Is Red Meat Really That Bad For Your Health?

(Photo : pixabay.com)

If you can't find any reason why you should stop eating red meat, now you have one.

A new analysis published Monday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, on nearly 30,000 people found a three to seven percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death for people who ate two servings of red meat and processed meat each week, according to an article by CNN. Small may it seem, but the impact looms large when the amount of intake extrapolated to a population level.

One serving of processed meat is equivalent to two slices of bacon, two small sausages or one hot dog. Meanwhile, one serving of unprocessed red meat equaled to four ounces of red meat or poultry, or three ounces of fish.

Prior to the release of the analysis, a controversial meta-analysis claimed red and processed meat have no adverse health impact so there is no need to reduce the intake.

"Everyone interpreted that it was OK to eat red meat, but I don't think that is what the science supports," Norrina Allen, associate professor of preventive medicine at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and the senior study author, said in a statement.

"It's a small difference, but it's worth trying to reduce red meat and processed meat like pepperoni, bologna and deli meats," Allen said. She added, there are prior research associating red and processed meat with other major health risks such as cancer.

Meanwhile, Gunter Kuhnle, a professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading in the United Kingdom who was not involved in the study, said in a statement that it is important to consider the risks on a population level.

"With about one million people being diagnosed with heart disease every year, even a small reduction in absolute risk can have a considerable effect and reduce the number of people suffering," he added.

Kevin McConway, a retired professor from Open University who wasn't part of the research team, said that perspective plays an important role in why the findings differed so much from last fall's report saying red meat is fine to eat.

"How can the conclusions from two large-scale studies be so different? Well, it isn't because the statistical findings were different," McConway said in a statement.

"The researchers on the new study are taking a public health perspective; they note that people can choose to eat less meat, and if they do so and the relationship between meat eating and disease risk is indeed causal," he said, "then fewer people would have heart attacks and strokes, and on average people would live a bit longer."

The study also found that for every intake of two servings of poultry per week, there is four percent higher risk of cardiovascular disease. However, the study didn't ask if the chicken was skinless, fried or breaded, thus, findings are not clear enough for any recommendation about safe levels of poultry intake, according to researchers.

The researchers further stressed that people should avoid fried foods, including chicken and fish, because deep fat-frying can contribute trans-fatty acids, and fried fish intake has been positively linked to chronic diseases.

Lead study author Victor Zhong, assistant professor of nutritional sciences at Cornell University, said in a statement that the bottomline of the study is, anyone concerned about their heart health or risk for cancer or other diseases, should limit their intake of red and processed meats.

"Our study shows the link to cardiovascular disease and mortality was robust," Zhong said. "Modifying intake of these animal protein foods may be an important strategy to help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease and premature death at a population level."

There was no association for eating fish, except for fried fish, the study found.

For those who still doubt whether red and processed meat pose health risks, the best thing to do is to limit your intake regardless.