7 ms·

> less red meat IIUC, they no longer believe that lipid cholesterol levels are directly correlated with intake of dietary cholesterol. See, for example: https:

> less red meat IIUC, they no longer believe that lipid cholesterol levels are directly correlated with intake of dietary cholesterol. See, for example: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/fats-and-cholesterol/cholesterol/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you... > The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats and carbohydrates in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food. > Although it remains important to limit the amount of cholesterol you eat, especially if you have diabetes, for most people dietary cholesterol is not as problematic as once believed. I would recommend committing to getting a full blood panel (specific to your sex, male or female) at least every 6 months, especially if you are going to be making significant changes to your diet. This was a game-changer for me. I started working with a practice that does health optimization and blood work/labs and has doctors who know how to interpret the results and give recommendations based on them. For me, I had several biomarkers significantly improve by consuming more red meat. I hadn't been trying to avoid red meat consciously, just somehow over the years I started consuming a lot more chicken and turkey and really wasn't having enough beef, etc.

boringg 4y ago
Eating less red meat is about lowering your inflammation in your veins - which is a major part of the battle for atherosclerosis. Agreed it's not about your dietary cholesterol. Dairy fat is a big issue for atherosclerosis. However risk factors are individual so take everyones commentary as educational but apply on what's relevant look at your on individual use case.
- rubicon33 4y ago
  It’s not red meat causing the inflammation. It’s sugar.
  - boringg 4y ago
    Sugar also a culprit - its not a red meat vs sugar thing. However one of the top researchers in cholesterol in the US told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky for people who have higher risk factors for a cardiac event.
    - OJFord 4y ago
      > told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky Struggling with that - as in at most once a year?
      - boringg 4y ago
        Yes but that was for people with a high risk cholesterol level - not general public. However translate that to general parameters as you see fit.
        OJFord 4y ago
        Sure, I understand. I was just parsing it as 'you should eat once a year' (not zero times) - which then didn't seem to tally up with the mentioned risk. I'd think a small amount every other month or so might be safer - you don't want to look forward to that annual treat and go too crazy!
        boringg 4y ago
        I see what you are saying. I think the advice was enjoy that one steak dinner a year on a special occasion. Yeah you could also break it up into smaller amounts over the year. I'm largely indifferent to beef but it was a surprising bit of advice from a respected source.
ralmidani 4y ago
For the general population, meat and eggs are OK within reasonable amounts of consumption. But those with genetic susceptibility to high cholesterol need to be more careful about their diet than the general population. Same story with diabetes and hypertension. Edit: FWIW, I’m not planning on abandoning red meat and eggs, but striving for no more than 4 eggs a week and 1, or max 2, servings of red meat. I would rather enjoy beef and lamb for the rest of my life and avoid ever having to eat only egg whites.
kingnothing 4y ago
Red meat is a carcinogen according to the WHO. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.... https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/params/post/1280096/world-health-organization-declares-processed-meats-are-carcinogenic#:~:text=Is%20Meat%20a%20Class%201,tobacco%20smoking%20by%20the%20WHO https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/para....
- Georgelemental 4y ago
  Are there any randomized controlled trials that show this? (As opposed to no-randomized observational studies)
- generalizations 4y ago
  That's not true. The WHO thinks red meat might be a carcinogen. From the Q&A mentioned in your first link [0]. Also, I would not consider your second link a reliable source. An animal-rights group is not unbiased. > In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence. > Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out. [0] https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp...
  - DantesKite 4y ago
    My suspicion is that it's the sodium nitrates used in treating certain meats that's causing a lot of the cancer. But this is just speculation on my end.
- gardenhedge 4y ago
  Did you miss the last few years? The WHO is not to be referenced
rubicon33 4y ago
How do you go about getting a full blood panel every 6 mo? Doesn’t that come from your primary care doctor? Mine would think I’m insane if I asked for a full blood panel every 6 months at my age with no health issues. But I see the utility in it (trends in the data, anomalies, etc.). So how to do it?
- xwowsersx 4y ago
  Yeah, you're right. No way in hell I could get my doctor to get a full blood panel every 6 months. Even if I could get him to get me one, he won't order all the stuff I want to see. So I use a boutique, turnkey telemedicine practice (I'm not sure how else to describe it). I order the blood panel and then go over the results with one of their expert patient care coordinators and then speak with one or more of their doctors as needed (all over Zoom). The one I use is Marek Health, but there are others (https://marekhealth.com/ https://marekhealth.com/) I think my initial intake was $200-300 to get the full blood panel and have a follow-up with a patient care coordinator as well as an appointment with the doctor (who is incredible). At the time I ordered the blood panel, I wasn't even planning on having a long-term relationship with them, but after seeing some stuff on my blood panel that I wanted to work on and having them come up with a plan, speaking to the docs regularly, I've just gotten so much value out of it. The whole thing made me feel like "wow, this is what healthcare should feel like." Sadly, it's all out of pocket, but it's the last thing on the list of things I would complain about having to spend money on. For some people, full bloods every 6 months might be overkill, I guess it just depends on what you have going on (not that I had major issues, but definitely things to address and others to optimize). But without a full panel, you're just flying blind. Sometimes, I get the panel and nothing has moved at all and there's nothing to do. Other times there are things I can easily address and the more panels I have, the more of a personal health profile I have to work with.
  - william_T 4y ago
    What physician is saying no to preventative medicine paid for by the consumer? Why do doctors think we are visiting for their benefit? I would be very interested in the arguments against blood labs. For the doctor, they draw blood and review results, which is something they do every day. For the patient, you draw blood and review results and pay for it, which is something normal people are not greatly inconvenienced by. The money may be the thing, but why would your physician know your budget? If you want a zero risk preventative procedure, the doctor should tell you how much it is, not give financial advice. What argument would a doctor have against order a wider range of tests? The blood is outside of your body, and the physician is not in the lab running the centrifuge or mixing chemical agents to react.

