Is Meat Bad For Us or Not?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 21 июл 2024
- We've been talking a lot about meat consumption and its effect on our health. New studies indicate that meat may not be as bad for us as we've been told. But this is controversial. So, how do we talk about new findings that contradict what we thought we knew? We've got some questions you can ask to better understand new data.
Related HCT episodes:
1. **
2. **
Be sure to check out our podcast!
• Podcast
Other Healthcare Triage Links:
1. Support the channel on Patreon: vid.io/xqXr
2. Check out our Facebook page: goo.gl/LnOq5z
3. We still have merchandise available at www.hctmerch.com
4. Aaron's book "The Bad Food Bible: How and Why to Eat Sinfully" is available wherever books are sold, such as Amazon: amzn.to/2hGvhKw
Credits:
John Green -- Executive Producer
Stan Muller -- Director, Producer
Aaron Carroll -- Writer
Mark Olsen - Art Director
Meredith Danko - Social Media
#healthcare #healthcaretriage #meat
Video should be titled: Nutritional Studies are Hard, Part 7
It would be so helpful if you’d put the links to your references in the show notes so we can see who these researchers are and who sponsored their research. Please add links to the studies you’re citing. Thx!
Hi Elsa, Tiffany here, I'm having some issues editing the description at the moment, so I'm just going to link here for now. Here are the Annals of Internal Medicine articles that are causing all the uproar:
1. annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752326/effect-lower-versus-higher-red-meat-intake-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes?searchresult=1
2. annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752321/reduction-red-processed-meat-intake-cancer-mortality-incidence-systematic-review?searchresult=1
3. annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752327/patterns-red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-cardiometabolic-cancer-outcomes-systematic?searchresult=1
4. annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752320/red-processed-meat-consumption-risk-all-cause-mortality-cardiometabolic-outcomes?searchresult=1
5. annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752323/health-related-values-preferences-regarding-meat-consumption-mixed-methods-systematic?searchresult=1
6. annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from?searchresult=1
The research was done the NutriRECS group. The group was developed because of the COI issues in Nutrition research. So the studies with the least COI in nutrtion research.
@@healthcaretriage thanks for finally linking your sources. 🤩👍
While who funds the research is good to know and might indicate bias a much bigger bias is confirmation bias, researchers who have a particular point of view and do research to confirm that view.
Confirmation bias is not only an issue for those doing research, it's also a huge issue for those looking at research. They might look for reason not to believe research they disagree with (like who funded it) but not look for similar issues for research they agree with.
I would be weary of any research is always agreeing with some particular ideological point of view.
@@myothersoul1953 Unfortunately, the average person does not know enough about the countless institutions and individual scientists involved in research to accurately determine if and when there's a cause for concern about bias.
It's quite sad, but I've seen so many people (especially on the political left) make rather wild accusations of bias based on nothing more than the name of the institution where research was conducted or the fact that outside funding existed. Thats ultimately not much better than those who completely disregard research altogether (which is increasingly common on the political right these days)
I think when it comes to public science education, we might actually need to embrace the idea of promoting and increasing trust in the expertise of those who have the know-how to interpret scientific data, detect bias and communicate what we currently know to a general audience.
That's the ideal function of a channel like this. Links to sources? Sure. Model epistemological responsibility. But I think that's enough for this format.
There's a line that could be crossed where you could easily start feeding the conspiracy theorists
One reason I love this channel is because of how nuanced it is. Healthcare Triage is one of the only few sources I've found online that even attempts to be objective with their videos. These days nutrition has become more dogmatic, more about cherry-picking studies to support your nutrition tribe than about actually finding out what's true. Thanks for all the content you continue to provide! :)
Facts
Aaron, as a Data Scientist I find your channel really awesome! I wish more people would be mindful about the quality of their researches.
This episode in particular has been the best I've seen in a while. Well written, and as about as unbiased as a youtube video can be. Really well explained, point by point. Well done.
I think most people would agree that we shouldn't release recommendations when there is insufficient evidence. The problem is people do differ on determining what level of evidence is sufficient.
We have sufficient evidence. Over 50 years of scientific evidence- the problem is the evidence is weak or uncertain.
@@ANOOPBAL I don't understand, how can it be sufficient while also being weak and uncertain?
@@myothersoul1953 You have to understand how evidence is graded. Unless people are willing to be randomized to intervention that can cause cancer, nut. studies will always rely on observational studies. Ad we have a ton of those. Observation studies are just association and weak evidence compared to RCT's.
@@ANOOPBAL so is the weak and uncertain evidence sufficient?
For some reason, red meat is conflated with processed meat in these studies.
Well since you are killing animals AND killing the planet is MUST be bad for you, right? It's funny that so many adults refuse to accept how perverse the universe is and that eating meat may both be good for your health, cruel to animals and just fine for the planet.
Red meat is bad when combined with high carb diets. If carnivore or keto its great.
@@shaunr5450 someone finally gets it
ruclips.net/video/LQRAfJyEsko/видео.html
@@pietersteenkamp5241 or maybe not
Another difficulty in researching nutrition is accounting for placebo effect.
People who are intentionally eating in a specific way will invariably have beliefs about the effects of the food they eat, and food is one of the kinds of experiences which are most susceptible to placebo effects.
