We're all confused about Red Meat. Here's Why.

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:
Animations: Even Topland @toplandmedia

References:

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?

[FelipeSantosBa]

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!!

[kalindudissanayake]

After having watched content of hundreds of different channels for years, I can confidently say this is the best health/nutrition channel on YouTube. I can recommend this to anyone I know without any issues. You're doing a service to the whole humanity brother !

[jamestimmons]

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.

[AmericanRoads]

And by the time I finish analyzing all these studies, I will have died due to malnutrition and hunger.

[philipsamways]

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.

[DoctorEyeHealth]

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.

[macmusic]

I have watched many, many doctors and nutritionists “gurus” on YouTube through the years. But I have to say, you have to be, hands-down, the very best channel on YouTube. 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!!

[RideTheTrack]

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

[TheMornox]

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.

[casualpain]

What's the opinion regarding Hong Kong population with highest meat consumption in the world with less health issues in the world regarding what's attributed to meat? Japan for instance and Korea? How about those countries compared to Western world? There's a whole generation of "rat" labs and they're among the healthiest in the world?

[veganLucas]

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!

[glenneric]

How many studies AREN'T published because they have uninteresting results? How much does this matter to us?

[minimalisthealth]

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!!

[leighwukong]

11:30 did not expect him to start teaching us a life lesson in the middle of an experiment analysis😅

[FellowHuman]

As a fellow scientist, I very much appreciate you taking the time on your platform to explain how science works. Good job.

[philcoates]

Gil, it's high time someone with your expertise fact checked Ken Berry. You've done Ekberg and Berg - you should complete the trio! There's a video from about 3 months ago on red meat and inflammation. (Good scope for a joke there, and he doesn't disappoint.) Unlike most of his adoring commentators, I read the study referenced, and then pointed out in a comment how he was cherry picking the data, and how the study fell far short of supporting his recommended cure-all keto-diet - high in saturated fat, nitrites and salt. Of course he ignored the comment.

[jonahwantenaar]

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 👍.

[Crazycorn]

There is a meta analysis that rates previous studies based on their quality and bias and only uses the studies that received the highest ratings.

"Association between intake of red and processed meat and the risk of heart failure: a meta-analysis"

Based on that meta analysis there's was an association with processed red meat and none was found with unprocessed read meat.

In essence we have one study that apparently adjusts for smoking, BMI and exercise whilst the vast majority do not.

You shouldn't be using the other low quality studies to increase your confidence meter especially when you know that these factors are of high importance.

[smz]

AMAZING work. You just summed up 2 years of grad school and 4 years of PhD work. SPOT ON. Bravo!

[innocuousblockofwood]

A rare rational video in an ocean of contrarian sophistry by unscientific carnivore grifters.