Recent study suggests that red meat increases mortality rate...

James81 · Mar 24, 2009

http://health.yahoo.com/news/ap/med_diet_meat_mortality.html

Personally, I think there are far too many factors to think about to make a conclusion that red meat is bad for you.

For example, how are these people cooking the meat?
Where are they buying their meat? (there is a vast difference in buying red meat off the shelf at a supermarket than from a farm)

Cathy C · Mar 24, 2009

But what a way to go...

Rarri · Mar 24, 2009

This isn't new though, it's been around for a while that eating red meat increases the risk of several cancers and diseases etc.

CaroGirl · Mar 24, 2009

You want someone to do a study that proves you can eat all the red meat you want and you're guaranteed not to get cancer? This study comes out with a pretty reasonable and moderate result. It says the average person can safely eat about 14 oz of red and processed meat per week. I, personally, am good with that.

James81 · Mar 24, 2009

CaroGirl said:
You want someone to do a study that proves you can eat all the red meat you want and you're guaranteed not to get cancer?

No, I just want to know the conditions of their test.

Perhaps that 14 oz. number (which is a ridiclously low amount btw) would change based on the many factors (where it's from, how it's cooked, etc.) that are involved.

darkprincealain · Mar 24, 2009

I'm with James. Correlation does not equal causation.

Also the study used 545,000 AARP members. That's not really a representative sample when you compare their lifestyle and habits to the general populace. I think there might be a few factors that would make this study pretty much only applicable to AARP members.

That said, the red meat research is pretty thorough in other places. It's fair to say that most have found some link between health risks and red meat. Some suggest altogether different findings when the animals are fed differently. The packaging of meat using carbon monoxide, allowed in the U.S., remains controversial because the technology keeps meat fresher-looking longer. Some feel that this is deceptive and hides spoilage.

But I might be biased because I like my steak and prime rib.

dclary · Mar 24, 2009

Top of the food chain = I get to eat whatever I want.

Gravity · Mar 24, 2009

dclary said:
Top of the food chain = I get to eat whatever I want.

Me too. Gimme your leg, Dclary.

CaroGirl · Mar 24, 2009

dclary said:
Top of the food chain = I get to eat whatever I want.

Arrogance makes me hungry.

dclary · Mar 24, 2009

Gravity said:
Me too. Gimme your leg, Dclary.

You wouldn't want me. Very high in saturated fats and cholesterol. Plus, I'm probably carcogenic.

robeiae · Mar 24, 2009

Not to mention caustic and acidic...

BiggerBoat · Mar 24, 2009

My daughter saw a video at school on the treatment of cows, which thoroughly traumatized her, so we haven't ate red meat around here for a couple of years.

If she sees a video about chicken slaughter, we're screwed.

DamaNegra · Mar 24, 2009

At this point in life, it seems that EVERYTHING may cause cancer. Meh. So red meat increases my chances of dying? Well, guess what, my being alive already gives me a 100% odds of dying. So pass the red meat, I'm hungry.

StephanieFox · Mar 24, 2009

The point is moot. I'm eating red meat, white meat, everything but green meat (I don't eat ham, if you're wondering). I've been hearing about the risks of this or that forever. When my grandmother was pregnnt with my dad (1917) she was told to eat bacon and drink beer to make the baby strong and healthy. She did and my dad graduated med school when he was 21 years old, but I'm not jumping to the conclusion that a little bacon and a glass of beer made any difference one way or another.

When I was in college, a book came out called "Sugar Blues" that blamed white sugar on mental illness, hyperactavity, etc. Parents wouldn't let their kids have sugar for YEARS! Of course, substitute sugar (the no-cal stuff) was OK as was corn sweetener, 'cause it wasn't sugar. Now corn sweetener is EVIL and sugar is making a comeback.

The there was magickal oatmeal, magickal spiralina, magickal raw foods, magickal Atkins.

Why pay attention to any of this if you are generally healthy? Eat a balanced diet, eat a lot of healthy low-cal foods like veggies and moderate amount of meat, bread, pasta, etc and a little pie, cookies and candy. Just don't go overboard with anything. Quit letting fear of whatever food is in or out of vogue run you life.

Geeze!

Bird of Prey · Mar 24, 2009

I think it's about the worst thing people can eat for all kinds of reasons. . .including the cruelty factor.

By the way, I won't feed it to my dogs either. The only time I even handle it is if my siblings insist on burgers. Then I'll grill a couple for them.

selkn.asrai · Mar 24, 2009

Practically everything will kill you if you eat too much of it. I don't put much stock into these studies. They're all drenched in doom.

