Eating more red meat tied to higher diabetes risk

Steve Williams

Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
By Andrew M. Seaman | Reuters

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Increasing the number of hamburgers and other red meat people eat on a daily basis is linked to a higher risk of developing diabetes down the road, according to a new study.
"I think the difference is enough to encourage people at least not to increase red meat consumption, and then think about ways to reduce the consumption," said the study's lead author An Pan, a professor at the National University of Singapore, in an email to Reuters Health.
The study can't prove eating red meat causes diabetes, but past studies have tied eating it to the risk of type 2 diabetes, which is what happens when the body either does not produce enough insulin or ignores the insulin it needs to turn food into energy (see Reuters Health story of February 6, 2013 here: http://reut.rs/11KIqyp).
About 26 million Americans have diabetes and between 90 and 95 percent of those cases are type 2, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Earlier studies on red meat - such as beef, pork and lamb - didn't account for participants changing how much of it they ate over time, Pan said.
For the new study, Pan and colleagues followed about 149,000 U.S. men and women for 12 to 16 years. Every four years, the participants were asked about how much red meat they ate per day.
Overall, the participants reported eating between half a serving and two servings every day. A serving is equal to about two slices of bacon, one hot dog or one three-ounce hamburger.
By the end of the study, there were 7,540 cases of type 2 diabetes reported.
There were 1,758 cases of diabetes among the 41,236 people who didn't change how much red meat they ate on a daily basis.
People who added more than half a serving per day of red meat had about two cases of diabetes per 300 people, compared to about one case in the group who didn't change the amount of red meat they ate.
Decreasing the amount of red meat a person ate was not tied to any differences in the first four years.
But after the researchers took into account factors such as how much red meat people initially ate, whether they were married, and family history of various conditions, eating less red meat was tied to a 14 percent decreased risk of developing type 2 diabetes over the next 12 to 16 years.
Pan told Reuters Health it could be that "if you are doing some ‘bad' things, you will see the impact immediately, but for the ‘good' lifestyle habit to have an effect, you may need to wait longer and accumulate more moderate changes."

RED MEAT v. FAT
In an invited commentary accompanying the new study in JAMA Internal Medicine, William Evans, head of the Muscle Metabolism Discovery Performance Unit at GlaxoSmithKline in Durham, North Carolina, said it may be misleading to simply warn people away from "red meat."
"I think fundamentally ‘red meat' has become a pejorative term… There are cuts of beef that have less fat than some chicken," Evans, who also teaches at Duke University, said.
Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University in Boston, said it's important to consider the whole diet.
"If someone reduces their meat intake by substituting cheese, I don't think they're going to realize any benefit," said Lichtenstein, who was not involved with the new research.
 

amirm

Banned
Apr 2, 2010
15,813
38
0
Seattle, WA
Interesting. Why don't they ever give us bad news about something none of us like to eat? :D

Makes me feel good about eating the guacamole veggie sandwiches at Subway. Although today, I had the spicy Italian :p.
 

Elberoth

Member Sponsor
Dec 15, 2012
2,011
259
1,170
Poland
Hmmm ... hamburgers do not consist of meat only. What about the sliced hamburger bun ? Does it makes the body dump any less insulin to digest it, than when eating red meat alone ?
 

kleinbje

Well-Known Member
Dec 20, 2012
181
24
923
CT
nope your right, more insulin with the bun. My feeling is the people who stopped eating as much red meat, also generally improved their eating habits ie stopped also eating twinkies etc. People don't just stop eating red meat for the heck of it usually, it's usually part of a general healthier eating plan. Thats my takeaway. No good physiology for red meat causing insulin resistance.

Jeff Kleinberg MD
 

JackD201

WBF Founding Member
Apr 20, 2010
12,319
1,429
1,820
Manila, Philippines
nope your right, more insulin with the bun. My feeling is the people who stopped eating as much red meat, also generally improved their eating habits ie stopped also eating twinkies etc. People don't just stop eating red meat for the heck of it usually, it's usually part of a general healthier eating plan. Thats my takeaway. No good physiology for red meat causing insulin resistance.

Jeff Kleinberg MD

True. I cut down on red meat but I also ended up taking skin off chicken, eating less rice and white bread in favor of pastas, eating more veggies, cutting out all sugary and diet drinks and I even drink a lot less. Not that I've been drinking heavily at all the last 10 years. A lot of relatives on my Mom's side have diabetes. It is a scary disease.

