• Experts Admitting: Okay, So Maybe Red-Meat Isn’t So Bad for You After All

    Surge Summary: A new study indicates eating red meat might not be as bad for a person’s health as formerly claimed. It’s a finding an ancient, well-known source has probably supported for thousands of years.

    Is it possible the newest research is implying we might not have to feel quite so guilty about something most of us enjoy quite a bit?

    “Fire up the grill and put some steaks on the Barbie,” urges PJ Media’s Rick Moran. “Eating red meat is apparently a lot less harmful than previously thought.”

    In what constitutes another major flip-flop by the so-called dietary “experts”,

    A new study states that previous claims of the harm done by eating beef and pork are inaccurate. It was thought for decades that eating too much red meat contributes to heart disease, diabetes, and certain forms of cancer.

    But the study, published Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine, concluded that meat was probably only a contributing factor to disease — not decisive — and cutting consumption would only marginally improve risk factors.

    Hmmm. So a little red meat is okay, then? That’s a turnaround. Kind of like what has happened the past decade or so with findings about salt in our diets, butter, fats, cholesterol, etc.

    Moran passes along this excerpt from the New York Post:

    Previous studies  have come to the conclusion that consuming less red and processed meats leads to lower rates of heart disease and diabetes and death from certain cancers. However, these new findings claim that many of the previous studies used to inform the guidelines, for example, were riddled with competing conflicts of interests. And, the studies were mostly observational, so they were limited in the conclusions their researchers could really draw, the authors write.

    Understandably, the nutrition world has been shaken by this announcement. Recall  when the received wisdom about the connection between salt intake and high blood pressure were debunked, there was a not favorable response from some nutritionists.

    A piece published on Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health recommends caution, calling for the red meat study to undergo further review.

    More from the Post:

    “This is a prime example where one must look beyond the headlines and abstract conclusions,” the letter says.

    “I am outraged and bewildered,” Stanford University nutrition scientist Christopher Gardner tells NPR. “This is perplexing, given the … clear evidence for harm associated with high red meat intake,” adds Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health’s Department of Nutrition chair Frank Hu.

    Of course, isn’t it also possible, as this latest study suggests, the “clear evidence” wasn’t as “clear” as was alleged? Or that conclusions reaped from whatever evidence did obtain were ill-considered or overly reactive?

    Moran muses about Woody Allen’s 1973 film Sleeper, 

    where Allen portrays a health food store owner frozen after dying in 1970s New York. When revived 200 years later, he discovers everything he believed about healthy food was wrong.

    Dr. Melik: This morning for breakfast he requested something called “wheat germ, organic honey and tiger’s milk.”

    Dr. Aragon: [chuckling] Oh, yes. Those are the charmed substances that some years ago were thought to contain life-preserving properties.

    Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or… hot fudge?

    Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy… precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.

    Dr. Melik: Incredible.

    Scientific advancements have been an incalculable boon for humanity. Yay, science and medicine! But, we’re reminded in this latest “red-meat” adjustment, that a little humility among the specialists is always in order. They do get things wrong occasionally. They do need to backtrack, even do an about face, now and again. We see this regularly and recently in the fields of cosmology, evolutionary theory, climate science, and now, once more, nutritional recommendations.

    “We’re just beginning to understand how the human body works,” warns Moran.

    We know where everything is, what everything does, we have a rudimentary knowledge of how to fix things, but the big picture escapes our understanding.

    We know that certain foods give us energy and protect us from disease, but beyond that, all we have is observational evidence about what harms us. We are unlocking the mysteries of the cell, but the workings of the body at the sub-cellular level are just now beginning to be understood.

    Man, made in God’s image, has been given a mind, intellectual curiosity and capacity to learn and expand knowledge and understanding in all kinds of areas. Historically, the Christian worldview formed the basis for what has become the scientific approach we lean on today.

    But that doesn’t make human beings God. Good for the experts themselves to keep that in mind; good for those who look to them for guidance to do the same.

    Moran offers this counsel:

    [W]ho do we listen to? As a patient living with heart disease, I can tell you that this new study will have absolutely no effect on my diet. While there may be other contributing factors to heart disease, there is no doubt that red meat contains fat. And depending on the cut of meat, a lot of fat. Those of us on a low-fat, low-salt diet know that small portions of red meat are OK on rare occasions, but a catcher’s mitt-sized T-bone should probably be avoided.

    Again, a familiar, much derided but time-honored source of wisdom is vindicated: it teaches the principle of “moderation in all things.” That’s short-hand for a guideline espoused all throughout the Jewish/Christian Scriptures (the Bible): self-control, temperance. Gluttony, for instance, is condemned pointedly in the book of Proverbs.

    Too much red-meat? Probably still bad for you. But a hamburger every now and then? Enjoy it. The Bible says so. Suddenly, it looks like dietary science is coming into agreement with that exhortation as well.

    H/T: PJ Media’s Rick Moran

    Related Columns:

    Ooops! Scientists Have to Trim a Few Billion Years Off Age of the Universe

    Scientific Earthquake: Yale University Computer Whiz Ditches Darwin

    Did You Hear About the Scientists Challenging Climate Change at the UN?




    Image by Free-Photos from Pixabay 

    Trending Now on Daily Surge

    Send this to a friend