WEBVTT
00:00:00.206 --> 00:00:05.666
Every few months a new headline storms the gates of the internet.
00:00:05.666 --> 00:00:08.967
Screaming meat will give you diabetes.
00:00:09.026 --> 00:00:20.617
Go plant-based to save your soul, but before you toss your burger into the trash, let's unpack the real science behind me and diabetes.
00:00:21.007 --> 00:00:29.887
It's a little juicier than you would think Today we're digging past the headlines and serving up the nuance that your health actually deserves.
00:00:30.187 --> 00:00:31.387
So grab your toric.
00:00:31.477 --> 00:00:36.067
This one might save your sanity as well as your steak.
00:00:39.527 --> 00:00:40.277
Hey Rebels.
00:00:40.457 --> 00:00:42.167
Welcome to Blasphemous Nutrition.
00:00:42.646 --> 00:00:52.127
Consider this podcast your pantry full of clarity, perspective, and the nuance needed to counter the superficial health advice so freely given on the internet.
00:00:52.606 --> 00:01:00.286
I am Amy, the unapologetically candid host of Blasphemous Nutrition and a double degreed nutritionist with 20 years experience.
00:01:00.707 --> 00:01:02.716
I'm here to share a more nuanced take.
00:01:03.091 --> 00:01:06.361
On living and eating well to sustain and recover your health.
00:01:06.542 --> 00:01:13.501
If you found most health advice to be so generic is to be meaningless or so extreme that it's unrealistic.
00:01:14.102 --> 00:01:18.542
And you don't mind the occasional F-bomb, you've come to the right place.
00:01:18.992 --> 00:01:33.751
From dissecting the latest nutrition trends to breaking down published research and sharing my own clinical experiences, I'm on a mission to foster clarity amidst all the confusion and empower you to have the health you need to live a life you love.
00:01:34.231 --> 00:01:35.402
Now, let's get started.
00:01:38.135 --> 00:01:40.204
Welcome back to Blasphemous Nutrition.
00:01:40.355 --> 00:01:52.685
I'm your host Aimee, a double degreed functional nutritionist helping you age like an absolute badass sans celery juice, baptisms, and guilt laden confessions over steak night.
00:01:53.165 --> 00:02:08.050
Today we're gonna tear into the sacred cow of the meat causes diabetes narrative, and I'm bringing receipts, a sprinkle of saltiness and the kind of nuance that is totally absent from your social media feed.
00:02:08.770 --> 00:02:19.870
Now, if you've been around here long enough, you already know I have not abandoned my love of protein to join any kind of meatless mosque of veganism.
00:02:20.344 --> 00:02:32.655
I am decidedly pro protein bias, fully confessed, but i'm here neither to convert you into a carnivore, nor hand you a tofu rosary.
00:02:33.405 --> 00:02:37.189
I'm here to help you think critically about the science, the.
00:02:37.590 --> 00:02:45.870
Actual science behind the headlines that we read because most people don't read beyond the headline.
00:02:46.110 --> 00:02:51.780
Or maybe they get to the first paragraph before they get distracted by the next thing on TikTok.
00:02:52.620 --> 00:02:55.500
So today I'm gonna tackle the claim that meet.
00:02:55.784 --> 00:03:08.685
Especially red and processed meat is a one way express ticket On the Hogwarts train to type two diabetes, you have seen articles citing really big and impressive names.
00:03:08.685 --> 00:03:14.745
The Epic Interact study, the nurses health study, and the health professionals follow up study.
00:03:15.044 --> 00:03:21.194
These studies are practically treated like Gospel Scrolls at a vegan revival meeting.
00:03:21.900 --> 00:03:29.789
And while we're here, I'm also gonna address the elephant or perhaps the cow in the room, research funding.
00:03:30.659 --> 00:03:34.139
Studies that are published don't exist in a vacuum.
00:03:34.229 --> 00:03:41.189
They are absolutely shaped by what gets funded, what's trending, and what headlines will ultimately get shared.
00:03:41.639 --> 00:03:51.300
Right now, there's a really strong cultural and institutional push to reduce meat consumption, partly for health reasons and partly for climate reasons.
00:03:51.659 --> 00:04:07.710
So, while the environmental impact of meat is a valid discussion that deserves its own sermon, and I will get to it in a future episode, today, I'm gonna stick strictly to the health side and more specifically diabetes risk.
00:04:08.069 --> 00:04:15.509
So let's start by getting our hands dirty with the actual research that sparks all of these meat, diabetes headlines.
00:04:16.410 --> 00:04:24.839
I wanna focus on three massive long running studies that get a lot of press and also a lot of prestige.
00:04:26.579 --> 00:04:28.529
First is the epic interact.
00:04:28.560 --> 00:04:30.420
Now this is a European study.
00:04:30.466 --> 00:04:36.916
That tracked over 340,000 people across eight countries.
00:04:37.427 --> 00:04:45.706
Researchers were looking at diet and its relationship to type two diabetes because this is a problem across the world.
00:04:45.757 --> 00:04:49.146
It is certainly not limited to North America alone.
00:04:49.596 --> 00:05:01.507
And the big takeaway that gets plastered on headlines is that people eating more red and processed meats have a higher risk of developing diabetes.
00:05:02.916 --> 00:05:15.206
We have the nurses' health study, which is a classic, so so much of the published research on chronic disease refers to the nurses health study.
00:05:15.476 --> 00:05:31.766
This American Classic started way back in 1976, originally looking at women's health, and over time they started using all of the data collected over multiple decades to examine everything from hormone use to dietary patterns.
00:05:32.521 --> 00:05:43.201
The nurses' health study loves to point fingers at red and processed meats linking them to higher cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk among female users.
00:05:43.802 --> 00:05:53.641
Similarly, the health professionals follow-up study is kind of like the nurses' health studies little brother launched in 1986.
00:05:53.672 --> 00:05:58.291
This study followed male health professionals and surprise, surprise.
00:05:58.632 --> 00:06:06.161
Same conclusion, more red and processed meat intake is associated with a higher risk of type two diabetes.
00:06:06.851 --> 00:06:13.302
So there are specific reasons why these kinds of studies dominate the headlines.
00:06:13.482 --> 00:06:15.312
First, they're massive.
00:06:15.341 --> 00:06:16.752
When you're looking at.
00:06:17.081 --> 00:06:19.992
Tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
00:06:20.322 --> 00:06:25.451
These big numbers add power and validity to a study.
00:06:25.752 --> 00:06:35.622
So this gives greater confidence to the researchers that what they're seeing is an accurate association and it impresses journalists.
00:06:37.302 --> 00:06:39.581
There's also really long follow ups.
00:06:39.581 --> 00:06:40.572
Many of these.
00:06:40.586 --> 00:06:48.836
Studies track people for decades, so it kind of feels like a crystal ball for chronic disease prediction.
00:06:49.137 --> 00:06:58.317
Chronic disease, does take multiple decades to develop, and often begins in an imperceptible, silent fashion.
00:06:58.317 --> 00:07:04.197
So having data over time is legitimately very, very valuable here.
00:07:04.961 --> 00:07:07.901
And we have prestige points.
00:07:07.961 --> 00:07:17.562
I mean, when Harvard or big European consortias stamp their name on these research papers, it's kind of treated as gospel truth.
00:07:18.101 --> 00:07:23.464
Clout, carries far whether or not it is earned.
00:07:25.235 --> 00:07:28.774
And finally, simple storylines are sexier.
00:07:29.329 --> 00:07:34.370
Eat meat, get diabetes is a lot more clickable than complex.
00:07:34.370 --> 00:07:40.579
Interactions between diet, lifestyle, genetics, and social determinants may influence diabetes risk in heterogeneous ways.
00:07:40.850 --> 00:07:44.329
Yeah, that just doesn't really quite fit on a headline banner.
00:07:46.310 --> 00:07:53.079
But here's the thing, just because something is big and the study itself has.
00:07:53.709 --> 00:08:05.629
What is referred to as power due to the number of participants just because it comes from a prestigious university, it doesn't make it immune to flaws.
00:08:06.170 --> 00:08:11.569
So I wanna address these studies with both steelman arguments and a little spicy side eye.
00:08:12.889 --> 00:08:14.120
First, let's play fair.
00:08:14.149 --> 00:08:14.480
Okay?
00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:16.519
If I'm gonna take apart these studies.
00:08:17.029 --> 00:08:23.720
I want to understand the strongest case for the claim that the study is making.
00:08:24.620 --> 00:08:26.120
I'm not about a straw man.
00:08:26.600 --> 00:08:34.789
When we understand opposing viewpoints, we can better empathize with how our opponent got to where they are.
00:08:35.899 --> 00:08:39.139
In this, we often can find common ground and.
00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:48.289
With that common ground more effectively poke holes in the flaws and biases of that argument.
00:08:48.919 --> 00:08:51.830
So here are some of the strengths that these studies offer.
00:08:52.580 --> 00:08:58.940
Firstly, there are consistent associations across multiple big studies.
00:08:59.419 --> 00:09:02.720
The Epic interact, the NHS, the HPFS, right?
00:09:02.720 --> 00:09:06.710
The three studies that I mentioned earlier have a similar narrative.
00:09:07.009 --> 00:09:13.980
More meat and more processed meat intake is linked to a higher risk of developing type two diabetes.
00:09:14.309 --> 00:09:26.340
Even if the studies are in different countries and different population, this pattern repeats when it comes to epidemiological studies.
00:09:27.029 --> 00:09:32.820
Repeated signals can suggest that there is something very real going on.
00:09:34.679 --> 00:09:48.309
Additionally, these studies do propose biological mechanisms and researchers love mechanisms because a mechanism, especially when validated, helps explain what we see observationally.
00:09:48.789 --> 00:09:50.019
So here's what these.
00:09:51.384 --> 00:09:53.605
Studies suggest may be at play.
00:09:54.414 --> 00:10:06.682
Heme iron, which is abundant in red meat, can promote oxidative stress and damage pancreatic beta cells because iron in high doses acts as an oxidant.
00:10:07.846 --> 00:10:17.466
Additionally, nitrosamines, which are formed during the processing of meats or high heat cooking, are hypothesized to contribute to insulin resistance.
00:10:18.366 --> 00:10:29.307
Advanced glycation and products known as ages from charred meats specifically are believed to worsen inflammation and insulin signaling.
00:10:29.787 --> 00:10:40.256
And then finally, saturated fats in certain cuts of meat might impair insulin sensitivity in some contexts and in some individuals.
00:10:40.782 --> 00:10:46.211
This one is still very much like uncertain.
00:10:46.782 --> 00:10:47.861
I'll leave it at that.
00:10:49.111 --> 00:10:53.642
These studies also suggest dose response trends.
00:10:53.701 --> 00:11:06.422
So when we have a dose response relationship, it's basically saying in this instance that the more red meat or processed meat that people report eating, the higher their diabetes risk appears.
00:11:06.961 --> 00:11:13.802
In research lingo, dose response patterns strengthen the argument for causality.
00:11:13.861 --> 00:11:27.111
Even if the nature of the research itself, such as observational studies which, you know, all epidemiological studies are observational studies, and these studies cannot be.
00:11:27.940 --> 00:11:33.309
Used to ascertain causality because their very nature is observational, right?