Thanks again for the excellent review on this topic. I see so many “experts” taking these studies and running wild with them and you always seem to reel me in. I’m not sure if it fits your expertise but I’d love to see what your thoughts are on the nutritional and environmental impacts of more responsibly raised/pasture raised animals. There’s proof that they all carry a better nutritional profile as well as lesser impacts on the environment but I’ve never seen how much.
I assume since you participate in your local CSA or farmers market that you probably also purchase some more responsibly raised meat products as well. I assume because you mentioned it in your organic video.
Love your videos. Your focus on research, and gathering broad evidence from many studies keeps me coming back for more!
I was wondering why you specifically used Squamous Cell Carcinoma as your example? Are there other types of cancers that have a statistically significant difference between varying quantities of meat consumption in your opinion?
And for a more general question when it comes to "is meat bad for us or not?", I've watched my fair share of nutritional videos and it seems like the preponderance of evidence still points towards negative effects from the high cholesterol/high saturated fat/low fiber that is found in diets that focus TOO HEAVILY on meat and animal by-products - I'm referring mostly to current western diets rather than diets that include low-moderate amounts of meat.
Plant-focused diets seem to avoid a lot of those issues. What are your thoughts on rates of things like heart disease and T2 diabetes when it comes to various levels of meat consumption? I know it's a heavy question, but I would like to hear your opinion.
Thanks very much for your time, and I'll be here for your next video!
I don't think I've ever regretted subscribing to this channel....
That's all. Still don't regret it!
This channel is so grounding and comforting for me sometimes because of the ability of the interpretation of the numbers to drown out the "tribalism" on hot topics about diet and health. Makes me feel like I've got an anchor in a crazy shouting match between different groups.
I long ago decided that diets are highly idiosyncratic and people ought eat what makes them feel well.
LSD makes some people feel good. Tobacco, cocaine, weed etc...can all make you feel good.
I love this channel. No nonsense, straight to the point, easy to understand explanations, fun visuals, and grounded in science. It's everything an educational channel should be. Thanks for the content!
I really appreciate this episode. The fog over meat consumption is getting thick and this episode aired out a lot of it. Great channel! Keep doing what you do!
Question from a lowly soon-to-be doctoral candidate in education:
What’s the potential usefulness of qualitative or mixed methods observational studies in these areas? I’m thinking it could be enlightening to match observational quantitative data with interviews or pseudo-ethnographic methods to see if any patterns of behavior or feelings could be teased out. For example, following a survey of meat consumption, follow up on a random sample of each “dietary demographic” with interviews about how they feel about their health. It could even be interesting to conduct focus groups with people who practice a variety of diets/preferences to see how they compare with regard to feelings/attitudes toward health, how they describe their daily energy levels, etc.
This is the most balanced and well-reasoned piece you've done on the subject, which probably means you'll annoy people on every side. For whatever my opinion is worth, I think recommendations should be based on the best evidence but with some nuance, as in "You should definitely do this, and you should probably do that."
I personally think the relative risk of moderate alcohol consumption and meat consumption is well worth it.
Moderate is key. Over the Coronavirus lockdowns I had been hitting the booze a little too hard and was grilling red meat all the time.. The amount of meat I was eating was absurd. My health definitely suffered, including my work productivity and personal relationships. I decided to cut out alcohol and meat completely the beginning of November and am planning on keeping it going until Thanksgiving. It’s the 18th, and I can’t lie, I feel amazing. I love alcohol and meat so after thanksgiving I’m going to work on balance since I seem to have a tendency to overindulge, whether intentional or unintentional.
@@joelp5093 the meat played no part in your decline.
@@thedoc5848 In retrospect, you are 100% correct
Personally I think we need to move beyond studies and actually get down to how the mechanism in play works. Studies are good pointers. But always have limitations. But understanding the underlying mechanism allows you to make accurate predictions and in the end inform us how worried or not we should be. Of course it is very hard to actually figure out the mechanism in played due to the complex chemical cocktail a human body is. But I do feel that we can do thousands of thousands of studies and never get anywhere due to the random noise and sadly the biases that tend to end up in these studies.
On top of that I think in the end we can not solely focus on lifestyle changes and need to focus more on medicine that treat things like cancer. Since no matter what you do all the risk can not be removed. But that is a bit off a different topic. Though understanding the underlying mechanics allows us to fix these issues more easily. I am not saying you should live unhealthy. But I am saying that a little bit of unhealthy living should not be cause for concern. That paranoia might even be counterproductive. So do try to quit smoking but if you eat smoked meat once in a while it should not be something you panic about.
The 4th question (4:14) also applies to the critics, not just the study authors. They don't seem to acknowledge this
I wonder how much impact the type of diet you eat has a meaningful difference on hard outcomes in the absence of obesity
I'm extremely interested in the Keto & Carnivore diets. But I'm currently cutting costs, and don't have the budget to support those diets.
...Help?
Carnivore can get expensive but I don't find keto to have cost me anymore than buying the normal standard diet foods. Probably save a lot because you find yourself eating out a lot less.
In this case I advise my patients that such guidelines, are different in India Vs US. DAILY meat intake is EXTREMELY uncommon, especially in rural area where I practise. On the other hand vitamin (B12) deficiency, iron deficiency and protein deficiency are seen in the majority of patients.
Why does the Mediterranean diet keep coming down as the healthiest year after year? Because it is a diet of moderation. Chris Gardener did a large study comparing low-fat, low-carb diets. His ultimate conclusion? BOTH diets can help you lose weight and improve metabolic function. He says that the big issue with vegan/vegetarian and keto/carnivore diets is that they’re difficult to follow and therefore unsustainable. If it’s too hard to follow a diet, it’s not going to do you any good. After a year follow-up, Gardner found that the obvious trend was that the participants had drifted into something close to a Mediterranean diet. He also found that genetics makes the nutrition equation all the more confounding.
Could someone who wants to be vegan or vegetarian for non-health reasons such as religious, cost, or environmental factors have a healthy diet and if so how?
True, longitudinal epidemiological studies of very large cohorts are complex. However, highly sophisticated techniques for analyzing large blocks of raw data to extract valid, salient, and usable statistics are available. However, the time, processing power, and software are all expensive, and possibly out of reach for most researchers.
BTW, factory farm meat production doesn't benefit the environment.
It's a crime that these videos aren't getting more views!
Weirdly enough, that video made me think that they *should* advise against meat, if at a low level of recommendation.
Great video. The point about population vs. individual outcomes is really important. When people found out that cigarettes kill, millions - maybe billions! - of individuals smoked less. The effect of meat consumption is clearly nowhere near as bad. Maybe people acknowledge the risks and balance them against the joy they get from a steak. I do wish more people cared about carbon emissions, though.
What does David Sinclair say about it.
“supplement!”
Oops, I liked the video before I watched more than a minute of it. That's how reliable good your videos are. Thank you!
Confounding variable:
The risk factor for smoking, is an effect of many risks.
Can you cite your studies?
I absolutely think that environmental harms need to be factored into whether or not meat is bad for us. We depend on our environment to live. We like to separate ourselves from environmental concerns, and that's not fair.
The problem is food addictions, and food quality.
Also people have been diagnosed with diseases. This doesn’t require a study, but it does require people to be honest about the cause of these diseases.
Heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US.
The first hominid tools were for cutting meat and crushing bones. Low fat dairy is full of sugar. Hominids did not have flour and sugar.
If the problem with teasing out the effects is healthy user bias, we should probably focus on creating more of these healthy users. Individually these changes may not matter much, but if you stick marginal risk on top of marginal risk, the odds of one of them eventually getting you become unfavorable on an individual level as well. That's why I personally think we should advice against doing things with low relative risk factors as well. And then you get to ignore your favorites and be mostly fine.
How do you trick people into thinking they aren’t eating meat?
Maybe a strict diet of Worcestershire sauce and jello?
Give them free meals without meat, but don't tell what the research is about and keep them oblivious to another group who would be eating meat.
At least I believe this is why you asked.
@@jedisentinel4879 But wouldn't they need to not know that there is no meat in their food?
new here from scishow channel
4:47 I don't see how this is a debatable question, unlike the other questions. There is NO difference when making general recommendations to the public as to whether we should focus on the individual or the population (for the decision itself, not necessarily how it's *communicated* to the public).
Think of it this way: say that an individual could reduce their likelihood of death by 0.1% (1 in 1000), and all they had to do was press a button and there would be 0 other costs. Virtually everyone would press the button (ignoring people who question whether the button would actually have 0 cost) because there is no cost in doing so, and at least some benefit to gain, however small. Then why doesn't everyone go and follow every study that says that reducing meat consumption (or some other lifestyle change) has a small reduction in death rate? Because there ARE costs to changing diets and lifestyle: potentially less satisfying meals, more stress in finding something to eat, more potential conflicts with eating with other people, ect.
When you move from the scale of an individual to, say, 1 million people, not only do the benefits multiply be 1 million (around 1000 people's lives would be saved if everyone lived a lifestyle that reduced death rate by 0.1%) but the COSTS also multiply by 1 million. This means that not only are 999,000 people seeing no benefit from the change in lifestyle, there are 999,000 people seeing no benefit AND experiencing the costs associated with the change in lifestyle.
The fallacy that can happen when people change scales (which is the reason for why this is thought to be debatable) is that they throw out the associated costs on the larger scales. When an individual is considering whether to change their lifestyle for a 0.1% reduction in death rate, it is easy for them to imagine the associated costs in their own lifestyle and then decide that those costs outweigh the benefit. The presentation in this video that 1000 lives will be saved when 1 million people adopt this change in lifestyle is completely leaving out all of the costs because it's easier to focus on a hard number like deaths and harder to consider/measure what the combined stress of 1 million people is like on a study-based level. This does not change the fact that those costs exist and *scale exactly* as much as the benefits scale.
tl;dr The idea that changing the scale to ~1 million people should change what decision is made because 1000 people lives are saved is fallacious because it is ignoring the 999,000 people who see no benefit but experience cost anyway. When this cost, and its scaling, is incorporated, there is no logical difference between the scales that should lead to difference conclusions at different scales. Thus, any decision about whether to recommend a lifestyle change or not should be consistent on BOTH the individual and the population scale.
+
What in the world are the “costs” of adopting a more plant-based lifestyle? There are zero downsides.
@@CampMelp I'm not arguing whether people should be vegan or not. However, there are obvious downsides that people will/may experience when switching to any new diet/lifestyle that need to be taken into account. These downsides aren't necessarily on the resource-production side of things; they are on the quality of life side of things. These could include (as I mentioned before) not enjoying meals as much (many people like eating meat and would miss it), having to use more time/energy and feel more stress when choosing meals (meatless/vegan diets are a *restriction* and many of the staple meals someone is accustomed to eating no longer are allowable), and more conflicts when eating with other people (you now have to consider whether a restaurant your friends are going to has enough meatless/vegan options, or if the family that is housing you for the night is preparing meatless/vegan options, or if your crush/significant other is compatible with the new lifestyle).
You can certainly argue that the benefits of going meatless/vegan outweigh these downsides, especially if you include the resource-production benefits of veganism. However, these downsides that I mentioned still have to be taken into account, and are the reason many people haven't switched to being meatless/vegan.
You're absolutely right that costs scale with benefits. There is one thing that DOES change with scale, though: Risk*. As in, when 1 million people change diet, you are guaranteed to get the benefit, whereas an individual has a great risk of not getting ANY benefit.
* or 'variance' in statistical terms
@@nocakewalk It makes sense for an individual to base their decisions off of maximizing the expectation value of a situation (aka maximize benefit - cost) and not worry about the % chance that they don't see a benefit. This is because an individual's life can be thought of as a series of several thousand/million decisions that they make throughout life. Just like how looking at a million people instead of one individual has the risk/reward converge to the expectation value, the risk/reward converges to the expectation value when you consider all of the thousands/millions of decisions that you make in your life. If you want to maximize the expectation value of your life, you should choose the highest expectation value for each individual decision regardless of how likely it is that no benefit is seen.
Health recommendations have always been subject to external biases, be it economic, environmental or moral. Meat consumption is no exception.
Well i do disagree with your ending statement. Yeah out of all the animals that we love eating beef has the most methane rich burps wich means the most pollution however once the methane goes into the clouds, they chill there for 11 years or a couple of decades (that's a huge variable but it's not agreed on for some reason) and after that the methane will de-compose into CO2 and water wich will rain on the grass, and then beef will eat that grass and then through a complex process that will turn into methane again and so on so you get the picture - it's a loop, a closed system unlike fossil fuels wich well we take million year old plants, we burn them the CO2 goes into the atmosphere and it stays there for 300 to 1000 years and even then it rains down on earth, and then it dissolves and goes into the clouds again and so on so it never goes where it came from wich means we should worry about that. Grass fed animals are a better solution though, because that means we need to grow less grains, it also means that the animals themselves are more nutritious, it means that the animals are less stressed, it means that the animals well "drink" more of that natural water that came from the clouds and onto the grass. So that's a win for everyone but the meat and grain industry since this is a more expensive way to produce meat but since there's so many benefits hope it will become a reality one day.
Personally I've been working in certain limits.
Per Week---
=
Maybe everyone who says they eat more red meat also eat breads, buns, pasta, sodas, milk shakes, and French fries with it, and that's what is wrecking their hearts.
Also me eating meat for proteins... :(
Nice video! One major problem with a low risk as such in red meat is not that they are low, but it is very likely confounded too! So when the absolute risks are very low , it is likely that they may not be causal at all. When the absolute risks is very large like in smoking, we know it is highly likely that is not due to confounding. And hence why they say CERTAINTY of evidence is low in the red meat paper.
*grabs my salted, buttered popcorn*
😂😂😂
I really wanted your take on the documentary "The Game Changers"
Recently asked a triathlete who switched to that and he said it is a little better but nothing significant.
However he was originally already eating fairly healthily and have tried intermittent fasting as well.
If you mean that you want to see him take down the absolute bullshit pseudoscience of that film, I wholeheartedly agree.
It seems WAY more helpful to look at the question in terms of the space for fitting in beneficial foods in our diets. Even if the absolute harm of meat isn’t significant, what is its consumption displacing? We could be consuming foods that have incredible health BENEFITS, instead of just something that might or might not literally kill us. The vast majority of plant based doctors/nutrition research experts (like Nutritionfacts.org) aren’t arguing that complete abstinence from animal products is necessary, just that there are so many more optimal foods for human health and longevity, that it doesn’t make sense to give up daily calories of goodness for something that tastes great. Make the argument about “are Oreos bad for you?” And the question becomes a lot less divisive sounding, but it’s essentially the same problem. I mean, eat Oreos if you want, but don’t pretend like you NEED them. Same goes for sausages.
In other words, the better question would be: “Is avoiding meat bad for you?” And the obvious answer is no. So... you know.... Try it. :)
@@CampMelp Avoiding meat can absolutely be bad for you, depending what you replace it with. For example, if you don't replace it with a good source of iron (like dark leafy greens) and a good source of B12 (like dairy products or eggs), you'll greatly increase your risk of iron deficiency or B12 deficiency, which are two of the most common deficiencies in the US. Iron deficiency is particularly common-- 1 in 5 women in the US have an iron deficiency.
What percent of the population take into consideration health recommendations or are even aware of them?
Sorry to undermine debate lol
More stats
I don't personally eat meat, but to me it doesn't make sense that meat would inherently be bad for us, seeing as the prevailing theory is that eating meat allowed human brain growth and development.
The real hazards really only creep in when you’re looking at longevity.
Järvi the brain runs on glucose not protein. There are good arguments against that theory as well. And even if it did benefit brain development it does not mean meat is necessary or optimal or not harmful over time. The only diet proven to reverse heart disease is a no oil vegan diet. Health Care Triage is great but when half the USA is diabetic or prediabetic the absolute risk of a lot of conditions is actually really relevant and very costly for society.
Lots of amino acids can be converted into TCA cycle intermediates, and the brain can also utilize ketone bodies.
Be omnivorous
Three points that I think should be made.
1. The link between cancer and smoking was established without randomized controlled trials. It seems like in order to be consistent that we shouldn't issue recommendations about meat for example without RCTs that you would have had to do the same for smoking.
2. Relative risk is, well, relative. Merely comparing the relative risks of two different things and saying wow smoking had 10 250% increase vs processed meat with 18% on its own can be misleading. It comes down to the baseline risk of the given disease.
For instance, it would be mathematically impossible to get a relative risk of even 2.0 if a disease occurs for 51% of the population.
You could have a risk factor that actually bumps your absolute risk of death to 100% with a very small relative risk if it is common enough hypothetically.
Or you could have an enormous relative risk like 1000 that actually still results in a fairly pathetic absolute risk (let's say baseline is 0.000001% of people, and then the relative risk for group X is 1000 then you still only have an absolute risk of 0.001%).
3. Food questionnaires are not a perfect correlate of reality but they are better than random. And if you have a decent correlate and you increase the sample size, the inaccuracies start to become accounted for.
Thanks for your comment! Regarding your first point: A lot of people bring this up, but the data on smoking and the data on meat consumption are two very different stories. The odds ratios for cigarette smoking and lung cancer range from 16.8 to 103.5 whereas the odds ratios in meat and health studies often hover near 1 (with 1 meaning that an exposure has no relationship to a health outcome). We just have to be measured in our interpretation and use of data that provide such weak signals. -Tiffany
Beef and it's affect on the environment? WTF? No, people won't come together on that.
I don't eat much meat, because I don't feel well after. Some galbladder problems run in my family. Recently I learned that cows are the absolute worst for the environment and I'm trying to limit my dairy consumption as well.
It's not about "good" or "bad". Context matters. In the context of the SAD, meat probably isn't the first thing you should worry about. In the context of a whole foods plant based diet, you could probably swap out meat for some kind of legume and see favourable outcomes.
also there is the antibiotics aspect of meat consumption: one could argue the less meat consumption is "healthier" if it in turn leads to lower antibiotics consumption in the agrarian industry.
I don't think the arguments for environmental impact of meat should be mentioned at all in the context of health and nutrition. It just comes off as overly preachy and probably turns off every climate-change-denier instantly. And even as someone who doesn't doubt climate change, I don't think it's a good practice to use environmental issues to justify a nutritional recommendation. I think that's just asking for bad epistemology and tribal politics. You should instead, of course, mention this if the context is about climate change in the first place. After all, we consider sacrificing convenience for environmentalism, and changing diets is just another type of sacrifice (without considering health benefits).
Ăn nhiều thịt thường xuyên sẽ rất có hại #checksuckhoe
Not hate just something I noticed.
You seemed to use language tricks to push your biest , intentional or not I couldn't say.
You would tell the facts of both sides but after the less meat sides you would counter with meat positive subjective comments, more often then not and when you talked about meat sides you would start it with a negativ plant side subjective view and then a meat positive point or reasurance.
Cognitive dissonance at work there. He’s a smart guy and he knows that the recommendation should be that it’s better safe than sorry and there’s no real downside to avoiding meat. But he doesn’t personally live that way, and therefore can’t fully get behind it. I guarantee if he decides to stop eating meat someday, he’d continue trying to be unbiased and continue to fail, just in the other direction.
The nutritionist industry (and most of the universities who teach it) sold out to the processed food/sugar/cereals industry VERY many years ago. The research is extremely poor quality, heavily biased and fraught with vested interest.
I get that an "I" rating for evidence (ie inconclusive) is an important point but it only ever gets trotted out as a criticism against studies challenging the status quo whereas it applies to the basis of the current dogma too
The "consesus" on eating beef is in NO WAY universally accepted either so please don't imply it is. There's less agreement on that than there was for the 'saturated fat will kill you' message of the past 40 years (which has NO hard scientific basis and is only now seeing authorities slime away from their previous certainty)
What about the claim that animal proteins cause us to lose calcium in bones and therefore get osteoporosis?
Ah yes, there's some interesting research on this complex topic. I'll add this to the list of potential future episodes. Thanks! -Tiffany
I decided to go vegan 8 days ago and I felt very I'll no appetite or stamina it's not good for me..so I will be eating normal food again.
Sugar is the real criminal
Sugar and meat
Sugar (or meat) isn't a criminal unless you make it one.
The Seventh Day Adventist Health Study. Vegans came out on top, BMI, all cause mortality, 78% lower risk for diabetes, and on and on. The lacto-ovo vegetarians came in second, but had BMIs above 25. The pescatarians came in 3rd and the omnivores came in dead last for all markers. Seventh-Day Adventists promote eating healthy. They promote a meat free diet, but tell those who eat meat to eat the best quality meat. In conclusion, studying Seventh Day Adventist is the best evidence we have. There are other excellent studies with similar results. The Harvard Nurses Study and the Broad study.
So we should follow the advice of religious fanatics?
I eat 220g of kangaroo per day.
Love the "enjoyment of the person's diet should be taken into account" bit.
All the people losing their minds because most people still like eggs pork chicken etc is just silly.
Would it be great if everyone were vegan or we had plant alternatives that was better for the environment? Sure but it's not happening anytime soon.
Why the assumption that a meat based diet is tastier?
Watch the video on RUclips by Dr. savory called, how to green the worlds deserts and reverse climate change.💚
James Wilks needs to see this. Since he can read Forest Plots.
Lol. Im sure by now after that interview Chris is an expert in Forrest blots as well. That was painful to listen to.
It's brave of you to keep returning to this topic.
Respect.
Would be even more brave if he openly stated that meat is healthy food and probably less dangerous for the environment than pea protein processing plants for fake “meat” substitutes.
Get 20,000 people to send questions for 10 yrs for yr1,5 and 10. Some have moved some are sick some are dead. Meat is evil, PFFT
JoJo Skye 100% of person skydiving eat vegetables with or without meat. So it’s the vegetables are what makes people jump from planes. But which group has more injuries or early deaths? Your comment is directed to an illogical post but the analogy is still poorly made.
[holds a large steak above head]
Over my cold dead hands!!
seen ya in some vegan videos.....
Personally, I'm mostly a vegetarian for environmental reasons, however I do think there are health benefits. Mainly because I am very, very lazy when it comes to diet. I don't want to have to differentiate in my head between processed and unprocessed meat, I don't want to think about how much meat (or anything else) I've eaten in the past week. Just, in general, I don't want to think about my diet much beyond 'don't eat too much junk food'. On average, I suspect meat products are probably worse for me than vegetarian alternatives, so I think there is probably some modest health benefit, which I think the bulk of the research supports, even if researchers don't go as far as to discourage meat in general. Given that, vegetarianism (as opposed to veganism, which is too much work) is great. Maximum reward, minimum effort. Also, less risk of food poisoning, which isn't the main appeal but still good.
Interesting to see this side of it. I think that it’s pretty clear no meat is better than meat if your ONLY concern is maximized longevity. But to some, the actual small increase in risk might be worth the pleasure of a cheeseburger.
You need to go on Rogan
“Is meat bad for US or not”?
Maybe it depends who US is. If Us is the billion people in extreme poverty, then yes, meat and any food is great.
Is meat good for the US who live off of sugar and processed food? Probably.
But the question of the optimal diet is maybe a different question. I guess that’s the US that we are considering, those who have internet and RUclips.
Not: meat is the only super food
If you move outside the intellectual bubble of complex ideas, simply taking the step to eliminate meat in real people's diets quickly reveals that their health improves dramatically and in a short period of time. Working with actual patients will address this controversy in short order, and reminds me of the advice given to me by a wise elderly physician "look at the patient". If you're tired of combing through the literature, trying to decide which approach is valid, simply stop eating meat for a month and notice what happens.
Too many people are overweight. If someone restricts their diet by eliminating a category of food, their health will often improve.
@@flyingskyward2153 You kinda missed the point.
@@kathyfausett9301 I did? Well that sucks. Thank you for your well argued reply to my post pointing out the flaws in my reasoning, and where I went wrong in my argument.
I appreciate it, have an upvote. And merry Christmas to you!
"If you move outside the intellectual bubble of complex ideas" you open yourself of to simpltonism. Simple solutions that ignore the complexity of the situation. Such thinking is a recipe for disaster. Need more energy? Simple solution, drill for more oil. Hungry? Simple solution, fast food. Feel threatened by the neighboring country? Simple solution, a bigger army.
Eat what you want but don't be annoying about it and don't force your pets to be vegan
Meat! Meat! Meat!
Vegetables and fruits are the best
Of course it's bad for you. Isn't every piece of beef or chicken or whatever pumped with as many growth hormones and preservatives and whatever else before they make it anywhere near any store?
Afterthought comment on the environment at the end deserved more time
The environment is hugely important but off topic.
@@myothersoul1953 The environment does affect health in major ways.
All I know is, I was having terrible digestive issues and switching to Keto made all the difference in the world. So I’m going to keep eating meat.
I have the same problem, but that why I’m a vegetarian. Goes to show, we should tailor our diet based on our individual needs/circumstances.
@@vermontmike9800 Yes, I follow a ketogenic/ketovore diet most of the time but there is more than one way to skin a cat, in terms of diet. The problem is that most vegans refuse to accept that. 'Meat, fat, cholesterol are bad for you PERIOD and you should eat more whole grains' is their mantra. Regardless of both clinical and anecdotal evidence that grains, oxalates, phytates, gluten and pectins that you get from many grains and vegetables are responsible for countless auto-immune conditions as well as migraines, leaky guy, inflammation and skin conditions. People will react differently to different foods both in terms of health and weight loss. I have seen healthy vegetarians living in their 90s. I've also seen vegans who look like death has warmed over them and have caught cancer and died at a young age. We need to start looking at the pros and cons of every diet and whether it will benefit a certain person or not instead of making blanket assumptions about it (like cultic vegans are wont to do).
"Derive joy from their current diets"? Vegetarian diets aren't necessarily joyless, you know... Now days they can make plant-based meats hat tastes nearly identical to the animal-derived food, but with alot less problematic constituents like saturated fat, pesticide and antibiotic residues. And alot healthier for the entire planet in the long run.
i'm not a herbivore.. i hate (leafy) vegetable
Processed meat bad, fresh meat good, just don't have it every day. And suddenly there's no risk of eating meat at all.
Mic the Vegan (youtube channel) illustrates in his countless videos based on scientific studies that a vegan diet is superior and meat consumption is hazardous for the health of all humans as we are designed for a plant based diet. In many of his videos you can also understand the underlying mechanisms. Nutritional science is conclusive. But I agree that it is easy to say it is inconclusive if you only scratch on the surface / really like meat.
Man oh man, I waited a long time for 7:27 - yes there is some room for debate on the nutrition front and the health/wellness front, but there is zero room on the environmental front or the animal welfare front. Our meat production is out of control and they only way to drop it is through reduced demand.
Plus, that there "The Game Changers" documentary on the Netflixes made a pretty good case that meat eating isn't great for your wangdoodle. There's where you get the leverage on the individual/population question of risk. [edit: to be clear- I'm saying that people will buy into a system if they THINK it makes their penis larger. How the angry man who keeps replying to this doesn't get that is beyond me.]
Yah i'm sure netflix Vegan propaganda makes a lot of good cases for their cause. Don't be a fucking idiot and make life choices based on unvetted propaganda.
@@DeCapitanOG Still, if you have reason to disbelieve "but there is zero room on the environmental front or the animal welfare front", state your case.
Environmental is questionable. According to the EPA, the entire Agriculture greenhouse gas emissions in the United States is just 9% of the total greenhouse. Electricity production and Transportation is about 55%, so cars and home power are the big too in the US.
Also "The Game Changers" documentary on the Netflixs is like also all other "documentary" trying to "prove" something... mostly shit. I don't care what it is. It could be Jesus is the truth or fast food is bad, they are distort the facts beyond reason. Here is a quick review of the science... www.biolayne.com/articles/research/the-game-changers-review-a-scientific-analysis/
@@ctcboater the case has been made. Look outside of your disgusting vegan facebook pages. Your education is your responsibility not mine. Sadly you won't until you're riddled with cancer and degenerative diseases following propaganda.
DeCapitan okay please relax there’s no need for hateful language. i’m not a vegan but i’ve thought about changing my diet for environmental reasons because i’ve seen data showing it’d be better to live that way, if you have other data it would be nice of you to show it because i can’t find a lot of research making that case but that might be because of google idk. but if you have some evidence that’d be helpful
Someone might argue that indirectly thru climate change our current meat consumption is deadly, just saying
vegetarians where you @ ??🙋🏻♀️
@Lone Wisdom kill all of humanity before the existence of a global trade network? You realize you die on a vegetarian diet without importing non seasonal plants throughout the globe and without supplementation right?
@Lone Wisdom No. We don't. not only is trading non seasonal produce around the globe unattainable but it's unethical due to the resources and pollution involved in mass agriculture and transportation. Wonder what the number one reason for deforestation is? You guessed it, expanding agriculture for genetically identicap staple crops. Take your BS elsewhere.
@Lone Wisdom People like eating meat because they're omnivores. We're not unlike other animals. I don't see why the occasional burger is all that bad.
Jack Roth there is not a ton of science saying we’re omnivores as far as i know (im not certain so don’t quote me on this but) i THINK human’s ancestors didn’t eat that much meat and it was more fruits and some bugs until we starting creating civilizations. as of right now there’s not a lot of evidence to say it’s bad for health but i also don’t see anything at all saying it’s good for your health either so like make your own decisions. In terms of the environment the occasional burger isn’t the worst thing because ground beef is most of the time from the waste parts of a cow but there is a ton of easy to find evidence about why cows and cow farms are bad for the environment for a ton of different reasons
@Lone Wisdom also, I can't imagine thinking genocide of 98% of the human population is ethically sound but having a chicken sandwich is a capital offense. I respect ethical vegetarianism, but not whatever zealotry you're into here.
Observation 1.) Vegans say that any research which is sponsored by industry represents a financial conflict of interest, and therefore should be ignored and written off forever.
Observation 2.) Vegan doctors (and even vegan lay people on the internet) make money by promoting a vegan lifestyle.
Observation 3.) Observation 2 represents an ideological _and_ financial conflict of interest. Therefore...
Conclusion:
Vegans should be ignored and written off forever.
You keep saying eating beef is bad for the environment but the problems way more nuanced than.