Humans are omnivorous for a reason; it's in our nature to eat meat, just like it is to eat leaves--a handy adaptation. Certain components are necessary to/improve our functioning. Without proper supplements, things like vegetarianism and veganism can severely damage you. Just like the fact that if you consume what adds up to a cow every week, that will also damage you. Moderation is imperative.

Part of the problem is that we're hardwired to take advantage of food sources, because for most of our existence, no meal was guaranteed. But what do we do when sources are abundant?

Another problem is that we're a hypocondriacal society. I'm convinced stress will kill us before any sort of diet will. Like Dama said, living guarantees dying.

Soccer Mom · Mar 24, 2009

I eat red meat. Fortunately I live somewhere that I can grow my own. I live in ranching country and beef has always been part of my diet and it always will be. At least I know what has been fed to the cattle I eat. No hormones or hinky stuff.

I'm also raising my own veggies and eating eggs from my ducks. Either I've gone radical southern hippie or ultra-conservative heartland.

Either way it's good eatin'.

Jersey Chick · Mar 24, 2009

I eat chicken because it's good for me.

I eat beef because - ohmygodyum!

I eat fish because it's good and ohmygodyum!

Moderation is key.

**hops off soapbox**

James81 · Mar 24, 2009

Jersey Chick said:
I eat chicken because it's good for me.

I would say that chicken is as bad, or worse, for you than red meat. Good lord they do all kinds of nasty stuff to chicken.

Jersey Chick · Mar 24, 2009

Well, good in theory, I guess. I don't like to think about it, really. If I think about it, I can't eat it. Any of it. And I don't like being a vegetarian. I tried it. I didn't like it.

Bird of Prey · Mar 24, 2009

James81 said:
I would say that chicken is as bad, or worse, for you than red meat. Good lord they do all kinds of nasty stuff to chicken.

No hormones are used in the raising of chickens.

Antibiotics may be given to prevent disease and increase feed efficiency. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered before the bird can be slaughtered. This ensures that no residues are present in the bird's system. FSIS randomly samples poultry at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this monitoring program have shown a very low percentage of residue violations.

Additives
Additives are not allowed on fresh chicken. If chicken is processed, however, additives such as MSG, salt, or sodium erythorbate may be added but must be listed on the label.http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/chicken_food_safety_focus/index.asp

Can Hormones & Antibiotics Be Used in Cattle Raising?
Antibiotics may be given to prevent or treat disease in cattle. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered until it is legal to slaughter the animal. This is so residues can exit the animal's system. FSIS randomly samples cattle at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this Monitoring Plan have shown a very low percentage of residue violations. Not all antibiotics are approved for use in all classes of cattle. However, if there is a demonstrated therapeutic need, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic that is approved in other classes for an animal in a non-approved class. In this case, no detectable residues of this drug may be present in the edible tissues of the animal at slaughter.

Hormones may be used to promote efficient growth. Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone (three natural hormones), and zeranol and trenbolone acetate (two synthetic hormones) may be used as an implant on the animal's ear. The hormone is time released, and is effective for 90 to 120 days. In addition, melengesterol acetate, which can be used to suppress estrus, or improve weight gain and feed efficiency, is approved for use as a feed additive. Not all combinations of hormones are approved for use in all classes of cattle. Hormones are approved for specific classes of animals only, and cannot be used in non-approved classes.http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FactSheets/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp

James81 · Mar 24, 2009

Bird of Prey said:
No hormones are used in the raising of chickens.

Antibiotics may be given to prevent disease and increase feed efficiency. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered before the bird can be slaughtered. This ensures that no residues are present in the bird's system. FSIS randomly samples poultry at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this monitoring program have shown a very low percentage of residue violations.

Additives
Additives are not allowed on fresh chicken. If chicken is processed, however, additives such as MSG, salt, or sodium erythorbate may be added but must be listed on the label.http://www.fsis.usda.gov/factsheets/chicken_food_safety_focus/index.asp

Can Hormones & Antibiotics Be Used in Cattle Raising?
Antibiotics may be given to prevent or treat disease in cattle. A "withdrawal" period is required from the time antibiotics are administered until it is legal to slaughter the animal. This is so residues can exit the animal's system. FSIS randomly samples cattle at slaughter and tests for residues. Data from this Monitoring Plan have shown a very low percentage of residue violations. Not all antibiotics are approved for use in all classes of cattle. However, if there is a demonstrated therapeutic need, a veterinarian may prescribe an antibiotic that is approved in other classes for an animal in a non-approved class. In this case, no detectable residues of this drug may be present in the edible tissues of the animal at slaughter.

Hormones may be used to promote efficient growth. Estradiol, progesterone, and testosterone (three natural hormones), and zeranol and trenbolone acetate (two synthetic hormones) may be used as an implant on the animal's ear. The hormone is time released, and is effective for 90 to 120 days. In addition, melengesterol acetate, which can be used to suppress estrus, or improve weight gain and feed efficiency, is approved for use as a feed additive. Not all combinations of hormones are approved for use in all classes of cattle. Hormones are approved for specific classes of animals only, and cannot be used in non-approved classes.http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FactSheets/Beef_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp

I live about a half an hour away from a chicken processing plant (which is one of the few "life-blood" jobs that keep my area alive), and everybody (yes, every single one of them) who has worked there has always come out with a horror story on the things they do to chicken, and I can't find one of them that eat chicken after working there.

Granted, that's not as solid as your link (for this discussion), but it IS a very real, personal experience.

Not to mention the moral aspects of what they actually DO to the chickens (as opposed to cattle). There are have been several news-worthy events on the people who abuse chickens which are utterly disgusting. Plus, it's really sad to watch the chicken trucks ride up and down the road with all the chickens stuffed in like 4 ft by 4 ft (if that) cages.

I'm not a moral animal elitist (I eat my share of meat--including chicken), but I do find it laughable how much people praise chicken as a "healthy" food over beef. Because, in my area, beef is raised in a much more ethical and healthy manner than chicken ever will be.

rugcat · Mar 24, 2009

StephanieFox said:
Eat a balanced diet, eat a lot of healthy low-cal foods like veggies and moderate amount of meat, bread, pasta, etc and a little pie, cookies and candy. Just don't go overboard with anything.

Exactly.

But I didn't see that study as telling people not to eat meat. It simply says that a diet overloaded with red meat -- bacon and sausage every day for breakfast, steaks and chops and meatloaf every day for dinner, is not healthy and increases one's chances of eventually developing many diseases and tends to shorten the lifespan you might have enjoyed if you had eaten less meat.

I think these conclusions are logical and inescapable. Those who refuse to believe it mostly just don't want to give up their daily hamburgers -- it reminds me of how for many years a lot of smokers pooh-poohed the studies that showed smoking causes lung cancer because they didn't want to give up their cigarettes.

James81 · Mar 24, 2009

rugcat said:
I think these conclusions are logical and inescapable. Those who refuse to believe it mostly just don't want to give up their daily hamburgers -- it reminds me of how for many years a lot of smokers pooh-poohed the studies that showed smoking causes lung cancer because they didn't want to give up their cigarettes.

Heh, well, for all practical purposes, I could be a vegetarian if I wanted. I don't eat a lot of meat (although I DO love to eat meat). Hell, when times are tough, the very first thing I cut out is meat because it's so damn expensive.

But I do question the validity of these studies.

Bird of Prey · Mar 24, 2009

James81 said:
I live about a half an hour away from a chicken processing plant (which is one of the few "life-blood" jobs that keep my area alive), and everybody (yes, every single one of them) who has worked there has always come out with a horror story on the things they do to chicken, and I can't find one of them that eat chicken after working there.

Granted, that's not as solid as your link (for this discussion), but it IS a very real, personal experience.

Not to mention the moral aspects of what they actually DO to the chickens (as opposed to cattle). There are have been several news-worthy events on the people who abuse chickens which are utterly disgusting. Plus, it's really sad to watch the chicken trucks ride up and down the road with all the chickens stuffed in like 4 ft by 4 ft (if that) cages.

I'm not a moral animal elitist (I eat my share of meat--including chicken), but I do find it laughable how much people praise chicken as a "healthy" food over beef. Because, in my area, beef is raised in a much more ethical and healthy manner than chicken ever will be.

The key is to purchase free-range and/or organic chicken if possible. These generally come from small outfits that are expected to have humane treatment and decent conditions for the birds.

Recent study suggests that red meat increases mortality rate...

Great Scott Member

Ooo! Shiny new cover!

Living the dream

Great Scott Member

Unabashed Mercenary

Seen 'em come, seen 'em go

Living the dream

Unabashed Mercenary

Touch and go

Just Shovelin' Chum

Mexican on the loose!

Maybull the Bulldog

Benefactor Member

Rawr.

Crypto-fascist

Up all night to get Loki

Great Scott Member

Up all night to get Loki

Benefactor Member

Great Scott Member

Lost in the Fog

Great Scott Member

Benefactor Member