00:11:33.610 --> 00:11:44.653
However, when we see dose response patterns in observational research, it strengthens the argument that causality may be relevant.
00:11:45.471 --> 00:11:48.562
And then we have the adjustment of confounding variables.
00:11:48.922 --> 00:12:04.312
These studies typically claim to adjust for confounding variables or aspects that may coexist within the study participants that could jack things up like smoking a high BMI.
00:12:04.966 --> 00:12:09.736
Physical activity, alcohol, other dietary factors like sugar intake.
00:12:10.006 --> 00:12:18.886
And the argument is that even after controlling for these variables, the meat diabetes link persists.
00:12:19.336 --> 00:12:30.287
So even if you are a steak loving, ribeye worshiping protein fanatic like myself, it is important to acknowledge that.
00:12:30.902 --> 00:12:43.268
This research that is being heavily promoted in the mainstream media and with, um, me hating influencers on social media.
00:12:43.268 --> 00:12:47.528
Isn't just something pulled out of a wellness influencer's ass.
00:12:47.827 --> 00:12:50.738
It's based on decades of data.
00:12:50.738 --> 00:12:59.648
It's been published in widely respected journals, and it's been peer reviewed by intelligent researchers.
00:13:00.258 --> 00:13:02.687
Well often promoted as the contrary.
00:13:02.687 --> 00:13:06.677
The existing research is not suggesting that meat is evil.
00:13:06.677 --> 00:13:14.717
It's actually suggesting that the patterns that are observed in this research deserve a closer look.
00:13:15.288 --> 00:13:23.118
And while I might not be buying into the whole sermon, I do respect the rigor that it takes to build such an argument.
00:13:24.097 --> 00:13:26.857
However, there's the part they leave out.
00:13:29.768 --> 00:13:33.697
These are the heretical notes that they do not want you to read.
00:13:35.227 --> 00:13:44.498
Now in these big observational studies, people who eat more red meat and processed meat tend to be different.
00:13:44.827 --> 00:13:53.048
In many other ways than people who do not eat high intakes of redder processed meats, they're more likely to smoke.
00:13:53.498 --> 00:13:55.658
They tend to be more sedentary.
00:13:56.048 --> 00:14:03.128
They also tend to consume fewer fruits, vegetables, and have an overall lower fiber diet.
00:14:04.327 --> 00:14:15.457
Because they often eat more ultra processed, calorically dense foods in general, and they may also drink more sugary beverages and alcohol.
00:14:16.268 --> 00:14:32.677
In other words, high meat intake is often part of an overall western dietary pattern among the worst in the world, which is heavy on processed food, light on produce, and typically paired with a more sedentary lifestyle.
00:14:33.248 --> 00:14:43.293
And researchers know this, they do try to adjust for these differences statistically, but here's the problem, adjusting.
00:14:44.288 --> 00:14:57.811
Confounding variables is kind of like trying to fix a crooked foundation By patching the cracks in the drywall, you can tidy it up, but the underlying structure is still unstable.
00:14:58.847 --> 00:15:11.957
Even after adjusting for things like smoking, BMI and physical activity, there are always, always, always unmeasured or poorly measured confounders that are kind of hiding in the shadows.
00:15:12.557 --> 00:15:21.857
For instance, how accurately did people actually report their exercise habits and their alcohol consumption?
00:15:22.982 --> 00:15:30.153
Did researchers account for stress levels, sleep quality, socioeconomic status in detail.
00:15:30.873 --> 00:15:36.513
And what about nutrient synergy, like the benefits of more fiber and polyphenols?
00:15:36.753 --> 00:15:43.952
When meat is consumed alongside a ton of veggies, was that taken into consideration?
00:15:44.373 --> 00:15:46.957
Unknowns like this can totally tilt the results.
00:15:47.498 --> 00:15:52.544
Making meat more villainous appearing than it actually is.
00:15:53.174 --> 00:15:57.975
It's also crucial to point out that these studies often pool all red meat together.
00:15:58.125 --> 00:16:05.475
Processed deli ham, charred sausage on the grill, home-cooked grass fed steak, it's all thrown into the same bucket.
00:16:06.589 --> 00:16:13.958
I mean, that said, higher quality studies like the data from the nurses health study do tease these apart.
00:16:15.038 --> 00:16:32.402
In the nurses health study comparing the extreme ends of processed meat intake groups, those who consumed the most processed red meat had a 51% higher associated risk of developing type two diabetes.
00:16:33.317 --> 00:16:39.736
Unprocessed red meat showed a weaker link about a 40% higher risk.
00:16:40.006 --> 00:16:48.047
But here's where we gotta hit the pause button, because these percentages are relative risks.
00:16:48.376 --> 00:16:49.336
What does that mean?
00:16:50.147 --> 00:16:56.927
Let's say your absolute base risk of diabetes is 10%, and I'm basing that off of.
00:16:57.226 --> 00:17:10.457
The fact that one in 10 Americans, or 10% of the American population has diabetes, so let's say you have a 10% absolute risk of diabetes.
00:17:10.787 --> 00:17:26.057
If you increase your relative risk by 50%, your new absolute risk is 15% because 50% of 10 is five.
00:17:26.686 --> 00:17:31.396
And 5% plus 10% is 15%.
00:17:32.507 --> 00:17:36.376
Your actual risk is not 51%.
00:17:36.436 --> 00:17:45.220
That's your relative risk and relative risk sounds much, much scarier than what it actually is.
00:17:46.150 --> 00:18:02.150
The epic interact study that European study noted that each 50 gram increase in red meat that's shy of two ounces was linked to an eight to 12% higher relative risk.
00:18:02.269 --> 00:18:05.634
Again, it's relative risk, not absolute risk.
00:18:06.255 --> 00:18:12.019
So again, if our baseline, absolute risk of getting diabetes is 10%.
00:18:12.785 --> 00:18:25.055
We're looking at an absolute risk increase from the each 50 grams of red meat to equate a 0.8 to 1.2% total increase.
00:18:25.795 --> 00:18:26.015
So.
00:18:27.250 --> 00:18:47.559
Well, if you eat a 16 ounce steak every goddamn day, your absolute risk of developing diabetes would jump from 10% to 17 to 21%, and that's because 16 ounces is 450 grams, or nine times that 50 gram increase.
00:18:48.894 --> 00:18:58.105
Now, while that's significant, it isn't necessarily to be equated with the risk of smoking to developing lung cancer, right?
00:18:58.105 --> 00:18:59.934
We can't say that.
00:18:59.984 --> 00:19:06.464
But when it comes to how headlines are shared, one would think that eating a steak every day is.
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:15.660
As likely to give you diabetes as smoking a pack of cigarettes is likely to give you lung cancer, and that's simply not the case.
00:19:17.007 --> 00:19:26.250
A huge, huge, huge factor with these long-term observational studies is the food frequency questionnaire.
00:19:27.525 --> 00:19:34.575
Food frequency questionnaires are the bane of a nutritionist's existence.
00:19:35.384 --> 00:19:43.664
They offer value in research because they are a very efficient and low cost way to collect data.
00:19:44.144 --> 00:19:48.670
But damn is it fraught with massive inaccuracies.
00:19:49.845 --> 00:20:04.755
The data in these big observational studies mostly comes from questionnaires asking people to recall their typical diet over the past year, sometimes even longer than a year, and we're fucking terrible at this.
00:20:05.894 --> 00:20:12.194
I mean, I can't even remember what I ate two days ago, let alone what I was eating this time last year.
00:20:13.440 --> 00:20:17.460
Plus we have a tendency to under report the bad stuff.
00:20:17.549 --> 00:20:25.319
Oh, you know, I have a bacon cheeseburger like once or twice a year and over.
00:20:25.319 --> 00:20:26.940
Report the good stuff.
00:20:27.059 --> 00:20:29.384
Oh, I always make sure to get vegetables every single day.
00:20:30.869 --> 00:20:42.599
I see this tendency firsthand when observing a certain family member, tell a medical provider about what they eat versus what I actually see them do in day-to-day life.
00:20:43.619 --> 00:20:47.339
And you know, that's not unique to any individual.
00:20:47.339 --> 00:20:50.670
We're all kind of prone to this.
00:20:50.700 --> 00:20:52.680
It's just human nature.
00:20:53.460 --> 00:21:07.410
So food frequency questionnaires also presume that people can adequately identify what a serving of food entails and then estimate their own consumption of that serving.
00:21:08.054 --> 00:21:18.393
Even if you knew that a serving of vegetables was half a cup could you accurately look at the amount of vegetables on your plate and estimate how many half cup servings was there?
00:21:20.522 --> 00:21:33.002
Most of us can't do that, and if these base measurements are flawed, there is simply no amount of statistical wizardry that can fully rescue them.
00:21:33.932 --> 00:21:35.343
Garbage in, garbage out.
00:21:35.762 --> 00:21:37.083
It's as simple as that.
00:21:39.097 --> 00:21:56.708
When you look at studies conducted in metabolic wards or very tightly controlled feeding trials, which are admittedly much, much shorter in duration due to cost, we see that red meat does not consistently wreck insulin sensitivity or blow up your fasting glucose.
00:21:57.157 --> 00:21:59.167
In several cases.
00:21:59.167 --> 00:21:59.498
What is.
00:22:00.248 --> 00:22:16.431
Observed in tightly controlled clinical research or randomized controlled trials is improvements in weight, muscle mass, and diet quality that overshadow any individual food effect.
00:22:17.391 --> 00:22:19.911
And this is a really valuable consideration.
00:22:20.361 --> 00:22:27.050
While randomized controlled studies are much shorter, and that is an absolute limitation.
00:22:27.576 --> 00:22:34.625
All of the confounding of variables that we discussed earlier are largely eliminated when the study is well controlled.
00:22:35.226 --> 00:22:47.986
Additionally, the amount of the villain in question is accurately recorded, weighed and measured before being given to the participant to consume.
00:22:49.006 --> 00:23:06.375
So to make up for the lack of a huge cohort, a meta-analysis of several smaller controlled feeding trials can add power to the counter hypothesis that meat does not increase diabetes risks, and those meta-analyses have been done.
00:23:07.125 --> 00:23:17.476
So while observational studies like the nurses health study may suggest there are associations between red meat consumption and diabetes risks.
00:23:18.090 --> 00:23:27.361
Randomized controlled trials do not support any causal link between me intake and type two diabetes risk.
00:23:29.161 --> 00:23:41.401
The scary headlines that we are reading are built on association and not proven cause and effect while the observational research that leads to these headlines.
00:23:41.730 --> 00:23:45.451
May provide a hypothesis that is worth testing.
00:23:45.840 --> 00:23:52.770
It absolutely should not be integrated into your Health Commandments or give you any kind of bacon guilt.
00:23:57.516 --> 00:24:00.750
Additionally, there is an unspoken topic.
00:24:01.486 --> 00:24:10.336
That makes most researchers squirm harder than a cat in a bathtub, and that is funding and trend chasing.
00:24:11.506 --> 00:24:16.096
The blunt honest to God truth is that research does not happen in a vacuum.
00:24:16.695 --> 00:24:30.496
It happens in a world where grant committees, public health priorities and cultural narratives decide what is going to get funded, what will be published, and what will be promoted.
00:24:31.576 --> 00:24:40.486
And right now there is a major cultural and institutional push to reduce meat consumption, not just for personal health, but for planetary health.
