The big take home for all of us is that it is not the meat. Eat as much or as little as you like. That is great news.
The real chronic problem is that our whole manufactured food system is badly dosed with sugar and starch(sugar) in order to make it palatable. For that reason our entire digestive tract is imbalanced with an excess of acids with then force feeds our body. You get the point..
A nice large steak with a side of veggies is perfect. Skip the potatoes. Again you already have way too much sugar aboard. For sweets have fruit to finish of the meal. This also why the Atkins diet actually worked well enough.
Controversial red meat study causes division among scientists
The
divisive conclusion of a new study that there is little health benefit
to reducing red meat consumption has been called "irresponsible and
unethical" by some scientists
A series of five systematic reviews published in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine
is suggesting there is little to no evidence that moderate consumption
of red or processed meat significantly increases risk of heart disease,
diabetes, or cancer. The research contradicts many general nutritional
recommendations, with some scientists explicitly calling the new
conclusions “irresponsible and unethical”.
The
new research consisted of five separate metastudies, looking at a large
number of randomized controlled trials and observational studies
investigating the correlation between red and processed meat
consumption, and various health outcomes. A panel of 14 experts was
subsequently convened to examine all five reviews, and offer overall
recommendations for red meat consumption. The conclusion was that there
is no evidence to suggest current recommended meat consumption levels
are damaging to human health, and most people should continue to consume
red and processed meat at average levels.
"This is not just
another study on red and processed meat, but a series of high quality
systematic reviews resulting in recommendations we think are far more
transparent, robust and reliable," says Bradley Johnston, a
corresponding author on the new research from Dalhousie University. "We
focused exclusively on health outcomes, and did not consider animal
welfare or environmental concerns when making our recommendations.”
The
new research is unsurprisingly proving divisive among scientists as its
conclusions seem strangely at odds with the vast number of general
nutritional recommendations suggesting health benefits for eating less
red and processed meat. Lennert Veerman, from Australia’s Griffith
University, notes this new research seems to interpret previous data in a
novel way.
"The findings of these studies are broadly in line with previous findings,” explains Veerman.
“Per three serves of red or processed meat per week, the risk of death
is 10 per cent higher. But there is uncertainty: the risk of death could
be 15 per cent lower, or it could be that reducing meat consumption
does not make you live longer. It is mostly the interpretation that
differs. The authors of these new studies judge the evidence to be weak,
and the risks ‘very small’. They conclude that from a health point of
view, there seems to be no reason to change meat consumption.”
One
of the more divisive aspects of the research is the fact the
fundamental conclusion was based on relatively low meat consumption
levels. The health benefits of limiting red or processed meat
consumption to three or four servings per week may be minimal, but
approximately one third of American adults eat much more than that,
around one serving of red or processed meat every day.
“The
authors interpreted the statistically significant health benefits from
reduced red and processed meat consumption as small, because they
focused on small changes in consumption,” explains Marco Springmann, a senior researcher from the University of Oxford.
A team of scientists from Harvard University presented a particularly critical assessment
of the new research concluding, “From a public health point of view, it
is irresponsible and unethical to issue dietary guidelines that are
tantamount to promoting meat consumption, even if there is still some
uncertainty about the strength of the evidence.”
The Harvard team
also questioned the decision to separate any environmental
considerations from the health effects of reducing red meat intake,
arguing that the climate change and environmental degradation resulting
from meat production can result in indirect, but substantially
deleterious, effects on human health.
In an accompanying editorial
published alongside the five new studies, two of the researchers, Aaron
Carroll and Tiffany Doherty, accept their work will inevitably be
considered controversial. However, they point out their work is, “based
on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date,” and, “those
who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence
with which to build an argument.”
Despite the scientific bluster, Aaron Carroll has expressed concern his research may be misinterpreted. In an interview with NBC’s Today
show Carroll clearly notes, “I would not say that this is a green light
to eat more. I worry that that’s what people will hear, and it’s not
what I would say.”
Ultimately this new research has come to the
same meat consumption recommendation as many other scientists and
advisory bodies over recent years, which is to limit red and processed
meat to no more than three or four servings per week. However, the
concern being raised currently is how this new work is being framed, and
whether it is responsible to oversimplify this research into a singular
sensationalistic headline.
“… the journal may have exacerbated
the situation by circulating a press release entitled “New guidelines:
No need to reduce red or processed meat consumption for good health.”
Such sensational headlines can cause enormous confusion among health
professionals, journalists, and the general public,” notes a response from Harvard scientists.
No comments:
Post a Comment