We're all confused about Red Meat. Here's Why.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- Why is red meat so controversial? Heart disease or heart-healthy? Grass-fed or grain-fed? Established or undetermined? Beef, lamb, bacon or ham?
A look at the scientific evidence on the health impact of red meat.
forget whether you love or hate red meat. what is the health effect of eating red meat on cvd
higher consumption of red meat associated with risk of CHD
increased risk of death due to different causes incl. HD associated with red meat intake
whats our level of certainty regarding effect of red meat on CVD? Very low.
red meat includes bacon, salami, beef jerky, etc as well as steaks. maybe processed red meat is a problem but steaks are fine
higher intake of total red meat or red meat excluding processed meat, both were significantly associated with risk of CHD. Both processed and unprocessed red meat associated with mortality incl. HD
higher consumption of unprocessed red meat associated with 9% higher risk of ischemic heart disease per 50g eaten daily, about a quarter of a 8oz steak
People who eat more red meat also tend to exercise less, smoke more, drink more alcohol, etc.
maybe those factors are the real problem and red meat is an innocent bystander?
associations with red meat were stronger after other risk factors removed from the equation. mortality associated with red meat was stronger in non/former smokers, in people with normal BMI, and non/mild alcohol drinkers
do ultraprocessed food and animal foods incl. red meat have independent health effects?
red meat associated with risk even after ultraprocessed food taken out of the equation. association btw red meat and disease can’t be simply pinned on junk food
if red meat is an innocent bystander we might expect red meat to be less harmful in the context of a healthy diet. But association between unprocessed red meat and CVD was stronger in participants who consumed a higher-quality diet
red meat without junk food showed if anything stronger associations
increased risks associated with red meat may be partly accounted for by heme iron and heme iron is very high in red meat
a candidate mechanism for the effect of red meat
Connect with me:
Facebook: / drgilcarvalho
Twitter: / nutritionmades3
Animations: Even Topland @toplandmedia
References:
www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/1...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/arti...
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/...
academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance...
jamanetwork.com/journals/jama...
www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.11...
www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.11...
www.nature.com/articles/ejcn2...
academic.oup.com/ajcn/article...
apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJC...
academic.oup.com/ajcn/article...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19674...
www.sciencedirect.com/science...
bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com...
Disclaimer: The contents of this video are for informational purposes only and are not intended to be medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment, nor to replace medical care. The information presented herein is accurate and conforms to the available scientific evidence to the best of the author's knowledge as of the time of posting. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions regarding any medical condition. Never disregard professional medical advice or delay seeking it because of information contained in Nutrition Made Simple!.
#NutritionMadeSimple #GilCarvalho
0:00 Science and certainty
0:38 Red meat and Cardiovascular Disease
1:28 Processed vs Unprocessed red meat
3:21 Healthy User Bias
5:03 Red meat & junk food
6:47 Mechanisms (Heme iron)
7:17 RCTs
9:23 Red meat & ApoB
10:02 The "perfect experiment"
11:53 Dose & Replacements (healthiest cuts of meat)
12:30 Grass-fed meat
13:35 Pros/Cons of red meat
15:18 Can we design a better RCT?
17:15 Does the risk factor apply to me?
Without discussing the main topic (red meat), this is just one of the best videos about how science works, about scientific knowledge, and evidence-based science. Amazing examples, and the step by step move is fantastic. I had to stand up and applaud when the video ended. Thank so much for this, Gil. Abraços!!
obrigado!
I agree 👍
We shouldn't need scientists to tell us what to eat. Obesity and Diabetes epidemics of recent times were driven by the intervention of scientists on our diet. And not by meat consumption which if anything has dropped significantly. Studies show that people generally follow recommended eating guidelines.
@@TheCompleteGuitarist Meat consumption hasn't dropped significantly. It's actually slightly increased (depending on when you start the comparison from). From the 60s it's slightly increased in the West and worldwide has massively increased. And I don't know how you're working out that people generally follow recomended eating guidelines? I'm seeing things like "12.3 percent of Americans met their recommended intake of fruit, and 10 percent met their recommended intake of vegetables." which is laughably low. This is similar in the UK and other developed countries. In no way are people generally following recommended eating guidelines unless you're being extremely generous with the term 'generally'. The guidelines themselves are usually sandbagged too so people are actually able to achieve it - they say at least 5 fruit and veg per day but that should probably be 10, but about 0% of the population would achieve that.
Science is the best way of reducing doubt from decisions around diet. There is simply no other way to reduce that doubt without performing studies and analyses. Did you even watch the video?
@@TheCompleteGuitarist Obesity and diabetes were not driven by the 'intervention of scientists on our diet'. They were driven by big business, and big agricultural business especially, which peddled sugar as a miracle food to make vast sums of money. Blaming scientists for this is akin to confusing a tree for an entire forest. One thing is bigger than the other.
After having watched content of hundreds of different channels for years, I can confidently say this is the best health/nutrition channel on UA-cam. I can recommend this to anyone I know without any issues. You're doing a service to the whole humanity brother !
I think not only for health/nutrition, but also for the scientific process in general
Problem is most people don’t have the intelligence or attention span to comprehend what he says.
I agree his teaching us how to think critically and detect baloney.
That's because he's one of the very few PhD MD most are chiropractors or nutritionists.
We need actual scientists and Doctors to help us understand better.
Love it, very well done. You inspire me to do some objective breakdowns of eyecare studies. Such as blue light for example. Keep up the fantastic work.
That sounds very interesting.
Would love to see some of your videos on Blue light. I wear blue light glasses but don't know how effective they actually are
@@waynegolding14 😩/😮/😵🦠🥩 Fat is a heart attack !!!! You can see it !!!!! Clogging your arteries !!!!!! Actual pictures !!!!! Dr. Greger. Clog your arteries and your brain and your heart and down there 👇😩, Alzheimer’s is meat clogging up !!!!! Scientific fact. You’ve got flat teeth 🦷. Little flat teeth 😬. Moving left and right |-_| . Long long guts. We are herbivores. Peer review science 🧬.
It bothers me that the increased or decreased risks are seldom given in a manner that is clearly understandable. I read a population study with a p value of 0.001 for correlation between the test material and the clinical outcome. Unfortunately, when you ran the numbers, the difference was 8 fewer cases in 100,000 population. As a physician, I cannot in good conscience recommend any significant lifestyle change based on such a clinically insignificant likelihood of a change in outcome for my patient. We need to state all results in terms of number needed to treat to change the outcome in one individual. In this case, you would need to treat about 12,000 people to change the outcome in one person. Unfortunately, even many physicians do not understand the difference between statistical and clinical significance.
I certainly agree with you. Just because you find a statistically significant difference, doesn't mean you have a high practical significance; it's not just medicine this occurs in. This is also true when you provide a harm ratio as it even a seemingly large HR can mean little if you are comparing it against a small number. I've seen papers where the HR indicated a large increase of over 20%, but as the outcome measured was ~3%, the actual difference wasn't that big.
That's always an issue when trying to reconcile research with real life.
An absolutely brilliant video. Should be compulsory viewing. As a researcher myself ( in a different area) his discussion is SO good.
We get so much anecdotal " evidence" ( my grandfather smoked all his life and lived to be 187, etc) that it's great to have someone to explain the scientific method and nutritional research so thoroughly. Many congratulations.
I have watched many, many doctors and nutritionists “gurus” on UA-cam through the years. But I have to say, you have to be, hands-down, the very best channel on UA-cam. You are so methodical and balanced and I never feel like you come in with any kind of an agenda. Your only agenda seems to be to follow the science wherever it leads, but then also staying on top of new data and all of the appropriate factors to consider. I discovered your channel a few years ago, and I am so glad that I did! Thank you for the great work you do!!
Amazing content as always Gil! I’m finishing my nutrition science course here at University of Porto and you’re such an inspiration for me!
Amazing channel. Reactions I've had throughout a superficial investigation of the matter over a long time compiled concisely and eloquently. You are not just providing quality content but also inspiring respect for the science. Thanks :)
And by the time I finish analyzing all these studies, I will have died due to malnutrition and hunger.
Terrific video. It's amazing how I, as a self-proclaimed science faithful and also a red meat lover, have let my biases cloud my judgment of the science around red meat, each time finding a caveat to a study explaining the negative effects of red meat. In this video you addressed all those caveats - like controlling for healthy user bias, processed vs unprocessed were my main ones. I will probably continue eating red meat (I don't consume it on most weeks, but can eat up to 1000g/week on some weeks) but in full knowledge of the risk it poses. Thanks for quenching my scientific curiousity around the subject. This video must have taken huge effort. Big thumbs up!!
just wanted to say this is also my evolution, but ultimately it doesn't change the fact that bacon is delicious. so are pastries. neither are 'healthy' past a certain point.
even though I'm healthy now (although not a spring chicken anymore, to the point that I now acknowledge I am no longer invulnerable and going to live forever- ie where good health is taken for granted), I have absolutely adjusted my eating habits (including with information from this and many other sources), and while I do not want to be disordered about what I choose to eat, I now have the privilege of eating with my "eyes wide open" about what the longer-term consequences might be. 'worth the calories' or 'worth the CVD risks' are thoughts that cross my mind before I satisfy a craving.
between an active exercise regime and this mindset, I've markedly improved all my bloodwork and overall health. Hoping to keep it that way for a long time with good habits.
gil's content is exceptional in the space, despite it being unsexy and non-viral.
@@grumpyoldman6503did you try vegan meat substitutes... they're better than the real thing...i only eat em every once in a while...
But then I'm vegan for animals.. so that might be different in your case..
But thanks to this channel (the only channel I can trust as a premed and a science enthusiast), I've started to take care of myself..
I now recreate cakes and pastries from whole foods and they're delicious...
Doc i freaking loved this video. I almost didn't care about the topic or the outcome, its the whole thought process that became the highlight of your presentation. Thanks so much for putting stuff like this out there for us
This is one of the best videos of this type I have ever listened to. It lays out the scientific method and the step-by-step structure is excellent. In fact, you should use it for every topic you address. So many other nutrition videos jump into describing a piece of the elephant, without context, without a structured approach and leave me more confused than I was before.
I got to know your channel recently and am in love with it -- your videos are clear, direct, and honest. Um abraço do Brasil!
I love how you describe this sciencey stuff in terms that we can all understand. Thanks a lot and I really appreciate it, it's helped with a lot of questions I had in regards to nutrition.
I needed a video like this. Thank you so much! Great content, keep the good job doc :)
Hey been binge watching your videos for a week now, thanks for the content. I wanted to know what your opinion was on hemp seeds? Or they better or worse then chia seeds, and is consuming hemp protein bad because of methionine?
Always, and more and more, one of the best -if not -*-the-*- best- scientific nutrition channel in the UA-cam game; and I've been around for years now. The level of your interventions, from an intellectual, epistemological and heuristical standpoint is just first tier. Keep up the good work sir. It's good to have you back.
It really bugs me that the large studies essentially never control for food preparation - in what kind of oil meat is prepared at what temperature and for how long it is heated. We have so much knowledge that preparation greatly affects health effects of almost any food, and meat is no exception.
Pre, f***ing, cisely. Don't be too smart here though, you might trigger some people 😉
True, we should know, but if something continues to look worse as more and more common factors are controlled for, like red meat does, I doubt controlling for additional factors like food preparation will make a difference. At some point, the body of evidence speaks for itself.
@@leizee1224 The controlling factor is through survey studies not through actual controls.
Irrelevant. Red meat is a carcinogen and raises diabetes risk by 62%.
Brilliant video! You do a fantastic job at showing both us regular folk and nutrition bookworm warriors how the world of nutritional science really works. Every video is like a master class in nutrition and the mechanisms behind interpreting data so that we can come to our own understanding of the subject with the least biased approach possible. Good job 👍.
Thank you for taking the time in making this very informative video 👍
Your factual approach is priceless!!!! Thank you; I love it.
I love your content and the balanced way you present it, particularly around this subject. Could you address the so-called antinutrients contained in certain plant foods in a future video?
I really enjoyed this video! Thought it was very unbiased and really respect the research brought into it. I noticed on your channel you didn’t have anything on Creatine. What are your thoughts on the safety of it and what the science indicates about it? Could you possibly make a video about it in the near future?
Creatine is one of the most studied sports supplement, it's safe and helps in your physical conditioning.
Phenomenal video Dr Carvalho. Beautifully broken down and explained in a really unbiased way. Beautifully pragmatic description of the scientific process too
Veeeery nice view and summary on how science operates. Neutral standpoint, humor, critical thinking. Really loved this video👍
Great content. By highlighting all the variables that can influence study outcomes you help us appreciate just how many building blocks and iterations are required to reach accurate conclusions with any level of confidence.
That's why factorial experiments are really not easy to execute.
Best nutrition channel on UA-cam great stuff no passion just made as simple as it gets (which is still very complex) congrats Doc
Great video, Gil! Really nicely done.
I always enjoy your videos. Thanks for this one! A lot of information to digest, but very helpful for someone like me who has heart disease. I stopped eating red meat several years ago. Might be fine for some people, but with my family history of heart disease, I decided to cut it out of my diet.
Fantastic video, you explained every point very clearly, thanks. I particularly like the part where you say that not knowing everything on a given subject does not mean that we know nothing about it.
As simple as it is, it is surprisingly rare to find people who really understand that.
Dr. Gil,
This segment is excellent. Such high quality content, your regular non science viewers are going to become budding scientists over time.
Thanks for the unbelievably free content.
Your content always inspires me to consider other possibilities. Thank you again.
You are awesome. Thank you for sharing this!
It's rare that you find such an inflammatory topic so well done (couldn't resist the puns}. As usual your logical and insightful commentary has drawn a line under the controversy. Cheers Alan
so meat is inflammatory ?
This is not just a red meat video but packed with whole philosophy approach to on how to approach different "researches". Thank you Dr. Gil!
I found your channel a couple weeks ago and I have been watching so many of your videos and learning so much. Thank you for the unbiased information which is so hard to find. I was wondering if you could do a video about chicken? Few people talk about this meat and I am a little confused on if that has been shown to be harmful in studies or if it’s fine. Thank you so much.
I really need one of these on diary too, particularly low fat dairy. Layne Norton’s video on dairy, he cites several sources that seem to show that low fat dairy is a healthy food to supplement a mostly Whole Foods plant based diet. I really appreciate all the work you do!
Agreed!
Excellent as always! Thanks Doc!
As a fellow scientist, I very much appreciate you taking the time on your platform to explain how science works. Good job.
The most responsible video I’ve watched from @NutritionMadeSimple good job!
Ive worked in the elder care. When You get people in that are in a bad general shape, You give them red meat. Even raw minced meat and liver. Old elder people often get deficient. Raw minced meat and liver adjust this really quickly.
Now that's scary
Why?
I worked on long-term care. Raw meat is an absolute no-no. It's never, ever done, not here in Canada. Far too dangerous, especially for frail, elderly people. When you say "they often get deficient" you need to be specific. Deficient in what? If it's B12, we give them B12. It's not rocket science.
Liver is one of the most nutrition dense food You can eat. Other organ meat and red meat is also good. When old people get into the elder care they are usually deficient in most vitamins and minerals. In most cases its due to them not taking care of themselves and eating properly.@@rebekahhobbs9605
Why raw meat?? Body obsorbs the protein easier if it's cooked? And the risk of food poisoning is almost zero.
Thank you for that in depth video ! That must have been a lot of work but it is really precious and useful to me at least ! It gave me a lot to think like wondering if it means that cocoa butter would be a better replacement for coconut oil that keeps showing up in way too many vegan dessert recipes..... thank you again
Great video. Not only on the topic, but on the way scientific research works overall. Finally a channel that confuses you less. Scientific uncertainty is far way better than fake or doubtful confidence.
You’re so right! Some people look for certainty presented in a very confident way and lap up any propaganda that matches their preferences. The rest of us (the silent majority) are left in the middle trying to find the middle ground amidst conflicting narratives.
AMAZING work. You just summed up 2 years of grad school and 4 years of PhD work. SPOT ON. Bravo!
@Nutrition Made Simple! would you consider making a video on prolonged fasting and what is the best way to do it and things to do after it?
You’re doing great work, a sincere thanks for that!
Amazing Monday to you thank you so much for sharing this information with me I really really thoroughly enjoyed it have a great day
Thank you for making this... perfect timing
Great content. Love the scientific approach. Keep it up, mate!
Thank you for the very clear and nuanced presentation.
Stellar content, as always. Your treatment of uncertainty gave me chills. Good chills.
But there’s one crucial dimension of analysis missing in this discussion on meat: signal strength. Your closing analogy, when compared critically, makes this clear. We know that smoking causes lung cancer not simply because all the studies show it, but because they all show an unmistakably powerful signal. Hazard ratios consistently reach double digits, like in the 15-30 range, if I recall. This is an order of magnitude greater than any effect seen from meat, where confidence intervals often cross unity and HR’s top out around 1.5 (again, my recollection may be imprecise - please correct me).
The comparison of meat to cigarettes is therefore flawed. Is smoking bad for you? Yes. How bad? Very. Bad enough to yield an undeniable correlation in every study, no matter how the data is sliced.
Is meat bad for you? Probably, kind of, depending on a bunch of things. How bad? Barely. Barely harmful enough to be barely discerned through decades of painstaking research and careful statistical analysis - and still debatable enough to be questioned by some of the smartest minds in medicine and nutritional science.
Consistent with your thoughtful, anti-dogmatic approach - which thrills me every time I listen - you suggested several real-life situations in which animal consumption might offer more good than harm. If the actual risk from meat were appropriately quantified and contextualized, we might find that balance tipped toward it even more often. Indeed, many intelligent, informed, health-conscious people have done that. They weigh the real benefits they derive from meat against the small potential for harm and decide, rationally, in favor of it.
The same cannot be said of cigarettes.
And if one factors in the ease with which toxic eating disorders seem to be overcome with keto/carnivore diets, and the subsequent life transformations, it is reasonable to conclude that for a subset of the population, not eating meat in "large" quantities can carry incredible risks.
very insightful and careful comment. magnitude of effect will depend entirely on contrast and time of exposure and comparator (replacement). an average of 50g/d shows a small signal in meta-analyses. 100+ shows a stronger signal. on the other end of the spectrum, a very large amount of fatty meat consumed over the long-run (e.g. lifetime) sufficient to result in a substantial elevation in LDL-c could increase risk by several fold (approx 2X per 38mg/dL increase in LDL-c for lifetime exposure)
this is of course contingent on quality of replacement
a similar argument could be made for cigarettes by reducing the dose of exposure and considering the positive associations (e.g. lower risk of Parkinson's)
@@NutritionMadeSimple hi Gil! Do you have a video that has TMAO content in it. Thanks
What is the reference group in the studies of meat? For cigarettes it’s never smokers, not current non-smokers, which includes never smokers and former smokers. I don’t see such contrasts in diet studies. So the comparisons of relative risks is flawed.
@@garygiovino3776 Your point is a reiteration of Gil's "duration of exposure" point, and it's a good one. A trial in which one group eats red meat for decades but then abstains for 3 years would show minimal improvement, much like abstaining from smoking for 3 years would show small benefits compared to never smoking. To truly compare, we'd have to look at populations who "never" consumed red meat -- like Indians and Adventists, as I mentioned above. Yet studies on those 2 populations don't show risk reductions anywhere near those seen among never-smokers. Granted, the typical never-smoker has probably smoked less than 10 cigarettes in their life, a truly negligible amount, while the lifelong abstinence from red meat among Indians and Adventists may not be as absolute. Perhaps their occasional dabbling in carnivory is enough to alter their hazard ratios by an order of magnitude or two. If so, that would truly be worth knowing.
Do you have a video on the breakdown on CHD risk? I would like to see what the hierarchy of risk is? I think there is a lot of confusion among the risk factors themselves. Thanks for this amazing video and all your others. I am a dedicated listener.
The risk factors may be personal as well - what may be a risk factor for you, may not be a risk factor for someone else- or may be counterbalanced by something else. It’s a more complex issue than we realise.
I love how your lane is essentially conducting a meta analysis on all the nutritional podcasts and theories out there!
Hi. What is the reference for the statement that risk increases above 100g/day of unprocessed red meat? Thanks. Great video as always.
Thank you for the objective approach.
I like how this channel is called nutrition made simple yet the videos are always 15 min +, with a looot more information than other so called nutrition channels. Yet this is what it takes to actually explain nutrition.
Fantastic. I'm going to show this to my 14 yr old who I'm trying to get interested in science. Thank you for taking the time to put together this video.
And thank you for bringing up context - so very important and something I don't hear discussed much. It's much different to be in a modern Western nation than being in a third-world nation where food is hard to come by. People love to fudge statistics to suit their thesis! (Or desires.) 🙏🏼
Your videos are bloody amazing. Congrats 👏
Ha I worked on some of those AARP meat studies, although I didn't run the models for the particular paper you mentioned. I am named in the references though :). It's great to see familiar studies placed in their larger scientific context - another great video.
interesting! any insider stories?
@@NutritionMadeSimple I do remember the paper "Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people", which I ran the models for, making news in the mainstream media, and it was a bit illustrative as to how the media tends to "both sides" everything, as I remember some of the articles on the paper including quotes from special interest meat groups downplaying the study. And of course some of the things they said weren't necessarily wrong - as you pointed out in this video, there is a lot of uncertainty in the scientific process, the problem is just when people confuse uncertainty with total worthlessness haha. And I think the mainstream media, which is not very scientifically literate as a general rule, sometimes unwittingly reinforces this. You did a fantastic job explaining the difference though.
@@adamrisch thanks for weighing in!
Yet again another great video 👍
😭😭😭 Great video, very well done. REALLY not what I want to hear though, but I'm listening...
I would really love to hear a breakdown just like this for fish, also fruits. As many studies as you can find! There's sooo much uncertainty about whether these are more harmful than healthful.
we touched on fish in the Seaspiracy commentary (in the end)
Funny how he picks on red meat. 🤔
@@plummetplum Because it's the most controversial. People want him to address the controversy.
Amazing video and articulation 🥩✨
Im at my third re-run. So much informations on many current arguments taken by proponents of XYZ diets. Great Video!
Please do a video about the nightshade famiy. This is a really confusing one for me, because event doctors tells to avoid the nightshades when you have an autoimmune disease, despite not much actual research on the topic is present
How many studies AREN'T published because they have uninteresting results? How much does this matter to us?
A lot of the studies are either funded by the meat industry or industries that want their products to sell better let's say grain industry, so one says red meat is good the other says it's bad. Personal bias also comes into effect depending what the researchers want to publish.
But if you look over let's say 100 studies you'll see the pattern that red meat eaten too much and too often and too fat and fried is unhealthy, and eaten in moderation and rarely it has close to no bad effects.
The rage meme at the end was a bit loud, but other than that, absolutely brilliant vid.
Hi,
what do you think about nutritionally complete meal like Huel or YFood?
Fantastic video! Really hits it home with the scientific process.
_" Follow the science"_ 😳
Great video! A lot of people underestimate how difficult science is. They think they can just look at one study and that's enough. Thanks for showing why you can't do that.
Again….very valuable info!.. Thank you
And UA-cam makes it more difficult - credible champions of carnivore, and others plant based. As a 79 YO I eat what I like except sugar and processed products. Lots of meat, and lots of veges. It is interesting that most of the proponents of any approach are in their early years.
This is how you know when someone is honest with their assessment. Using and respecting the scientific method to produce levels of certainties
Should already have way more views. Very important information!
Congrats on making a brilliant educational video. 👍
Just wanted to mention that for folks like me who tend to listen to your videos while walking/hiking, the siren sound clip is not pleasant at all. Kept making me jump lol. But great video content!
As a psychology major I really appreciate your explanation on studies and their certainties. And the frequent use of studies is very helpful! Overall love the video!
Planning on doing a video about how empirical evidence relates to our epistemological confidence and behavior and I'll definitely be referencing this video!
Great work👍🌱
This is why I was highly annoyed when a government scientist declared, "I am the science."
Seems like most people are looking for diet advice but 12 years ago I started getting full blood work every 6 months and reviewing it with a local doctor to get guidance as to what is most optimal. Since then I've done a bunch of different diets (for fun) and currently do eat a fair amount of steak but am careful to make sure lipids, iron, waist/weight, insulin, glucose, fitness, etc continue to stay in optimal ranges and of course don't smoke or drink. My thinking is that if you keep fit *and* watch your markers closely and adjust as needed, you'll be fine. I would love to see a video that discusses this way of marker-watching way of monitoring one's health. Seems like all these people in studies who are higher risk are distinguishable not just by what they eat but by their resulting blood markers, and if they watched their markers more closely they would have way more flexibility as to how they eat cuz they can actually see the results.
Would the blood work indicate cancer risks? CVD is just one concern about red meat, cancer is another for various reasons.
This video is so good. Why has it not gotten pushed out to more ppl. I love the nuance!!
Great video as always. This is exactly what people need to need to know about the research. Would love to send this to all those "Health" journalists out there who write headlines like "Red meat is back on the menu" because one study funded by the beef industry "proves" that it's harmless.
It dosen't matter wether it's funded or not, study quality is what matters.
Would love to see a video analysis of Dr Lustig's book Metabolical or his lectures.
Love your content!
You've quickly become my favourite nutrition channel. Is there any way to support your channel?
share it :)
Awesome explanation sir!
I appreciate your channel because it helps me break down my personal walls of bias and dogma. Your videos aren't easy to watch because I don't agree with all of what you say, but Ii also try to have a critical mind when it comes to nutrition. I like what Dr. Robert Lustig says in his book, Metabolical "It's not what's in the food, it's what's been done to the food"
I believe red meat has a place in a healthy diet, but with all things, you need a balanced diet. It's not just meat, it's also clean water, vegetables, meditation and exercise, and good sleep.
BRAVO! Great monologue on the scientific method applied to nutrition and health, it’s usefulness or lack there of in the honest, or dishonest, pursuit of truth in a world of uncertainty. As a doctor myself, I so very much appreciate you.
Are there any studies on how accurate the adjustment for other factors is in dietary studies in general?
Great job Gil! You really nailed the science on this one!
Best video I’ve ever seen on the topic
Amazing videos! Really impressive how you stay unbiased and are able to explain everything in an interesting and coherent way 😊
when you find a totally unbiased human being, I'd like to meet them and their unicorn.
instant sub. finally a source i can trust on nutrition.
Great video! I wish more people with influnce would have this sort of nuance before blurting out blanket statements to their huge audiences that then follow what they say to the letter. Especially when they have no knowledge about the subject and are already biased.
What did you find with regards to Omega 6 to 3 ratio in Grass fed vs. grain fed red meat?
Great video! Is there one on red meat and cancer coming up?
Round of applause - another brilliant video!
Off topic...wondering if you have an opinion regarding Dr. David Perlmutter and his lean towards Keto...?
(Fascinating talk about Uric Acid, diabetes, dementia (scares the $41t out of me because that' the way my Mom died) on another channel a few weeks ago).
You've quickly become one of my favorite food guys...
What an excellent video showcasing scientific thinking and process. It seems to me like the issue is more with the fattier cuts & saturated fat, rather than the heme? Some of my favorite cuts like pulled pork or brisket flat have very low saturated fat.
Are there any differences when consuming grass fed/finished compared to grain fed?
Here’s an idea for a more perfect experiment. Instead of replacing the red meat in group b with beans where group A gets no beans why don’t you have both groups eat the same exact foods and just change the quantity/ratio. So lets say all groups eat meat, fruit, vegetables, tubers, nuts, whole grains and beans. Group A eats 32 oz red meat per week. Group b eats 16 oz, group c eats 4oz and group d eats 0 oz. The groups who eat less red meat simply replace them with more of the other food groups. Look for different health markers at the start, after 8 weeks, after 16 and 32 weeks and see how the groups differ and if there is a noticeable correlation.