00:24:40.905 --> 00:25:01.816
The climate conversation has become a powerful tailwind, or maybe more accurately a kind of hurricane pushing researchers, policy makers and journalists to focus on meat reduction, which, in some cases leads to creating research with an end in mind, right?
00:25:02.145 --> 00:25:08.089
Rather than asking the question, does meet impact diabetes ease?
00:25:08.423 --> 00:25:15.088
The question that some researchers will step into is to what degree does meet.
00:25:16.078 --> 00:25:20.548
Cause diabetes or does meet cause diabetes, right?
00:25:20.548 --> 00:25:38.691
So there's almost like leading with the premise rather than asking an open-ended question and studying that and subtle, almost imperceptible biases in the original question can.
00:25:39.060 --> 00:25:52.201
Lead to unconsciously omitting or overlooking important aspects of research that might be discovered when one is stepping into the research with an open-ended question.
00:25:53.493 --> 00:26:00.663
And all of this sounds a little conspiracy, theor theory ish, is that even a word?
00:26:01.683 --> 00:26:03.394
But it isn't.
00:26:03.394 --> 00:26:06.423
It's simply how academic incentives work.
00:26:07.054 --> 00:26:29.884
If you're a researcher who studies a really hot topic that is in alignment with public concerns such as climate change and chronic disease, your paper and the university you work for is more likely to get additional funding, more likely to get published, and way more likely to get picked up by media outlets.
00:26:30.064 --> 00:26:35.673
This is unequivocally a good thing for you and your boss, right?
00:26:36.094 --> 00:26:36.544
And it's.
00:26:37.176 --> 00:26:44.737
Near impossible to disregard that when looking at the research that you want to conduct.
00:26:45.787 --> 00:26:50.166
It's also important to remember that scary headlines sell.
00:26:51.817 --> 00:26:56.737
Meat will give you diabetes is prime clickbait real estate.
00:26:57.277 --> 00:27:12.622
So this relationship that exists between funding research, media hype, and the possibility of future research dollars down the road creates a self-reinforcing cycle.
00:27:14.102 --> 00:27:16.182
A study finds a small association.
00:27:17.122 --> 00:27:20.737
The media amplifies that with fear-based headlines.
00:27:21.471 --> 00:27:23.241
The public freaks out.
00:27:23.721 --> 00:27:32.991
More funding flows to the same narrative to further confirm or refute that initial finding.
00:27:33.261 --> 00:27:37.882
And we repeat this process ad nauseum until everybody is scared of stake.
00:27:41.136 --> 00:27:59.406
So while the environmental impact of meat deserves deep, serious discussion, if for no other reason than the science on that is as shaky as a food frequency questionnaire, when we conflate environmental ethics with health science and the same breath, it does muddy the waters.
00:27:59.436 --> 00:28:02.767
These are two very distinct conversations.
00:28:04.807 --> 00:28:06.487
And that's your teaser.
00:28:06.487 --> 00:28:17.270
I am gonna dive into the climate impact of meat in its own future episode, but for now, let's keep the microscope focused on diabetes risk only.
00:28:17.780 --> 00:28:30.111
Okay, so I've had a little fun poking holes in the mainstream narrative, and now I want to build a case against the idea that meat is your Pancreas's personal grim Reaper.
00:28:31.280 --> 00:28:37.730
First Meat is not just this block of saturated fat waiting to clog your arteries and spike your blood sugar.
00:28:38.570 --> 00:28:47.151
It is a nutrient-dense source of high quality protein, and protein is a fucking metabolic rockstar.
00:28:47.810 --> 00:28:54.441
It increases satiety so you're not rummaging through the snack drawer 30 minutes after lunch.
00:28:55.010 --> 00:29:04.431
It helps preserve and build muscle mass, which is one of the most powerful protectors we have against insulin resistance as we age.
00:29:04.911 --> 00:29:16.280
And protein also has a higher thermic effect, meaning your body uses more energy to digest protein as compared to say, digesting carbs or fat.
00:29:16.851 --> 00:29:20.090
I talk about this at length in several podcast episodes.
00:29:21.096 --> 00:29:29.705
I'll put these links in the show notes, but you'll wanna check out episode 10, lose weight and lower blood sugar by asking these two questions before each meal.
00:29:30.306 --> 00:29:37.955
Episode 43 must have nutrients to balance blood sugar and episode 51, can you eat too much protein?
00:29:38.286 --> 00:29:43.536
Check those out to get the full scoop on how protein is a metabolic powerhouse.
00:29:45.121 --> 00:29:59.457
Muscle mass acts as metabolic armor, because without it, we lose muscle, especially as we age, due to the reduction of hormones which encourage muscle mass retention and sarcopenia.
00:30:00.777 --> 00:30:06.777
Is a massive underappreciated risk factor for insulin resistance and type two diabetes.
00:30:07.136 --> 00:30:17.487
Having a higher protein intake, does help maintain lean body mass and support glucose disposal or the storage of glucose in that muscle.
00:30:18.692 --> 00:30:23.672
Yes, muscle gives you shape, it gives you strength, and it adds a sexy factor, but.
00:30:24.237 --> 00:30:30.086
More importantly, it is a critical storage place for blood glucose.
00:30:30.446 --> 00:30:40.797
The more metabolically active muscle that you have, the better your body can handle carbohydrate and keep insulin sensitivity on point.
00:30:41.267 --> 00:30:45.527
Muscle is absolutely key to aging like a badass.
00:30:46.872 --> 00:30:55.126
Red meat provides several important nutrients in greater concentration and nutrient found in plant foods such as vitamin B12.
00:30:55.696 --> 00:31:03.576
Vitamin B12 is essential for red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis.
00:31:04.057 --> 00:31:06.846
B12 deficiency can lead to anemia.
00:31:07.372 --> 00:31:17.342
Fatigue nerve issues as well as cognitive decline, all things that we definitely do not wanna deal with at any stage of life.
00:31:18.362 --> 00:31:19.801
And then there's heme iron.
00:31:20.071 --> 00:31:27.422
This is the form of iron that your body absorbs most efficiently, and it happens to be the form found in animal protein.
00:31:27.811 --> 00:31:31.247
Unlike non-heme iron, which is found in plants.
00:31:31.817 --> 00:31:40.926
Heme iron does not depend on as much of your gut environment or the presence of vitamin C in order to be absorbed.
00:31:41.436 --> 00:31:51.277
Having low iron levels can lead to anemia as well as impaired oxygen transport resulting in fatigue, weakness, and brain fog.
00:31:52.146 --> 00:31:53.317
And then we have zinc.
00:31:53.707 --> 00:32:00.457
Zinc is critical for immune health, for wound healing, as well as insulin storage and secretion in the pancreas.
00:32:01.102 --> 00:32:05.241
Zinc also plays a role in taste and smell.
00:32:05.511 --> 00:32:18.342
So yeah, it also helps you kind of savor that ribeye Zinc from red meat is highly bioavailable, meaning your body will actually absorb and use it more efficiently.
00:32:18.882 --> 00:32:31.332
The big lesson here is that when eaten is part of a balanced diet with plenty of fiber, rich veggies and healthy fats, meat can be a health supporter rather than a saboteur.
00:32:34.346 --> 00:32:38.727
And the reality is we don't eat nutrients in isolation.
00:32:38.936 --> 00:32:47.307
We eat meals, and meals are a complex array of nutrients, and those nutrients interact with one another.
00:32:47.787 --> 00:32:55.076
Demonizing a single food while ignoring the dietary context that that food is in is like.
00:32:55.884 --> 00:33:07.413
Well, it's kind of like blaming one candle for burning down the cathedral when the building itself was made out of untreated wood and there were no smoke detectors.
00:33:08.703 --> 00:33:13.054
A diet that includes unprocessed meat, plenty of vegetables.
00:33:13.653 --> 00:33:25.983
Highend fiber with minimally processed foods has a dramatically different metabolic impact than a diet of hot dogs, soda and squid game marathons.
00:33:26.584 --> 00:33:32.463
What accompanies that meat on your plate, how it is prepared and how it is eaten.
00:33:32.463 --> 00:33:39.076
All of these factors absolutely impact the health outcome of that food.
00:33:40.067 --> 00:33:46.067
I also wanna reiterate the relative versus absolute risk that I talked about earlier.
00:33:47.028 --> 00:33:52.577
Most of the scary numbers that we saw from the nurses' health study.
00:33:53.079 --> 00:33:55.930
And the European Epic interact study.
00:33:56.173 --> 00:34:06.103
Our relative risk increases an eight to 12% relative increase, which was what was cited in the Epic Interact study.
00:34:06.942 --> 00:34:08.563
Sounds concerning on paper.
00:34:09.507 --> 00:34:24.958
But again, if your baseline absolute risk of diabetes is 10%, then that relative risk increase translates to an absolute risk of 10.8 to 11.2%.
00:34:25.858 --> 00:34:28.018
It's not exactly the apocalypse.
00:34:29.038 --> 00:34:31.108
Same goes for the NHS data.
00:34:31.768 --> 00:34:41.570
A 40 to 51% higher relative risk among those who consume the most red meat or processed meat.
00:34:41.570 --> 00:34:43.251
Sounds really damning.
00:34:44.420 --> 00:34:45.380
Is it important?
00:34:46.400 --> 00:34:57.170
Yeah, but it's no guarantee of disease and it is definitely not evidence that meat alone is the cause.
00:34:58.280 --> 00:35:01.610
It reflects an association.
00:35:01.965 --> 00:35:13.597
It suggests that there is a signal and that we need to investigate further with more accurate studies that are designed to establish.
00:35:13.802 --> 00:35:15.842
Probability of cause.
00:35:16.501 --> 00:35:27.121
At the end of the day, red meat can totally support your metabolic health when it's part of a balanced, produce rich diet, and an active lifestyle.
00:35:27.900 --> 00:35:30.331
And that protein helps protect your muscle mass.
00:35:30.331 --> 00:35:37.471
It helps reduce cravings by regulating your appetite and it can support insulin sensitivity.
00:35:38.215 --> 00:35:54.210
When we demonize a single food group, it distracts us from the bigger picture, what our overall dietary patterns are, our physical activity levels are, how our stress levels are, and what our sleep looks like.
00:35:55.085 --> 00:36:13.304
So look, if the arguments I've made have not convinced you, but you ed me, there are smart evidence backed ways to minimize these potential downsides while keeping all of the nutrient winds that red meats provide.
00:36:13.909 --> 00:36:26.451
When we look at processed meats specifically, these are believed to be more problematic than unprocessed meats because they tend to be higher in sodium nitrates, nitrites.
00:36:27.306 --> 00:36:29.135
And sometimes sulfites.
00:36:29.556 --> 00:36:38.195
These compounds are used in processed meats to preserve color, to extend shelf life and to enhance flavor.
00:36:38.856 --> 00:36:42.215
But they do carry some concerns.
00:36:42.905 --> 00:36:49.251
Nitrites, and other nitroso compounds are formed during high heat cooking.
00:36:49.567 --> 00:36:55.507
And they've been associated with insulin resistance and higher cancer risk in some studies.
00:36:55.717 --> 00:37:01.086
Now, I have not looked in any kind of depth at this association.
