Harvard Scientists Find That Eating Red Meat Could Increase Your Risk of Diabetes
Harvard Scientists Find That Eating Red Meat Could Increase Your Risk of Diabetes
Switching from red meat to plant-derived protein sources could lower the risk of diabetes and offer environmental benefits. Consuming as few as two servings of red meat weekly could elevate the risk of type 2 diabetes in comparison to those who consume less, a recent study from Harvard T.H. Chan Sc
While previous studies have found a link between red meat consumption and type 2 diabetes risk, this study, which analyzed a large number of type 2 diabetes cases among participants being followed for an extended period of years, adds a greater level of certainty about the association.
Type 2 diabetes rates are increasing rapidly in the U.S. and worldwide. This is concerning not only because the disease is a serious burden, but it also is a major risk factor for cardiovascular and kidney disease, cancer, and dementia.
For this study, the researchers analyzed health data from 216,695 participants from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Diet was assessed with food frequency questionnaires every two to four years, for up to 36 years. During this time, more than 22,000 participants developed type 2 diabetes. Key Research Outcomes
The researchers found that consumption of red meat, including processed and unprocessed red meat, was strongly associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Participants who ate the most red meat had a 62% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least. Every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk.
The researchers also estimated the potential effects of substituting one daily serving of red meat for another protein source. They found that substituting a serving of nuts and legumes was associated with a 30% lower risk of type 2 diabetes, and substituting a serving of dairy products was associated with a 22% lower risk.
You're viewing a single thread.
Another epidemiology study on diet, imo a waste of time and money. We should be doing proper clinical trials so we can see actual causation, but no they are too difficult or expensive so we waste it on these types of studies over and over again.
I dont think we have time for another 36 year study. Other reasearch had similar results. Diabetes is also not the only problem with meat. Almost half of the continental US is used for meat production.
I think you're missing the point of my comment.
This study doesn't show that red meat causes diabetes, an epi study can't show causation, there could be 1000s of reasons why the people in the data developed diabetes which is why these types of studies are mostly meaningless (except to find new areas to be studied further with for example clinical trials)and shouldn't be used to form guidelines for diet.
The article you’ve linked ignores two very important points: how much of that land is marginal (not suitable for growing crops) and the fact that our monoculture approach to growing crops is as much (if not more) devastating to our environment.
There’s no way to put it apart from “humans destroy habitats”, and I don’t think that it makes much difference whether the land was dedicated for grazing or crops.
I am sure this would be very beneficial for the planet:
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares. Including less pesticide / herbicide usage.
You forgot the step where we genocide all the livestock on the planet in order to prevent them from eating feed from crops. It's hilarious to read arguments from people who think they're being morally superior while advocating for Thanos-level solutions.
Even taking this claim at face value, we would have to solve plant based diet issues, such as insufficiencies in some vitamins (e.g. B12), complexity of getting sufficient amount of essential amino acids
(esp. omega-3)and omega-3, slow but steady reduction in an overall amount of nutrients present in both vegetables and fruits etc.And if we say that the answer is to "engineer" foods: fortify grains with vitamins, come up with "equivalent on paper" diary replacements (e.g. oat "milk") etc, then we need to ask ourselves whether this is actually the answer? Can we effectively reduce foods to a small number of "key ingredients" and add them everywhere? Is this sustainable? What about the environmental impact of running all those factories that "engineer" plant-based alternatives to the foods our ancestors ate for generations?
I do not know the answer, I'm no scientist, nor proponent of any specific way forward. I just read stuff. The only thing that I do believe is that there is no silver bullet.
Books I find very interesting:
UPDATE: Corrected that Omega-3 is indeed not an amino acid
@ddnomad @BuddyTheBeefalo Omega-3 is an EFA, not an amino acid. It also isn't an issue if you get fats in their whole form (i.e. flax seeds instead of flax oil) as far as I understand.
The only actual deficiency that is present in a balanced whole foods plant based diet is B12, and that is a product of modern sanitation practices (dairy has it btw b/c cows are fortified with it as I understand it). Easily satisfied with a Vit B12 supplement or nutritional yeast.
Omega-3 is an EFA
My bad, "I'm not a scientist" bit me hard here lol, though I did read that if you get your omega-3 from plant sources (linolenic acid) its absorption rate is extremely low comparing to sources like salmon.
Regarding supplementation, I feel like having to do that because of inherent issues with your diet is somewhat of a dirty hack (I do take some supplements though, so I'm not gonna pretend like it is not an option).
@ddnomad The only supplements I take are B12 and D3, and many omnivores are deficient in those as well. Lack of B12 stems from modern sanitation practices and lack of D3 stems from people not going outside as much. It's compensating for changes to lifestyle and our food system, not for something lacking in our diet per se.
@ddnomad @BuddyTheBeefalo Vitamin D is the other one, but that's true for *everyone* (it's why both dairy and plant-based milks are fortified with D3) and there are, again, supplements if necessary (this one is necessary for pretty much everyone not living near the equator).
Otherwise, nutritionally, a WFPB diet is pretty much the most balanced and nutritious (esp for long-term health) diet one can have.
@ddnomad @BuddyTheBeefalo Dairy consumption is both very recent (evolutionarily) and was historically limited to a few places (even today, the vast majority of the world is lactose-intolerant).
Additionally, what happens with these monoculture crops when a disease comes along that wipes some of them out?
If the world adopted a plant-based diet we would reduce global agricultural land use from 4 to 1 billion hectares.
no, we wouldn't.