Recent Blog Articles
Want to try veganism? Here's how to get started
Vitamin B6 flies under the radar: Are you getting enough?
The formula shortage is hurting families: What parents should know and do
Gyn Care 101: What to know about seeing a gynecologist
Swimming lessons save lives: What parents should know
Strong legs help power summer activities: Hiking, biking, swimming, and more
What is a successful mindset for weight loss maintenance?
French fries versus almonds: Calorie for calorie, which comes out on top?
Summer camp 2022: Having fun and staying safe
Finding balance: 3 simple exercises to steady your steps
Harvard Health Blog
Study urges moderation in red meat intake
- By Patrick J. Skerrett, Former Executive Editor, Harvard Health
As a service to our readers, Harvard Health Publishing provides access to our library of archived content. Please note the date of last review or update on all articles.
No content on this site, regardless of date, should ever be used as a substitute for direct medical advice from your doctor or other qualified clinician.
Great idea! Thanks for the suggestion. I’ll be updating the post text and be sure to include it up there, thanks.
I am not obese nor overweight but I want to cut down my fat percentage. The increased risk of death could have been entirely caused by lack of green veg in the diet.
I really don’t know what to make of the whole red meat issue, it seems like one month you are hearing it’s good for you and the next it’s back to bad. I just try to limit my intake to a minimum in case.
“Thanks for posting this. It is great to read about the facts and science behind it” ?
Isn’t this article about how the scientists mis-represented their data (admittedly by sin of omission).
“those are relative risks, comparing death rates in the group eating the least meat with those eating the most. The absolute risks… sometimes help tell the story a bit more clearly. These numbers are somewhat less scary.”
So, “more clearly” is not part of the facts and science. The fact that relative risk without absolute risk is widely reported in the literature and the press doesn’t make it any more acceptable. Remember, you can double your odds of winning the lottery by buying two tickets instead of one.
I am a meat-lover myself but for some reason I find myself agreeing in this article. Recently, I undergone a rigid training to lose weight. I am not obese nor overweight but I want to cut down my fat percentage. My trainer told me that he read an essay about red meat so he advised me to minimize my red meat intake and settle for more fish and vegetables. After a month, I didn’t just lose weight but I feel lighter as well. Now, every time I eat steak I feel so bloated afterwards. The feeling is not good really.
There is almost nothing healthy to eat according to many articles. There are articles about how bad sugar is for us and also the sugar substitutes. Vegetables have lots of pesticides and so does fruit, especially strawberries. Red meat may cause cancer. Certain fish are not good to eat. Bread makes us fat. Now Gluten, lactose, and dairy products can cause certain health problems. Dark meat in chicken and turkey is a no-no and the skin. Fried anything is bad and, of course, salt. Nitrates in bacon and other processed meats. Eggs cause plaque to build up in the arteries. Milk chocolate is bad but not dark chocolate. Prepared foods are bad. Also, that we can’t trust that what we think is organic actually is.
A late response. In these studies there is never a distinction between meat that is from naturally fed animals ie grasses for cows and grasses and bugs for chickens and feed lot animals where their feed is mostly corn in the last months of their live. They get sick from it as well because that is not food their DNA understands.
So maybe that IS the major reason why there is an increased risk. This plus the nitrates may be what going on in the processed meat.
Most folks I’ve read who defend saturated fats do add that it is only pasture fed animals that are OK to eat and always in moderation. Of course probably too much animal fat and protein especially at the expense of veges and fruit could be problematic.
Grandfather was a butcher – steak and eggs for breakfast guy. Loved him dearly. Had a belly, died of heart attack age 60, 1950. Don’t think the cows were fed corn then and certainly didn’t get antibiotics.
We much change our love affair with corn – corn fed animals, HFCS, corn oil. It is killing people and increasing the amount of taxes I have need to contribute to sustain health care costs for chronic preventable diseases.
What this article does not indicate is what the risk of dying per 1000 people is for those who are vegetarians. Without that, your piece is not helpful even as a corrective.
One thing I know red meat is very bad for health. Here in Brazil eat much red meat and 30 my body is already weakened
Richard J. Messinger wrote “and then you let the politics of global warming and environmentalism enter into your discussion of the facts.”
I have read this article three times now and did not see the politics of global warming and environmentalism mentioned anywhere. Now I know I’m 76 years old so what would I know but surely if you really have a need to take a shot at the writers. Try to use a decent and intelligent arguement encompassing factual evidence that can be understood, rather that bringing up a subject that the whole world is divided on.
As far as saving the planet is concerned the only way to do this is to place severe limits on human population levels and by placing severe limits on population density in any given area. To get the maximum amount of healthy nutritional value from food while minimizing land damage, maximizing food production, encouraging wildlife etc and reducing unnatural and biodiversity destroying agro chemical input and reducing a gross over reliance on oil use actually requires a relatively large amount of livestock farming even in those places that are apparently ideal for grain growing.
The study conclusions about red meat are nonsense and are pure guesswork and conjecture. The data used for the study can not under any circumstances be used to determine what the causes of the increased risk of death were. Cause and effect has not been established. The research authors know this. The increased risk of death could have been entirely caused by lack of green veg in the diet. The red meat intake of the people the data was obtained from could in fact be health improving on average and the data does not show that this isn’t the case. What could be happening is a decrease in green veg intake of 10% causes a health outcome reduction of 20% while an increase in meat intake of 10% causes 5% improved health resulting in an overall 15% health reduction. (A health / diet study in Italy showed this to be what’s actually happening). So, to sum up, the ‘red meat is unhealthy’ result is a wild guess and complete nonsense, authoring and publishing this type of misleading nonsense and attaching great professional accreditation to it should be classed as a serious criminal offence.
Should have stopped with the idea that the authors didn’t establish causality. They didn’t and they don’t seem to ever discuss alternatives to the weak associations observed. For this they deserve an F grade. And this isn’t the first time for many of them. According to Taubes, as of 2007 Willett was batting zero on correctly assigning causes to his associations. In no other field would such lousy work be published.
On the other hand, ideas about veggies or other types of meat are equally unsupported. So don’t do what these guys do. Just acknowledge that there is currently no good data establishing meat or veggies as good or bad for mortality.
This reminds me of when I first got to know my hbnausd-to-be’s family. They were all so nice to each other. In my family we spend a large proportion of our time together insulting each other and I couldn’t quite handle all that saccharine niceness! I like to think that I’ve brought my own brand of abuse to proceedings now, though.
Not ALL red meat is bad, people. Wild meat such as venison from Deer and Bison, and Grass Fed Beef is very beneficial.
Typical response from meat-eaters… Destroy the ecosystem by eating wild animals or feed grain to cattle, a small portion of which could feed starving populations for a year!
“If you could live happy, healthy lives without harming others, why wouldn’t you?” George Bernard Shaw.
you can put a chuck roast on in the morning erofbe going to work and when you come back it should be ready to eat. when you let meat cook on a low temp for a long time it makes the meat tender especially if it is a cheap cut of meat but you don’t want to cook any meat too long because some of it will get stringy. you can stop cooking it now it should have only took 8 hours. but its ok don’t cook it any more. and of course i must ask why are you not going to eat it for another 12 hours?
As a health practitioner, I always educate people to eat healthy food. “We are what we eat”. Fat from animals in meat, pork and poultry is not good for us as mentioned in this article. Eating more natural food will help to lose weight, prevent and treat diseases like hypertension. Here is an article on healthy diet;
Thanks for sharing this article
How should I cite this study as a source of research for an essay?
Eating red meat seems to be a sweltering topic. I am intrigued to see if there will be a break down in the various types of red meats and their relative risks. Great article.
congratulations good article
For my part I have chosen to minimize possible red meat,
and early fruit extract different color
made me feel good
as in a restaurant when I instructions to restrict what is bad,
choose a good food and good
I for my work and outside my home and this restaurant:
Interesting stuff. I’m a believer that not all meat is created equally.
I would be very curious how much the results differ if the subjects were fed grass-fed, naturally raised, red meat.
I have heard red meat increases chance of cancer. Don’t know whether it’s true or not.
Santiago to this day I have not read of any study that pin pointed red meat causing cancer. The Japenese researchers did a study in 1986. They fed heterocyclic amines to lab rats. After that study a vast amount of researchers begin claiming that there was a connection between meat and cancer. Let me know if this helps.
Could you put this into perspective in a different context for me?
What is the increased relative risk of each cigarette smoked in comparison with those who do not smoke? Could you put these figures into a table similar to the one above?
I also thank you for posting this. You did fine until the last paragraph and then you let the politics of global warming and environmentalism enter into your discussion of the facts.
There’s no politics in those statements Richard, just facts. I suggest some further reading:
United Nations Environment Program, ‘Assessing the environmental impacts of consumption and production’, 2010
United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, ‘Livestock’s long shadow’, 2006
Millennium Ecosystems Assessment, Millennium Assessments Report, 2005
World Preservation Foundation: research and science around climate change, food security and global environmental issues.
Thanks for posting this. It is great to read about the facts and science behind it.
Commenting has been closed for this post.
Free Healthbeat Signup
Get the latest in health news delivered to your inbox!