There’s a study that got some attention last week that I’m just getting around to commenting on now. Last week a study from the Archives of Internal Medicine started receiving some commentary both pro and con. The study, a review and follow-up of information in the long term Health Professionals Follow-up Study and Nurses’ Health Study, found that even low consumption of red meat leads to increased mortality risk. I found that a bit depressing. I’ve been containing my wife’s and my consumption of red meat to three or four three ounce servings per week which isn’t a lot but, if the results of this study are to be believed, that isn’t enough.
To my eye quite a few of those who’ve read the study (or, more likely, just the synopsis of the study) are going a bit overboard. So, for example, Mark Bittman, writing in the New York Times observes:
Do we eat too much meat? Undoubtedly. That our level of consumption causes health problems that may lead to deathis not news. For a time it was thought that those problems were because of high cholesterol levels, but no: cholesterol is a marker. Then saturated fat was believed to be the culprit but now, well, we’re not so sure.
while Rob Lyons retorts
Can the researchers really be sure that the differences in meat consumption were to blame for the fairly small difference in health outcomes, rather than all the other differences between the groups? And these are the differences we know about. What other differences between the groups weren’t examined in the research analysis? For example, other researchers have pointed the finger of blame for many chronic diseases at carbohydrates, but there doesn’t appear to be any mention of them here.
The researchers will, of course, have tried to adjust for many of these confounding factors. But the scale of these differences suggests that the two groups who were most different in meat-eating habits were also very different in many other ways, too. Indeed, the study would be more accurately summed up like this: ‘The kind of people who say they eat quite a lot of red meat and processed meat are slightly more likely to die before they reach 75 years of age than those who say they don’t eat very much of those things.’
In short, on the one hand we have groups with different meat-eating habits who are also different in terms of lots of other lifestyle factors; any of these factors could have a significant impact on the results. On the other hand, the additional risk from eating red meat and processed meat would appear to be small. Is it really that hard to believe that the apparent risk is completely illusory?
I’m going to suggest something somewhat different.
It shouldn’t be too surprising but different people’s bodies respond to diet in different ways. So, for example, there was a study published in Human Molecular Genetics, a reputable, peer-reviewed journal affiliated with Oxford University that found that response to fat in the diet was genetically mediated. Another study published in the British Journal of Nutrition, a reputable, peer-reviewed journal affiliated with Cambridge University, found that the effectiveness of the popular Mediterranean Diet in influencing waist circumference was genetically mediated (as it turns out, the study’s findings suggest that the Mediterranean Diet wouldn’t do much for me). In other words the diet you can tolerate or the diet that’s good for you may depend on your genetic background.
Further confounding the issue and as should be obvious the Health Professionals Follow-up Study is a study of physicians. Physicians aren’t typical of the population more generally. Just as a few examples according to Michael Nevins, a New Jersey cardiologist who studies the history of Jews in medicine, although Jews comprise about 2% of the U. S. population they constitute about 12% of physicians. Similarly, Asians, who comprised about 4.4% of the U. S. population comprise a far larger proportion of physicians, possibly as much as a quarter.
The question is not only whether there are confounding factors in the study itself but whether those participating in the study are characteristic either of Americans who practice medicine or are nurses or of Americans more generally.
My conclusion from all of this is that the best posture to take is one of, shall we say, watchful waiting until the science is actually a bit better. In the meanwhile, I don’t think you can go too far wrong by eating sparingly or, at least no more than makes you feel good, and eat what makes you feel good. Know yourself, be honest with yourself, and fit your diet to you and your needs.
In my case that’s a diet limited to about 1,800 calories a day in three small meals and two snacks carefully spaced thoughout the day and eating enough protein and fat so that I don’t feel hungry, and varying my diet as much as possible within those constraints.
In other words the diet you can tolerate or the diet that’s good for you may depend on your genetic background.
A blow to the gut of HBD denialists….
Similarly, Asians, who comprised about 4.4% of the U. S. population comprise a far larger proportion of physicians, possibly as much as a quarter.
This is aggravating. What is meant by ASIAN? East Asians, South Asians, northwestern asians (white, to an extent) are very different. Not to mention other differences. I take back what I have said on earlier occassions – “Hispanic” isn’t the most stupid ethnographic distinction made in the USA, it is “Asian”.
That’s nearly a quote from my source for that particular statistic. It doesn’t go into any detail on what’s meant by this. Based on context I think they either mean East Asians or East and South Asians but not West Asians, Northwest Asians, or Southwest Asians.
Since I think that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, etc. all look very different (and I suspect that someone knowledgeable enough could place Chinese people in their ancestral provinces by what they looked like), I wish that neater distinctions were made as well.
Update
A quick look at the U. S. census info suggests that the census classification “Asian” may be what is meant.
Chinese* and Japanese and Koreans all look like they belong to a particular racial group, however. Those from the subcontinent look noticably different.**
*Caveat that China is large and has a great many ethnicities, especially around the perimeter.
** On the off chance that someone wants to make something of it, go to either of the Gene Expression sites for more formalized notions of what is meant by race. Race is a familiar shorthand, and it is actually a useful shorthand. Also, Race Skin Color.
So do Swedes and Saudis. However, most Americans aren’t as likely to confuse Swedes with Saudis as they are to think Chinese people look like Japanese people.
Most Americans have far more experience dealing with people of European descent – that familiarity helps. I wouldn’t be shocked if the random Han Chinese individual could easily make distinctions of east Asian people but thought all Europeans looked alike.
Incidentally, when I was a TA in college, the people I had the hardest time telling apart were white sorority and fraternity members. There was a definite Stepford quality to many of them. About the only differences were hair color and style, and even that wasn’t always helpful. Let’s here it for GDIs….
When I went to college it was pretty much in the heyday of the fraternity system. I never pledged although I went through rush and contemplated it.
At my alma mater there was a a blonde fraternity, a brunette fraternity, a Jewish fraternity, a fraternity for jocks, etc. Interestingly, there was also a fraternity that was quietly for homosexuals (this was before Stonewall).
I’m on book tour at the moment, living in hotels, train stations and airports. So my diet consists of two major food groups: 1) Whatever candy bar is in the minibar. 2) Whatever booze is in the minibar. I didn’t see anything in the study about the chocolate and Scotch diet.
So, you’re a choco-whisko vegetarian?
Even before Michael popped in, I found myself wondering what the George Burns diet tells us. But googling suggests Burns may not have eaten red meat, though the more specific statements attributed to him have him complaining that cutting steak is too much work. I’m not sure I’ve found anything too reliable, and I wonder if Burns was actually a very healthy eater, but was secretive about it for brand purposes.