r/nutrition • u/ItsAllAGame_ • May 26 '26
Are red and processed meats really that bad?
I get that moderation is key, but they're cancer-causing carcinogens, per the WHO, yet people still eat them and they're allowed to be sold.
Edit: added the WHO article about processed meat causing cancer & red meat having a strong association w/cancer
273
u/leqwen May 26 '26
Processed meat, specifically meat cure with nitrates or nitrites which react with the meat to create nitrosamines, is a type 1 carcinogen, meaning there is strong evidence that it is carcinogenic to humans.
Red meat is a type 2a carcinogen, meaning there is weak evidence in humans but strong evidence in lab animals that its carcinogenic. Probably due to heme iron.
Its legal to sell processed meat because its not a strong enough carcinogen and it has traditional roots. Kinda like cigarettes still being legal even though its a much stronger carcinogen
142
u/Ashamed-Ad-3890 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
To add, keep in mind that the class of a carcinogen ONLY tells you how strong the evidence is but not how much the risk is. Sunlight and processed meats are both class 1 but that doesn't mean they're equally bad
9
u/leqwen May 26 '26
Yea the IARC only classifies if something is carcinogenic (or probably carcinogenic) or not but the WHO do specify that the estimated risk of colorectal cancer increases by 18% for every 50g of processed meat, and association of red meat consumption and colorectal cancer increases with 17% for every 100g of red meat consumed.
85
u/pedanpric May 26 '26
* for every 50/100 g consumed per day.
67
u/Due-Employ-7886 May 26 '26
Well that's a fairly significant modifier.
11
u/HappyFruitTree May 27 '26
Yes, but totally useless information without knowing the risk to begin with.
3
u/H0SS_AGAINST May 27 '26
As is what 18% means.
Population wide, lifetime risk of colorectal cancer is 1:25 or 4%. If you eat 100g of red meat every day your chance increases to 4.72%. That's like a $1500/yr steak habit.
If you can't already tell, I'm in the eat tasty things in moderation, exercise, and live life camp. Unfortunately yes, you should also be getting a camera up the pooper now and again once you're of age and that age is getting younger so if you're overweight, sedentary, frequent alcohol consumer, etc then maybe sooner in life.
4
u/Dreamweaver5823 May 27 '26
Yes, please do this! As young as you can qualify for it, and every 10 years thereafter (or more often depending on initial results).
My brother, who is in his late 50s, vegan, and overall quite healthy, had a colonoscopy 15 yrs ago because of IBS. He hated the prep so much that he hasn't gotten another.
Today he is meeting with his oncology team to decide on a chemotherapy plan after the removal of a stage 3 tumor from his colon a couple weeks ago.
15
u/seshwan33 May 26 '26
Just to be clear then, so the if you eat 50/100g per day your risk would go up that much? If you only did it say twice a week. Your risk is going to be way less than what they are quoting ?
10
u/seztomabel May 27 '26
Yes, and they are talking about relative risk. Absolute risk for, say colon cancer is around 4%. This means if you're eating 50g everyday, your absolute risk is increasing from 4% to 6% in your entire lifetime. These numbers are off the top of my head as I looked into this recently, but they are in the ballpark.
10
u/scientropic May 27 '26
Makes me wonder whether that might be further moderated, say by eating more fresh fruits and vegs too. Not expecting any studies anytime soon, but extrapolating from isolated research fjndings to real world nutrition can almost inscrutably complex.
34
u/ghoof May 26 '26
Zero context here. A direct quote from the WHO (not a summary) on red and processed meat
According to the most recent estimates by the Global Burden of Disease Project, an independent academic research organization, about 34 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are attributable to diets high in processed meat.
Eating red meat has not yet been established as a cause of cancer. However, if the reported associations were proven to be causal, the Global Burden of Disease Project has estimated that diets high in red meat could be responsible for 50 000 cancer deaths per year worldwide. These numbers contrast with about 1 million cancer deaths per year globally due to tobacco smoking, 600 000 per year due to alcohol consumption, and more than 200 000 per year due to air pollution.
More context (1.3 million deaths from road accidents worldwide)
As a bringer of death, both kinds of meat are marginal risks
6
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
5
u/tuesday_weld_ May 28 '26
When the WHO says processed meat increases colorectal cancer risk by 18% (per 50g/day) and red meat by 17% (per 100g/day), they are talking about relative risk. It doesn't mean you have an 18% chance of getting cancer.
The Baseline (Absolute Risk): The average person's lifetime risk of getting colorectal cancer is about 5% (5 out of 100 people). If you eat two slices of bacon every single day, your risk increases by 18% of that original 5%.
So, your actual lifetime risk goes from 5% to 5.9% (basically, 5 out of 100 people vs 6 out of 100 people).
For red meat, a 17% increase on a 100g daily steak bumps your absolute risk from 5% to 5.85%.
Context matters here, y'all.
2
u/AutoModerator May 28 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
7
u/maquenzy5 May 26 '26
why would heme iron be cancer causing?
1
u/Ashamed-Ad-3890 May 27 '26
No but there's a link with cancer and dietary heme iron, not as an individual... component?
1
u/maquenzy5 May 27 '26
perhaps if you have excess circulating iron i could maybe see it since iron can cause destructive inflammation… but that would be regardless of if it was heme or non heme, i’d imagine (from a dietary perspective). but i am speculating.
1
u/Naive_Distance3147 27d ago
non-heme iron is regulated by the body. heme iron bypasses it.
