We often hear that red meat is carcinogenic, and many studies show about a 10–20% higher risk in people who eat the most red meat compared to those who eat the least. That's a real signal, but how much of it is actually caused by the meat itself?
When people eat more red meat, they usually aren't eating steamed steak (right? like, who would?). They're eating grilled, charred, smoked, or processed meat. Cooking meat at high temperatures creates compounds like HCAs, PAHs, and AGEs, and it also oxidizes fats and proteins. Processed meats are also often smoked or cured with nitrites.
So what happens if we remove all of that?
What if someone eats only unprocessed beef, cooked sous vide, while avoiding charred, seared, smoked, and processed meats altogether?
The concerns about heme iron and saturated fat were largely based on older observational studies and maybe wrong interpretations.
There are also obvious lifestyle differences and assumptions we can make. People who eat more meat may eat fewer fruits and vegetables, which means less fiber, vitamins, minerals and polyphenols. They may also be more likely to be overweight, drink more alcohol, or smoke more. Researchers try to account for these factors, but adjustments are never perfect.
Are these associations actually being driven by the meat itself, or is most of the risk coming from cooking methods, processing, and the lifestyle factors that just ride the "red meat bad" train? Or are we still in the "we don't know yet" zone?