00:37:01.447 --> 00:37:08.353
I'm just noting that the association does exist and it's pretty prevalent in the observational research.
00:37:09.074 --> 00:37:17.653
Sulfites, which are common in deli meats may affect gut health, and they're believed to increase oxidative stress.
00:37:18.284 --> 00:37:19.693
To what degree they do.
00:37:19.693 --> 00:37:21.704
That is up for debate.
00:37:22.873 --> 00:37:26.054
And then we have the high sodium content of processed meats.
00:37:26.054 --> 00:37:35.623
That is definitely of concern for a lot of people because a high sodium diet is linked to higher blood pressure and metabolic stress over time.
00:37:36.164 --> 00:37:43.003
But I will add that blood pressure balance is a relationship between sodium.
00:37:43.543 --> 00:37:45.914
Potassium and magnesium.
00:37:46.063 --> 00:37:48.824
The latter tube being found in produce.
00:37:49.483 --> 00:37:56.173
So pairing your grilled steak with some green veg is a very solid strategy.
00:37:57.103 --> 00:38:09.884
And then finally, we have those ages, those advanced glycation and products ages are formed when meats are cooked at really high temperatures such as grilling or frying or broiling.
00:38:10.148 --> 00:38:19.719
Which honestly is my favorite way to have a steak ages can promote oxidative stress and inflammation in the body.
00:38:19.719 --> 00:38:26.199
And these are two players in the insulin resistance and type two diabetes development camp.
00:38:26.199 --> 00:38:32.257
So it's not something to poo poo and while the strength of the existing evidence.
00:38:32.702 --> 00:38:33.992
Is a little shaky.
00:38:34.021 --> 00:38:41.972
If you have several significant risk factors for diabetes, it's completely reasonable to still be concerned.
00:38:42.751 --> 00:38:48.052
So here is what you can do to minimize the potential risks that have been observed in the research.
00:38:48.472 --> 00:38:57.572
First, choose less processed meats, opt for fresh, unprocessed cuts instead of deli slices or sausages.
00:38:58.231 --> 00:39:03.291
Your steaks, your roasts, ground beef, whatever you can get from the butcher's counter, right?
00:39:04.402 --> 00:39:07.762
And then you wanna choose lower risk cooking methods.
00:39:08.317 --> 00:39:15.157
Avoid habitually charring or broiling meat as that increases those ages.
00:39:15.456 --> 00:39:19.416
Instead, favor lower, slower cooking methods.
00:39:19.447 --> 00:39:25.447
Use your slow cooker, make a stove top stew, maybe braise that meat or do a soy.
00:39:26.347 --> 00:39:30.246
This reduces age formation and.
00:39:30.862 --> 00:39:41.961
If you do grill, one of the easiest and tastiest ways to cut down on advanced glycation end products is to marinate your meat before cooking.
00:39:42.532 --> 00:39:54.442
Marinating, especially with acidic ingredients like lemon juice, vinegar, yogurt, and using herbs and spices and even olive oil, can reduce age formation.
00:39:54.456 --> 00:39:58.746
Significantly, sometimes up to 50% or more.
00:39:59.257 --> 00:40:13.536
This is because the acid helps break down proteins and prevents charring of the meat, while the antioxidants in herbs and spices and olive oil act as these little metabolic bodyguards to protect you.
00:40:13.777 --> 00:40:22.597
So remember the holy Trinity of a delicious and protective marinade, acid, fat and flavor.
00:40:24.561 --> 00:40:37.436
If you marinate your red meat for at least 30 minutes, you're in good shape, but overnight is even better from both a flavor standpoint and an age reduction standpoint.
00:40:37.516 --> 00:40:42.586
And of course, you will want to pair that red meat with plants.
00:40:42.916 --> 00:40:57.047
Combine your meat with lots of fiber, rich, colorful veggies, because these also have the polyphenols and antioxidants that mitigate some of the hypothesized oxidative stress from an iron rich meat heavy meal.
00:40:57.317 --> 00:41:01.306
Think of vegetables as a fire extinguisher for oxidative stress.
00:41:03.092 --> 00:41:10.472
Whether that stress is coming from meat or the inflammation is coming from other factors in your life.
00:41:10.711 --> 00:41:14.251
Vegetables are wonderful at dousing inflammation.
00:41:14.896 --> 00:41:21.786
If you do choose to buy deli meats, Look for options with minimally added nitrites, nitrates, and sulfites.
00:41:22.086 --> 00:41:28.297
These options do exist, but they are often more expensive and a little bit harder to find.
00:41:30.876 --> 00:41:35.016
And then finally, you'll wanna moderate your dose if you're really concerned.
00:41:35.376 --> 00:41:42.217
Remember no one food that makes or breaks your health bank account the dose matters.
00:41:42.472 --> 00:41:51.021
Having two pounds of bacon daily is not the same as enjoying a couple slices of a high quality prosciutto on Sundays.
00:41:51.715 --> 00:42:01.135
You may be wondering if the story is so messy, why do these studies keep getting published and paraded around like the holy grail?
00:42:02.690 --> 00:42:08.449
Big observational studies are kind of the darling children of nutrition headlines.
00:42:08.539 --> 00:42:14.150
They look really impressive because of the sheer amount of people included in those studies.
00:42:14.570 --> 00:42:29.445
They're often from prestigious institutions And they're easy to turn into a morality tale, which seems to kind of be the foundation for nutrition recommendations in the western industrialized world.
00:42:30.554 --> 00:42:46.664
Studies like the Epic Interact, the NHS and the HPFS do follow hundreds of thousands of people over decades, and that scale makes them look rock solid, especially as they're dispersed to the population via media.
00:42:47.114 --> 00:42:56.880
I mean, if 300,000 people participated in this study and there was association, it's hard not to think of that as relevant and true.
00:42:57.585 --> 00:43:02.445
But even if it's true, an association is not causation.
00:43:03.226 --> 00:43:14.990
Associations in observational research are intended to be a hypothesis generator, not some final verdict from the Supreme Court of Health and Longevity.
00:43:16.081 --> 00:43:29.717
Researchers themselves usually attest to this very fact in their paper, in the conclusion section, something that never gets revealed in mainstream media.
00:43:30.438 --> 00:43:38.987
And just as researchers need funding to keep their jobs, our news media needs our eyeballs to stay relevant and in business.
00:43:39.663 --> 00:43:43.833
They know an emotion evoking headline is gonna be seen and spread.
00:43:43.833 --> 00:43:45.543
We're all prey to that.
00:43:46.083 --> 00:43:50.193
Media outlets also know most people don't read past the headline.
00:43:50.193 --> 00:43:56.043
Much less dig into relative versus absolute risk and what that ultimately means.
00:43:56.972 --> 00:44:00.362
And any way, they're not in the business of science education.
00:44:00.393 --> 00:44:03.422
They're kind of in the business of getting your attention.
00:44:05.643 --> 00:44:13.742
Because research funding often flows to topics that are culturally trending and politically relevant.
00:44:14.103 --> 00:44:30.713
If your study supports the meat is bad narrative, it's more likely to get published in a big name journal, more likely to get media coverage and more likely to help secure future grant money for your team and the university you work for.
00:44:31.552 --> 00:44:35.572
It's simply the messy reality of academic incentives.
00:44:35.663 --> 00:44:37.733
Scientists are people too.
00:44:38.123 --> 00:44:39.833
They have to keep the lights on.
00:44:39.833 --> 00:44:44.992
They have to fund their labs, and they have to publish to keep their careers.
00:44:46.132 --> 00:44:53.543
Nutrition headlines love to crown new Saints and crucifying new sinners practically every week.
00:44:54.023 --> 00:44:56.362
One minute Broccoli's the next Messiah.
00:44:56.422 --> 00:44:56.722
And.
00:44:57.503 --> 00:45:02.543
I may actually be guilty of spreading that one.
00:45:02.963 --> 00:45:05.603
And then the next week, bacon is the antichrist.
00:45:05.603 --> 00:45:19.623
But the reality is that meat totally can be part of a resilient, badass aging strategy, or it could be a contributor to poor health if it's part of your ultra processed, sedentary sleep deprived life.
00:45:20.134 --> 00:45:26.809
But we can't let headlines or influencers dictate one's moral standing via the dinner plate.
00:45:27.018 --> 00:45:32.373
There is no single food that's going to save you nor damn you for that matter.
00:45:32.958 --> 00:45:36.228
Health is built through daily rituals.
00:45:36.588 --> 00:45:51.708
The meals that you repeat, the movement you choose, the boundaries you establish around stress and sleep, and the way that you stack habits that are going to support the health that you want.
00:45:53.088 --> 00:45:58.759
Rather than another restrictive doctrine, find a strategy that honors your reality.
00:45:59.474 --> 00:46:03.530
Rather than falling for the fear, seek out the evidence.
00:46:04.280 --> 00:46:08.210
Remember context, not commandments from on high.
00:46:08.960 --> 00:46:11.541
I mean, eat the damn steak if you want to.
00:46:11.916 --> 00:46:35.335
And if you have a high risk of diabetes and you are not satisfied with the counter arguments I've provided, marinate the steak, pair it with veggies, limit it to once or twice a week, rather than having it every day, which actually gets super expensive anyway, support your body further by moving it.Sleep well laugh often.
00:46:35.860 --> 00:46:37.300
And live from Love.
00:46:37.721 --> 00:46:43.900
Health is so much more than any single food that we eat or omit.
00:46:44.710 --> 00:46:49.541
And in all honesty, it's so much more than whatever we put on our plate.
00:46:50.141 --> 00:46:56.201
I know you know that, but it bears repeating because I often focus just on the food bit.
00:46:57.221 --> 00:47:01.481
But even with this podcast, it's important not to lose the forest for the trees.
00:47:01.481 --> 00:47:01.840
No.
00:47:03.641 --> 00:47:04.481
All right folks.
00:47:04.590 --> 00:47:06.630
That's all I've got in me today.
00:47:07.565 --> 00:47:09.425
I hope you enjoyed this episode.
00:47:10.179 --> 00:47:27.159
If anyone came to mind while you were listening, please share this episode with them, and if you haven't yet subscribed, doing so will ensure that all future episodes like that meat and Climate change one, get dropped into your feed as soon as they're published.
00:47:28.079 --> 00:47:33.539
And until then, stay salty, stay curious, and I will see you next time.
00:47:35.023 --> 00:47:43.092
Any and all information shared here is for educational and entertainment purposes only, and is not to be misconstrued as offering medical advice.
00:47:43.543 --> 00:47:48.492
Listening to this podcast does not constitute a provider client relationship.
00:47:48.943 --> 00:47:57.793
Note, I'm not a doctor nor a nurse, and it is imperative that you utilize your brain and your medical team to make the best decisions for your own health.
00:47:58.333 --> 00:48:02.382
The use of information on this podcast or materials linked to this podcast.
00:48:02.742 --> 00:48:04.003
Are at the user's own risk.
00:48:04.152 --> 00:48:11.773
No information nor resources provided are intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
00:48:12.163 --> 00:48:18.313
Be a smart human and do not disregard or postpone obtaining medical advice for any medical condition you may have.
00:48:18.762 --> 00:48:27.313
Seek the assistance of your healthcare team for any such conditions and always do so before making any changes to your medical, nutrition or health plan.
00:00:00.206 --> 00:00:05.666
Every few months a new headline storms the gates of the internet.
00:00:05.666 --> 00:00:08.967
Screaming meat will give you diabetes.
00:00:09.026 --> 00:00:20.617
Go plant-based to save your soul, but before you toss your burger into the trash, let's unpack the real science behind me and diabetes.
00:00:21.007 --> 00:00:29.887
It's a little juicier than you would think Today we're digging past the headlines and serving up the nuance that your health actually deserves.
00:00:30.187 --> 00:00:31.387
So grab your toric.
00:00:31.477 --> 00:00:36.067
This one might save your sanity as well as your steak.
00:00:39.527 --> 00:00:40.277
Hey Rebels.
00:00:40.457 --> 00:00:42.167
Welcome to Blasphemous Nutrition.
00:00:42.646 --> 00:00:52.127
Consider this podcast your pantry full of clarity, perspective, and the nuance needed to counter the superficial health advice so freely given on the internet.
00:00:52.606 --> 00:01:00.286
I am Amy, the unapologetically candid host of Blasphemous Nutrition and a double degreed nutritionist with 20 years experience.
00:01:00.707 --> 00:01:02.716
I'm here to share a more nuanced take.
00:01:03.091 --> 00:01:06.361
On living and eating well to sustain and recover your health.
00:01:06.542 --> 00:01:13.501
If you found most health advice to be so generic is to be meaningless or so extreme that it's unrealistic.
00:01:14.102 --> 00:01:18.542
And you don't mind the occasional F-bomb, you've come to the right place.
00:01:18.992 --> 00:01:33.751
From dissecting the latest nutrition trends to breaking down published research and sharing my own clinical experiences, I'm on a mission to foster clarity amidst all the confusion and empower you to have the health you need to live a life you love.
00:01:34.231 --> 00:01:35.402
Now, let's get started.
00:01:38.135 --> 00:01:40.204
Welcome back to Blasphemous Nutrition.
00:01:40.355 --> 00:01:52.685
I'm your host Aimee, a double degreed functional nutritionist helping you age like an absolute badass sans celery juice, baptisms, and guilt laden confessions over steak night.
00:01:53.165 --> 00:02:08.050
Today we're gonna tear into the sacred cow of the meat causes diabetes narrative, and I'm bringing receipts, a sprinkle of saltiness and the kind of nuance that is totally absent from your social media feed.
00:02:08.770 --> 00:02:19.870
Now, if you've been around here long enough, you already know I have not abandoned my love of protein to join any kind of meatless mosque of veganism.
00:02:20.344 --> 00:02:32.655
I am decidedly pro protein bias, fully confessed, but i'm here neither to convert you into a carnivore, nor hand you a tofu rosary.
00:02:33.405 --> 00:02:37.189
I'm here to help you think critically about the science, the.
00:02:37.590 --> 00:02:45.870
Actual science behind the headlines that we read because most people don't read beyond the headline.
00:02:46.110 --> 00:02:51.780
Or maybe they get to the first paragraph before they get distracted by the next thing on TikTok.
00:02:52.620 --> 00:02:55.500
So today I'm gonna tackle the claim that meet.
00:02:55.784 --> 00:03:08.685
Especially red and processed meat is a one way express ticket On the Hogwarts train to type two diabetes, you have seen articles citing really big and impressive names.
00:03:08.685 --> 00:03:14.745
The Epic Interact study, the nurses health study, and the health professionals follow up study.
00:03:15.044 --> 00:03:21.194
These studies are practically treated like Gospel Scrolls at a vegan revival meeting.
00:03:21.900 --> 00:03:29.789
And while we're here, I'm also gonna address the elephant or perhaps the cow in the room, research funding.
00:03:30.659 --> 00:03:34.139
Studies that are published don't exist in a vacuum.
00:03:34.229 --> 00:03:41.189
They are absolutely shaped by what gets funded, what's trending, and what headlines will ultimately get shared.
00:03:41.639 --> 00:03:51.300
Right now, there's a really strong cultural and institutional push to reduce meat consumption, partly for health reasons and partly for climate reasons.
00:03:51.659 --> 00:04:07.710
So, while the environmental impact of meat is a valid discussion that deserves its own sermon, and I will get to it in a future episode, today, I'm gonna stick strictly to the health side and more specifically diabetes risk.
00:04:08.069 --> 00:04:15.509
So let's start by getting our hands dirty with the actual research that sparks all of these meat, diabetes headlines.
00:04:16.410 --> 00:04:24.839
I wanna focus on three massive long running studies that get a lot of press and also a lot of prestige.
00:04:26.579 --> 00:04:28.529
First is the epic interact.
00:04:28.560 --> 00:04:30.420
Now this is a European study.
00:04:30.466 --> 00:04:36.916
That tracked over 340,000 people across eight countries.
00:04:37.427 --> 00:04:45.706
Researchers were looking at diet and its relationship to type two diabetes because this is a problem across the world.
00:04:45.757 --> 00:04:49.146
It is certainly not limited to North America alone.
00:04:49.596 --> 00:05:01.507
And the big takeaway that gets plastered on headlines is that people eating more red and processed meats have a higher risk of developing diabetes.
00:05:02.916 --> 00:05:15.206
We have the nurses' health study, which is a classic, so so much of the published research on chronic disease refers to the nurses health study.
00:05:15.476 --> 00:05:31.766
This American Classic started way back in 1976, originally looking at women's health, and over time they started using all of the data collected over multiple decades to examine everything from hormone use to dietary patterns.
00:05:32.521 --> 00:05:43.201
The nurses' health study loves to point fingers at red and processed meats linking them to higher cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk among female users.
00:05:43.802 --> 00:05:53.641
Similarly, the health professionals follow-up study is kind of like the nurses' health studies little brother launched in 1986.
00:05:53.672 --> 00:05:58.291
This study followed male health professionals and surprise, surprise.
00:05:58.632 --> 00:06:06.161
Same conclusion, more red and processed meat intake is associated with a higher risk of type two diabetes.
00:06:06.851 --> 00:06:13.302
So there are specific reasons why these kinds of studies dominate the headlines.
00:06:13.482 --> 00:06:15.312
First, they're massive.
00:06:15.341 --> 00:06:16.752
When you're looking at.
00:06:17.081 --> 00:06:19.992
Tens or hundreds of thousands of people.
00:06:20.322 --> 00:06:25.451
These big numbers add power and validity to a study.
00:06:25.752 --> 00:06:35.622
So this gives greater confidence to the researchers that what they're seeing is an accurate association and it impresses journalists.
00:06:37.302 --> 00:06:39.581
There's also really long follow ups.
00:06:39.581 --> 00:06:40.572
Many of these.
00:06:40.586 --> 00:06:48.836
Studies track people for decades, so it kind of feels like a crystal ball for chronic disease prediction.
00:06:49.137 --> 00:06:58.317
Chronic disease, does take multiple decades to develop, and often begins in an imperceptible, silent fashion.
00:06:58.317 --> 00:07:04.197
So having data over time is legitimately very, very valuable here.
00:07:04.961 --> 00:07:07.901
And we have prestige points.
00:07:07.961 --> 00:07:17.562
I mean, when Harvard or big European consortias stamp their name on these research papers, it's kind of treated as gospel truth.
00:07:18.101 --> 00:07:23.464
Clout, carries far whether or not it is earned.
00:07:25.235 --> 00:07:28.774
And finally, simple storylines are sexier.
00:07:29.329 --> 00:07:34.370
Eat meat, get diabetes is a lot more clickable than complex.
00:07:34.370 --> 00:07:40.579
Interactions between diet, lifestyle, genetics, and social determinants may influence diabetes risk in heterogeneous ways.
00:07:40.850 --> 00:07:44.329
Yeah, that just doesn't really quite fit on a headline banner.
00:07:46.310 --> 00:07:53.079
But here's the thing, just because something is big and the study itself has.
00:07:53.709 --> 00:08:05.629
What is referred to as power due to the number of participants just because it comes from a prestigious university, it doesn't make it immune to flaws.
00:08:06.170 --> 00:08:11.569
So I wanna address these studies with both steelman arguments and a little spicy side eye.
00:08:12.889 --> 00:08:14.120
First, let's play fair.
00:08:14.149 --> 00:08:14.480
Okay?
00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:16.519
If I'm gonna take apart these studies.
00:08:17.029 --> 00:08:23.720
I want to understand the strongest case for the claim that the study is making.
00:08:24.620 --> 00:08:26.120
I'm not about a straw man.
00:08:26.600 --> 00:08:34.789
When we understand opposing viewpoints, we can better empathize with how our opponent got to where they are.
00:08:35.899 --> 00:08:39.139
In this, we often can find common ground and.
00:08:40.399 --> 00:08:48.289
With that common ground more effectively poke holes in the flaws and biases of that argument.
00:08:48.919 --> 00:08:51.830
So here are some of the strengths that these studies offer.
00:08:52.580 --> 00:08:58.940
Firstly, there are consistent associations across multiple big studies.
00:08:59.419 --> 00:09:02.720
The Epic interact, the NHS, the HPFS, right?
00:09:02.720 --> 00:09:06.710
The three studies that I mentioned earlier have a similar narrative.
00:09:07.009 --> 00:09:13.980
More meat and more processed meat intake is linked to a higher risk of developing type two diabetes.
00:09:14.309 --> 00:09:26.340
Even if the studies are in different countries and different population, this pattern repeats when it comes to epidemiological studies.
00:09:27.029 --> 00:09:32.820
Repeated signals can suggest that there is something very real going on.
00:09:34.679 --> 00:09:48.309
Additionally, these studies do propose biological mechanisms and researchers love mechanisms because a mechanism, especially when validated, helps explain what we see observationally.
00:09:48.789 --> 00:09:50.019
So here's what these.
00:09:51.384 --> 00:09:53.605
Studies suggest may be at play.
00:09:54.414 --> 00:10:06.682
Heme iron, which is abundant in red meat, can promote oxidative stress and damage pancreatic beta cells because iron in high doses acts as an oxidant.
00:10:07.846 --> 00:10:17.466
Additionally, nitrosamines, which are formed during the processing of meats or high heat cooking, are hypothesized to contribute to insulin resistance.
00:10:18.366 --> 00:10:29.307
Advanced glycation and products known as ages from charred meats specifically are believed to worsen inflammation and insulin signaling.
00:10:29.787 --> 00:10:40.256
And then finally, saturated fats in certain cuts of meat might impair insulin sensitivity in some contexts and in some individuals.
00:10:40.782 --> 00:10:46.211
This one is still very much like uncertain.
00:10:46.782 --> 00:10:47.861
I'll leave it at that.
00:10:49.111 --> 00:10:53.642
These studies also suggest dose response trends.
00:10:53.701 --> 00:11:06.422
So when we have a dose response relationship, it's basically saying in this instance that the more red meat or processed meat that people report eating, the higher their diabetes risk appears.
00:11:06.961 --> 00:11:13.802
In research lingo, dose response patterns strengthen the argument for causality.
00:11:13.861 --> 00:11:27.111
Even if the nature of the research itself, such as observational studies which, you know, all epidemiological studies are observational studies, and these studies cannot be.
00:11:27.940 --> 00:11:33.309
Used to ascertain causality because their very nature is observational, right?