Jack Duavit OWF*

*Over Weight Foodie
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City
nope your right, more insulin with the bun. My feeling is the people who stopped eating as much red meat, also generally improved their eating habits ie stopped also eating twinkies etc. People don't just stop eating red meat for the heck of it usually, it's usually part of a general healthier eating plan. Thats my takeaway. No good physiology for red meat causing insulin resistance.

Jeff Kleinberg MD

Yes but I'm far from convinced by this study. It still hangs on that old myth about saturated fat being evil and still fails to control for many other factors.

http://www.fitnessmagazine.com/recipes/healthy-eating/nutrition/good-and-bad-fats/

Biggest problem of all is that it requires people to recall and every study out there shows this methodology is deeply flawed.

It's another study about throwing the baby out with the bath water. Perhaps it's not the fat nor the red meat but the crap that's in the meat. Meat and red meat is actually good for your diet because it's a "nutrient dense" and "food with brakes." Meaning that there's only so much you can eat before you're full. That's in contrast say to a bag of oreos that has no brakes nor nutritional value and one can eat a tonload.

I also don't see how this study differentiates between red meat and problems associated with carbohydrates. For instance, palmitic acid/saturate fat is the medical anti-Christ. But studies are now showing it is not Palmitic acid in our diet that is the devil but it is the overeating of carbohydrates and their conversion in the liver to palmitic acid is the problem.

I'm also including a recent article that defines the medical myth that is being promulgated nowadays about saturated fat on the general public:

"The influence of dietary fats on serum cholesterol has been overstated," concludes a review in an American Society for Nutrition publication that, in its words, "calls for a rational reevaluation of existing dietary recommendations that focus on minimizing dietary SFAs [saturated fatty acids], for which mechanisms for adverse health effects are lacking" [1].

Indeed, argues the author, Dr Glen D Lawrence (Long Island University, Brooklyn, NY), it is likely other factors, such as oxidized polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) or preservatives in processed meats, that are also present in high-SFA foods that lead to adverse health effects typically associated with high SFA intake.

"The meager effect that saturated fats have on serum cholesterol levels when modest but adequate amounts of polyunsaturated oils are included in the diet, and the lack of any clear evidence that saturated fats are promoting any of the conditions that can be attributed to PUFA, makes one wonder how saturated fats got such a bad reputation in the health literature," Lawrence writes in the review published May 1, 2013 in the journalAdvances in Nutrition.

The article's case is built on interpretations of research from the biochemistry, epidemiologic, and clinical literature but which, nonetheless, does not reference a tremendous body of research supporting alternative views. Still, Lawrence describes:


The role of lipid peroxidation in promoting atherogenesis, arguing that its effects are more pronounced on PUFA than on SFAs or monosaturated fatty acids.

An arguably protective effect of omega-3 PUFAs against proinflammatory effects of omega-6 and other PUFAs.

Evidence that potentially carcinogenic preservatives in processed meats as well as high-heat cooking methods have influenced perceptions that red meat per se has adverse health effects.

How "the preparation and cooking methods used for foods that are traditionally classified as saturated fat foods may be producing substances from PUFAs and carbohydrates in those foods that are promoting disease."

Studies suggesting positive health effects from dairy fat and tropical oils, both high in SFAs and therefore discredited as unhealthy.

The hazards of diets with increased carbohydrates as a result of being lower in fat, in low-fat diets followed to improve health, especially cardiovascular health.

"The adverse health effects that have been associated with saturated fats in the past are most likely due to factors other than SFAs," the article concludes. "Consequently, the dietary recommendations to restrict saturated fats in the diet should be revised to reflect differences in handling before consumption . . . It is time to reevaluate the dietary recommendations that focus on lowering serum cholesterol and to use a more holistic approach to dietary policy."

Lawrence had no disclosures.


References

Lawrence GD. Dietary fats and health: Dietary recommendations in the context of scientific evidence. Adv Nutr 2013; 4:294-302. 23674795
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City
I agree about the need for small amounts of saturated fat daily. I have always been of the opinion that the equivalent of one tablespoonful per day of butter is essential for good health

As you know now, evidence now points to the size of the lipoprotein particle being extremely important. As it turn out, the particle formed with butter IIRC is >300 microns and can't penetrate the endothelial cells that sets off a cascade of events modulated by the immune system.
 

MylesBAstor

Well-Known Member
Apr 20, 2010
11,238
81
1,725
New York City

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing