While previous studies have found a link between red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk, this study, which analyzed a large number of type 2 diabetes cases among participants being followed for an extended period of years, adds a greater level of certainty about the association.
Type 2 diabetes rates are increasing rapidly in the U.S. and worldwide. This is concerning not only because the disease is a serious burden, but it also is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and kidney disease, cancer, and dementia.
For this study, the researchers analyzed health data from 216,695 participants from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Diet was assessed with food frequency questionnaires every two to four years, for up to 36 years. During this time, more than 22,000 participants developed type 2 diabetes. Key Research Outcomes
The researchers found that consumption of red meat, including processed and unprocessed red meat, was strongly associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Participants who ate the most red meat had a 62% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least. Every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk.
The researchers also estimated the potential effects of substituting one daily serving of red meat for another protein source. They found that substituting a serving of nuts and legumes was associated with a 30% lower risk of type 2 diabetes, and substituting a serving of dairy products was associated with a 22% lower risk.
Any study that mashes together processed and unprocessed meat in epidemiological setting is next to meaningless in my opinion. You can associate basically anything this way.
Guess where read meat and processed meat intersect? McDonald’s, for example. Now tell me that eating sirloins kills me.
There are likely many problems with the study (it’s a very difficult area) but they did not “mash” processed and unprocessed together. From the link:
Every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk.
This is a survey over 30 years, not a controlled experiment. Of course people who eat processed red meat will be more prone to diabetes.
What do people drink with hamburgers? Soda.
Yeah I don’t understand how giving someone a questionnaire to fill out every 2-4 years can determine, down to a daily/single meal precision, the risk associated with eating meat while literally disregarding every other substance eaten over those 2-4 years.
Harvard Scientists Find That Eating … Could Increase Your Risk of Diabetes
On other news, the sky is blue…
They didn’t describe the overall diets of participants who ate the most meat. Can’t we also come to conclusion that people who can afford large amounts of red meat, also eat a lot of other food; thus, causing diabetes?
Another epidemiology study on diet, imo a waste of time and money. We should be doing proper clinical trials so we can see actual causation, but no they are too difficult or expensive so we waste it on these types of studies over and over again.
I dont think we have time for another 36 year study. Other reasearch had similar results. Diabetes is also not the only problem with meat. Almost half of the continental US is used for meat production.
I think you’re missing the point of my comment.
This study doesn’t show that red meat causes diabetes, an epi study can’t show causation, there could be 1000s of reasons why the people in the data developed diabetes which is why these types of studies are mostly meaningless (except to find new areas to be studied further with for example clinical trials)and shouldn’t be used to form guidelines for diet.
The article you’ve linked ignores two very important points: how much of that land is marginal (not suitable for growing crops) and the fact that our monoculture approach to growing crops is as much (if not more) devastating to our environment.
There’s no way to put it apart from “humans destroy habitats”, and I don’t think that it makes much difference whether the land was dedicated for grazing or crops.
I am sure this would be very beneficial for the planet:
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. Including less pesticide / herbicide usage.
Even taking this claim at face value, we would have to solve plant based diet issues, such as insufficiencies in some vitamins (e.g. B12), complexity of getting sufficient amount of essential amino acids
(esp. omega-3)and omega-3, slow but steady reduction in an overall amount of nutrients present in both vegetables and fruits etc.And if we say that the answer is to “engineer” foods: fortify grains with vitamins, come up with “equivalent on paper” diary replacements (e.g. oat “milk”) etc, then we need to ask ourselves whether this is actually the answer? Can we effectively reduce foods to a small number of “key ingredients” and add them everywhere? Is this sustainable? What about the environmental impact of running all those factories that “engineer” plant-based alternatives to the foods our ancestors ate for generations?
I do not know the answer, I’m no scientist, nor proponent of any specific way forward. I just read stuff. The only thing that I do believe is that there is no silver bullet.
Books I find very interesting:
UPDATE: Corrected that Omega-3 is indeed not an amino acid
@ddnomad @BuddyTheBeefalo Omega-3 is an EFA, not an amino acid. It also isn’t an issue if you get fats in their whole form (i.e. flax seeds instead of flax oil) as far as I understand.
The only actual deficiency that is present in a balanced whole foods plant based diet is B12, and that is a product of modern sanitation practices (dairy has it btw b/c cows are fortified with it as I understand it). Easily satisfied with a Vit B12 supplement or nutritional yeast.
@ddnomad @BuddyTheBeefalo Vitamin D is the other one, but that’s true for *everyone* (it’s why both dairy and plant-based milks are fortified with D3) and there are, again, supplements if necessary (this one is necessary for pretty much everyone not living near the equator).
Otherwise, nutritionally, a WFPB diet is pretty much the most balanced and nutritious (esp for long-term health) diet one can have.
@ddnomad @BuddyTheBeefalo Dairy consumption is both very recent (evolutionarily) and was historically limited to a few places (even today, the vast majority of the world is lactose-intolerant).
Omega-3 is an EFA
My bad, “I’m not a scientist” bit me hard here lol, though I did read that if you get your omega-3 from plant sources (linolenic acid) its absorption rate is extremely low comparing to sources like salmon.
Regarding supplementation, I feel like having to do that because of inherent issues with your diet is somewhat of a dirty hack (I do take some supplements though, so I’m not gonna pretend like it is not an option).
@ddnomad The only supplements I take are B12 and D3, and many omnivores are deficient in those as well. Lack of B12 stems from modern sanitation practices and lack of D3 stems from people not going outside as much. It’s compensating for changes to lifestyle and our food system, not for something lacking in our diet per se.