00:11:33.610 --> 00:11:44.653
However, when we see dose response patterns in observational research, it strengthens the argument that causality may be relevant.
00:11:45.471 --> 00:11:48.562
And then we have the adjustment of confounding variables.
00:11:48.922 --> 00:12:04.312
These studies typically claim to adjust for confounding variables or aspects that may coexist within the study participants that could jack things up like smoking a high BMI.
00:12:04.966 --> 00:12:09.736
Physical activity, alcohol, other dietary factors like sugar intake.
00:12:10.006 --> 00:12:18.886
And the argument is that even after controlling for these variables, the meat diabetes link persists.
00:12:19.336 --> 00:12:30.287
So even if you are a steak loving, ribeye worshiping protein fanatic like myself, it is important to acknowledge that.
00:12:30.902 --> 00:12:43.268
This research that is being heavily promoted in the mainstream media and with, um, me hating influencers on social media.
00:12:43.268 --> 00:12:47.528
Isn't just something pulled out of a wellness influencer's ass.
00:12:47.827 --> 00:12:50.738
It's based on decades of data.
00:12:50.738 --> 00:12:59.648
It's been published in widely respected journals, and it's been peer reviewed by intelligent researchers.
00:13:00.258 --> 00:13:02.687
Well often promoted as the contrary.
00:13:02.687 --> 00:13:06.677
The existing research is not suggesting that meat is evil.
00:13:06.677 --> 00:13:14.717
It's actually suggesting that the patterns that are observed in this research deserve a closer look.
00:13:15.288 --> 00:13:23.118
And while I might not be buying into the whole sermon, I do respect the rigor that it takes to build such an argument.
00:13:24.097 --> 00:13:26.857
However, there's the part they leave out.
00:13:29.768 --> 00:13:33.697
These are the heretical notes that they do not want you to read.
00:13:35.227 --> 00:13:44.498
Now in these big observational studies, people who eat more red meat and processed meat tend to be different.
00:13:44.827 --> 00:13:53.048
In many other ways than people who do not eat high intakes of redder processed meats, they're more likely to smoke.
00:13:53.498 --> 00:13:55.658
They tend to be more sedentary.
00:13:56.048 --> 00:14:03.128
They also tend to consume fewer fruits, vegetables, and have an overall lower fiber diet.
00:14:04.327 --> 00:14:15.457
Because they often eat more ultra processed, calorically dense foods in general, and they may also drink more sugary beverages and alcohol.
00:14:16.268 --> 00:14:32.677
In other words, high meat intake is often part of an overall western dietary pattern among the worst in the world, which is heavy on processed food, light on produce, and typically paired with a more sedentary lifestyle.
00:14:33.248 --> 00:14:43.293
And researchers know this, they do try to adjust for these differences statistically, but here's the problem, adjusting.
00:14:44.288 --> 00:14:57.811
Confounding variables is kind of like trying to fix a crooked foundation By patching the cracks in the drywall, you can tidy it up, but the underlying structure is still unstable.
00:14:58.847 --> 00:15:11.957
Even after adjusting for things like smoking, BMI and physical activity, there are always, always, always unmeasured or poorly measured confounders that are kind of hiding in the shadows.
00:15:12.557 --> 00:15:21.857
For instance, how accurately did people actually report their exercise habits and their alcohol consumption?
00:15:22.982 --> 00:15:30.153
Did researchers account for stress levels, sleep quality, socioeconomic status in detail.
00:15:30.873 --> 00:15:36.513
And what about nutrient synergy, like the benefits of more fiber and polyphenols?
00:15:36.753 --> 00:15:43.952
When meat is consumed alongside a ton of veggies, was that taken into consideration?
00:15:44.373 --> 00:15:46.957
Unknowns like this can totally tilt the results.
00:15:47.498 --> 00:15:52.544
Making meat more villainous appearing than it actually is.
00:15:53.174 --> 00:15:57.975
It's also crucial to point out that these studies often pool all red meat together.
00:15:58.125 --> 00:16:05.475
Processed deli ham, charred sausage on the grill, home-cooked grass fed steak, it's all thrown into the same bucket.
00:16:06.589 --> 00:16:13.958
I mean, that said, higher quality studies like the data from the nurses health study do tease these apart.
00:16:15.038 --> 00:16:32.402
In the nurses health study comparing the extreme ends of processed meat intake groups, those who consumed the most processed red meat had a 51% higher associated risk of developing type two diabetes.
00:16:33.317 --> 00:16:39.736
Unprocessed red meat showed a weaker link about a 40% higher risk.
00:16:40.006 --> 00:16:48.047
But here's where we gotta hit the pause button, because these percentages are relative risks.
00:16:48.376 --> 00:16:49.336
What does that mean?
00:16:50.147 --> 00:16:56.927
Let's say your absolute base risk of diabetes is 10%, and I'm basing that off of.
00:16:57.226 --> 00:17:10.457
The fact that one in 10 Americans, or 10% of the American population has diabetes, so let's say you have a 10% absolute risk of diabetes.
00:17:10.787 --> 00:17:26.057
If you increase your relative risk by 50%, your new absolute risk is 15% because 50% of 10 is five.
00:17:26.686 --> 00:17:31.396
And 5% plus 10% is 15%.
00:17:32.507 --> 00:17:36.376
Your actual risk is not 51%.
00:17:36.436 --> 00:17:45.220
That's your relative risk and relative risk sounds much, much scarier than what it actually is.
00:17:46.150 --> 00:18:02.150
The epic interact study that European study noted that each 50 gram increase in red meat that's shy of two ounces was linked to an eight to 12% higher relative risk.
00:18:02.269 --> 00:18:05.634
Again, it's relative risk, not absolute risk.
00:18:06.255 --> 00:18:12.019
So again, if our baseline, absolute risk of getting diabetes is 10%.
00:18:12.785 --> 00:18:25.055
We're looking at an absolute risk increase from the each 50 grams of red meat to equate a 0.8 to 1.2% total increase.
00:18:25.795 --> 00:18:26.015
So.
00:18:27.250 --> 00:18:47.559
Well, if you eat a 16 ounce steak every goddamn day, your absolute risk of developing diabetes would jump from 10% to 17 to 21%, and that's because 16 ounces is 450 grams, or nine times that 50 gram increase.
00:18:48.894 --> 00:18:58.105
Now, while that's significant, it isn't necessarily to be equated with the risk of smoking to developing lung cancer, right?
00:18:58.105 --> 00:18:59.934
We can't say that.
00:18:59.984 --> 00:19:06.464
But when it comes to how headlines are shared, one would think that eating a steak every day is.
00:19:07.500 --> 00:19:15.660
As likely to give you diabetes as smoking a pack of cigarettes is likely to give you lung cancer, and that's simply not the case.
00:19:17.007 --> 00:19:26.250
A huge, huge, huge factor with these long-term observational studies is the food frequency questionnaire.
00:19:27.525 --> 00:19:34.575
Food frequency questionnaires are the bane of a nutritionist's existence.
00:19:35.384 --> 00:19:43.664
They offer value in research because they are a very efficient and low cost way to collect data.
00:19:44.144 --> 00:19:48.670
But damn is it fraught with massive inaccuracies.
00:19:49.845 --> 00:20:04.755
The data in these big observational studies mostly comes from questionnaires asking people to recall their typical diet over the past year, sometimes even longer than a year, and we're fucking terrible at this.
00:20:05.894 --> 00:20:12.194
I mean, I can't even remember what I ate two days ago, let alone what I was eating this time last year.
00:20:13.440 --> 00:20:17.460
Plus we have a tendency to under report the bad stuff.
00:20:17.549 --> 00:20:25.319
Oh, you know, I have a bacon cheeseburger like once or twice a year and over.
00:20:25.319 --> 00:20:26.940
Report the good stuff.
00:20:27.059 --> 00:20:29.384
Oh, I always make sure to get vegetables every single day.
00:20:30.869 --> 00:20:42.599
I see this tendency firsthand when observing a certain family member, tell a medical provider about what they eat versus what I actually see them do in day-to-day life.
00:20:43.619 --> 00:20:47.339
And you know, that's not unique to any individual.
00:20:47.339 --> 00:20:50.670
We're all kind of prone to this.
00:20:50.700 --> 00:20:52.680
It's just human nature.
00:20:53.460 --> 00:21:07.410
So food frequency questionnaires also presume that people can adequately identify what a serving of food entails and then estimate their own consumption of that serving.
00:21:08.054 --> 00:21:18.393
Even if you knew that a serving of vegetables was half a cup could you accurately look at the amount of vegetables on your plate and estimate how many half cup servings was there?
00:21:20.522 --> 00:21:33.002
Most of us can't do that, and if these base measurements are flawed, there is simply no amount of statistical wizardry that can fully rescue them.
00:21:33.932 --> 00:21:35.343
Garbage in, garbage out.
00:21:35.762 --> 00:21:37.083
It's as simple as that.
00:21:39.097 --> 00:21:56.708
When you look at studies conducted in metabolic wards or very tightly controlled feeding trials, which are admittedly much, much shorter in duration due to cost, we see that red meat does not consistently wreck insulin sensitivity or blow up your fasting glucose.
00:21:57.157 --> 00:21:59.167
In several cases.
00:21:59.167 --> 00:21:59.498
What is.
00:22:00.248 --> 00:22:16.431
Observed in tightly controlled clinical research or randomized controlled trials is improvements in weight, muscle mass, and diet quality that overshadow any individual food effect.
00:22:17.391 --> 00:22:19.911
And this is a really valuable consideration.
00:22:20.361 --> 00:22:27.050
While randomized controlled studies are much shorter, and that is an absolute limitation.
00:22:27.576 --> 00:22:34.625
All of the confounding of variables that we discussed earlier are largely eliminated when the study is well controlled.
00:22:35.226 --> 00:22:47.986
Additionally, the amount of the villain in question is accurately recorded, weighed and measured before being given to the participant to consume.
00:22:49.006 --> 00:23:06.375
So to make up for the lack of a huge cohort, a meta-analysis of several smaller controlled feeding trials can add power to the counter hypothesis that meat does not increase diabetes risks, and those meta-analyses have been done.
00:23:07.125 --> 00:23:17.476
So while observational studies like the nurses health study may suggest there are associations between red meat consumption and diabetes risks.
00:23:18.090 --> 00:23:27.361
Randomized controlled trials do not support any causal link between me intake and type two diabetes risk.
00:23:29.161 --> 00:23:41.401
The scary headlines that we are reading are built on association and not proven cause and effect while the observational research that leads to these headlines.
00:23:41.730 --> 00:23:45.451
May provide a hypothesis that is worth testing.
00:23:45.840 --> 00:23:52.770
It absolutely should not be integrated into your Health Commandments or give you any kind of bacon guilt.
00:23:57.516 --> 00:24:00.750
Additionally, there is an unspoken topic.
00:24:01.486 --> 00:24:10.336
That makes most researchers squirm harder than a cat in a bathtub, and that is funding and trend chasing.
00:24:11.506 --> 00:24:16.096
The blunt honest to God truth is that research does not happen in a vacuum.
00:24:16.695 --> 00:24:30.496
It happens in a world where grant committees, public health priorities and cultural narratives decide what is going to get funded, what will be published, and what will be promoted.
