More Against Red And Processed Meat

By 4028mdk09 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=25399566

Is enhanced mortality associated more with red meat/processed meat consumption or with saturated fatty acid (SFA) consumption?  Is it the meat or the saturated fats?  A recent study says meat:

Among highly educated persons, aged >45 years, a high consumption of red, total, and red + processed meat was related to increased all-cause mortality, compared with those with low consumption, whereas no significant associations were found for SFA intake. Dietary guidelines should specifically limit meat consumption and not relying only in limiting SFA intake.

And:

…replacing 100 g of vegetables, fruits & nuts or cereals by 100 g of red meat resulted in higher mortality risk.

For older individuals eating more meat, there was some effect of more SFA consumption:

In these participants, SFA intake was non-significantly associated with mortality. However, isocaloric replacement of monounsaturated fat or carbohydrates by SFA resulted in significantly higher mortality risk. 

But overall this particular study provides data pointing the finger at red meat/processed meat.  Given the consistency of this finding with that of previous studies, it looks for now that excessive consumption of red meat/processed meat is a major dietary health risk.  Looking at all studies, SFA risk is more equivocal; this study does not show, overall, a significant risk, but other studies have showed such a risk.

Limiting red meat/processed meat consumption would seem to be a prudent dietary priority.  Limiting SFA may be a good idea as well, depending upon context and whatever other dietary recommendations a person has from their physician, etc., but the meat situation would seem more important at this point.  Who knows what further studies will say about SFA.

Addictive Foods?

A study has investigated which types of food are most addictive. The results are not surprising:

For the first time, a team of researchers looked at exactly which types of foods could be the most addictive. They asked a group of 120 undergraduates at the University of Michigan, and another group of nearly 400 adults, about 35 different types of food -- from pizza to broccoli -- and whether they think they could have problems controlling how much they ate of each one. Eighteen of the items were processed foods, meaning they contained added sugars and fats.
 
Topping the list were pizza, chocolate, chips, cookies, ice cream, French fries, cake and soda, all considered processed foods. They were followed by cheese and bacon -- both unprocessed foods, but high in fat and salt.
 
The researchers found that the most problematic foods tended to be those with a high glycemic load, meaning they contained a lot of sugar and caused a spike in blood sugar. The authors wrote that these qualities could make foods more difficult to stop eating in a similar way as drugs that are highly concentrated and rapidly absorbed into the body are more addictive.
 
The researchers also found that, among the adults in their study, those with a high BMI and those who were at risk of having any kind of food addiction were most likely to have difficulty controlling themselves around a particular food item.
Note that this article considers bacon to be an “unprocessed food” defining such as having “added sugars and fats” while bacon is typically considered to be a processed food.
The take home message is that foods that are less healthy choices are those which are most addictive, and those two characteristics are linked. Sugar, fat, and salt promote cravings, and at the same time, these components have the worst nutritional profile. Further, those most at risk for food-related health problems, such as individuals with a high BMI, are more likely to have problems with food addiction.

It is important to try to break the vicious cycle of eating these foods, craving more, and eating more. In theory, if you have never eaten these foods, and avoid being exposed to them, you won’t develop the addiction. This is unrealistic since almost all of us, myself included, have consumed these foods many times at one point or another in our lives. So, you need to make a conscious decision to resist: avoid eating out, do not buy these items, and eat healthier at home. The good news is that with time, your tastes will adapt. After ditching foods like Pop Tarts for fresh fruit, I have found that the fruit tastes sweeter to me than it did before, when I was routinely exposed to high-sugar, highly processed food.
It is important not to be obsessed with food, not to use food as some sort of “comfort” or “drug” in response to stressors and problems. Certainly, you should enjoy what you eat, and once you adjust to a healthier diet, you will find out that you enjoy the healthy foods more, and the types of foods you ate in the past taste “too rich.” So, yes, healthy food can and should be palatable. However, do not make food a focus of your life, so that avoiding unhealthy and addictive foods would not feel like a sacrifice. Once you have a healthy food regimen in place, you could have “cheat meals” infrequently – the occasional slice of pizza, a piece of chocolate, or a Pop Tart, or even that dreaded slice of bacon.
Actionable
You need to make the commitment that your relationship with food will change. The primary function of food is to be fuel for your body and to improve your health. Food consumption cannot be a major focus in your life, food cannot be a drug to distract you from life’s problems.

More On the WHO Report

After the recent WHO report linking the consumption of processed and red meat with increased risk of colorectal cancer, a backlash ensued, in part promoted by the meat industry as well as meat-eaters. Now the WHO is taking a more conciliatory tone:

The WHO however stressed Thursday that IARC's review merely confirmed the UN health agency's 2002 diet and nutrition recommendations, urging people "to moderate consumption of preserved meat to reduce the risk of cancer."

"The latest IARC review does not ask people to stop eating processed meats, but indicates that reducing consumption of these products can reduce the risk of colorectal cancer," WHO said in a statement.

It pointed out that it has a standing group of experts who regularly evaluate the links between diet and disease.

"Early next year they will meet to begin looking at the public-health implications of the latest science and the place of processed meat and red meat within the context of an overall healthy diet," WHO said.

Additional studies and analyses on this subject will be welcome, and it is of course true that consumption of these meats will be less problematic if part of a diet high in vegetables and fiber.

The problem is that many people, particularly those who eat a diet enriched in processed and red meat, do not eat sufficient vegetables (or fruits and whole grains) and have an insufficient fiber intake. In addition, the lack of a clear message can be taken as an excuse to ignore the basic message. Meat-lovers, supported by rhetoric from the meat lobby, and indecisive language from experts, will assume that “eating processed/red meat is OK,” ignoring the parts on moderation and on vegetables/fiber, or misunderstanding what it means.

If someone eats robust helpings of processed and/or red meat every day, but not at every single meal, is that “moderation?”  Is eating their processed meats with deep-fried hash browns an example of “vegetable consumption?”  Is eating one Fiber One bar along with their bacon and steak sandwich an adequate fiber intake?

If you have a truly healthy diet, eating the occasional meal with processed or red meat is highly unlikely to cause any harm.  If you have a diet high in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, with a good intake of dietary fiber, then, yes, certainly, there is no need to completely eliminate processed or red meat from the diet.

Perhaps we need to stress more on what people should be eating, rather than what they should not. If people consume mostly plant-based and fiber-rich foods, and if they eat in moderation, then they likely “will not have the room” to tuck away large amounts of meat. Adjusting their diet to include healthy foodstuffs may adjust their attitude toward food better than dire WHO warnings. The best way to get people to cut back on more unhealthy foods is to point out healthier substitutes, and positively encourage consumption of those substitutes. One has to be careful not to trigger a stubborn sense of defiance in people; they may not like to be lectured to, and may eat bacon breakfast, lunch, and dinner as sense of independence and autonomy.

Perhaps studies need to be done on the public’s perception about food, to find out precisely why the more unhealthy choices are more popular (aside from the known appeal of fat, sugar, and salt).

New News on The Red Meat/Processed Meat Cancer Risk

There is a well-established link between consumption of processed meat and cancer risk, particularly risk for colorectal cancer. Now, the link has been made more explicit, with the World Health Organization (WHO) stating that these foodstuffs can cause cancer, based on an evidence review by 22 scientists, the details of which were published in the journal, The Lancet. The link between consumption of red meat and cancer was less clear, but is considered probable.

This story has gotten a lot of press in the popular media. See here and also here and also here. A summary from these stories is:

The World Health Organization has deemed that processed meats — such as bacon, sausages and hot dogs — cause cancer.

In addition, the WHO says red meats including beef, pork, veal and lamb are "probably carcinogenic" to people.

A group of 22 scientists reviewed the evidence linking red meat and processed meat consumption to cancer, and concluded that eating processed meats regularly increases the risk of colorectal cancer. Their evidence review is explained in an article published in The Lancet.
 
The conclusion puts processed meats in the same category of cancer risk as tobacco smoking and asbestos. But this does not mean that they are equally dangerous, says the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) — the agency within the WHO that sets the classifications. And it's important to note that even things such as aloe vera are on the list of possible carcinogens.

In a Q & A released by the IARC, the agency says that "eating meat has known health benefits," but also points out that the cancer risk increases with the amount of meat consumed. As we've reported, studies show that the heaviest meat eaters tend to have the highest risk.

The IARC says high-temperature cooking methods (such as cooking meat in direct contact with a flame) produce more carcinogenic compounds. However, the group says that therewere not enough data "to reach a conclusion about whether the way meat is cooked affects the risk of cancer."

Susan Gapstur of the American Cancer Society (ACS) says the society recommends "consuming a healthy diet with an emphasis on plant foods and limiting consumption of processed meat and red meat."

The recommendation, Gapstur tells The Salt, is based on research. For instance, a systematic literature review on colorectal cancer published in 2011 by the World Cancer Research Fund found a statistically significant, 16-percent increased risk of colorectal cancer associated with each 100 grams of red and processed meat consumed. As the ACS points out, this is an amount of meat roughly equivalent in size to a deck of cards.

There is of course controversy, some of which comes from groups labeled “a powerful lobbying industry.” Thus:

…the panel decision was not unanimous, and is expected to face criticism within the United States, where processed and red meat still forms the base of most meals, and is backed by a powerful lobbying industry.

The National Cattleman’s Beef Association, the national trade association that represents U.S. cattle producers, put out a press release soon after the WHO announcement that — not surprisingly — questions the findings. “Most scientists agree that it is unrealistic to isolate a single food as a cause of cancer from a complex dietary pattern further confounded by lifestyle and environmental factors,” the association says in the release.

“The available scientific evidence simply does not support a causal relationship between red or processed meat and any type of cancer,” Shalene McNeill, executive director of human nutrition at the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association said in the release.

In addition, more critical comments are:

"Scientific evidence shows cancer is a complex disease not caused by single foods and that a balanced diet and healthy lifestyle choices are essential to good health," writes Barry Carpenter, president of the North American Meat Institute, in a statement on the new WHO classification.

Carpenter says it's important to put this new classification in context. "IARC's panel was given the basic task of looking at hazards that meat could pose at some level, under circumstance, but was not asked to consider any off-setting benefits, like the nutrition that meat delivers or the implications of drastically reducing or removing meat from the diet altogether," the statement concludes.

I myself would trust more the scientists performing the evidence study, and the physician making the recommendations, than groups that have a vested economic interest in meat consumption, particularly consumption of red meat.

I myself eat red meat rarely, getting the vast bulk of my animal protein intake from chicken, turkey, fish, eggs, and dairy (all in moderation). As far as processed meat, I may have a breakfast sandwich a couple of times per month that has turkey sausage, but that’s it. My typical everyday diet does not include red or processed meat.

In my opinion, the wise choice is moderation. Eating red meat every day, or even multiple times per week, is in my opinion unwise given these data. Eating processed meat, such as bacon and lunch meats, more often than a few times per month is also unwise.

Note that cancer risk is directly related to the amount of these meats consumed. Keep in mind also that the definition of “processed meat” varies. Some would consider canned fish (tuna, salmon, etc.) to be “processed meat.” I eat those frequently; obviously I am not putting them in the same category as stereotypical processed meat like bacon or ham. Others specifically exclude canned tuna or salmon from the list, as I do, since the canning process, and addition of minimal amounts of salt, is not equivalent to the smoking, curing, or salting processes used for the foods typically considered “processed meats.” And of course, fish meat is not considered “meat” per se in the sense used by nutritionists, who focus on the flesh of land animals and birds.

Therefore, canned fish (in water, not oil!) should be considered different from eating a slab of bacon; eating such fish is considered healthy (but note certain types of tuna can have higher levels of mercury).

Update: list of red and processed meat.
Actionables: Eat less red meat and processed meat.