Smearing red meat and touting whole grains, the chain of interests behind it, why are so many people smearing red meat

Copyright Notice: This article was first published by Slender Dragon Health, a die-hard man of obesity in China. My articles carry out rights activism.

Disclaimer: The following text does not provide any medical advice, only information sharing, please do it under the guidance of professionals.

Please forward it to the circle of friends at will, if you need to reprint, please contact the background.

This article is edited with 3951words, estimated reading time, 9 minutes.

Eating meat clogs blood vessels, and red meat causes cancer, we hear it all the time.

Red meat has been frequently attacked over the years, some say it is carcinogenic, some say it increases TMAO levels, some say it increases the risk of heart disease.

I have written a lot of articles before to promote the benefits of eating meat, but there are still many people who question me and say that I am biased and that I am selling meat.

In today’s article, let me talk about the interest groups behind black and red meat, and what are their calculations.

An inventory of studies that discredit red meat

First, let’s start with a study, a new study from Tufts University suggests that meat increases the risk of heart disease strong> risk.

→Red meat and heart disease

The study, published in the journal Atherosclerosis, Thrombosis and Vascular Biology (ATVB), went like this:

Data was collected from 3,931 people aged 65 and older in the Cardiovascular Health Study;

Tracked from 1989-90, median 12.5 years;

Subjects completed a Food Frequency Questionnaire (FFQ) twice, asking them to remember the foods they ate in the past year;

A different questionnaire was used for each data collection.

Finally, red meat in the subjects’ diets was associated with cardiovascular disease at 1.15 for unprocessed red meat, 1.22 for total meat, and 1.18 for all animal foods.

At first glance, the scale of the experiment was not small, involving 3,931 samples, and the duration of the experiment was long.

It’s actually a questionnaire, a correlation study.

Secondly, different questionnaires mislead the experimental results.

In the combined dataset for this study, there were only 4 questions related to red meat: bacon, hot dogs, burgers, and the “beef, pork, lamb” categories .

Vegetables-related questions contrast this with 28 questions about various vegetables.

This is how surveys work: The more questions asked, the better the data.

Finally, these conclusions about meat are not strong enough either. 1.15, 1.22 and 1.18 are all close to 1 (zero risk), and correlations greater than 2 (relative risk) may also be worth paying attention to.

Most importantly, this study completely ignored other factors such as age, gender, medical history, amount of exercise and other habits.

1.15-1.22 does not even rule out that other factors may contribute to a slightly higher risk of heart disease.

For example: People who love meat tend to prefer drinking, smoking, and have more unhealthy habits.

Burger eaters tend to have fries and happy water, and exercise less.

It is still the previous formula, or the original taste. In fact, if you read more, you will find that the research on black and red meat is almost always this kind of routine.

Formally a very large and lengthy experiment, giving a professional look.

But the content is very perfunctory, either a questionnaire or a very simple experiment, never consider confounding factors.

Such studies of changing soup but not dressing have finally come to the conclusion that red meat is unhealthy, reflecting a prejudice against red meat.

→Red meat increases TMAO levels and increases heart disease risk

The following study is even more outrageous, a study by Dr. Stanley Hazen’s group at the Cleveland Clinic.

The apparent hazard of red meat is believed to be due to TMAO (trimethylamine N-oxide),

TMAO is also a concept that has become popular in recent years. The results of the study were published in the New York Times as soon as it came out, and it also caused a lot of discussion.


TMAO hypothesis proposes that after people eat red meat, bacteria in the gut metabolize carnitine and excrete trimethylamine, which is converted to TMAO by the liver, increasing the risk of heart disease.

In fact, after TMAO was proposed, many studies have questioned the relationship between TMAO and cardiovascular disease, but it has been found that meat is not the largest source strong>.

Many foods increase TMAO in humans, and red meat is not prominent among them. The food that boosts TMAO the most is not red meat but seafood, which produces no more TMAO than fruits and vegetables.

Whether TMAO can promote cardiovascular disease is still unknown.

Even if you can, you shouldn’t focus on red meat. In fact, there are very few people who criticize fish for this.

So, if a study cites TMAO conclusions but doesn’t focus on eating fish and keeps talking about red meat, you know they must be biased against meat .

→WHO is also black and red meat, not reliable

WHO has blackened red meat, too, and again, those studies don’t stand up to scrutiny.

The studies themselves were carefully selected, and those that showed no link between meat and cancer, or even a meat protective effect on colon cancer risk , were not selected.

There were only 6 experimental studies, 4 were conducted by the same research group, only 3 were human studies, the rest were rat studies.

Let’s not say that rats are not human, they may not adapt to a high-meat diet physiologically. The most amazing thing is that all rats were injected with strong carcinogens before being fed meat. Chemicals.

What kind of obfuscation is this? Injecting carcinogens and then proving that meat is carcinogenic, am I free to prove that anything I dislike is carcinogenic?

Each study had serious flaws, including the use of unreliable or outdated biomarkers, and the absence of control variables (as in the study above).

For example, processed meats may contain more PAHs, which have been shown to increase cancer risk.

I don’t deny that frying is unhealthy, but bread and cereals have more PAHs, you know?

Smearing red meat, the interest chain behind it

Compare carnitine, choline, and other studies on red meat carefully, and you’ll see that almost none of the studies measure blood sugar and Carbohydrate intake.

This is the unanimous consensus of almost all studies of black and red meat, that is, regardless of the effect of refined carbs, in their opinion, it doesn’t matter how many carbs you eat.

It is now known that inflammation and insulin resistance caused by refined carbohydrates are the greatest risks of cardiovascular disease, so why turn a blind eye to such an important factor?

Look at the chain of interests behind it, and you can see it at a glance.

→Capital injection from grain companies

After careful research, behind every black and red meat study, we can always find large food companies, especially grain companies funding inflows, and the first Tufts University study we shared was no exception.

Dariush Mozaffarian, the paper’s senior author and creator of the Food Compass rating system, recommends more than 70 brand cereals that rank well above eggs or beef.

Mozaffarian revealed in his ATVB paper that he received funding from the world’s largest pasta company Barilla, which is also investing in propaganda that meat is bad for the climate A lot of money.

Unfortunately, it’s not just grain companies that are entering the market right now, but Big Pharma.

→Pharmaceutical company pushes TMAO drug

Let’s start with TMAO, why many research authors focus on TMAO, because the TMAO hypothesis has not been well falsified, and it is a new theory, which is more attractive.

For the past few decades, they have been promoting the fact that red meat is bad for your health due to saturated fat and cholesterol.

Now, this theory is gradually being falsified and abandoned, so they have opened up a new “battlefield”.

TMAO’s “invention” stemmed from research at the Cleveland Clinic, which began a new drug development program partially funded by Procter & Gamble.

Guess what this drug program is treating? That’s right! It’s “helping people manage TMAO levels”.

However, you’ve never seen them declare a conflict of interest in those TMAO studies.

Key Thin Dragon Says

I’ve seen organizations that don’t allow Chinese people to eat meat before, and there are various interests behind them.

There are Vegetarian Organizations, foreign vegetarians, not vegetarians, may go to the butcher shop.

There are companies selling artificial meat, the most famous one being the one invested by Bill Gates, which has also done a lot of publicity in China.

There is also a certain pin that overturned the car before or a certain travel V, but it is not healthy to eat meat. It is said that Chinese people eat meat and affect the global environment. PUA’s perspective is astounding.

Like the large foreign grain companies, they are by no means the uncontested food companies in our impression. They are capital giants with great energy and can easily make the doctors who oppose them lose their jobs.

A low-carbon doctor in Australia had their license revoked.

Over the past few decades, they have not only rewritten the world’s nutrition guidelines, but have also supported research on a regular basis, in this New York Times article. Propaganda in big media.

How successful was the promotion? Just look at how many people still dare not eat fatty meat and lard. The reasons for not eating are similar, such as cholesterol, saturated fat and so on.

I can understand that some people do not eat meat for religious, digestive, etc. reasons, but don’t attack red meat without a conscience.

Of course, in their eyes, conscience should be worthless, not even 5 cents a pound.