boringg 4y ago

Eating less red meat is about lowering your inflammation in your veins - which is a major part of the battle for atherosclerosis. Agreed it's not about your dietary cholesterol. Dairy fat is a big issue for atherosclerosis. However risk factors are individual so take everyones commentary as educational but apply on what's relevant look at your on individual use case.

rubicon33 4y ago
It’s not red meat causing the inflammation. It’s sugar.
- boringg 4y ago
  Sugar also a culprit - its not a red meat vs sugar thing. However one of the top researchers in cholesterol in the US told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky for people who have higher risk factors for a cardiac event.
  - OJFord 4y ago
    > told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky Struggling with that - as in at most once a year?
    - boringg 4y ago
      Yes but that was for people with a high risk cholesterol level - not general public. However translate that to general parameters as you see fit.
      - OJFord 4y ago
        Sure, I understand. I was just parsing it as 'you should eat once a year' (not zero times) - which then didn't seem to tally up with the mentioned risk. I'd think a small amount every other month or so might be safer - you don't want to look forward to that annual treat and go too crazy!
        boringg 4y ago
        I see what you are saying. I think the advice was enjoy that one steak dinner a year on a special occasion. Yeah you could also break it up into smaller amounts over the year. I'm largely indifferent to beef but it was a surprising bit of advice from a respected source.

ralmidani 4y ago

For the general population, meat and eggs are OK within reasonable amounts of consumption. But those with genetic susceptibility to high cholesterol need to be more careful about their diet than the general population. Same story with diabetes and hypertension. Edit: FWIW, I’m not planning on abandoning red meat and eggs, but striving for no more than 4 eggs a week and 1, or max 2, servings of red meat. I would rather enjoy beef and lamb for the rest of my life and avoid ever having to eat only egg whites.

kingnothing 4y ago

Red meat is a carcinogen according to the WHO. https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.... https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/params/post/1280096/world-health-organization-declares-processed-meats-are-carcinogenic#:~:text=Is%20Meat%20a%20Class%201,tobacco%20smoking%20by%20the%20WHO https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/para....

Georgelemental 4y ago
Are there any randomized controlled trials that show this? (As opposed to no-randomized observational studies)
generalizations 4y ago
That's not true. The WHO thinks red meat might be a carcinogen. From the Q&A mentioned in your first link [0]. Also, I would not consider your second link a reliable source. An animal-rights group is not unbiased. > In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence. > Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out. [0] https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp...
- DantesKite 4y ago
  My suspicion is that it's the sodium nitrates used in treating certain meats that's causing a lot of the cancer. But this is just speculation on my end.
gardenhedge 4y ago
Did you miss the last few years? The WHO is not to be referenced

rubicon33 4y ago

How do you go about getting a full blood panel every 6 mo? Doesn’t that come from your primary care doctor? Mine would think I’m insane if I asked for a full blood panel every 6 months at my age with no health issues. But I see the utility in it (trends in the data, anomalies, etc.). So how to do it?

xwowsersx 4y ago
Yeah, you're right. No way in hell I could get my doctor to get a full blood panel every 6 months. Even if I could get him to get me one, he won't order all the stuff I want to see. So I use a boutique, turnkey telemedicine practice (I'm not sure how else to describe it). I order the blood panel and then go over the results with one of their expert patient care coordinators and then speak with one or more of their doctors as needed (all over Zoom). The one I use is Marek Health, but there are others (https://marekhealth.com/ https://marekhealth.com/) I think my initial intake was $200-300 to get the full blood panel and have a follow-up with a patient care coordinator as well as an appointment with the doctor (who is incredible). At the time I ordered the blood panel, I wasn't even planning on having a long-term relationship with them, but after seeing some stuff on my blood panel that I wanted to work on and having them come up with a plan, speaking to the docs regularly, I've just gotten so much value out of it. The whole thing made me feel like "wow, this is what healthcare should feel like." Sadly, it's all out of pocket, but it's the last thing on the list of things I would complain about having to spend money on. For some people, full bloods every 6 months might be overkill, I guess it just depends on what you have going on (not that I had major issues, but definitely things to address and others to optimize). But without a full panel, you're just flying blind. Sometimes, I get the panel and nothing has moved at all and there's nothing to do. Other times there are things I can easily address and the more panels I have, the more of a personal health profile I have to work with.
- william_T 4y ago
  What physician is saying no to preventative medicine paid for by the consumer? Why do doctors think we are visiting for their benefit? I would be very interested in the arguments against blood labs. For the doctor, they draw blood and review results, which is something they do every day. For the patient, you draw blood and review results and pay for it, which is something normal people are not greatly inconvenienced by. The money may be the thing, but why would your physician know your budget? If you want a zero risk preventative procedure, the doctor should tell you how much it is, not give financial advice. What argument would a doctor have against order a wider range of tests? The blood is outside of your body, and the physician is not in the lab running the centrifuge or mixing chemical agents to react.