Researchers are disputing
guidelines from nearly every major health group.
Nutrition science is
constantly evolving, but one debate that has notoriously raged on is whether
red meat is bad for you. Now, things are getting especially heated: A new set of analyses were published on
Monday in the Annals of Internal Medicine in which scientists
challenged the ubiquitous recommendations that advise people to cut back on red
and processed meats.
This is especially
dramatic because the 14 researchers behind the series of studies are disputing
guidelines from nearly every major health group, including the American Heart
Association, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research
on Cancer (IARC), and the U.S. government’s dietary guidelines panel. These
organizations have historically been advocates for decreasing meat consumption
in order to decrease disease risk and attain better overall health.
The new research
The five papers
published in Annals took a different approach. The typical
nutritional science research surrounding red meat has long been broad,
case-controlled, and observational. These authors, instead, declined to factor
into their research the environmental and social effects of meat consumption,
and zeroed in on only the health effects caused by both processed and
unprocessed meats.
To do this,
researchers performed meta analyses and systematic reviews that examined a
multitude of studies in order to form more solidified conclusions. They were
strict in what they allowed to be reliable evidence. They relied on a
research-rating system called GRADE (short
for the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) to
determine which studies were most evidence-supported, and thus worthwhile to
include in their final papers.
GRADE is currently
the most effective and widely used system available to evaluate the quality of
science. It pushes reviewers to only use the most concrete evidence available
in order to draw their conclusions.
Researchers found
either no evidence that cutting back on meat would decrease negative health
outcomes, or evidence so minimal that it couldn’t be reliably proven.
In using this tool,
the researchers drew conclusions pertaining to a range of health outcomes
previously associated with meat consumption — from deaths due to cardiovascular
disease and cancer, type-2 diabetes, stroke, all-cause mortality, and heart
attack. They found either no evidence that cutting back on meat would decrease
these outcomes, or evidence so minimal that it couldn’t be reliably proven.
Researchers also
conducted one review solely focused on the link between meat consumption and
quality of life (aka people’s feelings and attachment to eating meat, sans
moral, environmental, or ethical reasons for avoiding it). They discovered that
many people feel eating meat influences their quality of life, and wouldn’t
want to eliminate it for that reason.
Conclusively, the
scientists stated that the health benefits of eating less red meat are so faint
that they are not impactful enough to advise individuals to minimize their meat
consumption.
The controversy
According to The New York
Times, the Annals publications have been met
with “fierce criticism by public health researchers” including The American
Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of
Public Health and other major groups.
In a statement,
scientists at Harvard cautioned that the conclusions would “harm the
credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific
research”, while Dr. Frank Sacks, past chair of the American Heart
Association’s nutrition committee, called the research “fatally flawed,”
the Times reported.
However, the authors
of the Annals papers are taking a more neutral approach in
their statements, admitting that there is truly no way to be 100% certain if
decreasing meat consumption would benefit an individual’s health or not.
“There may be a
benefit [from] reducing your intake of red or processed meat, and people should
know that,” Bradley Johnston, one of the authors of the new analyses told NPR.
“[On the other hand,] there may not be a benefit at all. We’re uncertain.”
The editor of Annals
of Internal Medicine, Dr. Christine
Laine, concurred, telling NPR that using the GRADE evaluation
in order to publish these new findings simply revealed that the quality of the
recommendations to cut down on red and processed meats weren’t as strong as they’ve
been credited to be. “We should just be transparent,” Laine told NPR. “I think
we should be honest with the public that we don’t really know.”
What this means for
you
Clearly there is much
uncertainty and dispute as to how this new information affects the public, and
even the validity of nutritional science as a whole. And, holistically, the
debate comes down to whether it’s actually possible to establish the concrete
effects of a singular component of the human diet.
So what does this
mean for you? Perhaps it might be beneficial to do your own research, both in
scrutinizing the existing science and in turning inwards to listen to your own
body and its cues. “As you age, your body and life change, and so does what you
need to stay healthy,” states the
The National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK).
Could it be that
there is such a myriad of conflicting evidence available at our fingertips in
the current age that we’ve forgotten how to attune ourselves to the body’s
innate wisdom? Nutrition science has never been and likely never will be black
and white. So, if you take away anything from this newest debate, maybe it’s
setting aside time to reflect: On your values when it comes to the environment,
and on your ability to mindfully nourish yourself, move your body,
and practice self-care.
No single set of
dietary guidelines will work for everyone, and at the end of the day, making
your own informed decisions alongside a medical professional is indispensable.
No comments:
Post a Comment