7 ms·

There's growing research to say that eating any meat (specifically red meat) increases inflammation. Among other things, it elevates levels of C-Reactive protei

There's growing research to say that eating any meat (specifically red meat) increases inflammation. Among other things, it elevates levels of C-Reactive protein, which the liver makes when there is inflammation in the body.[1] Another studied suggests that meat intake increases levels of arachidonic acid, which is another mediator in inflammation and aging.[2] Those are just a couple of studies. There are plenty more where they came from. I highly suggest reading 'How Not to Die' by Dr. Michael Greger, to all those that are interested in way of reducing inflammation in the body. The book is incredibly well referenced, and a joy to read. [3] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24284436 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28146136 [3] https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/&tag=httpwwwdrgreg-20?pldnSite=1 https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d...

bad_user 7y ago
First of all, humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years. Both those links are observational studies. The first link even admits that the association is weak. And the second link is a population-level study. Observational studies are important clues, but too weak to base conclusions on, as in such studies it's hard to isolate the variables. For example given that red meat has been a scare crow, you've got the "healthy user bias" [1], in other words the people that tend to eat red meat are also those that tend to engage in unhealthy activities like smoking, eating junk food or not exercising. Scientists of course try to take such factors into account, but that's really hard to do. Also such science is reductionist because it uses markers that may or may not have an impact on all cause mortality on or the quality of life, as such markers need to be read in context (often in relation to other markers). And since you mentioned "arachidonic acid", its rise isn't necessarily unhealthy. Here's an article that debunks the notion that red meat is inflammatory: https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias
- Aromasin 7y ago
  “For example, the traditional diet of the Masai was composed almost entirely of red meat, blood, and milk – all high in Neu5Gc – yet they were free from modern inflammatory diseases. (7)” I get why people keep trying to fall back on Price’s research into the Masai, but I’m afraid it’s misleading. The Masai actually had significant rates of atherosclerosis, they just didn’t die from it, at least not the ones that otherwise lived long enough to matter. [1] To say that article 'debunks' it is disingenuous regardless. It is simply a counter-argument in article form; part of a debate that could well be retorted by someone more intelligent than myself (I'm sure Greger could give it a good rebuttal). I think we can all agree that the best way to reduce inflammation is simply to exercise. It's been shown time and time again. By using the Masai as an ideal, we're simply looking at healthy user bias but in reverse. Justifying meat consumption with a tribal population that often runs marathons to catch said meat is baffling to me; it is not an excuse to dismiss a vast amount of research, both observational and otherwise. I've latched on to meat and its markers of inflammation because it's relevant to the OP topic, but if we're going down the route of history, really we should be basing diet on our genetic biomarkers. "First of all, humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years." should really be "First of all, small populations of certain humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years." From my studies on ancestral human eating patterns, it seems that most were almost entirely vegetarian, and may have only eaten meat during celebrations a few times in a year. Scientific American had a great article on the topic [3]. To quote a favoured read of mine, "Human gene variants promoting veggie-rich and meat-rich diets are still distributed among modern humans. They fall into patterns one might expect given modern cultural dietary traditions. A gene variant that promotes conversion from plant based dietary food sources to omega 3 and 6 fats necessary for brain development is found more often in India, where many people are vegetarian. A different variant that slows this conversion is found among arctic people who eat a fish-heavy diet already very rich in these fats, according to a recent Cornell study." [2] This is why nutrition science is so difficult. However, I still believe that with the modern human exercising a little as we do - even 2 hours 7 days a week, a massive amount to us now unless you're an athlete, is very little compared to our meat eating ancestors - that a need for a plant based diet is higher than ever, and that applies to everyone. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.abstract http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.abstract [2] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/30/why-humans-started-eating-meat-critical-diet/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/30/why-humans-sta... [3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancest...

bad_user 7y ago

First of all, humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years. Both those links are observational studies. The first link even admits that the association is weak. And the second link is a population-level study. Observational studies are important clues, but too weak to base conclusions on, as in such studies it's hard to isolate the variables. For example given that red meat has been a scare crow, you've got the "healthy user bias" [1], in other words the people that tend to eat red meat are also those that tend to engage in unhealthy activities like smoking, eating junk food or not exercising. Scientists of course try to take such factors into account, but that's really hard to do. Also such science is reductionist because it uses markers that may or may not have an impact on all cause mortality on or the quality of life, as such markers need to be read in context (often in relation to other markers). And since you mentioned "arachidonic acid", its rise isn't necessarily unhealthy. Here's an article that debunks the notion that red meat is inflammatory: https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ https://chriskresser.com/does-red-meat-cause-inflammation/ [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_user_bias

Aromasin 7y ago
“For example, the traditional diet of the Masai was composed almost entirely of red meat, blood, and milk – all high in Neu5Gc – yet they were free from modern inflammatory diseases. (7)” I get why people keep trying to fall back on Price’s research into the Masai, but I’m afraid it’s misleading. The Masai actually had significant rates of atherosclerosis, they just didn’t die from it, at least not the ones that otherwise lived long enough to matter. [1] To say that article 'debunks' it is disingenuous regardless. It is simply a counter-argument in article form; part of a debate that could well be retorted by someone more intelligent than myself (I'm sure Greger could give it a good rebuttal). I think we can all agree that the best way to reduce inflammation is simply to exercise. It's been shown time and time again. By using the Masai as an ideal, we're simply looking at healthy user bias but in reverse. Justifying meat consumption with a tribal population that often runs marathons to catch said meat is baffling to me; it is not an excuse to dismiss a vast amount of research, both observational and otherwise. I've latched on to meat and its markers of inflammation because it's relevant to the OP topic, but if we're going down the route of history, really we should be basing diet on our genetic biomarkers. "First of all, humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years." should really be "First of all, small populations of certain humans have been eating red meat for literally millions of years." From my studies on ancestral human eating patterns, it seems that most were almost entirely vegetarian, and may have only eaten meat during celebrations a few times in a year. Scientific American had a great article on the topic [3]. To quote a favoured read of mine, "Human gene variants promoting veggie-rich and meat-rich diets are still distributed among modern humans. They fall into patterns one might expect given modern cultural dietary traditions. A gene variant that promotes conversion from plant based dietary food sources to omega 3 and 6 fats necessary for brain development is found more often in India, where many people are vegetarian. A different variant that slows this conversion is found among arctic people who eat a fish-heavy diet already very rich in these fats, according to a recent Cornell study." [2] This is why nutrition science is so difficult. However, I still believe that with the modern human exercising a little as we do - even 2 hours 7 days a week, a massive amount to us now unless you're an athlete, is very little compared to our meat eating ancestors - that a need for a plant based diet is higher than ever, and that applies to everyone. [1] http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.abstract http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/1/26.abstract [2] https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/30/why-humans-started-eating-meat-critical-diet/ https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2018/03/30/why-humans-sta... [3] https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancest...