Red Meat Study: Here We Go Again

red meat: not the culprit!

Recently, Harvard came out with a study claiming that eating red meat may lead to a shorter life. Researchers examined thousands of people and correlated red meat consumption with an earlier death compared to those who consumed less red meat.

Here is the study if you'd like to take a gander at the charts: Red Meat Consumption and Mortality

I am not going to break this down in detail because plenty of similar studies have been put out there, but I do want to emphasize that CORRELATION does not imply CAUSATION. Is it true that shoe size is correlated with reading ability? Yes. Is it because bigger shoe size causes people to read better? No. The answer is that a twenty year old will typically have a better reading level compared to a five year old (and incidentally, also have a bigger shoe size)

You know what else the researchers found? "Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index." Here's the table if you'd like to see for yourself. 

Also, let's talk about how they used data that was only taken from participants every 4 years. Every 4 years?? Yes, in the third line of the study researchers say "Diet was assessed by validated food frequency questionnaires and updated every 4 years." How reliable and consistent could this data be? Considering these questionnaires require participants to remember what they ate, I'm going to say not very.

Let's face it, although red meat consumption may be correlated with increased mortality rate, it in no way proves that red meat CAUSES it.

In this CNN article, Staffan Lindberg gives his take on it:

Staffan Lindeberg, M.D., an associate professor of medicine at the University of Lund, in Sweden, says singling out red meat may be counterproductive. A bigger threat to health is the sugar- and starch-heavy Western diet as a whole, says Lund, who studies heart disease and diabetes and advocates a version of the so-called Paleolithic diet, which emphasizes lean meats, fruits, and vegetables.

"We need to focus more on common foods, like grains, dairy foods, refined fats, and refined sugar," Lindeberg says.

if you prefer meat of the dried variety, make your own Homemade Jerky

I also couldn't believe that these researchers were villianizing saturated fat from the start. I thought media was heading in a good direction, but this clearly puts us two steps back. Plenty of vegetarians and vegans will use this as ammo when trying to talk you out of eating red meat. IGNORE THEM!

I don't disagree with the researchers recommendations to increase seafood intake, especially if it's omega-3 rich salmon, sardines, etc. As for cholesterol, you should already know that people's numbers normalize after taking SUGAR and GRAINS out of their diets, not meat. We are biologically omnivores, whether you want to admit it or not. So feel free to order that burger (especially if it's grass-fed!), just don't eat the bun and get it wrapped in lettuce instead. Yum.

Zoe Harcombe's in-depth analysis of the Red Meat study (for the data geeks)
Robb Wolf: Red Meat - Part of a Healthy Diet?
Denise Minger on MDA: Will Eating Red Meat Kill You? 

 What are your thoughts on this study? Will it make you decrease, increase, or keep the amount of red meat you consume? 

Paula Deen and Type II Diabetes: Helping or Hurting the Paleosphere?

By now you have heard of Paula Deen and her recent "coming out" about her Type II Diabetes. Plenty of people are on both sides of the issue. Here is a really quick breakdown of the main points and my reactions. If you want to read more detail, head over to a good summary article by the Huffington Post:

Paula Deen Diabetes: Star Confirms Diagnosis, Drug Endorsement

-Deen confirmed rumors about her Type II diabetes on the Today Show earlier this week. She was diagnosed three years ago, but kept it a secret until now, explaining "My knowledge about the disease was very limited," she told USA Today.

 Let's call this for what it's worth. She clearly didn't come out with this information to her viewers for publicity reasons. The same reasons that she is facing criticism now. There have been rumors for years about her diabetes, but none of them were confirmed until this week. I do wonder what her diet has looked like over the past few years though.

-Deen says her stance on food has been and will continue to be "moderation."

 Wait, your stance on food has been moderation, yet you end up with diabetes? Seems a little off to me. At one point she says to a newspaper, "You don't want to make a steady diet of just lettuce...You don't want to make a steady diet of fried chicken." This all or nothing perspective on food is precisely what's wrong with a lot of people's thinking. That, and misinformation about what is healthy and what is not.

Caramel cake from Paula Deen

-She and her two sons are now contracted spokespeople for a diabetes medication called Victoza. 

I can't believe that this woman is openly promoting recipes that include a caramel cake (two full cups of sugar in the cake, three cups of sugar in the icing) and then getting paid millions of dollars to promote a diabetes medication. This is like being the guy who throws a strip of nails out in front of your car and then walks over to you and says he's a mechanic. Well, actually that he KNOWS a good mechanic and that he uses him. Every day. By injecting himself with needles. I digress...

-Critics of Deen are not surprised, especially with all of the butter and sugar she puts in her recipes.

My biggest problem with this whole story is not with Deen, but with her critics. Let's be honest, no one's surprised that she has Diabetes. In fact, I wonder how many other chefs and TV personalities on the Food Network also have it or some other metabolic syndrome. But when people look at her recipes, they immediately focus on the "artery clogging" fat while lumping it together with the "fattening" sugar. I agree wholeheartedly with the latter. But blaming her diabetes and fat gain on eating fat is just misdirected assumptions. It's Ancel Keys all over again. (Ready more about Keys and his scapegoating fat over at Lean Gains) People focus on the butter in her recipes, but it's not the butter! (Now, I wish it was grass fed butter, instead of chemically unstable margarine or regular butter, but a blogger can only be so choosy.)

Lady's brunch burger - scapegoat for the wrong reasons

So, what's the whole point of this blog post telling you things you could find on any news website or gossip column? The next time you're at a happy hour and the topic of Paula Deen comes up, be a defender of the fat. Let people know that eating fat does not make you fat. Sugar, yes. Fat, no. Eating fat helps brain function, joint mobility, cellular reproduction, immune response, and a ton of other things you probably want. This fat should be in the form of saturated animal fats, avocados, coconut oil, ghee, lard, etc. Basically, if someone offers you the Lady's Brunch burger, kindly ask them to take the doughnuts off and you'll gladly eat the rest. 

Here's a great clip from the documentary "Big Fat Lies" on fat and why it's GOOD for you, not BAD:

Questions for Chris: Eggs and A New Perspective

Q: How to hard boil eggs

A: I'm assuming you're asking "How do you hard boil eggs?" Well in that case, check out this post I did awhile back - At Home with Chris P. - Hardboiling Eggs

Q: Does eating a lot of eggs increase cholesterol or risk for heart disease?

A: No. First of all, dietary cholesterol is different than blood cholesterol. Secondly, even if it were, high blood cholesterol does not cause CVD (cardiovascular disease) and subsequently myocardial infarctions (heart attacks). If there IS a number to be concerned about about it, it would be your triglycerides, fasting blood sugar levels, and small dense LDL particles. These are more closely associated with the bad stuff.

Q: Hi Chris, I'm interested to hear your feedback on the article by Gillian Mounsey entitled "A New Perspective" that was posted on Aimee's blog with the 7/27 wod.  - Joe

A: For those that have not read the article, here it is: A New Perspective. Now, I'm not going to claim I know Gillian Mounsey very well. I do know she has been a "famous" CrossFitter in the past and I totally respect her athletic achievements. While her article can seem like CrossFit is bad for people, I think you need to read it with...perspective. 

This is a world class athlete with a clear need for competition and high standards. She grew up being a "natural" athlete and went through phases of gymnastics,  bodybuilding, CrossFit, and now strength training in the form of barbell lifts and olympic lifting. She paints a picture of CrossFit that is a program which runs people into the ground with high volume exercises where form is not the priority. Unfortunately I have to agree with her; but only to an extent. 

I do think that many people become addicted to CrossFit and the "unknown and unknowable" workouts stimulate that part of the brain that says "Yeah, let's do this crazy workout so I can look better naked AND tell my friends what I did." This is why I wrote my recent article on "Obsession with Epicness." It's not smart to run yourself into the ground day after day and expect to A.) get stronger and/or B.) think it's healthy. That's just fracking ridiculous logic.

The bottom line is that people need to be smart with training. And if you're not smart enough, then find a smart trainer. Like I said, I respect Gillian's accomplishments and her history, but a lot of the negative aspects of CrossFit were her own doing (or her coach's) If she didn't learn proper form, or decided to do a ridiculous workout with heavy weight and high reps, etc. then that was her decision. At the end of the day, no one forced her to Zone, lose form during Grace, or do 150 pull ups/150 burpees after a CrossFit hiatus. Those were her decisions. It's pretty clear that she either sets high expectations for herself or feels like others expect big things from her.

I think one of the benefits of CrossFit is that it introduces movements that normal people would never encounter. I see soccer moms deadlifting and backsquatting and this would have never happened if it weren't for CrossFit.  Gillian talks about the benefits of barbell squatting, pressing, etc. and I am confident that if it weren't for CrossFit, many women (and men) would not be doing these things at all. If CrossFit needs to be the gateway towards strength training, so be it.

If there is anything to take from her article, it's to focus on form first and not let your ego get in the way of smart training. Programming is important too. Instead of every day being a grind of 30 min+ workouts, you should be strength training and be ok with untimed workouts. Not everyone is looking to compete like Gillian. She needed a focus and she found it in olympic lifting meets. I think everyone will go through an evolution of training, but if you can establish a solid focus on form and strength training, everything else will fall into place. 

More reading: 

"The Novice Effect" by Mark Rippetoe

Proof is in the Numbers

Whenever I mention that I eat lots of meat and eggs, people always ask, "But what about your cholesterol??" Well, if you've been paying attention, you should know that consuming good fats will help joint mobility, brain function, mood, and many other facets of life. While there's a LOT of science behind it, I also think proof is in the numbers.