GREAT NEWS! New research shows anti-beef science is all wrong

Nutritional science claiming beef will kill you is weak, new research says.

 

Amanda Radke, BEEF Magazine 

Oct 02, 2019

 

... According to new research, conducted by an international team of experts, the previously published “science” claiming that beef and pork is detrimental to our health and linked to heart disease, cancer and other illness is FALSE!

 

Yes, you read that right — new research is saying what we’ve known all along — the erroneous, politically-motivated junk science is being called out as “garbage.”

 

Hallelujah!

 

Here’s what you need to know about this research as the story unfolds:

 

Earlier this week, the New York Times reported on this research. In an article titled, “Eat less red meat, scientists said. Now some believe that was bad advice,” reporter Gina Kolata writes:

 

“The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.

 

“In three reviews, the group looked at studies asking whether eating red meat or processed meats affected the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.

 

“To assess deaths from any cause, the group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease (there are very few), as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.

 

“In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and disease and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.”

 

Even in the face of this good news, Kolata still takes a stab at the meat industry, suggesting again that plant-based diets have a lower climate impact than chicken, pork or beef. However, I’m still going to count this as a win. You can read the entire article by clicking here.

 

What’s more, this new research has other outlets buzzing ...

 

more

https://www.beefmagazine.com/beef/great-news-new-research-shows-anti-beef-science-all-wrong

 

 

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.

 

By Gina Kolata, The New York Times

Oct 1, 2019

 

Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

 

But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

 

If there are health benefits from eating less beef and pork, they are small, the researchers concluded. Indeed, the advantages are so faint that they can be discerned only when looking at large populations, the scientists said, and are not sufficient to tell individuals to change their meat-eating habits.

 

“The certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low,” said Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and leader of the group publishing the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.

 

The new analyses are among the largest such evaluations ever attempted and may influence future dietary recommendations. In many ways, they raise uncomfortable questions about dietary advice and nutritional research, and what sort of standards these studies should be held to.

 

Already they have been met with fierce criticism by public health researchers. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them.

 

Some called for the journal’s editors to delay publication altogether. In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

 

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, a group advocating a plant-based diet, on Wednesday filed a petition against the journal with the Federal Trade Commission. Dr. Frank Sacks, past chair of the American Heart Association’s nutrition committee, called the research “fatally flawed.”

 

While the new findings are likely to please proponents of popular high-protein diets, they seem certain to add to public consternation over dietary advice that seems to change every few years. The conclusions represent another in a series of jarring dietary reversals involving salt, fats, carbohydrates and more.

 

The prospect of a renewed appetite for red meat also runs counter to two other important trends: a growing awareness of the environmental degradation caused by livestock production, and longstanding concern about the welfare of animals employed in industrial farming.

 

Beef in particular is not just another foodstuff: It was a treasured symbol of post-World War II prosperity, set firmly in the center of America’s dinner plate. But as concerns about its health effects have risen, consumption of beef has fallen steadily since the mid 1970s, largely replaced by poultry.

 

“Red meat used to be a symbol of high social class, but that’s changing,” said Dr. Frank Hu, chair of the nutrition department at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston. Today, the more highly educated Americans are, the less red meat they eat, he noted.

 

Still, the average American eats about 4 1/2 servings of red meat a week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Some 10 percent of the population eats at least two servings a day.

 

The new reports are based on three years of work by a group of 14 researchers in seven countries, along with three community representatives, directed by Dr. Johnston. The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.

 

In three reviews, the group looked at studies asking whether eating red meat or processed meats affected the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.

 

To assess deaths from any cause, the group reviewed 61 articles reporting on 55 populations, with more than 4 million participants. The researchers also looked at randomized trials linking red meat to cancer and heart disease (there are very few), as well as 73 articles that examined links between red meat and cancer incidence and mortality.

 

In each study, the scientists concluded that the links between eating red meat and disease and death were small, and the quality of the evidence was low to very low.

 

That is not to say that those links don’t exist. But they are mostly in studies that observe groups of people, a weak form of evidence. Even then, the health effects of red meat consumption are detectable only in the largest groups, the team concluded, and an individual cannot conclude that he or she will be better off not eating red meat.

 

A fourth study asked why people like red meat, and whether they were interested in eating less to improve their health. If Americans were highly motivated by even modest heath hazards, then it might be worth continuing to advise them to eat less red meat.

 

But the conclusion? The evidence even for this is weak, but the researchers found that “omnivores are attached to meat and are unwilling to change this behavior when faced with potentially undesirable health effects.”

 

Taken together, the analyses raise questions about the longstanding dietary guidelines urging people to eat less red meat, experts said.

 

“The guidelines are based on papers that presumably say there is evidence for what they say, and there isn’t,” said Dr. Dennis Bier, director of the Children’s Nutrition Research Center at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston and past editor of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

 

David Allison, dean of the Indiana University School of Public Health—Bloomington, cited “a difference between a decision to act and making a scientific conclusion.”

 

It is one thing for an individual to believe eating less red meat and processed meat will improve health. But he said, “if you want to say the evidence shows that eating red meat or processed meats has these effects, that’s more objective,” adding “the evidence does not support it”…

 

more

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html