Eating more red meat does NOT hurt your heart: New study insists larger portions of beef and pork can actually be GOOD for blood pressure


No study has ever shown or will ever show that a diet with a significant amount of animal product-based foods can offset or reverse atherosclerosis. An overwhelmingly number of studies show just the opposite.
Grain fed animals = grass fed animals
just as salt =salt.
I won’t be fooled by the cattle grain/grass fed theory. Animal meat is animal meat. IMO

:thumbsup:skip that diet sweetener
:thumbsup:Red wine I hope


It varies from north to south in Europe. The more southerly you get, the lower the percentage of those who are lactose tolerant.

It’s interesting to read about. It really does seem to be a survival strategy. People lose lactose tolerance, particularly to cows’ milk, in childhood; presumably because they’re no longer nursing and no longer need it. But there are always some who retain it. If your tribe’s sole food source was meat and milk products (including cheese and all the other things people make from milk) you might not survive to pass on your genes if you aren’t lactose tolerant as an adult.

There are undoubtedly some other animal-dependent people in the world, like the Masai in Africa, who have developed lactose tolerance over the centuries. But by and large, Africans are not lactose-tolerant.

But as with lactose tolerance, one can’t help but wonder whether there are other, similar dietary things to which some are acclimated and some are not.

But returning to meat in our own diets, we need to remember that grain-feeding food animals is a fairly recent thing. The very advantage of most food animals is that they can produce high-quality protein by eating things people can’t eat, like grass in the case of cattle and sheep. Hogs are omnivorous, like people and bears. But part of the ancient advantage of raising hogs was that they can support themselves, or nearly so, by simply foraging on their own. One recalls that the Spanish explorers and conquistadors always brought hogs with them on their campaigns, precisely because they didn’t have to bring food for them. The hogs would just live off the land the Spanish went through. Those hogs also brought deadly diseases to the Indians, because some would always escape and hogs carry almost any human disease. But nobody knew that at the time.

But now, we feed grain diets to hogs and cattle to fatten them. Cattle typically get that in the last 80-120 days of their lives, but hogs get it from weaning on. That changes the fat content of the meat and the nature of the fat as well. The same is true of poultry. Chickens and turkeys will eat absolutely anything, naturally, and can support themselves by foraging, except that chickens can’t in the winter. But the poultry we now eat is totally grain-fed, with some additives of secondary animal products like powdered poultry factory viscera and feathers compressed with grain products into pellets.

I’m not sure that’s such a good thing. I remember years ago a hillbilly came to me asking if he could borrow some small amount of money to buy some piglets he wanted to raise to eat. I made a deal with him. I would give him the money to buy those and more, and would buy the grain. He would raise them. But the grain was only a supplement. He used to go around to all the dumpsters behind grocery stores and load up the fruit and vegetables the stores throw out. It’s a lot. He would bring a pickup load every day after work, for the hogs. So the hogs ate little grain. Their diet was mostly vegetables and fruit. I paid for the butchering and we shared the meat. Best pork I ever had, before or since.

But it’s not economical to feed hogs on vegetables and fruit unless you get it free. Too expensive. Unfortunately, some kind of new health regulations prohibited stores from allowing people to "dumpster dive’ even to feed hogs. So that was the end of that.


I’m not crazy about milk (that was all we had to drink in the house during my childhood) but I love cheese and yogurt. And olive oil (perhaps there’s some Mediterranean in me from way back when).


White, actually.

I did not say a high protein can reverse atherosclerosis, I said it lowered bad cholesterol. I eat bacon at least twice a week, and two to three eggs a day. Cholesterol is made by the body and does not come from the food you eat.

There is plenty of scientific research that support lchf diets do not contribute to heart desease.


Cheese yes, yogurt no. Yogurt just doesn’t satiate me like cheese does.


My rule of thumb, which I don’t follow 100%, but should, is when grocery shopping, stay on the outside perimeter of the store. This is where the fresh produce, meats, dairy and eggs are.

Avoid the isles. This is where the process foods are.



The quality of fat & protein choices is what determines long-term quality of life.


I do that too - except for coffee & canned fish - both are in isles, but oddly enough, both are on the ends of their respective aisles. :slight_smile:


My husband had very high cholesterol (produced by his own body) & had a quadruple bypass 21 years ago. He was told to eat a low fat diet & take a statin. The healthy fats eventually crept up as I learned more, but he stayed on the statin until a few years ago - he ditched it on his own after reading Wheat Belly. He also cut out wheat & sugar except for a few away from home treats.

His present doctor says he’s in excellent health & to keep on doing what he’s doing, which is lchf. :smiley:


I generally eat healthy, except for the chocolate chip cookies,potato chips,apple pie
ice cream,Pepsi,cranberry nut bread,oatmeal cookies and all the other junk I eat.


Don’t eat meat, then. I’m not trying to sell you or fool you, either one.

