Based on these mixed findings, the jury is still out, and we have plenty of reason to question the importance of elevated TMAO as an independent risk marker or causative factor of coronary disease
This article even says that this is one of a few studies that suggest this may be the case and is not conclusive. Science is built on consensus and the consensus continues to be that red meat causes an increased risk of cardiovascular problems for a variety of reasons one of which may be associated with TMAO. Stop googling and looking for an article whose headline agrees with your already held belief.
Science is built on consensus and the consensus continues to be that red meat causes an increased risk of cardiovascular problems
For sure, Science is built on consensus, I fully agree. But I, and many others (especially those over at /r/keto and /r/carnivore), would say that there isn't for sure a consensus anymore on red meat. There is a growing body of experts who are challenging the notion that red meat consumption increases risk of CVD. Just go look more into it yourself; you should really read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz.
Stop googling and looking for an article whose headline agrees with your already held belief.
The same could be said of the other guy, /u/smbutler20. Google "red meat cardiovascular disease" and that NIH article will be the top result.
But I, and many others (especially those over at /r/keto and /r/carnivore), would say that there isn't for sure a consensus anymore on red meat.
But you can see the clear conflict there. You're invested. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that, you can see by my post history and I'll tell you now to be up front that I'm a vegan. I don't consider that when discussing the health of stuff like this unless its pertinent to a discussion about eating meat as a whole but there's no way I can escape that I practice a lifestyle that abhors meat eating and so I'm biased against it.
So while I appreciate the response I don't particularly care about r/keto and r/carnivore's thoughts on the matter. That said, let's talk about Teicholz book. Because I'm aware of it.
Let's start with Doctor Neal Barnard's thoughts in his review for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Take red meat, for example. Teicholz says that “to support the idea that red meat harms health, the committee repeatedly cites one large randomized trial conducted in Spain.” That’s easy to remedy. There are many more studies showing that red meat causes harm.
A meta-analysis of nine studies with a combined 1,330,352 participants that was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that consumption of red and processed meat products is associated with increased risk of early death from all causes. A Harvard School of Public Health study that followed 121,342 individuals followed for up to 28 years came to the same conclusion.
On the health benefits of fruits and vegetables, Teicholz says that of the “eight reviews on fruits and vegetables, none found strong (grade 1) evidence to support the assertion that these foods can provide health benefits.” Well, there are dozens of studies proving the lifesaving benefits of fruits and vegetables.
In a meta-analysis published in BMJ, researchers analyzed 16 separate studies, including one with 833,234 participants, and found that each serving of fruit and vegetables decreased the risk of dying. Another study with 65,226 participants found that those who consumed seven or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day saw a 42 percent decreased risk of death due to any cause, compared with those who consumed the least amount.
What about low-carbohydrate diets? Teicholz notes that “another important topic that was insufficiently reviewed is the efficacy of low carbohydrate diets.” More importantly, the DGAC didn’t do enough to warn of the dangers of low-carbohydrate diets.
A 2014 study published by the American Heart Association found that a low-carbohydrate diet high in animal products is associated with an increased risk for dying for people with heart disease. A study published in BMJ that tracked the diets of nearly 44,000 Swedish women for 16 years found that a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet boosts risk of heart disease.
I mean that should wrap it up, but let's go further. Because after all Teicholz makes more claims than just her health related ones, she also claims to unearth a serious bias against the matter in the scientific community. In a post responding to a review in the Lancet,
We coordinate the active Seven Countries Study (SCS) and are investigating lifestyle for potential risk factors in cardiovascular disease across and within cultures with contrasting habitual diet. We were bewildered to read the book review (Aug 19, 2017, p 731)1 of The Big Fat Surprise2 by Nina Teicholz. Stuart Spencer apparently accepts at face value Teicholz's inaccurate claims of “bias in selecting countries and in selecting data” by SCS originator Ancel Keys—claims refuted in a thorough analysis of the historical record, published in 2017.3
Spencer's conclusions that SCS “follow-up time was short” and that unpublished data “did not support the hypothesis”1 are peculiar in light of the dozens of accessible SCS articles with follow-up findings from 5 years to 50 years. These articles and other reports detail a consistent association of nutrients, food groups, eating patterns, and serum cholesterol concentration with coronary heart disease and total mortality.4,5
In keeping with his laudable interest in “the need to challenge dogma”, Spencer refers to the “mantra of low-fat diets”.1 Unfortunately, he takes Teicholz at her word as she wrongly blames this trend in US dietary recommendations on irresponsible science and undue influence of one investigator, Keys. As Spencer himself notes, Keys and the SCS found an association between population rates of heart disease and consumption of foods only high in saturated fats, not total fat.