00:24:31.576 --> 00:24:40.486
And right now there is a major cultural and institutional push to reduce meat consumption, not just for personal health, but for planetary health.
00:24:40.905 --> 00:25:01.816
The climate conversation has become a powerful tailwind, or maybe more accurately a kind of hurricane pushing researchers, policy makers and journalists to focus on meat reduction, which, in some cases leads to creating research with an end in mind, right?
00:25:02.145 --> 00:25:08.089
Rather than asking the question, does meet impact diabetes ease?
00:25:08.423 --> 00:25:15.088
The question that some researchers will step into is to what degree does meet.
00:25:16.078 --> 00:25:20.548
Cause diabetes or does meet cause diabetes, right?
00:25:20.548 --> 00:25:38.691
So there's almost like leading with the premise rather than asking an open-ended question and studying that and subtle, almost imperceptible biases in the original question can.
00:25:39.060 --> 00:25:52.201
Lead to unconsciously omitting or overlooking important aspects of research that might be discovered when one is stepping into the research with an open-ended question.
00:25:53.493 --> 00:26:00.663
And all of this sounds a little conspiracy, theor theory ish, is that even a word?
00:26:01.683 --> 00:26:03.394
But it isn't.
00:26:03.394 --> 00:26:06.423
It's simply how academic incentives work.
00:26:07.054 --> 00:26:29.884
If you're a researcher who studies a really hot topic that is in alignment with public concerns such as climate change and chronic disease, your paper and the university you work for is more likely to get additional funding, more likely to get published, and way more likely to get picked up by media outlets.
00:26:30.064 --> 00:26:35.673
This is unequivocally a good thing for you and your boss, right?
00:26:36.094 --> 00:26:36.544
And it's.
00:26:37.176 --> 00:26:44.737
Near impossible to disregard that when looking at the research that you want to conduct.
00:26:45.787 --> 00:26:50.166
It's also important to remember that scary headlines sell.
00:26:51.817 --> 00:26:56.737
Meat will give you diabetes is prime clickbait real estate.
00:26:57.277 --> 00:27:12.622
So this relationship that exists between funding research, media hype, and the possibility of future research dollars down the road creates a self-reinforcing cycle.
00:27:14.102 --> 00:27:16.182
A study finds a small association.
00:27:17.122 --> 00:27:20.737
The media amplifies that with fear-based headlines.
00:27:21.471 --> 00:27:23.241
The public freaks out.
00:27:23.721 --> 00:27:32.991
More funding flows to the same narrative to further confirm or refute that initial finding.
00:27:33.261 --> 00:27:37.882
And we repeat this process ad nauseum until everybody is scared of stake.
00:27:41.136 --> 00:27:59.406
So while the environmental impact of meat deserves deep, serious discussion, if for no other reason than the science on that is as shaky as a food frequency questionnaire, when we conflate environmental ethics with health science and the same breath, it does muddy the waters.
00:27:59.436 --> 00:28:02.767
These are two very distinct conversations.
00:28:04.807 --> 00:28:06.487
And that's your teaser.
00:28:06.487 --> 00:28:17.270
I am gonna dive into the climate impact of meat in its own future episode, but for now, let's keep the microscope focused on diabetes risk only.
00:28:17.780 --> 00:28:30.111
Okay, so I've had a little fun poking holes in the mainstream narrative, and now I want to build a case against the idea that meat is your Pancreas's personal grim Reaper.
00:28:31.280 --> 00:28:37.730
First Meat is not just this block of saturated fat waiting to clog your arteries and spike your blood sugar.
00:28:38.570 --> 00:28:47.151
It is a nutrient-dense source of high quality protein, and protein is a fucking metabolic rockstar.
00:28:47.810 --> 00:28:54.441
It increases satiety so you're not rummaging through the snack drawer 30 minutes after lunch.
00:28:55.010 --> 00:29:04.431
It helps preserve and build muscle mass, which is one of the most powerful protectors we have against insulin resistance as we age.
00:29:04.911 --> 00:29:16.280
And protein also has a higher thermic effect, meaning your body uses more energy to digest protein as compared to say, digesting carbs or fat.
00:29:16.851 --> 00:29:20.090
I talk about this at length in several podcast episodes.
00:29:21.096 --> 00:29:29.705
I'll put these links in the show notes, but you'll wanna check out episode 10, lose weight and lower blood sugar by asking these two questions before each meal.
00:29:30.306 --> 00:29:37.955
Episode 43 must have nutrients to balance blood sugar and episode 51, can you eat too much protein?
00:29:38.286 --> 00:29:43.536
Check those out to get the full scoop on how protein is a metabolic powerhouse.
00:29:45.121 --> 00:29:59.457
Muscle mass acts as metabolic armor, because without it, we lose muscle, especially as we age, due to the reduction of hormones which encourage muscle mass retention and sarcopenia.
00:30:00.777 --> 00:30:06.777
Is a massive underappreciated risk factor for insulin resistance and type two diabetes.
00:30:07.136 --> 00:30:17.487
Having a higher protein intake, does help maintain lean body mass and support glucose disposal or the storage of glucose in that muscle.
00:30:18.692 --> 00:30:23.672
Yes, muscle gives you shape, it gives you strength, and it adds a sexy factor, but.
00:30:24.237 --> 00:30:30.086
More importantly, it is a critical storage place for blood glucose.
00:30:30.446 --> 00:30:40.797
The more metabolically active muscle that you have, the better your body can handle carbohydrate and keep insulin sensitivity on point.
00:30:41.267 --> 00:30:45.527
Muscle is absolutely key to aging like a badass.
00:30:46.872 --> 00:30:55.126
Red meat provides several important nutrients in greater concentration and nutrient found in plant foods such as vitamin B12.
00:30:55.696 --> 00:31:03.576
Vitamin B12 is essential for red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis.
00:31:04.057 --> 00:31:06.846
B12 deficiency can lead to anemia.
00:31:07.372 --> 00:31:17.342
Fatigue nerve issues as well as cognitive decline, all things that we definitely do not wanna deal with at any stage of life.
00:31:18.362 --> 00:31:19.801
And then there's heme iron.
00:31:20.071 --> 00:31:27.422
This is the form of iron that your body absorbs most efficiently, and it happens to be the form found in animal protein.
00:31:27.811 --> 00:31:31.247
Unlike non-heme iron, which is found in plants.
00:31:31.817 --> 00:31:40.926
Heme iron does not depend on as much of your gut environment or the presence of vitamin C in order to be absorbed.
00:31:41.436 --> 00:31:51.277
Having low iron levels can lead to anemia as well as impaired oxygen transport resulting in fatigue, weakness, and brain fog.
00:31:52.146 --> 00:31:53.317
And then we have zinc.
00:31:53.707 --> 00:32:00.457
Zinc is critical for immune health, for wound healing, as well as insulin storage and secretion in the pancreas.
00:32:01.102 --> 00:32:05.241
Zinc also plays a role in taste and smell.
00:32:05.511 --> 00:32:18.342
So yeah, it also helps you kind of savor that ribeye Zinc from red meat is highly bioavailable, meaning your body will actually absorb and use it more efficiently.
00:32:18.882 --> 00:32:31.332
The big lesson here is that when eaten is part of a balanced diet with plenty of fiber, rich veggies and healthy fats, meat can be a health supporter rather than a saboteur.
00:32:34.346 --> 00:32:38.727
And the reality is we don't eat nutrients in isolation.
00:32:38.936 --> 00:32:47.307
We eat meals, and meals are a complex array of nutrients, and those nutrients interact with one another.
00:32:47.787 --> 00:32:55.076
Demonizing a single food while ignoring the dietary context that that food is in is like.
00:32:55.884 --> 00:33:07.413
Well, it's kind of like blaming one candle for burning down the cathedral when the building itself was made out of untreated wood and there were no smoke detectors.
00:33:08.703 --> 00:33:13.054
A diet that includes unprocessed meat, plenty of vegetables.
00:33:13.653 --> 00:33:25.983
Highend fiber with minimally processed foods has a dramatically different metabolic impact than a diet of hot dogs, soda and squid game marathons.
00:33:26.584 --> 00:33:32.463
What accompanies that meat on your plate, how it is prepared and how it is eaten.
00:33:32.463 --> 00:33:39.076
All of these factors absolutely impact the health outcome of that food.
00:33:40.067 --> 00:33:46.067
I also wanna reiterate the relative versus absolute risk that I talked about earlier.
00:33:47.028 --> 00:33:52.577
Most of the scary numbers that we saw from the nurses' health study.
00:33:53.079 --> 00:33:55.930
And the European Epic interact study.
00:33:56.173 --> 00:34:06.103
Our relative risk increases an eight to 12% relative increase, which was what was cited in the Epic Interact study.
00:34:06.942 --> 00:34:08.563
Sounds concerning on paper.
00:34:09.507 --> 00:34:24.958
But again, if your baseline absolute risk of diabetes is 10%, then that relative risk increase translates to an absolute risk of 10.8 to 11.2%.
00:34:25.858 --> 00:34:28.018
It's not exactly the apocalypse.
00:34:29.038 --> 00:34:31.108
Same goes for the NHS data.
00:34:31.768 --> 00:34:41.570
A 40 to 51% higher relative risk among those who consume the most red meat or processed meat.
00:34:41.570 --> 00:34:43.251
Sounds really damning.
00:34:44.420 --> 00:34:45.380
Is it important?
00:34:46.400 --> 00:34:57.170
Yeah, but it's no guarantee of disease and it is definitely not evidence that meat alone is the cause.
00:34:58.280 --> 00:35:01.610
It reflects an association.
00:35:01.965 --> 00:35:13.597
It suggests that there is a signal and that we need to investigate further with more accurate studies that are designed to establish.
00:35:13.802 --> 00:35:15.842
Probability of cause.
00:35:16.501 --> 00:35:27.121
At the end of the day, red meat can totally support your metabolic health when it's part of a balanced, produce rich diet, and an active lifestyle.
00:35:27.900 --> 00:35:30.331
And that protein helps protect your muscle mass.
00:35:30.331 --> 00:35:37.471
It helps reduce cravings by regulating your appetite and it can support insulin sensitivity.
00:35:38.215 --> 00:35:54.210
When we demonize a single food group, it distracts us from the bigger picture, what our overall dietary patterns are, our physical activity levels are, how our stress levels are, and what our sleep looks like.
00:35:55.085 --> 00:36:13.304
So look, if the arguments I've made have not convinced you, but you ed me, there are smart evidence backed ways to minimize these potential downsides while keeping all of the nutrient winds that red meats provide.
00:36:13.909 --> 00:36:26.451
When we look at processed meats specifically, these are believed to be more problematic than unprocessed meats because they tend to be higher in sodium nitrates, nitrites.
00:36:27.306 --> 00:36:29.135
And sometimes sulfites.
00:36:29.556 --> 00:36:38.195
These compounds are used in processed meats to preserve color, to extend shelf life and to enhance flavor.
00:36:38.856 --> 00:36:42.215
But they do carry some concerns.
00:36:42.905 --> 00:36:49.251
Nitrites, and other nitroso compounds are formed during high heat cooking.
00:36:49.567 --> 00:36:55.507
And they've been associated with insulin resistance and higher cancer risk in some studies.
00:36:55.717 --> 00:37:01.086
Now, I have not looked in any kind of depth at this association.
