Harvard’s Meat and Mortality Studies

49 comments

Leave a Reply

  • @tommyk40
    LOL, it is the meat itself.
    Humans are not made to eat meat, simple as that. We have all the studies and science in the world declaring that.
    Stop lying to yourself.

  • look up Jerry Tennant MD MD(H) MD (P) there are the correct studies I am 67 years old look like I am 40 yo I eat all Organic and grass fed meets only Where do you come up with such stories That Humans are not made to Eat meat Harvard Studies have a ulterior Motive
    plain and simple I am in better shape than most 30 year olds

  • Please read The Illusion of Certainty: Health Benefits and Risk By RD Bouwer and Ed Rivkin

    Then you will understand Harvard is doing this at the behest of the UN FACT
    There is a Ulterior motive with this study where do you get your B12 from?

  • Do these people even LOOK at the study? I did, as have others, and it's extremely flawed:

    Check out critical reviews of the study showing it's flaws here…

    zoeharcombe(dot)com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/
    marksdailyapple(dot)com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you

    I'm sure the fact that one of the study authors being a known vegan-activist that's paid for vegan speaking engagements has nothing to do with their findings…

  • @leonist83 "…Most people with B12 deficiencies and/or pernicious anemia are NOT vegans…"

    Well duh, because most people are NOT vegans.

    However, as shown in the 2009 Am.Journal of Clinical nutrition, 80% of tested vegans were B12 deficient – more than 2x the rate of SAD dieters, in fact. And SAD isn't remotely healthy…

  • Dear Dr. Greger
    This is an interesting press release but can you please tell me how this research was financed. In particular, who sponsored it?
    Further, this recent press release is very much like the press release on the same study issued in 2010 but with slightly less detail on the study. Can you tell me why this release was issued now? Do you have a policy of issuing press releases at certain intervals or was there some specific funding or public interest issue that triggered it?

  • I really was not interested where vegans get their b12 until i started back and forth with you.
    Man has been eating meat since the dawn of time so lets end this silly argument .

  • @Trigsten "…Moving to a more plant-based diet, without exception, will increase ones health…"

    Moving to it away from the SAD, yes.

    However, keeping healthy meats in ones diet, eating plenty of fresh veggies and moderate fruit, AND eliminating all refined/processed carbs/sugars/oils also universally improves one's health – with REDUCED chance of colon cancer than the 'plant-based' diet. That is now well-established in multiple studies. Vegans get more colon cancer than healthy meat eaters.

  • @Trigsten "…However, things like B12 supplementation every 2-5 years should be considered…"

    Actually, testing at least yearly and daily supplementation are a must.

    All Vegan MD's – Esselstyn, McDougall, Barnard, etc., ALL give B12 supplements to their research patients, and McDougall states you MUST supplement … Esselstyn recommends a full b-complex.

    All vegan dieticians/nutritionists I've ever heard of also recommend daily supplementation.

  • @Trigsten "…Without enabling anti-vegans out there…"

    I'd just like to add I'm NOT anti-vegan. I'm anti-propaganda and pro-health. The truth is veganism is much healthier than SAD, but it MUST be supplemented with B12, period.

    There is no evidence, however, that it's healthier than a HEALTHY diet that eliminates all refined/processed carbs/sugars/oils and includes fresh veggies, moderate fruit, moderate free-range/grass-fed meats/fish, nuts, legumes and natural oils.

  • @Trigsten "B12 is stored from 2-5 years in the liver."

    Actually, it's always stored in the liver, but is lost due to lack of proper intake or absorption at a rate of roughly 0.1% of stores per day when a diet is lacking. At this rate it could theoretically take as long as 3 years for a deficiency to manifest, by which time it's too late to avoid complications for some people.

    Strict vegans should be regularly tested much-more-frequently than every few years… every year at minimum.

  • @Trigsten "…Parading this extremely large study as propaganda…"

    Well, it is. At least one of the authors is a known vegan who's paid for vegan/vegetarian speaking conferences… And do you know who was invited for the peer-review? Dean Ornish.

    It's heavily vegan biased.

  • @Trigsten "It does seem like your very anti-vegan and even anti-plant based (there is a difference)…"

    No, I'm not. I'm anti-propaganda and pro-truth.

    Veganism is much-healthier than SAD, that is true. There is, however, NO evidence anywhere that a diet that includes meat in moderation is less-healthy – in fact, there is considerable evidence that a healthy diet that includes meat is MORE healthy than veganism. (lower colorectal cancer, fewer nutrient deficiences, etc.)

  • @Trigsten Also of note, this wasn't a large study – this was a group of people examining certain data from two studies.

    If you look at the study data, it shows those who ate the most meat had the lowest cholesterol – did you realize that?

    It also shows those that ate the most meat were also the group that were the heaviest smokers, had the highest BMI, drank nearly 2x as much, exercised the least, had more diabetes, etc.

    Meat can't be the sole cause of slightly higher mortality, obviously.

  • @LCHFinCanada Source please? And doesn't eating more fresh veggies and fruit and reducing processed foods the same as going more plant-based? You don't sound much educated on plant-based nutrition from that comment. Veganism and plant-based eating are two different things.

  • @LCHFinCanada Have you even read the report? The study followed a cohort of >120,000 people over 24+ years. Yes, those who eat the most meat were also the heaviest smokers, consumed more alcohol etc. and all of these covariates were measured and controlled for.

    Of course meat can't be the sole cause of higher mortality, neither can cigarettes. What's your point?

  • @LCHFinCanada This study doesn't suggest that people become vegans. It suggests that people substitute red meat and processed meats for other meats. If you do eat red meats, restrict your intake to around 300g per week. Currently average meat consumption in most Western countries (certainly in mine) is much greater than this.

  • @xM4DM4X Nothing we need is not found in plants, except B12 which comes from bacteria. Would you take a supplement, fed it to an animal and then kill it, dismember it and eat it? Or would you rather take the supplement itself?

  • Protein content of some plants

    Soy : 35-40%
    Hemp (seeds) : 30-35%
    Spirulina : 55-70%
    Chlorella – 55-65%

    Meat : not more than 30% usually 20% per weight

  • This isn't even the first such study, not by a long shot. For some people, there will never be enough studies, they will never go long enough for them or have enough people involved. Just like the tobacco industry and lung cancer. I recommend everyone read The China Study. No one can come after that scientist no matter how hard they try. He did too many studies for too long and the same results keep coming up – and this Harvard study came to all the same conclusions.

  • Then read the China Study. That researcher grew up on an Iowa farm eating dairy and meat his entire life up until he proved to his own skeptical self that animal protein, in particular casein the milk protein, is a cancer accelerator. He came up with the same results as this study over and over again through 40 years of long term studies on nutrition.

  • "The China Study" is a book, not a study. Only a small portion of it is devoted to the actual study, and the portion that is EXCLUDES entire counties worth of data that DISPROVE Campbell's theories.

    Also most everything Campbell does includes ALL animal proteins/fats as bad, when his actual research was only on Casein.

    Nice try though. His research is incredibly biased and not conclusive. Not even remotely.

    And the book is less-conclusive and more biased than his other research. Propaganda.

  • Actually, it should be obvious that I do… I've read BOTH Campbell's book AND the actual study data. Have you done the same?

    I've also spent nearly 2,000 hours researching this subject to come to my own conclusions, rather than believing whatever anti-meat dogma and propaganda you've adopted…

    If you have ANY research disproving anything I've said, post it. Otherwise, keep your propaganda to yourself.

  • I've been the last few years trying to find something credible that is in opposition to the enormous amount of scientific litterature showing plant-based eating as the best option and the best I found is associations basing their claims on a book writen by a dentist in the 30's, or another guy's study on cats also from the 30's. And bloggers with no proper training suposely debunking studies done by real scientists, some of the top scientists actually.

  • Bloggers who sells tons of supplements, books, dvd's, conferences and making money from the views they get on their blog. Selling a diet that no study support, so instead of making studies (which they can't because they're not scientist) they tell you to not trust modern science! And then you'll call the scientist from Harvard dogmatic and propagandist?

    What are they selling? How are they making money from people not eating red meat? They're not they're just doing science unlike you bloggers.

  • Thanks for posting this video. The conclusions of the Nurses' Health Study certainly have the power of a huge number of study members, correction for confounding variables and consistency with known physiology. The fat in meat is clearly the culprit, though, which deserves some mention, since people can remove more of the fat with preparation methods, and they should. Blotting the fat out of a freshly cooked burger removes the bulk of the fat, e.g., and allows substitution of some savory sauce.

  • they've got all kinds of sickness not from red meat consumption but from the low quality of this red meat full of hormones ,fed on GMO food and their blood and meat clogged with antibiotics which,we know what they do.kill the good flora of your gut and let the bad bacteria to grow,which releases toxines and affect the entire system.we all have the right to eat real food not beef from a cow which is kept in a 2.5/1m enclosure and milked all the time(other hormones to produce more milk,as well

  • there's a 0.1% of the population with certain biochemistry which allows them to process large quantities of cholesterol. These are your centenarians who have bad diets. They basically won the genetic lottery. Being vegan doesn't automatically make you healthier, one needs proper nutritional understanding, hence similar rates of mortality. Historical vegetarians never had this. Modern vegans do, and with proper B12 and whatnot, we will most likely be the next big wave of centenarians. IMO =)

  • You haven't read the China Study, because you're making claims regarding its content that are only found on anti-Campbell blogs. It's not just about casein – but you would THINK that if you A) never read the book and B) got all your knowledge about it from extremely biased online sources.

    When science is involved, it's best to leave toxic emotions at the door. Facts > Pride.

  • this is why this study is such bullshit, funny how they say the meat eaters have a mortality rate higher, that is total bs, you really say that these people ate a diet of only meat and veggies over those years? bull, the crap they ate is what killed them, sugar, stuff like ice cream, candy, high glycemic food, non gmo foods, and processed crap, that is what killed them not meat..

  • In the red meat and mortality study cited: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845, It actually makes no claim that nuts/legumes were the 'superior' protein sources. It specifically states throughout the article that substituting red meat with protein sources including fish, poultry and even low fat dairy also helped reduce the risk of mortality.

    The results section of the study also states that "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" and these factors are definitely likely to increase one's mortality

  • The question I am wanting to answer is, does eating meat effect behavior, (e.g. impulse control)? I do believe that eating meat raises blood levels of cortisol.

  • that study also found out that eating white meat actually reduces the mortality rates due to you mentioned deceases! You just did not talk about that "Dr." Greger! By the way: your homepage is nonprofit… your youtube channel and selling thousands of books is not. You got rich becuase of selling pro vegan content. Talking about biased studies by the meat industry… and people actually beleive it without asking questions

  • Shortly after the root-rooter procedure I endured in 1996, I asked my cardiologist what my diet should consist of. He said to me rather off-handedly, " Oh, just stay away from red meat, you'll be fine." I did just that and a few other things I thought to be healthy at the time, like cut out soft drinks, candy and up the exercise and in 2010 I had a triple bypass. Hippocrates knew better over 2000 years ago. Why didn't my considerably inept cardiologist not know that a plant based diet would have saved me the trouble of this risk-laden surgery? My guess is – he did.

Follow us on Twitter

Follow us on Pinterest

Advertisement

Archives

error: Content is protected !!