About 80% of a cow's diet is things that humans don't eat. So feed for a cow can't necessarily become human food, we would actually have to deforest more land so we would have farmland to grow the food we we need.
There are other animals with better yields then cows. Chicken, pig, goat etc. They all also have a lower pollutant footprint as well as better health benefits. That 80% can go towards them. If people insist on have red meat I do suggest DNA manipulation to reduce said footprint as recently done on goats.
@@ypdd91 chicken is probably the best to raise, but that is only on a close circuit, which reality is not.
The methane release by cow burps could be cut by up to 70% if you add seaweed to their diet.
Using cows to mimic grazing patterns and to deposit fertilizer (manure) can help farmers avoid using artificial fertilizers. Artificial fertilizers are the top nitrogen polluters which leads to algae blooms. We also only have about 70 growing seasons left until the average farmland is barren, so we need to change our farming practices regardless.
You also may miss out on cow byproducts, like the gelatin, from the bones, that make Jell-O possible.
@@woodchuck003 I'm a vegetarian and I've been screaming the exact same thing for a while. I absolutely hate how dogma about diet has replaced pragmatic solutions for the environment. The evidence states current farming practices are destroying the environment, but it also states they can be changed. People on my side try to manipulate this and say it means we need to exterminate the cows and end all meat consumption. And then people on the carnivore side say let's stop eating plants and just give it to the animals we eat. The reality is, neither of these positions will solve anything because the same unsustainable farming practices will be used in every scenario. Until and unless we address the root of the problem, nothing will change
Practically everything in life is more nuanced than what the majority of people think. The problem lies on the naivety of wanting final answers from studies that are only small pieces of the puzzle. Sometimes the definitive answer isn't done yet. They should chill a bit and stop advocating/preaching something even themselves are not sure of.
That's the thing, people often conflate "farming" with factory farming. They assume that because one thing is bad everything connected to it is also bad.
While on the other hand, the way we do things is clearly different than how our ancestors did. In medieval times we relied on fish, eggs, and dairy, you wouldn't eat chicken or beef all the time like we do. Obviously that's better for the environment than what we're currently doing, not to mention the animals.
Unprocessed meat is good and healthy for human consumption. Processed meat along with anything processed is unhealthy for human consumption.
Um... NO
To me it's all just psychobabble, you're NEVER going to negatively effect my love of red meat! I love a good steak cooked to medium and I always will! So keep arguing amongst yourselves and all of the vegans who say "hooray for our side", we devoted carnivores remain unimpressed. And we're just tired of hearing all of the back and forth sniping!
The planet can’t support meat-eaters
A milions years ago people were vegan before they start to hunt and eat meat.
Not everyone can change their diets, thats the problem. Many people arent willing too because they dont care or they have health problems. Instead of cutting out meat entirely we should try to eat less.Some days we can eat meat and some days we can eat vegetables.
Giving up meat altogether is not the answer.But we do need to ensure that all livestock are grown healthily with planty of range room and not given hormones or antibiotics.
It pains me to see that the beautiful Amazon forest is being cut down for agricultural purpose and snatching away the homes of thousands of indigenous plants,insects,animals and birds. If humanity actually cared about this we could change the future of generations to come.
Our consumption habits emit billions of tons of greenhouses gases into atmosphere.
The biggest waster of water is the meat diet. Every 1/4 pound hamburger takes 660 gallon of water to produce. Going to a vegan diet is the biggest way each person can cut there water usage. Going vegan also the best way to mitigate climate change. Animal food production is the biggest contributor of green houses gases at 51 percent. Accounts for 90 percent of deforestation, and biggest cause of ocean dead zones. Every pound of meat produced also uses on average one gallon of petroleum to ship, refrigate, and process. Go vegan for the future of humanity, and improve your own health while doing it.
@AlmondButter Yes beother. I agree. Stopping eat is communism. People are free to choose how to feed itself. But at least we can balance some things. We need experts to manage things. I mean a good diet of meat and
NO
Regardless of its health benefit there is no way to ethically justify taking the life of another being
Really? What if NOT killing animals results in tens of thousands dying during food scarcity and ruining the habitat due to over cultivation of the plant life? Idiot.
@@DeCapitanOG ...What is this hypothetical situation where there would be a food shortage and yet still enough food to feed livestock? In a famine situation a better use of crop land would be for directly feeding humans. I think generally when people get into the ethics of eating meat it's more in relation to our modern society than to all potential hypothetical situations like hunter gatherers who in the past needed meat to survive. Going to the vehement extent to call someone an "idiot" for not wanting to kill animals is weird and unnecessary.
@@Hayley-sl9lm "there is no ethical reason to take a life" that's what you said. You never mentioned farming so I gave you a VERY good case where taking a life is the ethical and responsible thing to do. Hunting is neccessary for the balance and health of any ecological environment.
@@DeCapitanOG It's actually the opposite. You need to grow and consume more plants to rear animals
This statement might be too broad. Plants are living too at the end of the day
Is the only way to sustainably stay alive bad for us? Um no.
turn from your sins and believe in THE LORD JESUS CHRIST and be baptized in THE NAME of THE FATHER THE SON and THE HOLY SPIRIT( if you haven’t already before CHRIST comes back or before you die