Meat - The Original Super Food

Meat – the original superfood
Dr Briffa's Blog by John Briffa
http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/12/31/meat-the-original-superfood/

I came across this story this morning. It concerns the fact that there are plans afoot in the US to label meat products with nutritional information including calorie counts, levels of fat and specifically (and inevitably), saturated fat content. According to Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, “More and more, busy American families want nutrition information that they can quickly and easily understand,” and “We need to do all we can to provide nutrition labels that will help consumers make informed decisions.”

Meat is not generally regarding as a ‘health food’, and its stash of saturated fat and cholesterol generally mark it out as something that should be consumed with care. And then we have the issue of calories: meat can be quite fatty and therefore calorific (and we can’t have that).

In response to news about the forthcoming labelling laws the American Meat Institute (a trade group) swung into action. Mark Dopp, the organisation’s vice president of regulatory affairs, pointed out that a 3.5-ounce serving of skinless, boneless chicken breast is 165 calories and 3.57 grams of fat and the same-size serving of beef round roast has 166 calories and 4.87 grams of fat. This sort of statement attempts to put a positive spin on the supposed nutritional hazards to be found in meat.

But is there really any need to issue such apologist statements regarding the nutritional attributes of meat? To begin with, there is no convincing evidence at all that saturated fat is harmful to health (really, there isn’t). So singling this out for labelling is a bit pointless, in my view. Also, there’s no mention that other types of fat found in meat are going to get special mention when the labelling laws come into force because about half the fat in meats such as beef and lamb is monounsaturated in nature which evidence points to having benefits for the cardiovascular system.

But what about cholesterol? Yes, what about it? For a start, the amount of cholesterol in the diet has precious little impact on cholesterol levels in the blood stream. And so what if they did: taking dietary steps to reduce cholesterol does not appear to have significant benefits for health which suggests, strongly, that if cholesterol goes up a bit that’s not going to endanger health.

What about calories? Again, what about them? We now have a mountain of evidence (scientific and anecdotal) that demonstrates that eating fewer calories is, for the most part, utterly ineffective for the purposes of weight control in the long term. One fundamental thing about meat is that, calorie for calorie, it generally has enormous ability to satisfy the appetite. This is one reason why when individuals ‘go Atkins’ or something similar, they so often drop weight like a stone.

The LA Times piece makes mention of the fact that both men and women are supposedly eating more calories than they used too. What is not mentioned is the increase in calorie intakes over the last 30 years or so has been almost exclusively down to increased consumption of carbohydrate.

Other than fat, meat is rich in protein too. Meat quite ably supplies the full complement of so-called ‘essential’ amino acids the body requires to keep itself in good nick. Yes, of course you could try doing the same thing with beans and grains and stuff, but the problem is you’d have to eat much greater quantities of food to achieve the same end. Also, if you are eating a relatively protein-rich diet in the process of losing weight, there’s a reduced risk that any weight lost will be muscle (rather than fat). And even if you’re not in the business of losing weight, that protein will help maintain your muscle mass which is no bad thing.

Meat, particularly red meat, is rich in iron. This nutrient is an essential component of the constituent of red blood cells called haemoglobin that carries oxygen around the body. Iron deficiency can cause of low haemoglobin levels (anaemia), which can lead to a serious sapping of our sense of mental and physical well-being. What is less well recognised about iron is the fact that, irrespective of its role in the making of haemoglobin, it participates in reactions which generate energy in the body. Low levels of iron can, therefore, cause symptoms such as fatigue and low mood, even if they do not cause anaemia. Vegetarians and vegans are at enhanced risk of iron deficiency, as are women of child-bearing age (due to menstrual blood loss).

Another mineral found in good quantity in meat is zinc. This nutrient plays an important role in, amongst other things, immune function, wound healing, brain function and fertility. As far as vitamins are concerned, meat offers a rich complement of B-vitamins, including B1 (thiamin), B2 (riboflavin), B3 (niacin), B6 and B12. These nutrients have a wide range of functions in the body, and assist both in the generation of energy and in balanced brain function.

Another of meat’s nutritional offerings comes in the form of carnitine – a substance comprised of the amino acids lysine and methionine. One of carnitine’s chief roles is to help the conversion of fat into energy in the body’s cells.

There’s no doubt about it, meat is a nutritional heavyweight. It is perhaps worth noting that meat has been a constituent in our diet for as long as we’ve been on this planet. Some populations even thrive on a meat-based diet which, I think, is a testament to its relative nutritional completeness.

It’s not just what’s in meat that makes it a good choice nutritionally, it’s also what not in it. For example, it contains none of the sugar or starch that abounds in the diet that appears to have a big hand in the biochemical and physiological imbalance that can lead us down a path to weight gain, raised blood pressure, raised triglyceride levels, low ‘healthy’ HDL levels, insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dementia.

I don’t think we need to eat meat to be healthy, but I genuinely believe it can help.

Sometimes in conversation should the subject of meat come up I’ll mention some of its attributes as well as its relative nutritional completeness. Then I might compare it to, say, blueberries which are rich in carbohydrate (the absolute requirement of which is zero in the diet), plus some vitamins and antioxidants. I may then pose this question:

“Knowing all this, say you had to choose one of these foods (meat or blueberries) to eat exclusively, with the idea of sustaining yourself for as long and as healthily as possible. Which would you choose?”

Almost invariably the response given is ‘meat’. And yet, blueberries have a reputation as a ‘superfood’, and meat is a food which we’re generally advised to avoid. This doesn’t make much sense to me. The reality, I believe, is that meat is the original superfood.

One of the good things I think about eating a diet that is largely made up of natural, unprocessed foods (e.g. meat, fish, eggs, fruits, vegetables and nuts) is that we can concern ourselves far less with label-reading. Do you pick up an apple or head of broccoli and wonder about its nutritional make-up and whether its appropriate to eat? Almost certainly not. And, for the most part, I encourage non-vegetarians and vegans to have a similar attitude to meat.

More evidence that a protein-rich diet helps satisfy the appetite
Posted on 23 September 2010
http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/09/23/more-evidence-that-a-protein-rich-diet-helps-satisfy-the-appetite/

Conventional dictates that to lose weight we need to eat less and/or exercise more. Traditionally, this leads people to cutting back on what they eat and perhaps upping their exercise too. Studies show that exercise, however, is not particularly effective for the purposes of weight. See here for a recent blog post about this. And just one unwanted side effect of cutting back on food is hunger, which can make dietary change quite unsustainable. Besides, plenty of studies and the experiences of countless individuals bear testament to the fact that taking a calorie-based approach to weight management simply does not work in the long term.

For successful, sustained weight los it is critical, in my opinion, to keep appetite nicely under control. This one tactic will generally allow people to eat healthily and lose excess fat quite readily. So important is appetite control, that I devoted a whole chapter of my last book Waist Disposal to it.

In this chapter, I suggest avoiding foodstuffs or additives that can enhance appetite (such as MSG and artificial sweeteners). In terms of what to eat, I emphasise the value of protein, as several lines of evidence show that higher protein diets satisfy the appetite quite naturally, which can then put a brake on food intake without hunger.

I was interested to read a recently-published study in overweight and obese men fed them, on separate occasions, energy-restricted diets which differed in terms of protein content [1]. One diet provided 14 per cent of calories as protein, while the other higher protein diet was 25 per cent protein.

When eating the higher protein diet, men felt fuller during the day, had less desire to eat late in the evening, and were less likely to be preoccupied with thoughts about food. This is what we would expect from previous studies which show that compared to carbohydrate and fat, protein has superior appetite-sating powers.

However, there was another element to this study. It tested the effect of each diet fed either as 3 larger or 6 smaller meals each day. In the lower protein eating phase, there was no difference in terms of hunger or fullness between the two patterns of eating (3 or 6 meals).

However, in the higher-protein eating phase, eating 3 times a day produced superior results in terms of feelings of fullness in the evening and late at night. This authors of this study conclude: “…these data support the consumption of HP [high protein] intake, but not greater eating frequency, for improved appetite control and satiety in overweight/obese men during energy restriction-induced weight loss.”

Obviously I agree with the bit about high protein eating, but I’m not so comfortable with the idea that greater eating frequency does not have benefits. The reason is simple: in the real World, many people get too hungry before meals and as a result will tend to overeat non-so-healthy food (such as a load of starchy carbs). And one of the reasons people can get too hungry before a meal is that too long a period of time has been allowed to elapse between food stops.

In the study discussed here, the 3 meal a day strategy separated meals by 5 hours. Most individuals, in my experience, will be able to go 5 hours without spinning out of control, as long as they are eating proper, satisfying food when they do eat. Now, it’s not uncommon in the real World for 5 hours or perhaps a little longer to elapse between breakfast and lunch. However, for many people, it’s a whole different story between lunch and dinner.

I regularly meet or am consulted by individuals who typically eat lunch at 12.30 pm, but (usually because of work) sit down to dinner at 7.30 or later. And here’s the truth about this: for the vast majority of people this is just too long to go without food without the appetite ramping up to a degree that can make eating moderate amounts of healthy food nigh on impossible. Even if individuals do manage to restrain themselves, it’s often difficult for them to do this (and there’s no need for life to be difficult).

In practice, I find that people can generally last quite happily from breakfast to lunch, without the need for more food. This is rarely the case between lunch and dinner. So, I suggest a snack in the late afternoon or early evening to quell the appetite and make healthy eating in the evening an easy, enjoyable and sustainable endeavour.

As to what to eat, I’d opt for nuts (assuming no allergy issues). Nuts generally do a very good job of sating the appetite. Fruit (another favoured snack food), generally, does not. For more advice on how to snack in a way that reduces the risk of overeating, see this recent post here.

References:

1. Leidy HJ, et al. The Effects of Consuming Frequent, Higher Protein Meals on Appetite and Satiety During Weight Loss in Overweight/Obese Men. Obesity (Silver Spring). 2010 Sep 16. [Epub ahead of print]

Latest "study" just came out...

I am waiting for our paleo brothers to debunk the study...hahah

Anyway, here's the original article first...will post follow-up rebuttals later

Eating lots of red meat ups women's stroke risk

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Women who eat a lot of red meat may be putting themselves at increased risk of stroke, a new study in more than 30,000 Swedish women hints.

The study team found that those in the top tenth for red meat consumption, who ate at least 102 grams or 3.6 ounces daily, were 42 per cent more likely to suffer a stroke due to blocked blood flow in the brain compared to women who ate less than 25 grams (just under an ounce) of red meat daily.

Diets heavy in red meat have been linked to a number of ill effects, including an increased risk of certain cancers, heart disease, and high blood pressure. Yet, just three studies have looked at red meat and stroke risk. One study found a link, but the others did not.

To investigate further, Dr. Susanna Larsson of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and her colleagues looked at 34,670 women 39 to 73 years old. All were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the beginning of the study, in 1997.

During 10 years of follow-up, 1,680 of the women (4 per cent) had a stroke.

Stroke caused by blockage of an artery that supplies blood to the brain -- also known as "cerebral infarction" -- was the most common type of stroke, representing 78 per cent of all strokes in the study. Other types of strokes were due to bleeding in the brain, or unspecified causes.

When the researchers divided women into five groups based on how much red meat they reported eating, they found that those in the top fifth, who ate at least 86 grams daily (3 ounces) were at 22 per cent greater risk of cerebral infarction than women in the bottom fifth (less than 36.5 grams, or 1.3 ounces, daily).

Women who ate the most processed meat (at least 41.3 grams, or 1.5 ounces, a day) were at 24 per cent greater risk of this type of stroke than women who consumed the least (less than 12.1 grams, or less than half an ounce a day).

However, there was no link between consumption of red or processed meat and risk of other types of stroke, nor was there any relationship between fresh meat consumption or poultry consumption and any type of stroke.

Red meat increased stroke risk in non-smokers, but not smokers, and in women who didn't have diabetes, but not in women with diabetes. For non-smokers and non-diabetics in the top tenth of red meat consumption, the risk of cerebral infarction was 68 per cent greater.

Several mechanisms could explain the link between red meat and processed meat and stroke risk, the researchers say.

For example, both types of meat have been tied to high blood pressure, the main cause of stroke. The iron contained in red meats might also accelerate the production of tissue-damaging free radicals. Further, Larsson and her team point out, processed meats are high in sodium, which can increase blood pressure.

SOURCE: Stroke, online December 16, 2010.

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/monday-musings-new-grass-fed-study/

A new grass-fed meat study (http://cdn.marksdailyapple.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/McAfeeGrassfedbeefbettern3thanconventionalbeefBJN2011-2.pdf) has just been brought to my attention, thanks to Aaron Blaisdell. It’s pretty fascinating. Researchers wanted to see two things: whether eating grass-finished animals instead of grain-finished animals would provide a significant influx of dietary omega-3s and whether the potential influx would actually make a difference in lab numbers. They took two groups of people, regular Irish folks, and provided weekly portions of beef and lamb, either grass-finished or grain-finished. The animals were “finished” for a minimum of six weeks. Both groups were told to avoid fatty fish and omega-3-rich oils for the duration of the study. All told, both groups ate roughly 469 grams of red meat a week for four weeks. Oh, and these were all healthy subjects with good cholesterol and blood pressure numbers and without prescriptions to any medications.


The results were impressive. Grass-finished eaters saw improved plasma and platelet fatty acid composition: less omega-6, more omega-3. This would presumably lead to a more balanced inflammatory response and, thus, better health.

A few takeaways:

1. The weeks leading up until slaughter appear to be the most crucial feeding period. Although the study’s authors don’t explicitly state what the animals’ pre-trial diets were, the cows and lambs were drawn from a region where the standard feed concentrate included “cereal, maize, and soya with a vitamin/mineral mix” and I think we can assume that both grass-finished and concentrate-finished animals shared the same diets before the trial. Whether those pre-trial diets were grass or grain-based isn’t clear. It is clear that grass-finishing is the key – at least enough to positively impact the omega-6:omega-3 ratios of whoever consumes the animals. Grass-fed and finished is probably optimal, but perhaps not absolutely necessary.

2. It’s interesting, but not really that surprising, that the intervention didn’t affect lipid numbers. LDL, HDL, and triglycerides remained pretty much the same across both groups. The heaviest impact was felt in the serum and platelet fatty acid content. Grass-finished animal eaters enjoyed higher levels of stearic acid (a type of saturated fat), EPA, DPA, DHA, long chain omega-3s, and total omega-3s, along with a reduced omega-6:omega-3 ratio. As we know from previous posts, the omega-6:omega-3 ratio of our fat cells determines what type of inflammatory cytokines will be secreted by platelets in the inflammatory response, and having too much omega-6 in our platelets results in a lopsided, overly inflammatory response.

3. If you look at the raw numbers, there’s not a huge difference between the omega-3 content of grass-finished and grain-finished, something on the order of mere mgs/100g. Beef and lamb, even the grass-finished stuff, just doesn’t have a whole lot of omega-3s to begin with. The folks consuming grass-finished meat ate, on average, 65 mg/d of long chain omega-3s, while those eating concentrate-finished meat ate about 44 mg/d of long chain omega-6s, yet the lab results – the big improvements in plasma and platelet fatty acid numbers – were lopsided. What’s the deal? This makes me wonder whether simply breaking food down into its various nutrients and fatty acids is missing the point. If you relied on that, you’d think grain-fed beef was essentially identical to grass-fed, but it’s clearly not, as the results of this study show. Maybe it’s the DPA, an often-ignored omega-3 fat that’s prominent in seal blubber and converts more readily to DHA, and that was increased in the grass-finished group. Maybe, and probably more likely, it’s the fact that omega-6 intake, especially linoleic acid (arachidonic acid intake was actually higher in grass-finished), was significantly higher in the grain-fed group than in the grass-finished group, about 8.5 g/day to 5.5 g/day. Or maybe it’s the fact that grass-finished animal flesh is a complex whole food that offers more benefits than can heretofore be identified and explained.

4. Oily fish is undoubtedly the most concentrated, most reliable source of long chain omega-3 fats in the diet, but you can’t live off fish forever. At least, I can’t. If I have fish more than a few times a week, I become physically repulsed by the thought of eating more. A three day stint of eating almost nothing but fresh sardines taught me that. That’s why I try to always eat grass-fed, grass-finished animals – because, the idea goes, when you’re eating grass-fed ruminants and avoiding concentrated sources of omega-6, you don’t need to supplement or worry about a steady fish intake. This study confirms it.

5. Grass-finished beef steak and mince samples actually had more saturated fat than grain-finished samples. The opposite was true for lamb, however.

All in all, this is just another reason to work grass-fed and (especially) finished animals into your diet whenever possible.

As promised, the first rebuttal to the Red Meat-Stroke Study

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/01/red-meat-give-women-strokes-no.html
by Don

Chris Sturdy emailed me a link to a news article claiming "Eating lots of red meat ups women's stroke risk." I decided to blog about it because it illustrates the difference between relative and absolute risks, and probable investigator bias or poor study design. The article states:


"Dr. Susanna Larsson of the Karolinska Institutet in Stockholm and her colleagues looked at 34,670 women 39 to 73 years old. All were free of cardiovascular disease and cancer at the beginning of the study, in 1997."

It goes on:"During 10 years of follow-up, 1,680 of the women (4 per cent) had a stroke....

"When the researchers divided women into five groups based on how much red meat they reported eating, they found that those in the top fifth, who ate at least 86 grams daily (3 ounces) were at 22 per cent greater risk of cerebral infarction than women in the bottom fifth (less than 36.5 grams, or 1.3 ounces, daily).

"Women who ate the most processed meat (at least 41.3 grams, or 1.5 ounces, a day) were at 24 per cent greater risk of this type of stroke than women who consumed the least (less than 12.1 grams, or less than half an ounce a day)."
From the first sentence in the passage immediately above, we know that in this study, 96% of the women did not have a stroke. If we go to the abstract of the original study, "Red meat consumption and risk of stroke in Swedish women, we find that the so-called 22% greater risk was calculated on a relative rather than absolute basis.


"During a mean follow-up of 10.4 years, we ascertained 1680 incident cases of stroke, comprising 1310 cerebral infarction, 154 intracerebral hemorrhage, 79 subarachnoid hemorrhage, and 137 unspecified stroke. Total red meat and processed meat consumption was associated with a statistically significant increased risk of cerebral infarction, but not of total stroke, intracerebral hemorrhage, or subarachnoid hemorrhage. The multivariable RR of cerebral infarction for the highest versus the lowest quintile of consumption were 1.22 (95% CI, 1.01–1.46) for red meat and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.04–1.49) for processed meat. Fresh (unprocessed) meat consumption was not associated with total stroke or with any stroke subtype."


To clarify, if 4 of every 100 people had a stroke (as in this study), the absolute risk for stroke was 4%. If in one of the subgroups 5 of every 100 people had a stroke, their absolute risk was 5%. But if you compare the two groups, the subgroup had a 25% greater risk than the other, because 5% is 25% greater than 4%. Yet in the one group, 96% of people did not have a stroke, and in the other, 95% did not have a stroke.

According to the abstract, they recorded 1310 cases of cerebral infarction among the entire population, which means that cerebral infarction occurred in 78% of all stroke cases (i.e. it was the main type of stroke in this population). Thus, we know that the absolute incidence of cerebral infarction in the low meat group was not more than 4%, and conclude that in the high meat group not more than 5% of subjects had a cerebral infarction type stroke--which means that more than 95% of women eating the so-called high meat diets (more than 3 ounces daily) did not have a stroke. The absolute difference between the two groups was not more than 1%, but by using relative risk, the authors get to report it as a 22% increase in risk. Creative accounting.



If you read "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" you will learn that if a study finds a relative risk difference of less than 100%, the odds are that the findings occurred either by chance, poor study design, or investigator bias. This study falls in that category, bad science--which is true of almost all epidemiological studies like this.

Now take a close look at the last sentence of the abstract of the journal article:


"Fresh (unprocessed) meat consumption was not associated with total stroke or with any stroke subtype."

What? In the immediately previous sentence, they stated that red meat was associated with a 22% relative risk in cerebral infarction type stroke, but the last sentence says that fresh meat was not associated with total stroke or any subtype, which would include cerebral infarction.

I feel confused. How can "high" red meat consumption be associated with a 22% greater risk of stroke, and yet not associated at all with total stroke or any stroke subtype? It seems that the trick must be in combining both fresh and processed red meat to get the positive association.

As you can see from the title of the Reuters report, the first claim got plastered on the headlines, but the last was ignored. What's up with that?




This study didn't show that eating a diet rich in red meat causes strokes. On the contrary, it showed that at least 95% of people who eat the so-called high meat diet don't suffer strokes. It also showed that if you massage the data correctly, you get get a result that will get media attention and support conventional preconceptions.