But it’s simply incorrect to say that grass-fed is the same as grain-fed. It just isn’t. You can even tell the difference visibly. The color difference alone is dramatic. Grain-fed beef is pinkish, while grass-fed is scarlet red. So is the color of the fat itself. Grain fed fat is whitish while grass-fed is yellow. There is a lot less fat in the meat itself with grass-fed, which might explain the color difference of the meat.

I don’t think people know everything there is to know about all of that. But the Mayo Clinic seems to think there is a difference.

Oh, and if red wine is your thing, let me recommend red wines from the karst coast of Slovenia. The vine roots are in iron-rich clay that contains a lot of other minerals as well, and the wine itself is full of iron. A doctor once told me that of all dietary deficiencies in existence, the most common is a lack of sufficient iron that metabolizes well. The ancient Romans considered wine from the karst area of Slovenia an aid to good health, and it probably was, at least moderately. And some of it is very good as well, and not too expensive.

Red wine varieties from the karst parts of the Ozarks are growing in iron-and-mineral-rich clay as well. But it’s hard to come by if it’s good quality. There are only six places on earth where the soils and underlying clay and rock are exactly like the karst area of Slovenia, and the Ozarks is one of them.


Grass fed beef fat is still saturated fat…everything in moderation.
Cannoau wine from Sardinia is what will help you live to be a 100.


I’ve only one bottle of Cannoau left on the shelf…after that…the end. :wink:


After that, break out the champagne.



A joyful heart is the health of the body,
but a depressed spirit dries up the bones. Proverbs 17:22


Saturated fat is is not harmful!


Interesting. I’ve seen similar articles in the past. The diet battles will continue. We all have to make our own decisions on what is healthy to eat. Personally I’ve come to believe that diet likely plays a small role in the development of heart disease. I suspect the theory that stress plays a large role in cardiac events is true.

I also take to the idea that moderate sensible sun/ full spectrum light exposure can be healthy for the heart and health over all. I thought this a nice article explaining that idea ~


…Why do sunbathers live longer than those who avoid the sun?

New research looks into the paradox that women who sunbathe are likely to live longer than those who avoid the sun, even though sunbathers are at an increased risk of developing skin cancer.

An analysis of information on 29,518 Swedish women who were followed for 20 years revealed that longer life expectancy among women with active sun exposure habits was related to a decrease in heart disease and noncancer/non-heart disease deaths, causing the relative contribution of death due to cancer to increase.

Whether the positive effect of sun exposure demonstrated in this observational study is mediated by vitamin D, another mechanism related to UV radiation, or by unmeasured bias cannot be determined. Therefore, additional research is warranted.

“We found smokers in the highest sun exposure group were at a similar risk as non-smokers avoiding sun exposure, indicating avoidance of sun exposure to be a risk factor of the same magnitude as smoking,” said Dr. Pelle Lindqvist, lead author of the Journal of Internal Medicine study. “Guidelines being too restrictive regarding sun exposure may do more harm than good for health.”1

There is a point here I think I should repeat… avoiding the sun is as risky for your overall health and life expectancy, as smoking. Which is pretty damned amazing? It has been estimated that smoking reduces life expectancy by six, on average. Thus, if you sunbathe regularly, it seems you can expect to live six years longer.

If I may indulge myself by quoting from my book ‘Doctoring Data’ on this very topic:

‘How about frightening people to stay out of the sun, or slap on factor 50 cream at the first suspicion that a deadly photon may sneak through 10 layers of protective clothing. Not necessarily a good idea, because without vitamin D synthesis in the skin, from exposure to the sun, there is significant danger that we can become vitamin D deficient, which can lead to all sort of other problems.

Here are just two stand-out facts from a major study in the Annals of Epidemiology entitled ‘Vitamin D for Cancer prevention.’

Women with higher solar UVB exposure had only half the incidence of breast cancer as those with lower solar exposure
Men with higher residential solar exposure had only half the incidence rate of fatal prostate cancer
To put that in simple English. If you spend longer in the sun, you may be far less likely to die of breast and prostate cancer. But what about the increased risk of dying of skin cancer! I have you cry. Well, what of it. Around 2,000 people a year die of malignant melanoma in the UK each year. It increased sun exposure were to double this figure we would have 2000 more cases.

On the other hand, breast cancer kills around 20,00 a year, as does prostate cancer. If we managed to halve the rate of breast and prostate cancer, we would reduce cancer deaths by 20,000 a year. Which is ten times as great as any potential increase in deaths from malignant melanoma.’

To what I wrote in Doctoring Data, I would further add that sun exposure is the best known way of increasing NO synthesis throughout the body. This protects the endothelium and, as you would expect, lowers blood pressure (the natural way). So, you are far less likely to die from CVD.

What this study highlights, once again (as with all advice on diet), what we are told to do by mainstream medical research, turns out to be actively damaging to health. Will advice on sun exposure now change? There is not the slightest, tiniest, possibility of this happening. Evidence has no impact on the pronouncements of the medical profession (at least not over the average human lifespan)…



(Lives at the pool all summer long. :))


These statements and headlines are sensationalized misinterpretations of the science. They do a serious disservice to an already nutritionally confused and unhealthy public for whom heart disease and cancer are the leading causes of death. Promoting the view that foods rich in saturated fat, such as meat, butter, cheese, are harmless requires ignoring an overwhelming amount of evidence linking increased meat consumption to a higher risk of death. It also requires ignoring much additional evidence showing that saturated fat-rich meals impair endothelial function, raise cholesterol, and lead to populations with higher rates of both heart disease and cancer.
From The End of Heart Disease by Joel Fuhrman M.D.
Pg. 131-32

This was my assessment as I read this, also. I really dislike these little snippet articles they are misleading and not informative. When they come to nutrition very often times they seek to endorse the latest, greatest diet. These types of articles allow people to justify a bad diet they are already on or encourage them to adapt further bad habits. Some of the comments in this thread seem to substantiate this.

The headline is obviously to gain your attention: Eating more red meat does NOT hurt your heart: New study insists larger portions of beef and pork can actually be GOOD for blood pressure

The headline overstates the real content of the article. It implies that you can eat lots of meat. What it says is actually “larger portions”. Since only small 70 gms portions had been recommended before it doesn’t mean “a lot”. It could mean a small increase. There is no link directly to the actual study, so we have no idea of the control group, the type of meat consumed. Was it lean flank steak or hamburger? What were the overall objectives of the study? Were they observing multiple parameters, or only one. What was the size of this clinical trial? Who supported this research through grants and funding? Was it Monsanto, the beef or pork industry? Thinks could be slanted to reflect what a desired outcome. I am not questioning the integrity of the individual researcher but the data achieved can be reflected in a variety of directions. Were the participants in the study active, couch potatoes, old, young, ill, healthy. Was the level of Arachidonic acid level changes that resulted identified? What effect did the increased level of protein have on kidney function and IGF-1 levels? Unless we read the whole report you don’t know if all or none of these things were studied. It also indicated these results are what is expected over the “short-run” and doesn’t appear to address the ”long- term” health consequences. Cholesterol levels in themselves are not a sole indicator of arterial health. A total cholesterol level of 180-200 is not necessarily good. A level under 150 is much better and our LDL/HDL ratios should be under 3:1, preferably closer to 1:1, with also a low triglyceride level. Were any of these factors addressed?

Statistically it bears out that in countries where large amounts of meat and dairy products are consumed there is a higher incidence of coronary heart disease, certain cancers, increased incidences of MS and other neurological disorders than in countries where these quantities are not consumed.

The Paleolithic Diet is a highly-promoted program today. It is also a program that like most diets few individuals are able to make it a “lifestyle” rather than a “diet”. Oftentimes fad diets are short lived. These type of diets like a Paleolithic typically promote a high protein intake of 30-50% of calories consumed, which in time weigh particularly heavy on the kidneys and liver. Most people consume way more protein than is necessary and this is simply passed out in the urine or end up stored as in the body as fat because it can’t be used.

A lot of people like to emphasize than man is a “meat -eater” although there is nothing that bears this out. Our teeth, mouth, digestive enzymes, length of our colon simply don’t match that of carnivores. Other primates eat very little if any meat. Even with Chimpanzees their intake is exceedingly small % such 5-7%. Choosing meat may also be a function not of choice but of limiting vegetation availability. Bonobos which typically live in a more prolific vegetation have smaller meat intake. Our Prehistoric ancestors may have also consumed meat because of lack of available vegetative food supply. This was pretty much the case with the Eskimos who had a large flesh intake mainly through fish but exhibited high incidence of stroke, arthritis and some cancer fairly unique to them.


Continuation from above post.

I used to eat lots of meat and dairy products when I was younger and in college in the process of heavy lifting and bulking up. It eventually created problem for me in the way of some severe neurological reactions. When I reduced my meat, saturated fat levels and dairy consumption the problems lessened, When I pretty much eliminated these factors and eliminated 95% of my meat consumption, 100% of dairy and egg products, essentially the physiological problems almost entirely vanished. I pretty much keep my protein levels under 13% (essentially all plant proteins) and limited my saturated fat intake a day to under 15 gms. When I was on a modified meat fast my total cholesterol levels were about 160-180 and LDL/HDL ratio 2:1. When I did away with meat and dairy products my cholesterol levels were 125-145, LDL ratios about 1:1 with my HDL sometimes higher than the LDL. My strength levels, muscle mass actually increased on a low protein, no meat, no dairy products diet. Even at the age I am now I am still enjoying good gains.

We are all an experiment of 1. I only say what worked for me. I am not saying everyone should do what I do. If you feel you have meat and enjoy it, so be it. Whatever works for you, do it However, don’t kid yourself along the way just because you don’t want to give up certain things to achieve better health.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit