July 30, 2025 • 48 mins
Is your steak really a one-way ticket straight to Club Diabetes? This week, Aimee slices into the research behind those fear-mongering headlines blaming red meat for type 2 diabetes. We’ll unpack the big studies (EPIC-InterAct, NHS, HPFS) and serve up the nuance your metabolic health actually needs — all with a side of sass. Grab your fork — this one might save your sanity (and your steak).
Episodes Mentioned in this Podcast:
Episode 10 - Lose Weight and Lower Blood Sugar by Asking These 2 Questions Before Each Meal
Episode 43 - Must Have Nutrients to Balance Blood Sugar!
Episode 51 - Can You Eat Too Much Protein?
Find Research Citations and Transcript at Blasphemous Nutrition on Substack
Photography by: Dai Ross Photography
Podcast Cover Art: Lilly Kate Creative
CHAT ME UP: let me know what's on your mind by texting here!
How to Leave a Review on Apple Podcasts
Via iOS Device
1. Open Apple Podcast App (purple app icon that says Podcasts).
2. Go to the icons at the bottom of the screen and choose “search”
3. Search for “Blasphemous Nutrition”
4. Click on the SHOW, not the episode.
5. Scroll all the way down to “Ratings and Reviews” section
6. Click on “Write a Review” (if you don’t see that option, click on “See All” first)
7. Rate the show on a five-star scale (5 is highest rating) and write a review!
8. Bask in the glow of doing a good deed that makes a difference!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Every few months a new headlinestorms the gates of the
internet.
Screaming meat will give youdiabetes.
Go plant-based to save yoursoul, but before you toss your
burger into the trash, let'sunpack the real science behind
me and diabetes.
(00:21):
It's a little juicier than youwould think Today we're digging
past the headlines and servingup the nuance that your health
actually deserves.
So grab your toric.
This one might save your sanityas well as your steak.
Hey Rebels.
Welcome to BlasphemousNutrition.
(00:42):
Consider this podcast yourpantry full of clarity,
perspective, and the nuanceneeded to counter the
superficial health advice sofreely given on the internet.
I am Amy, the unapologeticallycandid host of Blasphemous
Nutrition and a double degreednutritionist with 20 years
experience.
I'm here to share a more nuancedtake.
(01:03):
On living and eating well tosustain and recover your health.
If you found most health adviceto be so generic is to be
meaningless or so extreme thatit's unrealistic.
And you don't mind theoccasional F-bomb, you've come
to the right place.
From dissecting the latestnutrition trends to breaking
down published research andsharing my own clinical
(01:24):
experiences, I'm on a mission tofoster clarity amidst all the
confusion and empower you tohave the health you need to live
a life you love.
Now, let's get started.
Welcome back to BlasphemousNutrition.
I'm your host Aimee, a doubledegreed functional nutritionist
helping you age like an absolutebadass sans celery juice,
(01:48):
baptisms, and guilt ladenconfessions over steak night.
Today we're gonna tear into thesacred cow of the meat causes
diabetes narrative, and I'mbringing receipts, a sprinkle of
saltiness and the kind of nuancethat is totally absent from your
social media feed.
Now, if you've been around herelong enough, you already know I
(02:12):
have not abandoned my love ofprotein to join any kind of
meatless mosque of veganism.
I am decidedly pro protein bias,fully confessed, but i'm here
neither to convert you into acarnivore, nor hand you a tofu
rosary.
(02:33):
I'm here to help you thinkcritically about the science,
the.
Actual science behind theheadlines that we read because
most people don't read beyondthe headline.
Or maybe they get to the firstparagraph before they get
distracted by the next thing onTikTok.
So today I'm gonna tackle theclaim that meet.
(02:55):
Especially red and processedmeat is a one way express ticket
On the Hogwarts train to typetwo diabetes, you have seen
articles citing really big andimpressive names.
The Epic Interact study, thenurses health study, and the
health professionals follow upstudy.
These studies are practicallytreated like Gospel Scrolls at a
(03:19):
vegan revival meeting.
And while we're here, I'm alsogonna address the elephant or
perhaps the cow in the room,research funding.
Studies that are published don'texist in a vacuum.
They are absolutely shaped bywhat gets funded, what's
trending, and what headlineswill ultimately get shared.
(03:41):
Right now, there's a reallystrong cultural and
institutional push to reducemeat consumption, partly for
health reasons and partly forclimate reasons.
So, while the environmentalimpact of meat is a valid
discussion that deserves its ownsermon, and I will get to it in
a future episode, today, I'mgonna stick strictly to the
(04:03):
health side and morespecifically diabetes risk.
So let's start by getting ourhands dirty with the actual
research that sparks all ofthese meat, diabetes headlines.
I wanna focus on three massivelong running studies that get a
lot of press and also a lot ofprestige.
(04:26):
First is the epic interact.
Now this is a European study.
That tracked over 340,000 peopleacross eight countries.
Researchers were looking at dietand its relationship to type two
diabetes because this is aproblem across the world.
It is certainly not limited toNorth America alone.
(04:49):
And the big takeaway that getsplastered on headlines is that
people eating more red andprocessed meats have a higher
risk of developing diabetes.
We have the nurses' healthstudy, which is a classic, so so
much of the published researchon chronic disease refers to the
(05:13):
nurses health study.
This American Classic startedway back in 1976, originally
looking at women's health, andover time they started using all
of the data collected overmultiple decades to examine
everything from hormone use todietary patterns.
The nurses' health study lovesto point fingers at red and
(05:36):
processed meats linking them tohigher cardiovascular disease
and diabetes risk among femaleusers.
Similarly, the healthprofessionals follow-up study is
kind of like the nurses' healthstudies little brother launched
in 1986.
This study followed male healthprofessionals and surprise,
(05:57):
surprise.
Same conclusion, more red andprocessed meat intake is
associated with a higher risk oftype two diabetes.
So there are specific reasonswhy these kinds of studies
dominate the headlines.
First, they're massive.
When you're looking at.
Tens or hundreds of thousands ofpeople.
(06:20):
These big numbers add power andvalidity to a study.
So this gives greater confidenceto the researchers that what
they're seeing is an accurateassociation and it impresses
journalists.
There's also really long followups.
Many of these.
(06:40):
Studies track people fordecades, so it kind of feels
like a crystal ball for chronicdisease prediction.
Chronic disease, does takemultiple decades to develop, and
often begins in animperceptible, silent fashion.
So having data over time islegitimately very, very valuable
(07:03):
here.
And we have prestige points.
I mean, when Harvard or bigEuropean consortias stamp their
name on these research papers,it's kind of treated as gospel
truth.
Clout, carries far whether ornot it is earned.
(07:25):
And finally, simple storylinesare sexier.
Eat meat, get diabetes is a lotmore clickable than complex.
Interactions between diet,lifestyle, genetics, and social
determinants may influencediabetes risk in heterogeneous
ways.
Yeah, that just doesn't reallyquite fit on a headline banner.
(07:46):
But here's the thing, justbecause something is big and the
study itself has.
What is referred to as power dueto the number of participants
just because it comes from aprestigious university, it
doesn't make it immune to flaws.
So I wanna address these studieswith both steelman arguments and
(08:10):
a little spicy side eye.
First, let's play fair.
Okay?
If I'm gonna take apart thesestudies.
I want to understand thestrongest case for the claim
that the study is making.
I'm not about a straw man.
When we understand opposingviewpoints, we can better
empathize with how our opponentgot to where they are.
(08:35):
In this, we often can findcommon ground and.
With that common ground moreeffectively poke holes in the
flaws and biases of thatargument.
So here are some of thestrengths that these studies
offer.
Firstly, there are consistentassociations across multiple big
(08:58):
studies.
The Epic interact, the NHS, theHPFS, right?
The three studies that Imentioned earlier have a similar
narrative.
More meat and more processedmeat intake is linked to a
higher risk of developing typetwo diabetes.
Even if the studies are indifferent countries and
(09:18):
different population, thispattern repeats when it comes to
epidemiological studies.
Repeated signals can suggestthat there is something very
real going on.
Additionally, these studies dopropose biological mechanisms
and researchers love mechanismsbecause a mechanism, especially
(09:42):
when validated, helps explainwhat we see observationally.
So here's what these.
Studies suggest may be at play.
Heme iron, which is abundant inred meat, can promote oxidative
stress and damage pancreaticbeta cells because iron in high
(10:04):
doses acts as an oxidant.
Additionally, nitrosamines,which are formed during the
processing of meats or high heatcooking, are hypothesized to
contribute to insulinresistance.
Advanced glycation and productsknown as ages from charred meats
specifically are believed toworsen inflammation and insulin
(10:28):
signaling.
And then finally, saturated fatsin certain cuts of meat might
impair insulin sensitivity insome contexts and in some
individuals.
This one is still very much likeuncertain.
I'll leave it at that.
(10:49):
These studies also suggest doseresponse trends.
So when we have a dose responserelationship, it's basically
saying in this instance that themore red meat or processed meat
that people report eating, thehigher their diabetes risk
appears.
In research lingo, dose responsepatterns strengthen the argument
(11:12):
for causality.
Even if the nature of theresearch itself, such as
observational studies which, youknow, all epidemiological
studies are observationalstudies, and these studies
cannot be.
Used to ascertain causalitybecause their very nature is
observational, right?
(11:33):
However, when we see doseresponse patterns in
observational research, itstrengthens the argument that
causality may be relevant.
And then we have the adjustmentof confounding variables.
These studies typically claim toadjust for confounding variables
(11:54):
or aspects that may coexistwithin the study participants
that could jack things up likesmoking a high BMI.
Physical activity, alcohol,other dietary factors like sugar
intake.
And the argument is that evenafter controlling for these
variables, the meat diabeteslink persists.
(12:19):
So even if you are a steakloving, ribeye worshiping
protein fanatic like myself, itis important to acknowledge
that.
This research that is beingheavily promoted in the
mainstream media and with, um,me hating influencers on social
(12:42):
media.
Isn't just something pulled outof a wellness influencer's ass.
It's based on decades of data.
It's been published in widelyrespected journals, and it's
been peer reviewed byintelligent researchers.
Well often promoted as thecontrary.
(13:02):
The existing research is notsuggesting that meat is evil.
It's actually suggesting thatthe patterns that are observed
in this research deserve acloser look.
And while I might not be buyinginto the whole sermon, I do
respect the rigor that it takesto build such an argument.
(13:24):
However, there's the part theyleave out.
These are the heretical notesthat they do not want you to
read.
Now in these big observationalstudies, people who eat more red
meat and processed meat tend tobe different.
(13:44):
In many other ways than peoplewho do not eat high intakes of
redder processed meats, they'remore likely to smoke.
They tend to be more sedentary.
They also tend to consume fewerfruits, vegetables, and have an
overall lower fiber diet.
Because they often eat moreultra processed, calorically
(14:08):
dense foods in general, and theymay also drink more sugary
beverages and alcohol.
In other words, high meat intakeis often part of an overall
western dietary pattern amongthe worst in the world, which is
heavy on processed food, lighton produce, and typically paired
(14:30):
with a more sedentary lifestyle.
And researchers know this, theydo try to adjust for these
differences statistically, buthere's the problem, adjusting.
Confounding variables is kind oflike trying to fix a crooked
foundation By patching thecracks in the drywall, you can
(14:52):
tidy it up, but the underlyingstructure is still unstable.
Even after adjusting for thingslike smoking, BMI and physical
activity, there are always,always, always unmeasured or
poorly measured confounders thatare kind of hiding in the
shadows.
For instance, how accurately didpeople actually report their
(15:19):
exercise habits and theiralcohol consumption?
Did researchers account forstress levels, sleep quality,
socioeconomic status in detail.
And what about nutrient synergy,like the benefits of more fiber
and polyphenols?
When meat is consumed alongsidea ton of veggies, was that taken
(15:42):
into consideration?
Unknowns like this can totallytilt the results.
Making meat more villainousappearing than it actually is.
It's also crucial to point outthat these studies often pool
all red meat together.
Processed deli ham, charredsausage on the grill,
home-cooked grass fed steak,it's all thrown into the same
(16:05):
bucket.
I mean, that said, higherquality studies like the data
from the nurses health study dotease these apart.
In the nurses health studycomparing the extreme ends of
processed meat intake groups,those who consumed the most
processed red meat had a 51%higher associated risk of
(16:30):
developing type two diabetes.
Unprocessed red meat showed aweaker link about a 40% higher
risk.
But here's where we gotta hitthe pause button, because these
percentages are relative risks.
What does that mean?
Let's say your absolute baserisk of diabetes is 10%, and I'm
(16:55):
basing that off of.
The fact that one in 10Americans, or 10% of the
American population hasdiabetes, so let's say you have
a 10% absolute risk of diabetes.
If you increase your relativerisk by 50%, your new absolute
(17:17):
risk is 15% because 50% of 10 isfive.
And 5% plus 10% is 15%.
Your actual risk is not 51%.
That's your relative risk andrelative risk sounds much, much
(17:42):
scarier than what it actuallyis.
The epic interact study thatEuropean study noted that each
50 gram increase in red meatthat's shy of two ounces was
linked to an eight to 12% higherrelative risk.
(18:02):
Again, it's relative risk, notabsolute risk.
So again, if our baseline,absolute risk of getting
diabetes is 10%.
We're looking at an absoluterisk increase from the each 50
grams of red meat to equate a0.8 to 1.2% total increase.
(18:25):
So.
Well, if you eat a 16 ouncesteak every goddamn day, your
absolute risk of developingdiabetes would jump from 10% to
17 to 21%, and that's because 16ounces is 450 grams, or nine
times that 50 gram increase.
(18:48):
Now, while that's significant,it isn't necessarily to be
equated with the risk of smokingto developing lung cancer,
right?
We can't say that.
But when it comes to howheadlines are shared, one would
think that eating a steak everyday is.
As likely to give you diabetesas smoking a pack of cigarettes
(19:11):
is likely to give you lungcancer, and that's simply not
the case.
A huge, huge, huge factor withthese long-term observational
studies is the food frequencyquestionnaire.
Food frequency questionnairesare the bane of a nutritionist's
(19:33):
existence.
They offer value in researchbecause they are a very
efficient and low cost way tocollect data.
But damn is it fraught withmassive inaccuracies.
The data in these bigobservational studies mostly
comes from questionnaires askingpeople to recall their typical
(19:57):
diet over the past year,sometimes even longer than a
year, and we're fucking terribleat this.
I mean, I can't even rememberwhat I ate two days ago, let
alone what I was eating thistime last year.
Plus we have a tendency to underreport the bad stuff.
(20:17):
Oh, you know, I have a baconcheeseburger like once or twice
a year and over.
Report the good stuff.
Oh, I always make sure to getvegetables every single day.
I see this tendency firsthandwhen observing a certain family
member, tell a medical providerabout what they eat versus what
(20:38):
I actually see them do inday-to-day life.
And you know, that's not uniqueto any individual.
We're all kind of prone to this.
It's just human nature.
So food frequency questionnairesalso presume that people can
adequately identify what aserving of food entails and then
(21:03):
estimate their own consumptionof that serving.
Even if you knew that a servingof vegetables was half a cup
could you accurately look at theamount of vegetables on your
plate and estimate how many halfcup servings was there?
Most of us can't do that, and ifthese base measurements are
(21:26):
flawed, there is simply noamount of statistical wizardry
that can fully rescue them.
Garbage in, garbage out.
It's as simple as that.
When you look at studiesconducted in metabolic wards or
very tightly controlled feedingtrials, which are admittedly
(21:46):
much, much shorter in durationdue to cost, we see that red
meat does not consistently wreckinsulin sensitivity or blow up
your fasting glucose.
In several cases.
What is.
Observed in tightly controlledclinical research or randomized
controlled trials isimprovements in weight, muscle
(22:10):
mass, and diet quality thatovershadow any individual food
effect.
And this is a really valuableconsideration.
While randomized controlledstudies are much shorter, and
that is an absolute limitation.
All of the confounding ofvariables that we discussed
earlier are largely eliminatedwhen the study is well
(22:33):
controlled.
Additionally, the amount of thevillain in question is
accurately recorded, weighed andmeasured before being given to
the participant to consume.
So to make up for the lack of ahuge cohort, a meta-analysis of
several smaller controlledfeeding trials can add power to
(22:58):
the counter hypothesis that meatdoes not increase diabetes
risks, and those meta-analyseshave been done.
So while observational studieslike the nurses health study may
suggest there are associationsbetween red meat consumption and
diabetes risks.
Randomized controlled trials donot support any causal link
(23:23):
between me intake and type twodiabetes risk.
The scary headlines that we arereading are built on association
and not proven cause and effectwhile the observational research
that leads to these headlines.
May provide a hypothesis that isworth testing.
(23:45):
It absolutely should not beintegrated into your Health
Commandments or give you anykind of bacon guilt.
Additionally, there is anunspoken topic.
That makes most researcherssquirm harder than a cat in a
bathtub, and that is funding andtrend chasing.
(24:11):
The blunt honest to God truth isthat research does not happen in
a vacuum.
It happens in a world wheregrant committees, public health
priorities and culturalnarratives decide what is going
to get funded, what will bepublished, and what will be
promoted.
(24:31):
And right now there is a majorcultural and institutional push
to reduce meat consumption, notjust for personal health, but
for planetary health.
The climate conversation hasbecome a powerful tailwind, or
maybe more accurately a kind ofhurricane pushing researchers,
policy makers and journalists tofocus on meat reduction, which,
(24:56):
in some cases leads to creatingresearch with an end in mind,
right?
Rather than asking the question,does meet impact diabetes ease?
The question that someresearchers will step into is to
what degree does meet.
Cause diabetes or does meetcause diabetes, right?
(25:20):
So there's almost like leadingwith the premise rather than
asking an open-ended questionand studying that and subtle,
almost imperceptible biases inthe original question can.
Lead to unconsciously omittingor overlooking important aspects
(25:45):
of research that might bediscovered when one is stepping
into the research with anopen-ended question.
And all of this sounds a littleconspiracy, theor theory ish, is
that even a word?
But it isn't.
It's simply how academicincentives work.
(26:07):
If you're a researcher whostudies a really hot topic that
is in alignment with publicconcerns such as climate change
and chronic disease, your paperand the university you work for
is more likely to get additionalfunding, more likely to get
published, and way more likelyto get picked up by media
(26:29):
outlets.
This is unequivocally a goodthing for you and your boss,
right?
And it's.
Near impossible to disregardthat when looking at the
research that you want toconduct.
It's also important to rememberthat scary headlines sell.
(26:51):
Meat will give you diabetes isprime clickbait real estate.
So this relationship that existsbetween funding research, media
hype, and the possibility offuture research dollars down the
road creates a self-reinforcingcycle.
(27:14):
A study finds a smallassociation.
The media amplifies that withfear-based headlines.
The public freaks out.
More funding flows to the samenarrative to further confirm or
refute that initial finding.
And we repeat this process adnauseum until everybody is
(27:36):
scared of stake.
So while the environmentalimpact of meat deserves deep,
serious discussion, if for noother reason than the science on
that is as shaky as a foodfrequency questionnaire, when we
conflate environmental ethicswith health science and the same
(27:57):
breath, it does muddy thewaters.
These are two very distinctconversations.
And that's your teaser.
I am gonna dive into the climateimpact of meat in its own future
episode, but for now, let's keepthe microscope focused on
diabetes risk only.
(28:17):
Okay, so I've had a little funpoking holes in the mainstream
narrative, and now I want tobuild a case against the idea
that meat is your Pancreas'spersonal grim Reaper.
First Meat is not just thisblock of saturated fat waiting
to clog your arteries and spikeyour blood sugar.
(28:38):
It is a nutrient-dense source ofhigh quality protein, and
protein is a fucking metabolicrockstar.
It increases satiety so you'renot rummaging through the snack
drawer 30 minutes after lunch.
It helps preserve and buildmuscle mass, which is one of the
(28:59):
most powerful protectors we haveagainst insulin resistance as we
age.
And protein also has a higherthermic effect, meaning your
body uses more energy to digestprotein as compared to say,
digesting carbs or fat.
I talk about this at length inseveral podcast episodes.
(29:21):
I'll put these links in the shownotes, but you'll wanna check
out episode 10, lose weight andlower blood sugar by asking
these two questions before eachmeal.
Episode 43 must have nutrientsto balance blood sugar and
episode 51, can you eat too muchprotein?
Check those out to get the fullscoop on how protein is a
(29:42):
metabolic powerhouse.
Muscle mass acts as metabolicarmor, because without it, we
lose muscle, especially as weage, due to the reduction of
hormones which encourage musclemass retention and sarcopenia.
Is a massive underappreciatedrisk factor for insulin
(30:04):
resistance and type twodiabetes.
Having a higher protein intake,does help maintain lean body
mass and support glucosedisposal or the storage of
glucose in that muscle.
Yes, muscle gives you shape, itgives you strength, and it adds
a sexy factor, but.
More importantly, it is acritical storage place for blood
(30:29):
glucose.
The more metabolically activemuscle that you have, the better
your body can handlecarbohydrate and keep insulin
sensitivity on point.
Muscle is absolutely key toaging like a badass.
Red meat provides severalimportant nutrients in greater
(30:50):
concentration and nutrient foundin plant foods such as vitamin
B12.
Vitamin B12 is essential for redblood cell formation,
neurological function, and DNAsynthesis.
B12 deficiency can lead toanemia.
Fatigue nerve issues as well ascognitive decline, all things
(31:13):
that we definitely do not wannadeal with at any stage of life.
And then there's heme iron.
This is the form of iron thatyour body absorbs most
efficiently, and it happens tobe the form found in animal
protein.
Unlike non-heme iron, which isfound in plants.
Heme iron does not depend on asmuch of your gut environment or
(31:37):
the presence of vitamin C inorder to be absorbed.
Having low iron levels can leadto anemia as well as impaired
oxygen transport resulting infatigue, weakness, and brain
fog.
And then we have zinc.
Zinc is critical for immunehealth, for wound healing, as
well as insulin storage andsecretion in the pancreas.
(32:01):
Zinc also plays a role in tasteand smell.
So yeah, it also helps you kindof savor that ribeye Zinc from
red meat is highly bioavailable,meaning your body will actually
absorb and use it moreefficiently.
The big lesson here is that wheneaten is part of a balanced diet
(32:23):
with plenty of fiber, richveggies and healthy fats, meat
can be a health supporter ratherthan a saboteur.
And the reality is we don't eatnutrients in isolation.
We eat meals, and meals are acomplex array of nutrients, and
(32:44):
those nutrients interact withone another.
Demonizing a single food whileignoring the dietary context
that that food is in is like.
Well, it's kind of like blamingone candle for burning down the
cathedral when the buildingitself was made out of untreated
wood and there were no smokedetectors.
(33:08):
A diet that includes unprocessedmeat, plenty of vegetables.
Highend fiber with minimallyprocessed foods has a
dramatically different metabolicimpact than a diet of hot dogs,
soda and squid game marathons.
What accompanies that meat onyour plate, how it is prepared
(33:31):
and how it is eaten.
All of these factors absolutelyimpact the health outcome of
that food.
I also wanna reiterate therelative versus absolute risk
that I talked about earlier.
Most of the scary numbers thatwe saw from the nurses' health
(33:51):
study.
And the European Epic interactstudy.
Our relative risk increases aneight to 12% relative increase,
which was what was cited in theEpic Interact study.
Sounds concerning on paper.
But again, if your baselineabsolute risk of diabetes is
(34:13):
10%, then that relative riskincrease translates to an
absolute risk of 10.8 to 11.2%.
It's not exactly the apocalypse.
Same goes for the NHS data.
A 40 to 51% higher relative riskamong those who consume the most
(34:39):
red meat or processed meat.
Sounds really damning.
Is it important?
Yeah, but it's no guarantee ofdisease and it is definitely not
evidence that meat alone is thecause.
It reflects an association.
(35:01):
It suggests that there is asignal and that we need to
investigate further with moreaccurate studies that are
designed to establish.
Probability of cause.
At the end of the day, red meatcan totally support your
metabolic health when it's partof a balanced, produce rich
(35:24):
diet, and an active lifestyle.
And that protein helps protectyour muscle mass.
It helps reduce cravings byregulating your appetite and it
can support insulin sensitivity.
When we demonize a single foodgroup, it distracts us from the
bigger picture, what our overalldietary patterns are, our
(35:48):
physical activity levels are,how our stress levels are, and
what our sleep looks like.
So look, if the arguments I'vemade have not convinced you, but
you ed me, there are smartevidence backed ways to minimize
these potential downsides whilekeeping all of the nutrient
(36:10):
winds that red meats provide.
When we look at processed meatsspecifically, these are believed
to be more problematic thanunprocessed meats because they
tend to be higher in sodiumnitrates, nitrites.
And sometimes sulfites.
These compounds are used inprocessed meats to preserve
(36:34):
color, to extend shelf life andto enhance flavor.
But they do carry some concerns.
Nitrites, and other nitrosocompounds are formed during high
heat cooking.
And they've been associated withinsulin resistance and higher
cancer risk in some studies.
(36:55):
Now, I have not looked in anykind of depth at this
association.
I'm just noting that theassociation does exist and it's
pretty prevalent in theobservational research.
Sulfites, which are common indeli meats may affect gut
health, and they're believed toincrease oxidative stress.
(37:18):
To what degree they do.
That is up for debate.
And then we have the high sodiumcontent of processed meats.
That is definitely of concernfor a lot of people because a
high sodium diet is linked tohigher blood pressure and
metabolic stress over time.
But I will add that bloodpressure balance is a
(37:40):
relationship between sodium.
Potassium and magnesium.
The latter tube being found inproduce.
So pairing your grilled steakwith some green veg is a very
solid strategy.
And then finally, we have thoseages, those advanced glycation
(38:00):
and products ages are formedwhen meats are cooked at really
high temperatures such asgrilling or frying or broiling.
Which honestly is my favoriteway to have a steak ages can
promote oxidative stress andinflammation in the body.
And these are two players in theinsulin resistance and type two
(38:24):
diabetes development camp.
So it's not something to poo pooand while the strength of the
existing evidence.
Is a little shaky.
If you have several significantrisk factors for diabetes, it's
completely reasonable to stillbe concerned.
So here is what you can do tominimize the potential risks
(38:46):
that have been observed in theresearch.
First, choose less processedmeats, opt for fresh,
unprocessed cuts instead of delislices or sausages.
Your steaks, your roasts, groundbeef, whatever you can get from
the butcher's counter, right?
And then you wanna choose lowerrisk cooking methods.
(39:08):
Avoid habitually charring orbroiling meat as that increases
those ages.
Instead, favor lower, slowercooking methods.
Use your slow cooker, make astove top stew, maybe braise
that meat or do a soy.
This reduces age formation and.
(39:30):
If you do grill, one of theeasiest and tastiest ways to cut
down on advanced glycation endproducts is to marinate your
meat before cooking.
Marinating, especially withacidic ingredients like lemon
juice, vinegar, yogurt, andusing herbs and spices and even
(39:51):
olive oil, can reduce ageformation.
Significantly, sometimes up to50% or more.
This is because the acid helpsbreak down proteins and prevents
charring of the meat, while theantioxidants in herbs and spices
and olive oil act as theselittle metabolic bodyguards to
(40:12):
protect you.
So remember the holy Trinity ofa delicious and protective
marinade, acid, fat and flavor.
If you marinate your red meatfor at least 30 minutes, you're
in good shape, but overnight iseven better from both a flavor
(40:33):
standpoint and an age reductionstandpoint.
And of course, you will want topair that red meat with plants.
Combine your meat with lots offiber, rich, colorful veggies,
because these also have thepolyphenols and antioxidants
that mitigate some of thehypothesized oxidative stress
(40:54):
from an iron rich meat heavymeal.
Think of vegetables as a fireextinguisher for oxidative
stress.
Whether that stress is comingfrom meat or the inflammation is
coming from other factors inyour life.
Vegetables are wonderful atdousing inflammation.
(41:14):
If you do choose to buy delimeats, Look for options with
minimally added nitrites,nitrates, and sulfites.
These options do exist, but theyare often more expensive and a
little bit harder to find.
And then finally, you'll wannamoderate your dose if you're
really concerned.
(41:35):
Remember no one food that makesor breaks your health bank
account the dose matters.
Having two pounds of bacon dailyis not the same as enjoying a
couple slices of a high qualityprosciutto on Sundays.
You may be wondering if thestory is so messy, why do these
(41:56):
studies keep getting publishedand paraded around like the holy
grail?
Big observational studies arekind of the darling children of
nutrition headlines.
They look really impressivebecause of the sheer amount of
people included in thosestudies.
They're often from prestigiousinstitutions And they're easy to
(42:18):
turn into a morality tale, whichseems to kind of be the
foundation for nutritionrecommendations in the western
industrialized world.
Studies like the Epic Interact,the NHS and the HPFS do follow
hundreds of thousands of peopleover decades, and that scale
(42:40):
makes them look rock solid,especially as they're dispersed
to the population via media.
I mean, if 300,000 peopleparticipated in this study and
there was association, it's hardnot to think of that as relevant
and true.
But even if it's true, anassociation is not causation.
(43:03):
Associations in observationalresearch are intended to be a
hypothesis generator, not somefinal verdict from the Supreme
Court of Health and Longevity.
Researchers themselves usuallyattest to this very fact in
their paper, in the conclusionsection, something that never
(43:27):
gets revealed in mainstreammedia.
And just as researchers needfunding to keep their jobs, our
news media needs our eyeballs tostay relevant and in business.
They know an emotion evokingheadline is gonna be seen and
spread.
We're all prey to that.
Media outlets also know mostpeople don't read past the
(43:49):
headline.
Much less dig into relativeversus absolute risk and what
that ultimately means.
And any way, they're not in thebusiness of science education.
They're kind of in the businessof getting your attention.
Because research funding oftenflows to topics that are
(44:10):
culturally trending andpolitically relevant.
If your study supports the meatis bad narrative, it's more
likely to get published in a bigname journal, more likely to get
media coverage and more likelyto help secure future grant
money for your team and theuniversity you work for.
(44:31):
It's simply the messy reality ofacademic incentives.
Scientists are people too.
They have to keep the lights on.
They have to fund their labs,and they have to publish to keep
their careers.
Nutrition headlines love tocrown new Saints and crucifying
new sinners practically everyweek.
(44:54):
One minute Broccoli's the nextMessiah.
And.
I may actually be guilty ofspreading that one.
And then the next week, bacon isthe antichrist.
But the reality is that meattotally can be part of a
resilient, badass agingstrategy, or it could be a
contributor to poor health ifit's part of your ultra
(45:16):
processed, sedentary sleepdeprived life.
But we can't let headlines orinfluencers dictate one's moral
standing via the dinner plate.
There is no single food that'sgoing to save you nor damn you
for that matter.
Health is built through dailyrituals.
(45:36):
The meals that you repeat, themovement you choose, the
boundaries you establish aroundstress and sleep, and the way
that you stack habits that aregoing to support the health that
you want.
Rather than another restrictivedoctrine, find a strategy that
(45:57):
honors your reality.
Rather than falling for thefear, seek out the evidence.
Remember context, notcommandments from on high.
I mean, eat the damn steak ifyou want to.
And if you have a high risk ofdiabetes and you are not
satisfied with the counterarguments I've provided,
(46:17):
marinate the steak, pair it withveggies, limit it to once or
twice a week, rather than havingit every day, which actually
gets super expensive anyway,support your body further by
moving it.Sleep well laughoften.
And live from Love.
Health is so much more than anysingle food that we eat or omit.
(46:44):
And in all honesty, it's so muchmore than whatever we put on our
plate.
I know you know that, but itbears repeating because I often
focus just on the food bit.
But even with this podcast, it'simportant not to lose the forest
for the trees.
No.
All right folks.
That's all I've got in me today.
(47:07):
I hope you enjoyed this episode.
If anyone came to mind while youwere listening, please share
this episode with them, and ifyou haven't yet subscribed,
doing so will ensure that allfuture episodes like that meat
and Climate change one, getdropped into your feed as soon
as they're published.
(47:28):
And until then, stay salty, staycurious, and I will see you next
time.
Any and all information sharedhere is for educational and
entertainment purposes only, andis not to be misconstrued as
offering medical advice.
Listening to this podcast doesnot constitute a provider client
relationship.
(47:48):
Note, I'm not a doctor nor anurse, and it is imperative that
you utilize your brain and yourmedical team to make the best
decisions for your own health.
The use of information on thispodcast or materials linked to
this podcast.
Are at the user's own risk.
No information nor resourcesprovided are intended to be a
substitute for professionalmedical advice, diagnosis, or
(48:11):
treatment.
Be a smart human and do notdisregard or postpone obtaining
medical advice for any medicalcondition you may have.
Seek the assistance of yourhealthcare team for any such
conditions and always do sobefore making any changes to
your medical, nutrition orhealth plan.
Every few months a new headlinestorms the gates of the
internet.
Screaming meat will give youdiabetes.
Go plant-based to save yoursoul, but before you toss your
burger into the trash, let'sunpack the real science behind
me and diabetes.
(00:21):
It's a little juicier than youwould think Today we're digging
past the headlines and servingup the nuance that your health
actually deserves.
So grab your toric.
This one might save your sanityas well as your steak.
Hey Rebels.
Welcome to BlasphemousNutrition.
(00:42):
Consider this podcast yourpantry full of clarity,
perspective, and the nuanceneeded to counter the
superficial health advice sofreely given on the internet.
I am Amy, the unapologeticallycandid host of Blasphemous
Nutrition and a double degreednutritionist with 20 years
experience.
I'm here to share a more nuancedtake.
(01:03):
On living and eating well tosustain and recover your health.
If you found most health adviceto be so generic is to be
meaningless or so extreme thatit's unrealistic.
And you don't mind theoccasional F-bomb, you've come
to the right place.
From dissecting the latestnutrition trends to breaking
down published research andsharing my own clinical
(01:24):
experiences, I'm on a mission tofoster clarity amidst all the
confusion and empower you tohave the health you need to live
a life you love.
Now, let's get started.
Welcome back to BlasphemousNutrition.
I'm your host Aimee, a doubledegreed functional nutritionist
helping you age like an absolutebadass sans celery juice,
(01:48):
baptisms, and guilt ladenconfessions over steak night.
Today we're gonna tear into thesacred cow of the meat causes
diabetes narrative, and I'mbringing receipts, a sprinkle of
saltiness and the kind of nuancethat is totally absent from your
social media feed.
Now, if you've been around herelong enough, you already know I
(02:12):
have not abandoned my love ofprotein to join any kind of
meatless mosque of veganism.
I am decidedly pro protein bias,fully confessed, but i'm here
neither to convert you into acarnivore, nor hand you a tofu
rosary.
(02:33):
I'm here to help you thinkcritically about the science,
the.
Actual science behind theheadlines that we read because
most people don't read beyondthe headline.
Or maybe they get to the firstparagraph before they get
distracted by the next thing onTikTok.
So today I'm gonna tackle theclaim that meet.
(02:55):
Especially red and processedmeat is a one way express ticket
On the Hogwarts train to typetwo diabetes, you have seen
articles citing really big andimpressive names.
The Epic Interact study, thenurses health study, and the
health professionals follow upstudy.
These studies are practicallytreated like Gospel Scrolls at a
(03:19):
vegan revival meeting.
And while we're here, I'm alsogonna address the elephant or
perhaps the cow in the room,research funding.
Studies that are published don'texist in a vacuum.
They are absolutely shaped bywhat gets funded, what's
trending, and what headlineswill ultimately get shared.
(03:41):
Right now, there's a reallystrong cultural and
institutional push to reducemeat consumption, partly for
health reasons and partly forclimate reasons.
So, while the environmentalimpact of meat is a valid
discussion that deserves its ownsermon, and I will get to it in
a future episode, today, I'mgonna stick strictly to the
(04:03):
health side and morespecifically diabetes risk.
So let's start by getting ourhands dirty with the actual
research that sparks all ofthese meat, diabetes headlines.
I wanna focus on three massivelong running studies that get a
lot of press and also a lot ofprestige.
(04:26):
First is the epic interact.
Now this is a European study.
That tracked over 340,000 peopleacross eight countries.
Researchers were looking at dietand its relationship to type two
diabetes because this is aproblem across the world.
It is certainly not limited toNorth America alone.
(04:49):
And the big takeaway that getsplastered on headlines is that
people eating more red andprocessed meats have a higher
risk of developing diabetes.
We have the nurses' healthstudy, which is a classic, so so
much of the published researchon chronic disease refers to the
(05:13):
nurses health study.
This American Classic startedway back in 1976, originally
looking at women's health, andover time they started using all
of the data collected overmultiple decades to examine
everything from hormone use todietary patterns.
The nurses' health study lovesto point fingers at red and
(05:36):
processed meats linking them tohigher cardiovascular disease
and diabetes risk among femaleusers.
Similarly, the healthprofessionals follow-up study is
kind of like the nurses' healthstudies little brother launched
in 1986.
This study followed male healthprofessionals and surprise,
(05:57):
surprise.
Same conclusion, more red andprocessed meat intake is
associated with a higher risk oftype two diabetes.
So there are specific reasonswhy these kinds of studies
dominate the headlines.
First, they're massive.
When you're looking at.
Tens or hundreds of thousands ofpeople.
(06:20):
These big numbers add power andvalidity to a study.
So this gives greater confidenceto the researchers that what
they're seeing is an accurateassociation and it impresses
journalists.
There's also really long followups.
Many of these.
(06:40):
Studies track people fordecades, so it kind of feels
like a crystal ball for chronicdisease prediction.
Chronic disease, does takemultiple decades to develop, and
often begins in animperceptible, silent fashion.
So having data over time islegitimately very, very valuable
(07:03):
here.
And we have prestige points.
I mean, when Harvard or bigEuropean consortias stamp their
name on these research papers,it's kind of treated as gospel
truth.
Clout, carries far whether ornot it is earned.
(07:25):
And finally, simple storylinesare sexier.
Eat meat, get diabetes is a lotmore clickable than complex.
Interactions between diet,lifestyle, genetics, and social
determinants may influencediabetes risk in heterogeneous
ways.
Yeah, that just doesn't reallyquite fit on a headline banner.
(07:46):
But here's the thing, justbecause something is big and the
study itself has.
What is referred to as power dueto the number of participants
just because it comes from aprestigious university, it
doesn't make it immune to flaws.
So I wanna address these studieswith both steelman arguments and
(08:10):
a little spicy side eye.
First, let's play fair.
Okay?
If I'm gonna take apart thesestudies.
I want to understand thestrongest case for the claim
that the study is making.
I'm not about a straw man.
When we understand opposingviewpoints, we can better
empathize with how our opponentgot to where they are.
(08:35):
In this, we often can findcommon ground and.
With that common ground moreeffectively poke holes in the
flaws and biases of thatargument.
So here are some of thestrengths that these studies
offer.
Firstly, there are consistentassociations across multiple big
(08:58):
studies.
The Epic interact, the NHS, theHPFS, right?
The three studies that Imentioned earlier have a similar
narrative.
More meat and more processedmeat intake is linked to a
higher risk of developing typetwo diabetes.
Even if the studies are indifferent countries and
(09:18):
different population, thispattern repeats when it comes to
epidemiological studies.
Repeated signals can suggestthat there is something very
real going on.
Additionally, these studies dopropose biological mechanisms
and researchers love mechanismsbecause a mechanism, especially
(09:42):
when validated, helps explainwhat we see observationally.
So here's what these.
Studies suggest may be at play.
Heme iron, which is abundant inred meat, can promote oxidative
stress and damage pancreaticbeta cells because iron in high
(10:04):
doses acts as an oxidant.
Additionally, nitrosamines,which are formed during the
processing of meats or high heatcooking, are hypothesized to
contribute to insulinresistance.
Advanced glycation and productsknown as ages from charred meats
specifically are believed toworsen inflammation and insulin
(10:28):
signaling.
And then finally, saturated fatsin certain cuts of meat might
impair insulin sensitivity insome contexts and in some
individuals.
This one is still very much likeuncertain.
I'll leave it at that.
(10:49):
These studies also suggest doseresponse trends.
So when we have a dose responserelationship, it's basically
saying in this instance that themore red meat or processed meat
that people report eating, thehigher their diabetes risk
appears.
In research lingo, dose responsepatterns strengthen the argument
(11:12):
for causality.
Even if the nature of theresearch itself, such as
observational studies which, youknow, all epidemiological
studies are observationalstudies, and these studies
cannot be.
Used to ascertain causalitybecause their very nature is
observational, right?
(11:33):
However, when we see doseresponse patterns in
observational research, itstrengthens the argument that
causality may be relevant.
And then we have the adjustmentof confounding variables.
These studies typically claim toadjust for confounding variables
(11:54):
or aspects that may coexistwithin the study participants
that could jack things up likesmoking a high BMI.
Physical activity, alcohol,other dietary factors like sugar
intake.
And the argument is that evenafter controlling for these
variables, the meat diabeteslink persists.
(12:19):
So even if you are a steakloving, ribeye worshiping
protein fanatic like myself, itis important to acknowledge
that.
This research that is beingheavily promoted in the
mainstream media and with, um,me hating influencers on social
(12:42):
media.
Isn't just something pulled outof a wellness influencer's ass.
It's based on decades of data.
It's been published in widelyrespected journals, and it's
been peer reviewed byintelligent researchers.
Well often promoted as thecontrary.
(13:02):
The existing research is notsuggesting that meat is evil.
It's actually suggesting thatthe patterns that are observed
in this research deserve acloser look.
And while I might not be buyinginto the whole sermon, I do
respect the rigor that it takesto build such an argument.
(13:24):
However, there's the part theyleave out.
These are the heretical notesthat they do not want you to
read.
Now in these big observationalstudies, people who eat more red
meat and processed meat tend tobe different.
(13:44):
In many other ways than peoplewho do not eat high intakes of
redder processed meats, they'remore likely to smoke.
They tend to be more sedentary.
They also tend to consume fewerfruits, vegetables, and have an
overall lower fiber diet.
Because they often eat moreultra processed, calorically
(14:08):
dense foods in general, and theymay also drink more sugary
beverages and alcohol.
In other words, high meat intakeis often part of an overall
western dietary pattern amongthe worst in the world, which is
heavy on processed food, lighton produce, and typically paired
(14:30):
with a more sedentary lifestyle.
And researchers know this, theydo try to adjust for these
differences statistically, buthere's the problem, adjusting.
Confounding variables is kind oflike trying to fix a crooked
foundation By patching thecracks in the drywall, you can
(14:52):
tidy it up, but the underlyingstructure is still unstable.
Even after adjusting for thingslike smoking, BMI and physical
activity, there are always,always, always unmeasured or
poorly measured confounders thatare kind of hiding in the
shadows.
For instance, how accurately didpeople actually report their
(15:19):
exercise habits and theiralcohol consumption?
Did researchers account forstress levels, sleep quality,
socioeconomic status in detail.
And what about nutrient synergy,like the benefits of more fiber
and polyphenols?
When meat is consumed alongsidea ton of veggies, was that taken
(15:42):
into consideration?
Unknowns like this can totallytilt the results.
Making meat more villainousappearing than it actually is.
It's also crucial to point outthat these studies often pool
all red meat together.
Processed deli ham, charredsausage on the grill,
home-cooked grass fed steak,it's all thrown into the same
(16:05):
bucket.
I mean, that said, higherquality studies like the data
from the nurses health study dotease these apart.
In the nurses health studycomparing the extreme ends of
processed meat intake groups,those who consumed the most
processed red meat had a 51%higher associated risk of
(16:30):
developing type two diabetes.
Unprocessed red meat showed aweaker link about a 40% higher
risk.
But here's where we gotta hitthe pause button, because these
percentages are relative risks.
What does that mean?
Let's say your absolute baserisk of diabetes is 10%, and I'm
(16:55):
basing that off of.
The fact that one in 10Americans, or 10% of the
American population hasdiabetes, so let's say you have
a 10% absolute risk of diabetes.
If you increase your relativerisk by 50%, your new absolute
(17:17):
risk is 15% because 50% of 10 isfive.
And 5% plus 10% is 15%.
Your actual risk is not 51%.
That's your relative risk andrelative risk sounds much, much
(17:42):
scarier than what it actuallyis.
The epic interact study thatEuropean study noted that each
50 gram increase in red meatthat's shy of two ounces was
linked to an eight to 12% higherrelative risk.
(18:02):
Again, it's relative risk, notabsolute risk.
So again, if our baseline,absolute risk of getting
diabetes is 10%.
We're looking at an absoluterisk increase from the each 50
grams of red meat to equate a0.8 to 1.2% total increase.
(18:25):
So.
Well, if you eat a 16 ouncesteak every goddamn day, your
absolute risk of developingdiabetes would jump from 10% to
17 to 21%, and that's because 16ounces is 450 grams, or nine
times that 50 gram increase.
(18:48):
Now, while that's significant,it isn't necessarily to be
equated with the risk of smokingto developing lung cancer,
right?
We can't say that.
But when it comes to howheadlines are shared, one would
think that eating a steak everyday is.
As likely to give you diabetesas smoking a pack of cigarettes
(19:11):
is likely to give you lungcancer, and that's simply not
the case.
A huge, huge, huge factor withthese long-term observational
studies is the food frequencyquestionnaire.
Food frequency questionnairesare the bane of a nutritionist's
(19:33):
existence.
They offer value in researchbecause they are a very
efficient and low cost way tocollect data.
But damn is it fraught withmassive inaccuracies.
The data in these bigobservational studies mostly
comes from questionnaires askingpeople to recall their typical
(19:57):
diet over the past year,sometimes even longer than a
year, and we're fucking terribleat this.
I mean, I can't even rememberwhat I ate two days ago, let
alone what I was eating thistime last year.
Plus we have a tendency to underreport the bad stuff.
(20:17):
Oh, you know, I have a baconcheeseburger like once or twice
a year and over.
Report the good stuff.
Oh, I always make sure to getvegetables every single day.
I see this tendency firsthandwhen observing a certain family
member, tell a medical providerabout what they eat versus what
(20:38):
I actually see them do inday-to-day life.
And you know, that's not uniqueto any individual.
We're all kind of prone to this.
It's just human nature.
So food frequency questionnairesalso presume that people can
adequately identify what aserving of food entails and then
(21:03):
estimate their own consumptionof that serving.
Even if you knew that a servingof vegetables was half a cup
could you accurately look at theamount of vegetables on your
plate and estimate how many halfcup servings was there?
Most of us can't do that, and ifthese base measurements are
(21:26):
flawed, there is simply noamount of statistical wizardry
that can fully rescue them.
Garbage in, garbage out.
It's as simple as that.
When you look at studiesconducted in metabolic wards or
very tightly controlled feedingtrials, which are admittedly
(21:46):
much, much shorter in durationdue to cost, we see that red
meat does not consistently wreckinsulin sensitivity or blow up
your fasting glucose.
In several cases.
What is.
Observed in tightly controlledclinical research or randomized
controlled trials isimprovements in weight, muscle
(22:10):
mass, and diet quality thatovershadow any individual food
effect.
And this is a really valuableconsideration.
While randomized controlledstudies are much shorter, and
that is an absolute limitation.
All of the confounding ofvariables that we discussed
earlier are largely eliminatedwhen the study is well
(22:33):
controlled.
Additionally, the amount of thevillain in question is
accurately recorded, weighed andmeasured before being given to
the participant to consume.
So to make up for the lack of ahuge cohort, a meta-analysis of
several smaller controlledfeeding trials can add power to
(22:58):
the counter hypothesis that meatdoes not increase diabetes
risks, and those meta-analyseshave been done.
So while observational studieslike the nurses health study may
suggest there are associationsbetween red meat consumption and
diabetes risks.
Randomized controlled trials donot support any causal link
(23:23):
between me intake and type twodiabetes risk.
The scary headlines that we arereading are built on association
and not proven cause and effectwhile the observational research
that leads to these headlines.
May provide a hypothesis that isworth testing.
(23:45):
It absolutely should not beintegrated into your Health
Commandments or give you anykind of bacon guilt.
Additionally, there is anunspoken topic.
That makes most researcherssquirm harder than a cat in a
bathtub, and that is funding andtrend chasing.
(24:11):
The blunt honest to God truth isthat research does not happen in
a vacuum.
It happens in a world wheregrant committees, public health
priorities and culturalnarratives decide what is going
to get funded, what will bepublished, and what will be
promoted.
(24:31):
And right now there is a majorcultural and institutional push
to reduce meat consumption, notjust for personal health, but
for planetary health.
The climate conversation hasbecome a powerful tailwind, or
maybe more accurately a kind ofhurricane pushing researchers,
policy makers and journalists tofocus on meat reduction, which,
(24:56):
in some cases leads to creatingresearch with an end in mind,
right?
Rather than asking the question,does meet impact diabetes ease?
The question that someresearchers will step into is to
what degree does meet.
Cause diabetes or does meetcause diabetes, right?
(25:20):
So there's almost like leadingwith the premise rather than
asking an open-ended questionand studying that and subtle,
almost imperceptible biases inthe original question can.
Lead to unconsciously omittingor overlooking important aspects
(25:45):
of research that might bediscovered when one is stepping
into the research with anopen-ended question.
And all of this sounds a littleconspiracy, theor theory ish, is
that even a word?
But it isn't.
It's simply how academicincentives work.
(26:07):
If you're a researcher whostudies a really hot topic that
is in alignment with publicconcerns such as climate change
and chronic disease, your paperand the university you work for
is more likely to get additionalfunding, more likely to get
published, and way more likelyto get picked up by media
(26:29):
outlets.
This is unequivocally a goodthing for you and your boss,
right?
And it's.
Near impossible to disregardthat when looking at the
research that you want toconduct.
It's also important to rememberthat scary headlines sell.
(26:51):
Meat will give you diabetes isprime clickbait real estate.
So this relationship that existsbetween funding research, media
hype, and the possibility offuture research dollars down the
road creates a self-reinforcingcycle.
(27:14):
A study finds a smallassociation.
The media amplifies that withfear-based headlines.
The public freaks out.
More funding flows to the samenarrative to further confirm or
refute that initial finding.
And we repeat this process adnauseum until everybody is
(27:36):
scared of stake.
So while the environmentalimpact of meat deserves deep,
serious discussion, if for noother reason than the science on
that is as shaky as a foodfrequency questionnaire, when we
conflate environmental ethicswith health science and the same
(27:57):
breath, it does muddy thewaters.
These are two very distinctconversations.
And that's your teaser.
I am gonna dive into the climateimpact of meat in its own future
episode, but for now, let's keepthe microscope focused on
diabetes risk only.
(28:17):
Okay, so I've had a little funpoking holes in the mainstream
narrative, and now I want tobuild a case against the idea
that meat is your Pancreas'spersonal grim Reaper.
First Meat is not just thisblock of saturated fat waiting
to clog your arteries and spikeyour blood sugar.
(28:38):
It is a nutrient-dense source ofhigh quality protein, and
protein is a fucking metabolicrockstar.
It increases satiety so you'renot rummaging through the snack
drawer 30 minutes after lunch.
It helps preserve and buildmuscle mass, which is one of the
(28:59):
most powerful protectors we haveagainst insulin resistance as we
age.
And protein also has a higherthermic effect, meaning your
body uses more energy to digestprotein as compared to say,
digesting carbs or fat.
I talk about this at length inseveral podcast episodes.
(29:21):
I'll put these links in the shownotes, but you'll wanna check
out episode 10, lose weight andlower blood sugar by asking
these two questions before eachmeal.
Episode 43 must have nutrientsto balance blood sugar and
episode 51, can you eat too muchprotein?
Check those out to get the fullscoop on how protein is a
(29:42):
metabolic powerhouse.
Muscle mass acts as metabolicarmor, because without it, we
lose muscle, especially as weage, due to the reduction of
hormones which encourage musclemass retention and sarcopenia.
Is a massive underappreciatedrisk factor for insulin
(30:04):
resistance and type twodiabetes.
Having a higher protein intake,does help maintain lean body
mass and support glucosedisposal or the storage of
glucose in that muscle.
Yes, muscle gives you shape, itgives you strength, and it adds
a sexy factor, but.
More importantly, it is acritical storage place for blood
(30:29):
glucose.
The more metabolically activemuscle that you have, the better
your body can handlecarbohydrate and keep insulin
sensitivity on point.
Muscle is absolutely key toaging like a badass.
Red meat provides severalimportant nutrients in greater
(30:50):
concentration and nutrient foundin plant foods such as vitamin
B12.
Vitamin B12 is essential for redblood cell formation,
neurological function, and DNAsynthesis.
B12 deficiency can lead toanemia.
Fatigue nerve issues as well ascognitive decline, all things
(31:13):
that we definitely do not wannadeal with at any stage of life.
And then there's heme iron.
This is the form of iron thatyour body absorbs most
efficiently, and it happens tobe the form found in animal
protein.
Unlike non-heme iron, which isfound in plants.
Heme iron does not depend on asmuch of your gut environment or
(31:37):
the presence of vitamin C inorder to be absorbed.
Having low iron levels can leadto anemia as well as impaired
oxygen transport resulting infatigue, weakness, and brain
fog.
And then we have zinc.
Zinc is critical for immunehealth, for wound healing, as
well as insulin storage andsecretion in the pancreas.
(32:01):
Zinc also plays a role in tasteand smell.
So yeah, it also helps you kindof savor that ribeye Zinc from
red meat is highly bioavailable,meaning your body will actually
absorb and use it moreefficiently.
The big lesson here is that wheneaten is part of a balanced diet
(32:23):
with plenty of fiber, richveggies and healthy fats, meat
can be a health supporter ratherthan a saboteur.
And the reality is we don't eatnutrients in isolation.
We eat meals, and meals are acomplex array of nutrients, and
(32:44):
those nutrients interact withone another.
Demonizing a single food whileignoring the dietary context
that that food is in is like.
Well, it's kind of like blamingone candle for burning down the
cathedral when the buildingitself was made out of untreated
wood and there were no smokedetectors.
(33:08):
A diet that includes unprocessedmeat, plenty of vegetables.
Highend fiber with minimallyprocessed foods has a
dramatically different metabolicimpact than a diet of hot dogs,
soda and squid game marathons.
What accompanies that meat onyour plate, how it is prepared
(33:31):
and how it is eaten.
All of these factors absolutelyimpact the health outcome of
that food.
I also wanna reiterate therelative versus absolute risk
that I talked about earlier.
Most of the scary numbers thatwe saw from the nurses' health
(33:51):
study.
And the European Epic interactstudy.
Our relative risk increases aneight to 12% relative increase,
which was what was cited in theEpic Interact study.
Sounds concerning on paper.
But again, if your baselineabsolute risk of diabetes is
(34:13):
10%, then that relative riskincrease translates to an
absolute risk of 10.8 to 11.2%.
It's not exactly the apocalypse.
Same goes for the NHS data.
A 40 to 51% higher relative riskamong those who consume the most
(34:39):
red meat or processed meat.
Sounds really damning.
Is it important?
Yeah, but it's no guarantee ofdisease and it is definitely not
evidence that meat alone is thecause.
It reflects an association.
(35:01):
It suggests that there is asignal and that we need to
investigate further with moreaccurate studies that are
designed to establish.
Probability of cause.
At the end of the day, red meatcan totally support your
metabolic health when it's partof a balanced, produce rich
(35:24):
diet, and an active lifestyle.
And that protein helps protectyour muscle mass.
It helps reduce cravings byregulating your appetite and it
can support insulin sensitivity.
When we demonize a single foodgroup, it distracts us from the
bigger picture, what our overalldietary patterns are, our
(35:48):
physical activity levels are,how our stress levels are, and
what our sleep looks like.
So look, if the arguments I'vemade have not convinced you, but
you ed me, there are smartevidence backed ways to minimize
these potential downsides whilekeeping all of the nutrient
(36:10):
winds that red meats provide.
When we look at processed meatsspecifically, these are believed
to be more problematic thanunprocessed meats because they
tend to be higher in sodiumnitrates, nitrites.
And sometimes sulfites.
These compounds are used inprocessed meats to preserve
(36:34):
color, to extend shelf life andto enhance flavor.
But they do carry some concerns.
Nitrites, and other nitrosocompounds are formed during high
heat cooking.
And they've been associated withinsulin resistance and higher
cancer risk in some studies.
(36:55):
Now, I have not looked in anykind of depth at this
association.