00:37:01.447 --> 00:37:08.353
I'm just noting that the association does exist and it's pretty prevalent in the observational research.
00:37:09.074 --> 00:37:17.653
Sulfites, which are common in deli meats may affect gut health, and they're believed to increase oxidative stress.
00:37:18.284 --> 00:37:19.693
To what degree they do.
00:37:19.693 --> 00:37:21.704
That is up for debate.
00:37:22.873 --> 00:37:26.054
And then we have the high sodium content of processed meats.
00:37:26.054 --> 00:37:35.623
That is definitely of concern for a lot of people because a high sodium diet is linked to higher blood pressure and metabolic stress over time.
00:37:36.164 --> 00:37:43.003
But I will add that blood pressure balance is a relationship between sodium.
00:37:43.543 --> 00:37:45.914
Potassium and magnesium.
00:37:46.063 --> 00:37:48.824
The latter tube being found in produce.
00:37:49.483 --> 00:37:56.173
So pairing your grilled steak with some green veg is a very solid strategy.
00:37:57.103 --> 00:38:09.884
And then finally, we have those ages, those advanced glycation and products ages are formed when meats are cooked at really high temperatures such as grilling or frying or broiling.
00:38:10.148 --> 00:38:19.719
Which honestly is my favorite way to have a steak ages can promote oxidative stress and inflammation in the body.
00:38:19.719 --> 00:38:26.199
And these are two players in the insulin resistance and type two diabetes development camp.
00:38:26.199 --> 00:38:32.257
So it's not something to poo poo and while the strength of the existing evidence.
00:38:32.702 --> 00:38:33.992
Is a little shaky.
00:38:34.021 --> 00:38:41.972
If you have several significant risk factors for diabetes, it's completely reasonable to still be concerned.
00:38:42.751 --> 00:38:48.052
So here is what you can do to minimize the potential risks that have been observed in the research.
00:38:48.472 --> 00:38:57.572
First, choose less processed meats, opt for fresh, unprocessed cuts instead of deli slices or sausages.
00:38:58.231 --> 00:39:03.291
Your steaks, your roasts, ground beef, whatever you can get from the butcher's counter, right?
00:39:04.402 --> 00:39:07.762
And then you wanna choose lower risk cooking methods.
00:39:08.317 --> 00:39:15.157
Avoid habitually charring or broiling meat as that increases those ages.
00:39:15.456 --> 00:39:19.416
Instead, favor lower, slower cooking methods.
00:39:19.447 --> 00:39:25.447
Use your slow cooker, make a stove top stew, maybe braise that meat or do a soy.
00:39:26.347 --> 00:39:30.246
This reduces age formation and.
00:39:30.862 --> 00:39:41.961
If you do grill, one of the easiest and tastiest ways to cut down on advanced glycation end products is to marinate your meat before cooking.
00:39:42.532 --> 00:39:54.442
Marinating, especially with acidic ingredients like lemon juice, vinegar, yogurt, and using herbs and spices and even olive oil, can reduce age formation.
00:39:54.456 --> 00:39:58.746
Significantly, sometimes up to 50% or more.
00:39:59.257 --> 00:40:13.536
This is because the acid helps break down proteins and prevents charring of the meat, while the antioxidants in herbs and spices and olive oil act as these little metabolic bodyguards to protect you.
00:40:13.777 --> 00:40:22.597
So remember the holy Trinity of a delicious and protective marinade, acid, fat and flavor.
00:40:24.561 --> 00:40:37.436
If you marinate your red meat for at least 30 minutes, you're in good shape, but overnight is even better from both a flavor standpoint and an age reduction standpoint.
00:40:37.516 --> 00:40:42.586
And of course, you will want to pair that red meat with plants.
00:40:42.916 --> 00:40:57.047
Combine your meat with lots of fiber, rich, colorful veggies, because these also have the polyphenols and antioxidants that mitigate some of the hypothesized oxidative stress from an iron rich meat heavy meal.
00:40:57.317 --> 00:41:01.306
Think of vegetables as a fire extinguisher for oxidative stress.
00:41:03.092 --> 00:41:10.472
Whether that stress is coming from meat or the inflammation is coming from other factors in your life.
00:41:10.711 --> 00:41:14.251
Vegetables are wonderful at dousing inflammation.
00:41:14.896 --> 00:41:21.786
If you do choose to buy deli meats, Look for options with minimally added nitrites, nitrates, and sulfites.
00:41:22.086 --> 00:41:28.297
These options do exist, but they are often more expensive and a little bit harder to find.
00:41:30.876 --> 00:41:35.016
And then finally, you'll wanna moderate your dose if you're really concerned.
00:41:35.376 --> 00:41:42.217
Remember no one food that makes or breaks your health bank account the dose matters.
00:41:42.472 --> 00:41:51.021
Having two pounds of bacon daily is not the same as enjoying a couple slices of a high quality prosciutto on Sundays.
00:41:51.715 --> 00:42:01.135
You may be wondering if the story is so messy, why do these studies keep getting published and paraded around like the holy grail?
00:42:02.690 --> 00:42:08.449
Big observational studies are kind of the darling children of nutrition headlines.
00:42:08.539 --> 00:42:14.150
They look really impressive because of the sheer amount of people included in those studies.
00:42:14.570 --> 00:42:29.445
They're often from prestigious institutions And they're easy to turn into a morality tale, which seems to kind of be the foundation for nutrition recommendations in the western industrialized world.
00:42:30.554 --> 00:42:46.664
Studies like the Epic Interact, the NHS and the HPFS do follow hundreds of thousands of people over decades, and that scale makes them look rock solid, especially as they're dispersed to the population via media.
00:42:47.114 --> 00:42:56.880
I mean, if 300,000 people participated in this study and there was association, it's hard not to think of that as relevant and true.
00:42:57.585 --> 00:43:02.445
But even if it's true, an association is not causation.
00:43:03.226 --> 00:43:14.990
Associations in observational research are intended to be a hypothesis generator, not some final verdict from the Supreme Court of Health and Longevity.
00:43:16.081 --> 00:43:29.717
Researchers themselves usually attest to this very fact in their paper, in the conclusion section, something that never gets revealed in mainstream media.
00:43:30.438 --> 00:43:38.987
And just as researchers need funding to keep their jobs, our news media needs our eyeballs to stay relevant and in business.
00:43:39.663 --> 00:43:43.833
They know an emotion evoking headline is gonna be seen and spread.
00:43:43.833 --> 00:43:45.543
We're all prey to that.
00:43:46.083 --> 00:43:50.193
Media outlets also know most people don't read past the headline.
00:43:50.193 --> 00:43:56.043
Much less dig into relative versus absolute risk and what that ultimately means.
00:43:56.972 --> 00:44:00.362
And any way, they're not in the business of science education.
00:44:00.393 --> 00:44:03.422
They're kind of in the business of getting your attention.
00:44:05.643 --> 00:44:13.742
Because research funding often flows to topics that are culturally trending and politically relevant.
00:44:14.103 --> 00:44:30.713
If your study supports the meat is bad narrative, it's more likely to get published in a big name journal, more likely to get media coverage and more likely to help secure future grant money for your team and the university you work for.
00:44:31.552 --> 00:44:35.572
It's simply the messy reality of academic incentives.
00:44:35.663 --> 00:44:37.733
Scientists are people too.
00:44:38.123 --> 00:44:39.833
They have to keep the lights on.
00:44:39.833 --> 00:44:44.992
They have to fund their labs, and they have to publish to keep their careers.
00:44:46.132 --> 00:44:53.543
Nutrition headlines love to crown new Saints and crucifying new sinners practically every week.
00:44:54.023 --> 00:44:56.362
One minute Broccoli's the next Messiah.
00:44:56.422 --> 00:44:56.722
And.
00:44:57.503 --> 00:45:02.543
I may actually be guilty of spreading that one.
00:45:02.963 --> 00:45:05.603
And then the next week, bacon is the antichrist.
00:45:05.603 --> 00:45:19.623
But the reality is that meat totally can be part of a resilient, badass aging strategy, or it could be a contributor to poor health if it's part of your ultra processed, sedentary sleep deprived life.
00:45:20.134 --> 00:45:26.809
But we can't let headlines or influencers dictate one's moral standing via the dinner plate.
00:45:27.018 --> 00:45:32.373
There is no single food that's going to save you nor damn you for that matter.
00:45:32.958 --> 00:45:36.228
Health is built through daily rituals.
00:45:36.588 --> 00:45:51.708
The meals that you repeat, the movement you choose, the boundaries you establish around stress and sleep, and the way that you stack habits that are going to support the health that you want.
00:45:53.088 --> 00:45:58.759
Rather than another restrictive doctrine, find a strategy that honors your reality.
00:45:59.474 --> 00:46:03.530
Rather than falling for the fear, seek out the evidence.
00:46:04.280 --> 00:46:08.210
Remember context, not commandments from on high.
00:46:08.960 --> 00:46:11.541
I mean, eat the damn steak if you want to.
00:46:11.916 --> 00:46:35.335
And if you have a high risk of diabetes and you are not satisfied with the counter arguments I've provided, marinate the steak, pair it with veggies, limit it to once or twice a week, rather than having it every day, which actually gets super expensive anyway, support your body further by moving it.Sleep well laugh often.
00:46:35.860 --> 00:46:37.300
And live from Love.
00:46:37.721 --> 00:46:43.900
Health is so much more than any single food that we eat or omit.
00:46:44.710 --> 00:46:49.541
And in all honesty, it's so much more than whatever we put on our plate.
00:46:50.141 --> 00:46:56.201
I know you know that, but it bears repeating because I often focus just on the food bit.
00:46:57.221 --> 00:47:01.481
But even with this podcast, it's important not to lose the forest for the trees.
00:47:01.481 --> 00:47:01.840
No.
00:47:03.641 --> 00:47:04.481
All right folks.
00:47:04.590 --> 00:47:06.630
That's all I've got in me today.
00:47:07.565 --> 00:47:09.425
I hope you enjoyed this episode.
00:47:10.179 --> 00:47:27.159
If anyone came to mind while you were listening, please share this episode with them, and if you haven't yet subscribed, doing so will ensure that all future episodes like that meat and Climate change one, get dropped into your feed as soon as they're published.
00:47:28.079 --> 00:47:33.539
And until then, stay salty, stay curious, and I will see you next time.
00:47:35.023 --> 00:47:43.092
Any and all information shared here is for educational and entertainment purposes only, and is not to be misconstrued as offering medical advice.
00:47:43.543 --> 00:47:48.492
Listening to this podcast does not constitute a provider client relationship.
00:47:48.943 --> 00:47:57.793
Note, I'm not a doctor nor a nurse, and it is imperative that you utilize your brain and your medical team to make the best decisions for your own health.
00:47:58.333 --> 00:48:02.382
The use of information on this podcast or materials linked to this podcast.
00:48:02.742 --> 00:48:04.003
Are at the user's own risk.
00:48:04.152 --> 00:48:11.773
No information nor resources provided are intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment.
00:48:12.163 --> 00:48:18.313
Be a smart human and do not disregard or postpone obtaining medical advice for any medical condition you may have.
00:48:18.762 --> 00:48:27.313
Seek the assistance of your healthcare team for any such conditions and always do so before making any changes to your medical, nutrition or health plan.
