and transgress them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am a fifty seven year old alcoholic who got sober when he was forty eight. I will probably live past my father's age at death of eighty two. I may well get hit by a bus this afternoon. But my, oh my, what a ride.....
What I ate this morning is utterly irrelevent compared to the paramount importance of how I treat my fellow human beings right now.
Life is a huge sumptuous banquet, and so often articles like this one would have us off in a remote corner, picking the fly poop out of the pepper.
I can speak from personal experience that this article is true. I was diagnosed with pre-diabetes at age 27 and at the time my diet was 100% processed foods, high in sugar and corn syrup additives. I ate take out three times a day. It was a matter of convenience, as I did not have access to a kitchen. Let me tell you, I weight almost 170 lbs on a 5 foot, 10 inch frame. Way too much weight. I was tired, sluggish and slept for hours. I was also diagnosed with anemia. And this combination is fatal. Due to economic circumstances at the age of 30 and nothing more, I had to change my diet. I was forced to buy fresh vegetables and lean cuts of meat: beef, pork , fish and chicken, as I had no money in my budget for take out foods. I also ate alot of beans and baked breads. My weight dropped down to 135 lbs. My skin, hair look fantastic. My energy levels soared. Well, I am still tired, but nothing like I used to be. I still limit my take out foods and cook at home. I am not the best cook. It is very hard not to stop and get a flavored latte, hamburger and french fries. If I do stop, I get a small $1.00 hamburger and small fries. I do not drink soda and only have black coffee with whole milk and not sugar. A diet of processed foods will kill you. Diabetes is a manageable disease. You must honestly eat healthfully and find a value in fresh vegetables and lean meats. However the true question is how do you keep these items affordable to those with limited incomes? That is why alot of poor people eat fast food. It is filling, convenient and inexpensive. I now love cooking and if I weight gets to 140 lbs to 145 lbs. I find my veggies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI can speak from personal experience that this article is true. I was diagnosed with pre-diabetes at age 27 and at the time my diet was 100% processed foods, high in sugar and corn syrup additives. I ate take out three times a day. It was a matter of convenience, as I did not have access to a kitchen. Let me tell you, I weight almost 170 lbs on a 5 foot, 10 inch frame. Way too much weight. I was tired, sluggish and slept for hours. I was also diagnosed with anemia. And this combination is fatal. Due to economic circumstances at the age of 30 and nothing more, I had to change my diet. I was forced to buy fresh vegetables and lean cuts of meat: beef, pork , fish and chicken, as I had no money in my budget for take out foods. I also ate alot of beans and baked breads. My weight dropped down to 135 lbs. My skin, hair look fantastic. My energy levels soared. Well, I am still tired, but nothing like I used to be. I still limit my take out foods and cook at home. I am not the best cook. It is very hard not to stop and get a flavored latte, hamburger and french fries. If I do stop, I get a small $1.00 hamburger and small fries. I do not drink soda and only have black coffee with whole milk and not sugar. A diet of processed foods will kill you. Diabetes is a manageable disease. You must honestly eat healthfully and find a value in fresh vegetables and lean meats. However the true question is how do you keep these items affordable to those with limited incomes? That is why alot of poor people eat fast food. It is filling, convenient and inexpensive. I now love cooking and if I weight gets to 140 lbs to 145 lbs. I find my veggies.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUntil it doesn't.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, a study "controls" for weight. Does that mean that they took people who are skinny (at or below their BMI efficiency levels) and said they have type II diabetes and then ran their experiment? No. It means they tried to mathematically count for the fat people in the study and as far as I'm concerned, until you tell me you've run a large-scale diabetes II group where everyone is skinny by definition, and then ran the controls for who ate red meat and who didn't, you've got "nothin'". The rest is mathematical. And the write-up says that after controlling for obesity there was still a "modest" connection. What the hell does THAT mean? Is this scientific or not? "Modest" is not a quantitative measure but a qualitative. Again, just someone please tell us if you are skinny, do you get diabetes II and then if that is true, in what percentage do skinny people get diabetes II compared to slightly or grossly overweight (but we all sort of all ready know this, right?). Then, tell me if going off of processed sugars, coffee, sex, red meat, whatever you choose, lowers people's diabetes II. But, let's go a step farther. Take obese people and get rid of the red meat BUT make sure their weight remains the same and all other co-morbidity features stay the same (don't quit smoking, don't stop eating processed carbohydrates, don't stop having coffee or sex or whatever you were doing), but definitely make sure your weight stays exactly the same: NOW, the thesis would be this: all other things being equal, if you take a diabetes II patient off of a previously red-meat diet and keep their weight the same, does their diabetes II improve and by what measure. This really isn't hard, folks, if you really want to know. But instead, if SA promotes climate change, and you can have an article that says that methane from cows actually causes heat entrapment and therefore increases in global temps (no argument from me on this btw), then having less red meat eating people should help climate change, eh? I'm not dunning Harvard's study here, only SA's weak analysis of it. Poor poor response to the facts, which weren't included at all, though it did have some weak counter arguments. Time to get technical here or do a CORRECT experiment with diabetes II, obese people strictly about red meat... PLEASE!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome people probably need to read the article more closely before over-reacting. The article in a nutshell sais red meat is associated with increase diabetes risk, much of which may simply be associative with higher absolute caloric intake, but even with that removed there still seemed to be an association. It's interesting and the last part in particular I wasn't expecting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to have your red meat and eat it too, just make sure you moderate absolute intake and exercise regularly. Diabetes is primarily driven by a pancreas that is overloaded by trying to control sugar levels in an overweight body. Remove that from the equation and for most people this will massively outweigh any contribution from the red meat itself.
I am a T2 diabetic whose beta cells are long gone do to carbs and 100% insulin dependent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSince going on a high protein read MEAT and fat diet with minimal to no carbs I have my blood sugar in full control and now down in normal healthy range that is the same for non-diabetics.
This high meat and fat diet and limited cabs also had my lipids drop way down and I only need minimal insulin to cover the neoglucogenisis from the proteins and small amount of carbs.
This article like many does not consider eh carb content in "Standard" diets.
The steriods and antibiotics fed to cattle might also have some effect upon this study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisStill off the mainstream radar in this and in virtually all mainstream media, is the idea that there is red meat (lowercase) produced in industrial, confinement, corn- and soy-based systems with lots of antibiotics and other meds and chemicals. And then there's Real Meat (capital letters) which is from animals raised on natural green forage, outdoors on pasture, on green-based diets and without antibiotics and other medications. We farm by these methods and actually have two customers (two separate households) who are following a Weston A Price influenced diet, sometimes called a Paleo(lithic) diet, who have completely eliminated their diabetes diagnoses and symptoms by changing to a diet grounded in pasture-based proteins (meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy all produced from pasture-raised animals), less grains and refined carbohydrates, no processed fats or meats, and lots of vegetables. You can find your own nearby farm at www.eatwild.com or www.localharvest.org.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ockhamsbeard - if you go to "www.sciencedaily.com" and run a search on "red meat diabetes" you'll find a bunch of studies including this one and links to the original.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI personally am curious as to whether it's possible to tease out of the data whether there's a difference between people eating corn feedlot meat or grassfed. Northern and Southern hemisphere difference perhaps?
Where do we get "unprocessed" red meat these days? All meat is processed by factory farming. Male calves are castrated (forbidden by Jewish law) and shot full of female hormones. They're crowded into feedlots where they wallow in their own filth as they are larded up with saturated fat. I pretty much eliminated red meat from my diet. Lean poultry is a treat for Sabbath and holidays. The rest of the time I eat plant-based fare supplemented with fish. I and my wallet are better off for it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe conclusions drawn from these studies, belong to the chapter: "Scientists feed the confusion".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is reported here, has nothing to do with red meat, but with the fact, as stated in the article that: "those who reported eating the most red meat also tended to have other risk factors for diabetes, such has having a higher body mass index (BMI), smoking and not getting much physical activity". The principal author also stated that: "People who eat a lot of meats tend to gain more weight".
Thus, the higher risk for raising diabetes is not the red meat as such, but the incipient obesity due to OVEREATING and LESS PHYSICAL ACTIVITY!
It is time for us, the scientists, to stop confusing people!
Leoluca Criscione, PhD, Switzerland
Thanks!!! I am SO tired of half-baked articles on what we should and should not do!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRaw foods are good for some people, not all. Vegetarianism is good for some people, not all. Meat is good for some people, not others. The trick is in understanding that everyone's needs are different and going from there.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeosteo: Humans and human ancestors have been eating meat for thousands of years. Humans evolved as 'hunter-gatherers', and hunting and gathering involves eating anything you can find to eat that can be digested, which would include insects and mice and any other animals that could be caught and/or killed. Wild Bonobo chimps today (closest primate relatives of humans) ALSO eat meat. You are simply WRONG when you state: "...we are by design herbivores.."
Dear Carolina, there is NO TRICK!! You must know your Total Energy (Caloric) Expenditure!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead more (see this link) http://www.vitasanas.ch/fileadmin/user_upload/pdf/BOOK0_Contents.pdf
It would also be interesting to see if this is true with grass-fed beef as well. As with the increase in processed carbs, the feed being served to the cows may be responsible for the increased diabetes risk.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNeosteo is right: we are by design the Third Chimpanzees -no doubt, it's in our genes!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe fact that during our evolution into sapiens'('savvy') primates, meat , particularly through ice ages, must have been our life-saving emergency food, nothing more or less.
Prof. Jane Goodall measured the average meet intake of her chimps in Gombe at a measly 80 grammes per month!
Which would equal a burger per fortnight, not per day!
It's the dosis that causes the poison effect; any food taken at ten, twenty, fifty times, the original measure is (physio-)logically classified by our body as toxic.
The pancreas is a multifactorial glandular body organ that plays a part in much more than insulin production.
In Chinese rice eaters it tends to grow into three times its original size, perhaps to adjust to its over=exercion. Compare this to the enlarged heart muscle of some body builders. Not healthy either. Means body stress, equals less life experience.
Our human feeding habits are ripe for a very thorough revision.
Read :The China Study by that eminent American Professor Emeritus,Colin Campbell
Youthevity.com ( colour eating without heating )
I fully support scientific research but in this one area: something strange is going on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy (8 years) younger brother just had a heart attack, a "mild" one. Describing all his "bad habits" would take up more than SciAm allows on this forum. Smoker. Drinker. Diabetic. Eats almost entirely restaurant meals. Has been 100 pounds overweight for prolonged period. Eats red meat three times a day whenever the opportunity presents itself. Never exercises. Get the picture?
He may well have another heart attack and probability says it'll kill him dead. Even so: he has a reasonable chance of living several more years. Dying before the "average age of Americans" still gives one up to 70 years, maybe more.
So lets talk about LETHALITY. These obvious (serious) unhealthy factors in my brother's case mean that, ultimately, all of them put together are only mildly harmful. Lets call it: far less lethal than ALL of these studies suggest - to us.
Thing is, my brother is "using medical resources" excessively as well. That is a legitimate point, so don't get me wrong: I support the campaign to get us to practice better self-care, medically speaking.
I just think things like this fixation some medical authorities have with bashing meat-eaters is on them, not on us. How do they explain that humans have EVOLVED into meat eaters? How do they explain away the fact that meat protein helps build and maintain better brains?
I live in a university town: where there are a lot of self-professed vegetarians and "vegans." They have their own "meatless" kitchens and larders, their own "meatless" restaurants. But why out why do all of them look like they were recently released from a Nazi death camp?! And I'd be willing to bet: not more than 2% are athletically fit. You don't see shot putters or weight lifters or even pro cyclists who are vegetarian.
Three OUNCES of meat per day?? Hah!!
I'm no longer an insulin dependent diabetic after switching to a vegan diet. About two weeks ago I went further, and I'm doing 80/10/10, and my diabetes is even better. I will soon have to decrease my diabetes oral meds to avoid hypoglycemia. I also have congestive heart failure (CHF) and after two weeks of 80/10/10 my leg edema is more than 50% decreased. Raw Vegan 80/10/10 is the way to go for restoring or keeping your health...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" If you cannot eat something in its raw state, nature did not intend for you to eat it!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEver heard of prolamines and lectins ? There are no intentions here by mother nature. It's a biological war between species.
Carnivore non human animals who couldn't digest raw meat perished, and were purged from the gene pool. Humans who couldn't digest meat in its raw state, learned to overcome this biological weakness with their vast intelligence, by cooking it. Humans also purged rice of most of its prolamines and lectins by creating white rice. All plants have a certain degree of prolamines. Humans have made themselves biologically weaker because of the necessity to cook a lot of foods. If mother nature had it her way, there would be a human biological holocaust.