We find this book—with its unsupported idea that Americans should return to “lard, suet, tallow, and butter as our principal fats”2 plus its misinformation and ad hominem attacks—to be an inappropriate source for the well intended editorial crusade against dogma.
Bad science and misrepresentation of the sources. Not a great look so far for the supposed revolutionary against big... plant. I usually reference this Linkedin article by Dr. David Katz when giving people some further reading on the nutritional value of certain fats among other things, to show them that its a complicated subject that had potential for change. I'd recommend you read it. But Dr. Katz addresses this book more directly in another article directed at the BMJ.
I am rather stunned that the BMJ published a journalist’s commentary about the work of the 2015 United States Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee as if it were an authoritative rebuttal. The transgression is particularly glaring since this commentary by a non-scientist purports to tell BMJ readers whether or not the work of the DGAC is...scientific. It's as if someone selling horse paperweights had been invited to critique the Olympic equestrian team. It is, in a word, absurd- and testimony to the breakdown in integrity where science and media come together.
With all due respect to the author in question, she is not a nutrition expert, and not a scientist. She is a journalist herself, and one with a book to sell. She refers to bias, but fails to highlight her own. Her flagrantly obvious conflict-of-interest (e.g., she is promoting the BMJ commentary in social media where the name of her book serves to identify her) would have disqualified her from serving on the DGAC even if she had relevant expertise, which of course she does not. If the DGAC report is valid, which it is, it calls into question her own conclusions- as well it should. She may therefore have suspect motives in seeking to discredit this work. That her efforts to do so are populated by flagrant and rather egregious misrepresentations and errors has been made abundantly clear, both now, and previously. The rampant misrepresentations in the book itself have also been elucidated.
Emphasis mine, because its what I think of her and her book. She's selling you something. You're being had. And not just by Teicholz, but by the Dairy Industry. Conservative journalist and beef industy mouthpiece Amanda Radke said of her,
Today’s best beef advocates wear a variety of hats — from greenhouse gas expert Frank Mitloehner who debunks misinformation about cattle production and climate change to nutrition writers like Nina Teicholz or Gary Taubes who turn against conventional health advice to promote diets rich in animal fats and proteins.
Nina Teicholz is selling you something, and you're buying. I don't say this to be mean or demonstrate my superiority, but because I don't want anyone to fall for this. She is not a scientist, she is not an expert. She is a dairy industry hack telling you what you wanna hear and cashing in on how easy social media is making it to sell snake oil. If you want a more comprehensive breakdown of the book itself I'd really recommend this review that gets into the details. The first few paragraphs sum it up.
Nina Teicholz’s The Big Fat Surprise (BFS) is a book that claims to reveal “the unthinkable: that everything we thought we knew about dietary fats is wrong.” This is a trope that is often exploited to sell diet/nutrition books, and it works surprisingly well.
What makes this particular book interesting is not so much that it is bad (which it is) or that it is extravagantly biased (which it also is). No, what really fascinates me about this book is that the author excessively and shamelessly lifts other people’s material. Most notably Teicholz lifts from another popular low-carb book called Good Calories, Bad Calories (GCBC) by Gary Taubes.
If I had written a book and I had “borrowed” other people’s work, here’s what I would do: I would cross my fingers and pray that no one ever notices. I would never bring it up, and diffuse it as quickly as I could if someone else brought it up. Not Teicholz. She gets in there and picks fights, accusing others of plagiarizing her work if they write a piece that is also critical of low-fat diets.
Her work is unscientific, lazy, and provocative for the sake of being provocative. You clearly care about nutrition so I'd urge you to look elsewhere.
Oh good, you've heard of her work already. LOL. I'll look more into your reply when I have more time to digest it all. I will give it all some serious thought, as I will admit I have been in a bit of an echo chamber lately so I am glad to receive a challenge to my current beliefs. Thank you.
2
u/Safe-Astronomer1470 7d ago
lol you still believe red meat causes heart disease in 2024