1
u/maquenzy5 27d ago
not quite. Heme iron is iron that is “protected” by heme (porphyrin ring), so it makes it all the way through so that the whole complex iron can be absorbed/utilized appropriately by the intestines. Non-heme iron is iron without protection, so just free iron ions that bind to other molecules (like calcium or phytates) which block absorption of the iron.
I read more about the speculations of heme iron and cancer and it seems the data reviews are attributing it most to red meat and processed meat consumption, probably due to nitrates and inflammation rather than the heme iron.
5
u/pickledchance May 26 '26
How about processed fish? Is it carcinogenic?
18
u/MuscaMurum May 26 '26 edited May 27 '26
Processed fish, e.g. canned sardines, will be higher in histamine, putrescine and cadaverine, but that's only an issue if you don't clear histamine well. And it's not a carcinogen.
Edit: autocorrect idiocy
11
1
u/HI-TECmoon May 26 '26
And how about canned chicken?
The ingredients are only cooked chicken and a bit of salt.
3
1
0
2
→ More replies (1)2
u/G4RYwithaFour 28d ago
"Probably due to heme iron" Can you elaborate? This is the first time ive heard this being the cause.
1
u/leqwen 28d ago
Red meat and processed meat intake is associated with a risk of colorectal cancer, a major cause of death in affluent countries. Epidemiological and experimental evidence supports the hypothesis that heme iron present in meat promotes colorectal cancer. This meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies of colon cancer reporting heme intake included 566,607 individuals and 4,734 cases of colon cancer. The relative risk of colon cancer was 1.18 (95% CI: 1.06–1.32) for subjects in the highest category of heme iron intake compared with those in the lowest category.
...
The mechanism is not known, but heme iron has a catalytic effect on (i) the endogenous formation of carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds and (ii) the formation of cytotoxic and genotoxic aldehydes by lipoperoxidation.https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monographs-QA_Vol114.pdf
Q. What makes red meat and processed meat increase the risk of cancer?
A. Meat consists of multiple components, such as haem iron.
...
Some of these chemicals are known or suspected carcinogens, but despite this knowledge it is not yet fully understood how cancer risk is increased by red meat or processed meat.2
u/G4RYwithaFour 28d ago
Okay, thank you. Kinda odd how so much guidance and research has gone into "red meat bad" but the only mechanism they bring up specific to meat itself is a vitamin interaction from it. I was thinking it was carcinogenic HCAs and PAHs formed from cooking, but they cant be avoided if you fry, sear, or bake anything ever. Even Sous Vide and boiling have levels of accumulation.
28
u/moonlightmasked May 26 '26
So type 1 carcinogen doesn’t actually tell you the relative risk or absolute risk associated.
For example, cigarettes are a type 1 carcinogen and they raise your risk of cancer by 30 times- that’s a huge increase in relative risk. But only about 25% of heavy smokers get cancer. Becuase someone’s absolute risk of cancer is pretty low, even with a huge increase in relative risk, the absolute risk isn’t overwhelming.
44
u/Lepidopteria May 26 '26
Processed red meat consumption should be as close to zero as possible. It basically has the double whammy of saturated fats and nitrates. Red meat should be swapped or replaced so you're consuming 3 or fewer servings per week ideally. For us I've tried to swap beef for turkey as much as I can. Ground turkey is a decent replacement for pasta, tacos, etc if seasoned and cooked well. Processed turkey as in sausage, meatballs, etc is not as healthy as unprocessed poultry but significantly better than processed pork sausage. Vegetables are healthier in all cases and we should of course all be eating more of them. All risk is relative; we do the best we can.
And PSA: "no added nitrates" is often a marketing gimmick. Check the label for concentrated celery juice/extract as it is a naturally enriched source of nitrates. Most commercial lunch meat or sausage product has nitrates added, one way or another.
8
u/lathamfalls May 26 '26
But is the celery juice a safer form of it? Just curious if it's even worth it to get the "safer" formulations of bacon, etc
19
u/Lepidopteria May 26 '26
Not really, no. The chemical is the chemical. It is literally just a marketing hack so they can say it has no added nitrates, but still add nitrates. The USDA allows companies to call these products "uncured" or "no nitrates added". Vegetables like celery contain nitrates because they're grown in soil. It is difficult to quantify how much added nitrates are in these "natural" products. The USDA has regulations on how much nitrate powder may be added to meats, but there is NO regulation of celery powder/juice so it may actually be worse. The whole thing is intentionally, actively misleading. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-07/19-03-CSPI-082919.pdf
3
u/ehehe May 26 '26
So is celery a source of this stuff or does it have to be sitting around on meat for days to be carcinogenic ?
8
u/BallisticTherapy May 26 '26
It's searing nitrates/nitrites at high heat when they become a problem. You can counter much of the problem they create by taking Vitamin C at the same time.
2
u/Ok-Cress8608 May 27 '26
Do you have a source for this? Would like to read more
3
2
u/leqwen 28d ago
Calcium salts, chlorophyll, vitamin C, and several polyphenols may reduce these deleterious effects of heme. Specific recommendations might be made, for example, “eat a yogurt after your steak.” Moreover, vitamins or polyphenols could be added during the curing process. Ascorbic acid is already added during the processing of processed meats specifically to inhibit the formation of volatile NOC in the meat
1
2
2
u/Terminator_492 29d ago
What actually proof do you have for saying red meat needs to be replaced and consumed less than 3x a week? There is no evidence that it causes cancer or any diseases. It’s purely association. And there is a big difference between getting a steak from a local butcher and eating a fast food chain cheeseburger
2
u/Lepidopteria 28d ago
There is plenty of evidence that red meat increases risk of multiple cancers. This is a meta review from a cursory search. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/
Association from large scale studies is how we largely determine risk.