I'm just noting that theassociation does exist and it's
pretty prevalent in theobservational research.
Sulfites, which are common indeli meats may affect gut
health, and they're believed toincrease oxidative stress.
(37:18):
To what degree they do.
That is up for debate.
And then we have the high sodiumcontent of processed meats.
That is definitely of concernfor a lot of people because a
high sodium diet is linked tohigher blood pressure and
metabolic stress over time.
But I will add that bloodpressure balance is a
(37:40):
relationship between sodium.
Potassium and magnesium.
The latter tube being found inproduce.
So pairing your grilled steakwith some green veg is a very
solid strategy.
And then finally, we have thoseages, those advanced glycation
(38:00):
and products ages are formedwhen meats are cooked at really
high temperatures such asgrilling or frying or broiling.
Which honestly is my favoriteway to have a steak ages can
promote oxidative stress andinflammation in the body.
And these are two players in theinsulin resistance and type two
(38:24):
diabetes development camp.
So it's not something to poo pooand while the strength of the
existing evidence.
Is a little shaky.
If you have several significantrisk factors for diabetes, it's
completely reasonable to stillbe concerned.
So here is what you can do tominimize the potential risks
(38:46):
that have been observed in theresearch.
First, choose less processedmeats, opt for fresh,
unprocessed cuts instead of delislices or sausages.
Your steaks, your roasts, groundbeef, whatever you can get from
the butcher's counter, right?
And then you wanna choose lowerrisk cooking methods.
(39:08):
Avoid habitually charring orbroiling meat as that increases
those ages.
Instead, favor lower, slowercooking methods.
Use your slow cooker, make astove top stew, maybe braise
that meat or do a soy.
This reduces age formation and.
(39:30):
If you do grill, one of theeasiest and tastiest ways to cut
down on advanced glycation endproducts is to marinate your
meat before cooking.
Marinating, especially withacidic ingredients like lemon
juice, vinegar, yogurt, andusing herbs and spices and even
(39:51):
olive oil, can reduce ageformation.
Significantly, sometimes up to50% or more.
This is because the acid helpsbreak down proteins and prevents
charring of the meat, while theantioxidants in herbs and spices
and olive oil act as theselittle metabolic bodyguards to
(40:12):
protect you.
So remember the holy Trinity ofa delicious and protective
marinade, acid, fat and flavor.
If you marinate your red meatfor at least 30 minutes, you're
in good shape, but overnight iseven better from both a flavor
(40:33):
standpoint and an age reductionstandpoint.
And of course, you will want topair that red meat with plants.
Combine your meat with lots offiber, rich, colorful veggies,
because these also have thepolyphenols and antioxidants
that mitigate some of thehypothesized oxidative stress
(40:54):
from an iron rich meat heavymeal.
Think of vegetables as a fireextinguisher for oxidative
stress.
Whether that stress is comingfrom meat or the inflammation is
coming from other factors inyour life.
Vegetables are wonderful atdousing inflammation.
(41:14):
If you do choose to buy delimeats, Look for options with
minimally added nitrites,nitrates, and sulfites.
These options do exist, but theyare often more expensive and a
little bit harder to find.
And then finally, you'll wannamoderate your dose if you're
really concerned.
(41:35):
Remember no one food that makesor breaks your health bank
account the dose matters.
Having two pounds of bacon dailyis not the same as enjoying a
couple slices of a high qualityprosciutto on Sundays.
You may be wondering if thestory is so messy, why do these
(41:56):
studies keep getting publishedand paraded around like the holy
grail?
Big observational studies arekind of the darling children of
nutrition headlines.
They look really impressivebecause of the sheer amount of
people included in thosestudies.
They're often from prestigiousinstitutions And they're easy to
(42:18):
turn into a morality tale, whichseems to kind of be the
foundation for nutritionrecommendations in the western
industrialized world.
Studies like the Epic Interact,the NHS and the HPFS do follow
hundreds of thousands of peopleover decades, and that scale
(42:40):
makes them look rock solid,especially as they're dispersed
to the population via media.
I mean, if 300,000 peopleparticipated in this study and
there was association, it's hardnot to think of that as relevant
and true.
But even if it's true, anassociation is not causation.
(43:03):
Associations in observationalresearch are intended to be a
hypothesis generator, not somefinal verdict from the Supreme
Court of Health and Longevity.
Researchers themselves usuallyattest to this very fact in
their paper, in the conclusionsection, something that never
(43:27):
gets revealed in mainstreammedia.
And just as researchers needfunding to keep their jobs, our
news media needs our eyeballs tostay relevant and in business.
They know an emotion evokingheadline is gonna be seen and
spread.
We're all prey to that.
Media outlets also know mostpeople don't read past the
(43:49):
headline.
Much less dig into relativeversus absolute risk and what
that ultimately means.
And any way, they're not in thebusiness of science education.
They're kind of in the businessof getting your attention.
Because research funding oftenflows to topics that are
(44:10):
culturally trending andpolitically relevant.
If your study supports the meatis bad narrative, it's more
likely to get published in a bigname journal, more likely to get
media coverage and more likelyto help secure future grant
money for your team and theuniversity you work for.
(44:31):
It's simply the messy reality ofacademic incentives.
Scientists are people too.
They have to keep the lights on.
They have to fund their labs,and they have to publish to keep
their careers.
Nutrition headlines love tocrown new Saints and crucifying
new sinners practically everyweek.
(44:54):
One minute Broccoli's the nextMessiah.
And.
I may actually be guilty ofspreading that one.
And then the next week, bacon isthe antichrist.
But the reality is that meattotally can be part of a
resilient, badass agingstrategy, or it could be a
contributor to poor health ifit's part of your ultra
(45:16):
processed, sedentary sleepdeprived life.
But we can't let headlines orinfluencers dictate one's moral
standing via the dinner plate.
There is no single food that'sgoing to save you nor damn you
for that matter.
Health is built through dailyrituals.
(45:36):
The meals that you repeat, themovement you choose, the
boundaries you establish aroundstress and sleep, and the way
that you stack habits that aregoing to support the health that
you want.
Rather than another restrictivedoctrine, find a strategy that
(45:57):
honors your reality.
Rather than falling for thefear, seek out the evidence.
Remember context, notcommandments from on high.
I mean, eat the damn steak ifyou want to.
And if you have a high risk ofdiabetes and you are not
satisfied with the counterarguments I've provided,
(46:17):
marinate the steak, pair it withveggies, limit it to once or
twice a week, rather than havingit every day, which actually
gets super expensive anyway,support your body further by
moving it.Sleep well laughoften.
And live from Love.
Health is so much more than anysingle food that we eat or omit.
(46:44):
And in all honesty, it's so muchmore than whatever we put on our
plate.
I know you know that, but itbears repeating because I often
focus just on the food bit.
But even with this podcast, it'simportant not to lose the forest
for the trees.
No.
All right folks.
That's all I've got in me today.
(47:07):
I hope you enjoyed this episode.
If anyone came to mind while youwere listening, please share
this episode with them, and ifyou haven't yet subscribed,
doing so will ensure that allfuture episodes like that meat
and Climate change one, getdropped into your feed as soon
as they're published.
(47:28):
And until then, stay salty, staycurious, and I will see you next
time.
Any and all information sharedhere is for educational and
entertainment purposes only, andis not to be misconstrued as
offering medical advice.
Listening to this podcast doesnot constitute a provider client
relationship.
(47:48):
Note, I'm not a doctor nor anurse, and it is imperative that
you utilize your brain and yourmedical team to make the best
decisions for your own health.
The use of information on thispodcast or materials linked to
this podcast.
Are at the user's own risk.
No information nor resourcesprovided are intended to be a
substitute for professionalmedical advice, diagnosis, or
(48:11):
treatment.
Be a smart human and do notdisregard or postpone obtaining
medical advice for any medicalcondition you may have.
Seek the assistance of yourhealthcare team for any such
conditions and always do sobefore making any changes to
your medical, nutrition orhealth plan.
Popular Podcasts
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show. Clay Travis and Buck Sexton tackle the biggest stories in news, politics and current events with intelligence and humor. From the border crisis, to the madness of cancel culture and far-left missteps, Clay and Buck guide listeners through the latest headlines and hot topics with fun and entertaining conversations and opinions.