Additionally, what happens with these monoculture crops when a disease comes along that wipes some of them out?
You forgot the step where we genocide all the livestock on the planet in order to prevent them from eating feed from crops. It’s hilarious to read arguments from people who think they’re being morally superior while advocating for Thanos-level solutions.
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares.
no, we wouldn’t.
Correlation is not causation.
I guess we’ll just add diabetes of all the pile of studies that point to meat being a carcinogen and major contributor to both heart disease and strokes.
Normally I agree with that line, but this is pretty far from a lone finding. When exactly does causation become an acceptable stance?
when someone tests the causation, ie. in an intervention study
This is exactly it. Unless there is a specific test of a mechanism, all they’ve found is that there is a correlation between the two. There could be other factors, e.g. behavioral, which increases the chances for both.
Two years ago I started eat red meat only 1 time every two weeks. I am feeling much better. I don’t care about studies, but Im feeling good vs years ago when red meat was my daily dish, this is a fact.
How did you feel?
Regular digestion, no acidity or stomach pain (i was tormented by them earlier) and then in lesser case more mental lucidity, eating meat daily made me tired and heavier (i found joy in vegetables)
That’s really good. It’s important to eat things that your body agrees with (your stomach, not your tongue). I’ve found that eating vegetarian or vegan food (meatless protein) leaves me unsatisfied. My body literally feels weaker. Yes, I use protein powder and multivitamins too.
For some reason a full vegetable-based protein is not enough for me. I would not do well in the biodome.
I mostly count on eggs more that vegetables for satisfaction. Agree a full vegetable diet dont work for me too, still there is white meat aka chicken and fish, I consume that four days at week. Its only all about this “evil” red meat (pork, cow) that make me feel bad.
@KevonLooney @banana_meccanica Did you incorporate legumes into your diet? Also whole grains (not refined flours and grains like AP flour and white rice)? A lack of fiber was potentially the issue (I’ve been WFPB - whole foods plant based - for a few years at this point and never have any trouble feeling full).
It’s not about feeling full. It’s literally feeling weak. Chili made with multiple legumes and some oil and avocado for fat will have the same macronutrients as chili with beef, but will leave me feeling weak and tired.
Our study supports current dietary recommendations for limiting consumption of red meat intake and emphasizes the importance of different alternative sources of protein for T2D prevention.
I think there’s going to be lots of people who get on here and think this study says “eat no red meat” or even “eat no meat”. But that is not what is being said. The recommendation for red meat intake is:
Limit consumption to no more than about three portions per week. Three portions is equivalent to about 350–500g (about 12–18oz) cooked weight.
Which is quite a bit of red meat to begin with. So if you’re eating above that rate, that’s a pretty intense rate of consumption. You should really diversify your diet. We already know that high rates of red meat is responsible for colorectal cancer so that T2D also comes with it shouldn’t be a surprise for anyone.
At no point is any researcher indicating anyone swap over to Vegan. The World Cancer Research Fund indicates:
This Recommendation is not to completely avoid eating meat. Meat can be a valuable source of nutrients, in particular protein, iron, zinc and vitamin B12. However, eating meat is not an essential part of a healthy diet.
The highlight is mine, but the point is that red meat is not a requirement for a healthy diet. Like anything, too much of any ONE thing is not good for anyone. I think the red meat eaters of the world look at all of this as an attack on their way of life and that’s hardly the case. Red meat is a good source for various nutrients, but the rate that “SOME” eat it at is unhealthy and that’s what really needs to be put into check.
And it’s not just the “if I eat 24oz of meat, I need to exercise extra”, that just takes care of the caloric value, but that doesn’t address the nitrosylation of cell walls by nitroso compounds formed by the ingestion of red meat. Your body is setup to take a particular amount of this kind of damage (humans are omnivores after all) but continually doing it means malformed cells that could become cancer get more chances for expression. No amount of exercise rebuilds that cellular lining just like no amount of exercise rebuilds lung tissue damaged by smoking. Only time fixes that.
I myself stay away from red meat as a personal choice, but I think everyone should have that choice. But I think it’s important to note there’s an upper bound of red meat humans can eat and there’s a lot of humans that are eating between ten to twenty times that amount. Like, I get it red meat eaters, you really like red meat, by all means continue onward, but I think it is important to consider for a moment how far over 18oz/wk cooked weight some go. I myself eat 0 oz/wk, but I know that’s not for everyone, but I also know that >18oz/wk is just unsustainable.
I don’t want to take anything away from anyone, I just ask that the red meat eaters keep the amount they ingest in their mind. Colorectal cancer is something I would wish on no one (as I’ve seen some family members die of it), and if there is something that I can encourage anyone to do to lessen their chances of getting it, I would highly recommend being mindful of it.
And walking half a mile lowers it, so do a few laps of the garden before your BBQ and you are golden
deleted by creator
Most studies in the past 40 years.
Chocolate could lower heart pressure.
Wine could lower weight.
True or not, I don’t mind eating less red meat, wouldn’t hurt to do so.
it’s also a carcinogen, terrible for the environment, awful for the animals and heavily subsidised by the government for some reason.
who tf would downvote this obvious truth
@sexy_peach @Nachorella People invested in red meat being ‘good’.
Biannual food frequency questionnaires are notoriously unreliable
Lol. As if anyone can afford to eat red meat anymore.
Lol most of the comments are meat eaters justifying eating meat.
There’s no need to ‘justify’ it as it’s something we’ve been doing as a species for 100,000 years along with all the other mammals on the food chain.