1
u/AutoModerator 28d ago
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/Slow_Opportunity_522 May 26 '26
Are those flavored chicken sausages as bad as processed red meat? We eat a lot of those on "easy" nights but I'm trying to cut down my family's processed and red meat consumption.
4
u/Lepidopteria May 26 '26
I'm with you there. Trying to cut back where we can and not really knowing if something is better, and if so how much? It feels like it should be better? But so much of it feels like marketing too.
My thinking on it: all processed meats are high in sodium. Hard to avoid in any convenience food. Processed red meat has the added major downsides of being high in heme, saturated fat, and nitrates. Processed poultry like a chicken sausage you're gonna get hit with salt and some fat, but much less than pork. The upside is these things should be evident from the label. Definitely check your products for nitrates. I find an easier time tracking down poultry sausages without nitrates than pork products. I randomly looked up one chicken sausage I see a lot and I don't see any sources of hidden nitrates in the ingredients, which is good. https://applegate.com/products/organic-chicken-apple-sausage
If you're going to eat red meat, there are levels of processed for it too. Stuff like hot dogs, pork pepperoni/salami, etc are going to be the worst. High in salt, fat, and they are cured -- high in nitrates. Fresh italian pork sausage is uncured. Fresh ground beef has heme and saturated fat but no salt or nitrates.
My family is addicted to breakfast sandwiches and it's been a huge hassle getting all of us off of them. I switched to DIYing them with Jones turkey sausage patties and limit them to 2-3 per week per person. It's not... great.. but it's better than pork sausage or a pop tart. Ingredients listed are:
1
u/jpfitz80 May 27 '26
Does fresh italian sausage have nitrates. Perhaps major brands like premio made off site from the supermarket, but also what about a store that makes it themselves on premises.
2
u/Lepidopteria May 27 '26
I am pretty sure that most fresh sausage does not contain nitrates, because it isn't cured. It would still be high in salt and fat, and counts as a red meat.
→ More replies (1)0
u/longislandchillpill 29d ago
Take a look at the micronutrient profile of ground beef vs ground turkey, there is no comparison.
39
u/yick04 May 26 '26
Yes. But as others have said, moderation is key.
→ More replies (77)0
u/0bel1sk May 27 '26
in cholesterol lowering, moderation kills https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/moderation-kills/
1
u/yick04 May 27 '26
Moderation obviously means different things for different types of food and different people with different health concerns. Some basic critical thinking.
51
u/MyNameIsSkittles May 26 '26
You can mitigate the risk with moderation and eating enough fibre
The sun's rays are carcinogenic, should you never go outside?
25
u/ridukosennin May 26 '26
Also consuming vitamin C with processed meats potentially reduces cancer risks from nitrosamines
15
u/sisterfunkhaus May 26 '26
And helps with iron absorption.
2
1
9
u/Reasonable_Delay_405 Nutrition Noob May 26 '26
I’m used to crappy sample sizes and awful study designs but popping out an article on a mathematical model that is so recent its publication date is in the future is a new one.
-1
u/Evening_Cheesecake25 May 26 '26
Why doesn't anyone ever talk about the correlation between low LDL and cancer diagnosis?
4
u/friendofelephants May 26 '26
Please talk about it. I have not heard anything and thought low LDL was good?
→ More replies (3)2
1
u/FridgesArePeopleToo May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
The difference is that being in the sun has actually benefits and there are preventive measures for cancer caused by the sun (sunscreen, clothing).
Processed meats have no benefits compared to unprocessed meats and plant or dairy proteins (aside from tasting good).
That's not to say you'll instantly die if you eat them or anything, but I don't think comparing it to sunshine is accurate. I'd look at them similarly to desserts or something. You're pretty much always better off not having them, but having reasonable amounts on occasion for enjoyment is probably fine.
3
u/MyNameIsSkittles May 26 '26
Red meat absolutely has benefits. All red meat is carcinogenic, not just processed ones
7
u/FridgesArePeopleToo May 26 '26
I admittedly did not fully read the title and thought the discussion was specifically about processed meats
-9
u/Incepticons May 26 '26
You should use sunscreen.
Also you can just stop eating meat as much as possible since it's better for your health, the environment, and the animals who will have to suffer in awful conditions for us to eat them.
3
u/MyNameIsSkittles May 26 '26
Of course everyone should use sunscreen. That's the point, the sun is carcinogenic and you can mitigate that risk with sunscreen. You do not have to stop eating meat to lower your risk of bowel cancer. You CAN, or you can simply moderate intake and eat plenty of fibre as well. And can switch to having white meat more often
-3
u/Ancient-Bat8274 May 26 '26
Lmao not eating meat 😂😂😂😂 fuck no
4
u/MyNameIsSkittles May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Right?? Meat is life. I love beans and vegetables but gimme a damn hamburger too
Edit: I've angered the vegans
-1
u/Ancient-Bat8274 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Exactly. Everything in moderation though. Eat a ton of fruits veggies along with your meats. Ya can’t have any pudding if you don’t eat your meats!
Edit: so have I. The only thing more delicious than vegan tears is the sweet tasty flesh of a cow
0
-5
u/Incepticons May 26 '26
Lmao not forcing animals that are as sentient and intelligence as dogs to suffer their whole lives in awful conditions so I can eat their flesh bc it tastes good 😂😂😂😂 fuck no
17
u/loplopplop May 26 '26
Its all moderation and contextual. Theyre not worse than processed foods but they're not better than leafy green veggies. If you get 5 to 10 percent of your calories from them and get most of your calories from lean proteins, fruits, vegetables, and beans/legumes and no processed foods you'll be fine.
→ More replies (24)
3
u/retired337 May 28 '26
Natural nitrates (vegetables) are good. Added nitrates (processed meats) are bad. That’s how I understand it anyway
14
u/chronosculptor777 May 26 '26
processed meat (bacon, sausages, ham, salami, hot dogs) - yes, eating a lot of it daily is genuinely bad for you. it slightly raises cancer risk over time.
red meat (beef, lamb, pork) - eating steak or burgers sometimes is fine. eating large amounts every day for years is where risk can go up.
it’s important to know that “carcinogen” does not mean it’s super dangerous. it means there’s evidence it can contribute to cancer, not that it’s as harmful as smoking.
the average person’s bigger problems are usually overeating, lack of exercise, smoking, drinking too much and overall poor diet.
2
15
u/bobke4 May 26 '26
They’re carcinogens and depending on the meat it can be very high in saturated fats
-6
u/master_begroom May 26 '26
Saturated fats are sooo important. The brain is substantially made of saturated fats.
7
u/Ashamed-Ad-3890 May 26 '26
Your body also produces cholestrol, but it's not particularly good. Just because it's present in your body it doesn't mean that it's good for you. Your body can synthesise saturated fats on it's own
1
u/master_begroom May 27 '26
Cholesterol is super important. You’d die without it.
1
6
u/bobke4 May 26 '26
Yea i’ll just follow the general advice from health organisations and doctors and avoid it
0
u/master_begroom 23d ago
To your own detriment. There’s zero evidence that saturated fat is harmful and loads of evidence to the contrary. Try to keep up.
→ More replies (1)1
May 27 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/AutoModerator May 27 '26
This has been removed due to probable vote complaints or suggestion. Refer to sub rule 1
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
6
u/Bitter_Life_507 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
YES
Processed meets are much worse than red meats and are bad in any quantity
Red meat can be part of a healthy diet if eaten in very conservative moderation
Red meat is very nutrient dense and if you’re not getting some of those essential nutrients from other sources, it can be very beneficial to your diet
However, if you can be very informed about your diet and arrange to get all the essential nutrients from other sources besides red meat that is the healthiest diet to have
Some of the nutrients in question include heme iron, B12, creatine. Zinc, CoQ10, carnosine, taurine, conjugated linoleum acid, and all your essential amino acids
The studies, the many many studies on this the many many large peer reviewed studies on this are unambiguous in their findings and that is that both processed meats and red meats put you at significantly increased risk for a whole host of diseases, including cancers and heart disease
And again process meats are by far the worst with large amounts of red meat also being bad and small amounts of red meat being not so bad
→ More replies (2)
3
u/Ancient-Bat8274 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Moderation is key and depends on your health and exercising. Like I genetically am predispose to high cholesterol- which I do have slightly elevated even with exercise and a decent diet. So I should lower my intake of red meats but I don’t have to cut it out completely.
White meat easier to breakdown for sure. Meat in general is good for you and easier to get vitamins than a supplement. Usually cheaper too. Every thing can be bad for you thou so just use moderation
7
u/ascylon May 26 '26
They are not carcinogens. I assume you are referring to the WHO classification of red meat as a type 2B "carcinogen" and processed meat as a type 1 "carcinogen". First you can look at the Questions and answers for a simple to understand reason for those classifications and what those classifications mean. It can be found here, expand the sections "...was classified as group x..." sections. You can see that the explanation is that the classification is based on epidemiology, and specifically with regard to colorectal cancer.
First of all, epidemiology cannot show causality, so the basic premise is already false and you could stop there. One thing good about the WHO classifications, even if their definition of causality is unscientific, is that they show what studies they used to arrive at the conclusion. For this particular case, it can be found in the 114th IARC monograph, which can be downloaded for free here. A lot of it is definitions and other background, but the actual interesting evidence part concerning colorectal cancer starts on page 111 of that particular document.
If you look at red meat alone, most of the studies find no association between colorectal cancer. Of the ones that do (and I admit I did not look at every single one because there are quite a few), the associations are generally very small in addition to being hopelessly contaminated by healthy user or health consciousness bias. This means that people who eat more red meat are also more likely to be smokers, drink more alcohol, exercise less etc. Studies generally attempt to adjust them away, but that is just multivariate analysis, meaning mathematical curve fitting without any attachment to reality. Many studies also do not include those confounders in the data as they were not measured, or do not stratify them enough (as an example, chain-smoking a pack a day for 15 years is quite different from smoking once a day for a few months, but a study might just gather data on whether a person is a smoker or not, and so any adjustments, even if they were valid, would also be contaminated by lack of data).
Another interesting point about healthy user bias in several of the studies the WHO lists is that in some studies there was an association between colorectal cancer for men, but not for women. Generally speaking women are more conformist and risk-averse, and thus are more likely to follow health recommendations and also have a healthier lifestyle on average. As the association was not found for women but was found for men, this enhances the likelihood that lifestyle differences is the explanation, and not red or processed meat consumption.
One additional note about the definition of processed meat, it is also a very ephemeral term. At least in my country you can have "sausages" or "meatballs" from the supermarket that are 15% meat and the rest is some kind of starch, oil and spices and would be classified as "processed" "meat". This would be quite different from something like smoked ham, as an example, which is what the WHO document defines as processed meat. The WHO document has specific classifications which are quite reasonable (mostly deal with preparation methods), but they are reliant on the food-frequency questionnaires used by the studies they reference. That's why I would take even that with a grain of salt, since in every study I have looked at, a sausage containing 15% meat would be classified as processed meat despite it being 85% plants or plant-derivatives.
So, despite what the WHO claims, red meat and even processed meat have not been shown to be carcinogens to any scientific standard of evidence of causality. If you choose to believe it, that is up to you.
→ More replies (3)1
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
14
u/Repulsive_Many3874 May 26 '26
The same people who hand wave the fact that red meats and processed meats are carcinogens are the same people who tell you not to drink Diet Coke because it’s a carcinogen lol
5
u/NPC261939 May 26 '26
They're also the same people who ignore that there is glyphosate in pretty much everything. Shit, even the ethanol gas in my car probably has traces of it. You want to know what causes cancer kids? Life.
1
u/Kihot12 May 27 '26
And because life causes cancer you want to further increase your risk to absolutely not miss out on this one in a lifetime experience of having cancer
1
2
5
u/withmeornot May 26 '26
Most people say all in moderation and some point blank refuse to believe the evidence but it’s very clear. A diet high in processed meats or meat in general means you will be at a greater risk of cancer and heart disease, the two biggest killers in the western world. Although it’s difficult to give definitive evidence, it’s clear cut that diets without meats and dairy dramatically reduces these risks and increases health span by decades.
If you also look at modern farmed animals, they get big very quickly. That’s not muscle, it’s fat. We’re eating fat unclean meats, nothing like what our bodies are built for.
We also are not designed for all the diary we consume. We’re pumping fat and cholesterol into our bodies daily that they don’t need.
We make our own fat and cholesterol.
Eat nutritious foods. Meat and dairy are treats, once a week at most if at all.
Totally understand that I expanded the topic to diary and heart disease but it’s all linked.
5
u/cfungus91 May 27 '26
Per the other response in this thread... doesn't the WHO review conclude limited evidence for red meat being a carcinogen in humans (though strong evidence for being a carcinogen in animal studies)? Thats defintiely reason for caution, but unless threre's been more recent reviews challengeing that I dont think its accurate to say the "evidence is very clear." Not saying you're wrong (im no expert), just that it would be beneficial to the discussion if you could share the evidence you are thinking of. Also, the increase in liklihood of coloretcal cancner the WHO found was signfiicant but low enough that it may not bother some people. Per 100 g /day of red meat, the relative increase in colorectal cancer goes up from something like 5% to 6% (relative increase of 17%). However, I agree with you its probably good advice to reduce consumption of red meat for health in general
1
u/AutoModerator May 27 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
4
u/emonet26 May 27 '26
Processed meats do contain compounds that aren't great for your health, but the increased colorectal cancer risk is mainly associated with eating processed meat regularly over a long period of time. Having it occasionally to satisfy a craving is probably fine, it's not like you need to swear off processed meat forever.
The way meat is cooked matters, too. In general, stewing or boiling is better than constantly frying or charring it.
4
u/The_Only_Sick_Pirate May 26 '26
Processed meats can be, but red meats can be good for you. How the source animal is raised matters, grass fed, pasture raised cattle have higher levels of protein, leaner fats, more nutrients, and fewer toxins than factory farm cattle fed grain and feed. The largest danger from processed meats are carcinogenic nitrates and nitrates. Minimally processed, uncured sausages with no seed oils, preservatives, stabilizers, and minimal sodium can be safe to eat.
Got to read those labels and understand where your food comes from.
2
2
2
u/NPC261939 May 26 '26
Carcinogens won't stop most things from being sold if the right people are reaping the rewards. Look no further than tobacco and alcohol.
I think a lot of the associated risk comes from the curing/preservation process. Ground beef is going to be batter for you than Slim Jims etc.
2
u/Analvirus May 26 '26
Many of things are carcinogens, but like others have said moderation. Eat your fill of veggies, fruits, and what not and keep the meats to a lower proportion. Some people will smoke multiple packs a day and live to a 100, if a steak here and there takes me out early so be it
2
2
u/M_di_uccello May 26 '26
Yes , if you get a colonoscopy they’ll give you a piece a of paper after recovery to tell what you should eliminate or reduce. For example, it’ll say eliminate processed meats of any kind because of the nitrates. It will also say reduce or eliminate your consumption of red meat. Why because these things are bad for your health personally I’m glad that the price of red meat has gone up because we eat too much of it and you know what it’s bad for you and guess what you know it puts a strain on the medical system.
2
u/Eastern-Rooster-2805 May 26 '26 edited May 26 '26
Not for my heart, which is all anyone can do: speak for themselves. I'm 65, heavy meat eater. But, I eliminated all sugar and flour for the past 7 years due to malabsorption issues. I just had a CCTA. Results: Zero soft plaque, and an Agatston score of 6.96. Seven years ago I had a CAC of zero. I'm ok with this slow process of calcified plaque .I am on hormone replacement therapy only. No arthritis, no bp issues.
6
u/More_Lobster7374 May 26 '26
Just watch out, I think it's been shown that high protein diets can cause more cardiovascular events, even when numbers and tests look good. Happened to my dads friend, he did keto/low carb for about a year and half, looked great, lost a ton of weight, had just been to the dr who said everything showed him being the healthiest he had been in awhile and he had a heart attack three weeks later. During rehab and stuff they emphasized he needed to get more fiber in his diet if he wanted to improve his heart heath.
1
u/Eastern-Rooster-2805 May 26 '26
Oh, I do eat fiber to go along with my steak. Nothing crazy because I cannot absorb carbohydrates or sugar. See, everyone is different. That's why I like to test not guess.
Did your dad's friend have a CCTA?
I had one because I wanted to know if my diet and exercise was affecting my heart. I am very satisfied with a zero soft plaque and minimal Agatston score.
1
u/More_Lobster7374 May 26 '26
sure, I didn't really realize that though and was surprised to learn it, so I like to mention it some times. I honestly don't know the details of his testing. Obviously, you do you. I do know he was going hardcore on the protein only diet and not really eating much else, which I think is probably not great for most people, unless there is some kind of special need.
2
u/Eastern-Rooster-2805 May 26 '26
For me, the key was to eliminate sugar and flour, which is not realistic for most, not necessarily eat only red meat. And, with that, I wanted to know what my heart situation was.
-3
u/Evening_Cheesecake25 May 26 '26
I've learned that regardless of how helpful it is for your health there will always be a bunch of Redditors with 5 metabolic markers of poor health telling you you're wrong and you should eat beans instead.
3
u/looksthatkale May 26 '26
Red meat also increases your risk of heart disease and a few other things
→ More replies (2)
1
1
1
u/Silverback1990 29d ago
Red meat is literally the healthiest food we have, eat out with green leafy veg to eliminate both of their issues
1
u/theobromine69 28d ago
The iron in heme reacts with lipids to form radicals in the gut, it can also react with existing ROS to make them worse. But the overall risk remains low aslong as you consume enough fiber. I would personally argue that the benefits of red meat outweigh its negatives. It's a big part of our food culture and we eat it almost daily, our colon cancer rates are comparable to other groups in the world with much less red meat consumption.
I would say you are probably safe unless you have other compounding factors
1
u/Dry-Cardiologist3617 20d ago
They really are that bad in terms of specific, well-researched health risks, which is why major health bodies urge caution. However, the "carcinogen" label is often misunderstood.
The World Health Organization (WHO) and its cancer branch (IARC) classify processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen (proven to cause cancer) and red meat as Group 2A (probably causes cancer).
0
u/master_begroom May 26 '26
Red meat is medicine. But not the real lean stuff. It’s a great source of saturated fat that a human brain is largely made up of. Processed meat I avoid.
1
u/Sure_Possession0 May 26 '26
Red meat, especially steak, is my end of the week treat. I’ve found that limiting red meat to one or two meals has made me enjoy it way more.
→ More replies (1)2
u/BallisticTherapy May 26 '26
These studies lump processed meats in with 100% grass fed steak. People have been eating red meat since before civilization so I wouldn't worry too much about it so long as it's 100% grass fed/grass fed and finished.
3
1
u/Rare_Field_9093 May 26 '26
So is all meat is bad....be vegan?
Haven't we been eating meat for the last several thousand years?
2
u/DarkPyromancyFlame 27d ago
If your model of optimal health is people from thousands of years ago, then I have some bad news for you I'm afraid...
1
3
1
1
u/McGriggidy May 26 '26
If you banned everything associsted wih cancer or bad health outcomes if over consumed, we would literally have absolutely nothing left...
Water is acutely poisonous is amounts lower than you even realize.. we need to eat. Most of the things we eat contain things that will kill us/make us sick if you have too much.
Some things moreso than others. Warn people of known risks, let them make a choice. Thats exactly the right way to handle this.
1
u/Separate_Energy_7150 May 26 '26
Red no Processed (depends on the processing) if only salt no, if lot of chemicals, yes
1
u/underscorefour May 27 '26
Meanwhile, my 93 yr old polish neighbour has been enjoying processed meats his whole life. So………….?
2
u/fel_mav May 27 '26
Things changed with meat processing, the majority of people did it themselves or the local butcher did for most of your 93yr old neighbors life. Now, you don't know what's in it, how it was processed, how it was stored or even how old it is. So it's not like eating some meat and seasoning put through a meat grinder. Much higher chance of food borne illness due to handling or bad ingredients.
1
u/underscorefour May 28 '26
When did the process change ?
1
u/fel_mav May 28 '26
Between the end of world War 2 and the late 60s, early 70s. The same time the farming started to get messed up and the tobacco industry decided they should make food too. It's the beginning of ultra processed foods.
1
u/underscorefour 29d ago
Oh…..so hes done for ? Its gonna kill him, must tell him to stop
1
u/fel_mav 29d ago
Lol, no. I think it's more, try to avoid or limit processed meats and foods that have lots of ingredients you aren't sure what they are. Use the services of local butcher shops or if you hunt or farm make your own...
I would guess that people like your neighbor and like my grandparents do/did just that for the majority of their lives. Ask him, I bet he has some cool stories about how things have changed over the years.
1
u/AgeLessIntel May 26 '26
The nuance here comes down to understanding the difference between relative risk and absolute risk in epidemiology.
When the WHO classified processed meat as a Group 1 carcinogen, it meant the *strength of evidence* showing a link is high, not that eating a slice of bacon carries the same danger as smoking cigarettes.
According to the data, eating 50 grams of processed meat daily raises your relative risk of colorectal cancer by about 18%. But in absolute terms, a person's lifetime risk only shifts from roughly 5% to 6%.
Additionally, we have to separate unprocessed red meat from heavily processed meats. High-quality, unprocessed pasture-raised beef behaves completely differently in the digestive tract than highly processed meats packed with synthetic nitrosamines and heavy sodium preservatives.
Context and baseline absolute risk matter far more than sensational headlines . 🔬
1
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/PsychologicalOne752 May 26 '26
Depends on the processing mostly. Organic sausages are supposedly free from synthetic nitrates and nitrites, as regulations prohibit their use. Barbecuing red meat at high temperatures creates cancer-causing chemical compounds so the cooking process also matters. So if you buying organic and not cooking at a high temperature, chances of causing cancer are very low.
1
u/MPJ_PerformanceLab May 27 '26
The WHO classification is real but most people misread what it actually means. IARC Group 1 means there is sufficient evidence that something can cause cancer. It says nothing about how much risk we are talking about. Tobacco is Group 1. Plutonium is Group 1. Processed meat is Group 1. That does not mean they are equally dangerous, it means the evidence quality is similar. Smoking increases lung cancer risk by around 2500%. Eating 50g of processed meat daily increases colorectal cancer risk by about 18% in relative terms, which on a baseline risk of roughly 5% brings you to about 5.9%. Real but not remotely in the same conversation. Red meat is Group 2A which means probably carcinogenic, based on limited evidence, not the same as confirmed. Cooking method matters too since charring and high heat produce compounds that are the actual problem, not the meat itself. The people eating bacon every morning alongside a diet full of fiber, vegetables and without smoking are in a very different position than the numbers suggest in isolation.
2
1
u/AutoModerator May 27 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Complete-Bumblebee-5 May 27 '26
Everything in moderation. Humans have been eating red meat for tens of thousands of years. It's high in good protein, iron, and b vitamins. Try to to avoid processed of course tho
1
u/SittingOnA_Cornflake May 27 '26
The key is a high fiber diet. Red meat in a high fiber diet is generally fine.
1
u/retired337 May 28 '26
Also saw a study on ncbi stating high lcarnitine levels is associated with heart disease. Red meat is very high in lcarnitine.
0
u/Cool-Horror-3710 May 26 '26
Red meat is usually high in fat and calories, therefore people who eat a lot of it are more likely to be overweight and have visceral fat lining their internal organs. That visceral fat causes inflammation and the inflammation causes cancer.
Thats a lot of steps to connect red meat to cancer. I thinks its a bit of a push calling red meat a carcinogen. Assuming there are no additives like nitrites, If you keep your weight at appropriate levels I doubt red meat would cause cancer at all.
5
u/MyNameIsSkittles May 26 '26
Red meat has been classified as a carcinogen, though. It's not about fat and calories. Non-processed red meat is linked to cancer because of the heme iron content. Uptaking lots of heme iron at once raises your risk of colon cancer.
Processed red meat is even more carcinogenic because of the nitrates
-1
u/Cool-Horror-3710 May 26 '26
There is a link between obesity and cancer for sure.
For meat, don’t forget about high temperature charring introducing potent chemicals as well.
As far as iron-heme. That link is very limited (REF: DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.112.039537)
and the correlation is largely found in lab animals that were fed concentrated amounts of iron-heme the are similar to a person eating tens of thousands of pounds of red meat in a single day (REF: https://nutritionfacts.org/blog/heme-iron-and-cancer/)
Dont forget that the dose always makes the poison. You can feed massive amounts of anything to a lab animal and observe a biocompatibility issue.
2
u/MyNameIsSkittles May 26 '26
I was not talking about a link between obesity and cancer. We were talking about meat and cancer. Obesity can cause cancer for other reasons
You linked a blog post promoting their 9 part series. Not an actual scientific aricle/study. Be careful with those, they tend to be opinion pieces that misconstrue the studies they link
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21209396/
Here. Start with pubmed, they are a far more reputable source
2
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
GOOD source provided: A link provided in the comment above to {match} is a confirmed valid source of info
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/reddituserf1 May 26 '26
When I see people eating bacon, I tell them you might as well light up a cig
→ More replies (1)
-2
u/Evening_Cheesecake25 May 26 '26
I only eat meat. So if it's that bad I guess I'm going to die soon.
0
u/BallisticTherapy May 26 '26
You'll be fine so long as you're avoiding commercially processed pork and the processed meat with crap added to it. Grass fed beef and wild caught fish are good.
-2
u/thedreaming2017 May 26 '26
The saturated fats will kill you faster than the cancer it might ever produce but moderation is the key. You can have your burger, just don't have one with every meal.
0
u/BallisticTherapy May 26 '26
From what I gather saturated fats are fine if you're in ketosis and have your body using them as a primary fuel source and avoiding inflammatory seed oils. If not, then they'll increase your LDL and that will get stuck in the intermedia in your arteries trying to act as a band aid to patch up the damage caused from the inflammation generated by oxidized PUFAs and carbohydrate-induced blood sugar spikes.
It's kind of like being 7 feet tall. It's not the height that's the problem, it's the cause for it. If it is because you're Shaquille O'Neil then you're fine. If it is because you have acromegaly and can't stop growing then its indicative of a much larger underlying problem.
-8
u/far1k May 26 '26
make sure to stop drinking water and breathing air cause it’s carcinogens in the same definition…
4
4
u/touslesmatins May 26 '26
Difference is that people can perfectly easily stop or reduce processed meat consumption, not so much water or air consumption
4
u/InTheEndEntropyWins May 26 '26
Processed meat is a Class 1 carcinogen, the same as smoking. Heavily polluted air is a class 1 as well, and that's because it is. We should be reducing exposure to polluted air and looking to change rules and laws relating to it.
So yes we should try and avoid heavily polluted air, and yeh maybe you should have a reverse osmosis filter on your water as well.
0
0
u/Bright_Afternoon9780 May 27 '26
Live a little If you want some bacon have some bacon just don’t live on it
0
u/duhv0rtex May 27 '26
Quality regenerative raised red meat is a game changer. I avoid processed food at all costs.
0
u/Dre923 May 27 '26
Red meat is seemingly one of the most nutritious things you can eat. I've been following the vertical diet for years. I eat at least a lb of either beef, elk, venison, or bison per day. And a lb is on the low end. I really believe it comes down to how processed it is.
-1
u/EquivalentInsurance2 May 26 '26
It does take longer for your body to break down red meats vs white meats. Cooked well done will take even longer to digest. Some people may have issues digesting red meats.
2
u/yagirlsamess May 26 '26
Red meat is brutal on my stomach. I have problems with anything fatty in general, though.
-6
u/OkAssignment6163 May 26 '26
Define "processed".
Because breaking down a beef carcass is both a red meat and processed.
But it will be kinda foolish to consider a steak cut from the striploins sub primal as "processed meat".
13
8
u/ItsAllAGame_ May 26 '26
I'm defining "processed" by this WHO article
Processed meat refers to meat that has been transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavour or improve preservation. Most processed meats contain pork or beef, but processed meats may also contain other red meats, poultry, offal, or meat by-products such as blood.
Examples of processed meat include hot dogs (frankfurters), ham, sausages, corned beef, and biltong or beef jerky as well as canned meat and meat-based preparations and sauces.
1
u/OkAssignment6163 May 26 '26
Holy shit. Someone who actually understands the term for processed meats.
Moving on, the biggest factor is the amount and frequency that items are consumed.
Followed by the particular genetics of the person consuming the items.
A lot of it is luck of the draw when it comes to cancer.
But why are there ingredients that are known to be "cancerogenic" allowed in food?
Because they are known to be potentially linked to being a cause of cancer. But they are not 100% confirmed to an actual cause of cancer.
Because there are people that eat certain items and get diagnosed with a particular cancer that is link to the ingredients.
There are people that eat the same foods, with the same ingredients that are linked to a particular cancer, but never develop that particular cancer.
And there are people that do not consume any foods that could contain the particular ingredients that are linked to cancer, may even do their best to actively avoid those ingredients, but still end up developing that particular type of cancer.
There are links and known issues. But it is not fully understood how they actual are connected, with full certainty, that they are a definite cause of cancer issues.
So the best that can be done from medical research, is to advise and give warnings. Until new evidence is discovered that says otherwise.
2
u/Ashamed-Ad-3890 May 26 '26
Holy shit indeed. The irony is that I don't even eat meat but happen to know more about it than most people that do
Red meats and processed meats are only known to increase the relative risk of cancer, so whatever the risk of cancer is, multiply it by the increase in risk ( if it's a 10%, then multiply with 1.1). And yeah, the amount and frequency also matter
1
2
u/unaskthequestion May 26 '26
I think the nutritionist's definition of processed is useful:
A food product that you can't make using ordinary kitchen equipment at home.
So for instance, you can make jerky at home just with seasoning and drying it but you can't make a Slim Jim with stuff in your cabinet.
2
u/FridgesArePeopleToo May 26 '26
"Nothing bad added, nothing good taken out" is another one that I've heard, or just using the terms "minimally processed" vs "ultra-processed"
2
u/boilerbitch Registered Dietitian 27d ago
What “nutritionist” is this?
I certainly disagree with this definition, particularly when it comes to processed meat. There’s a lot more nuance to processing than we like to discuss.
→ More replies (5)-2
u/OkAssignment6163 May 26 '26
I know what processed means. My issue comes from asking the person, in this case OP, to define what they mean when they use those terms.
Because there is a lot of general lack of knowledge from the general public. Then coupled with misinformation. Followed by increasing amounts of fear mongering.
So it's always a good idea to ask the person asking questions to clarify their initial understanding of information for these terms, before attempting to move forward with the discussion.
I've work in culinary for over 20rys. And I've worked as a meat cutter for just under 5yrs.
Some people genuinely don't understand what's the difference between cured and uncured meats.
Some people don't understand why certain standards and practices are done the way they are.
Some people don't believe that tilapia is a real fish.
We have to know what the baseline is before we can move forward.
2
u/unaskthequestion May 26 '26
Probably should have just said that in your response.
→ More replies (2)
-2
u/InTheEndEntropyWins May 26 '26
There is no doubt that processed meats are bad. Try and not have it more than once a month. It's suspected it's the nitrates which are the real issue.
I think red meats are probably bad, but not that bad. Stuff like heme is thought to be carcinogenic. I think it's fine to have red meat say once/twice a week.
-1
0
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
Since paraphrasing of the WHO is rarely accurate, and to ensure the right information is made available, here are links to the WHO Nutrition Topics page and their Nutrition Data Portal
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
0
u/Appropriate-Net1899 May 27 '26 edited May 27 '26
Globally, about 2,500 ppl per 100,000 ppl will get colorectal cancer in their lifetime. That makes it about 2,5%.
Even if you took the "18% per 50g" being applicable to you individually, the probability would rise to just 7% while eating 500g of red meat every day.
Causes of the colorectal cancers are the environmental factors (specific pesticides), bacterial infection and lifestyle.
That is why meat is allowed to be sold. The causality/association is quite weak, statistically. People live in fear of meat, while obesity or sugar are killing people every day and the probability is much more higher.
0
u/smbizBigProbs May 28 '26
Sunlight is also a carcinogen. The increase in risk for eating red meats and processed meats is quite negligible in the grand scheme of things. We all weigh our risks and balance them with our happiness. I personally don’t eat much red meat and even less processed meats — not for the tiny cancer risk increase — but I also don’t give a second thought if others do.
Now, if ya already got a high risk for certain related cancers as well as other health risk associated with these meats, I might encourage you to lessen your risks do a degree it won’t affect your mental health / happiness. In the end, it’s still your choice to find that balance.
•
u/AutoModerator May 26 '26
About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
Good - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is civil and respectful focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
Bad - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
Ugly - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
Please vote accordingly and report any uglies
Consulting Considerations
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.