Finally: An Increasingly Rare, Scientific Look at Red Meat We Can Sink Our Teeth Into

In a recently published article in Science Daily on September 30, 2019–and in a rare moment of scientific rigor and integrity (rapidly growing more rare these days than moon dust)–the following headline read:

‘No need to cut down red and processed meat for health reasons, controversial findings suggest’. (link)

Scientists at McMaster University in Ontario Canada wittingly (or unwittingly) took on the recent trend toward generalizing antiquated nutritional recommendations based upon weak observational studies, and instead sought after objective scientific analysis (what a concept!) by looking at the best quality available evidence from decades of research.

The researchers looked at what amounted to literally millions of human participants in five (count ‘em) systematic reviews covering a large number of quality studies in order to arrive at their so-called “controversial” (at least from the standpoint of nutritional orthodoxy) conclusions.

In the summary, it was stated that: “Contrary to previous advice, five new systematic reviews suggest that most people can continue to eat red and processed meat as they do now. The major studies have found cutting back has little impact on health.”

Here is the actual study:

Link: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

In recent years there has been a noticeably concerted push by the mainstream media and certain quarters of academia to promote vegetarianism and veganism in the populace, while vilifying animal source foods at almost every turn. Big media announcements by the World Health Organization a few years ago (which I covered in my blog article, ‘The World Health Organization Red Meat Brouhaha’ [https://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/who-red-meat-brouhaha/] and more recently by a small handful of researchers from Harvard University relied upon ridiculously unreliable observational studies in order to promote their absurd, highly questionable and poorly scientifically supported conclusions.

Why on earth would they do this?

Harvard researchers have been guilty of all this in the past. We know from the New York Times expose in 2016 that Harvard was publishing bogus research and taking substantial money for doing so from the sugar industry as a means of diverting attention from emerging evidence showing sugar’s noticeably nefarious impacts on exploding rates of cardiovascular disease by pointing the finger at saturated fat and cholesterol instead as the culprits. In no way should we assume that such shenanigans are a thing of the past. No matter how many times/ways the red meat/saturated fat/cholesterol theories of heart disease gets soundly debunked, it keeps coming back at us like the rotting, shuffling, putrid, disfigured and menacing zombie that it is. It is an antiquated, dangerous myth that simply won’t die (and yes—it DOES eat human brains!)… And the mainstream media news and academia simply won’t let it die. It has become too profitable a theory for transnational corporate industry interests to relinquish to the inconvenience of scientific rigor.

Link: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html

I actually cover the reasons for all this intentional misinformation and disinformation in a fair degree of detail (although limited considerably by the allotted time) in a talk that I gave at Montana State University back in 2018 [which you can view for free here: https://youtu.be/GIoAiYKf8Mw]. I was able to cover a few more details on the subject this last spring at Paleo f(x) in Austin, Texas. That talk at Paleo f(x) is also available (for purchase, bundled with other talks given at the 2019 event). I will soon be creating a multipart series covering the current trends in media/news/academia/ social media and search engine control of the mainstream narrative when it comes to health related topics (and more) in the near future. Unless we all make a point of understanding the nature and agendas of today’s most influential institutions we are all dead in the water. But I digress…

It is well agreed upon in the hallowed halls of classic, legitimate academia that the best possible scientific evidence typically comes as a result of systematic reviews and meta-analyses research, randomized controlled, double blind studies and cohort studies. Near the bottom of the list of reliable applicable studies for actual humans includes animal research, in vitro (i.e., ’test tube’) research and observational studies scraping the very bottom of the barrel as being essentially worthless in any meaningful/credible way. As long as systematic reviews and meta-analyses research is based upon the higher-tiered forms of scientific research standards, they serve as some of the most reliable evidence we have; since they go beyond any single study to include a plethora of quality studies in arriving at their conclusions.

The current meta-analysis study from McMaster University is hardly the first to take quality data into account. Dietary saturated fat and cholesterol have long been exonerated of their previously nefarious reputations…and yet, the mainstream-promoted mythology stubbornly persists.

Back in February 2015, respected researcher (and my friend/soul sister from the UK), Zoë Harcombe, PhD led the academically rigorous charge on one such study relating to the subject of dietary fat (all sources, including saturated fat and cholesterol), published in the British medical Journal and shown below. The title pretty much says it all.

In this study’s rather startling, if not incendiary conclusions it was stated that “Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs.” It begs the question of just how many lives were unnecessarily lost by following these recommendations in that time and since? I know that I have personally lost several loved ones to bogus, supposedly “heart healthy” advice. Am I alone in seeing this as criminal?

When poring through the available literature one rapidly finds a paucity of evidence supporting vilification of foods such as red meat (particularly red meat of uncompromised quality and 100% grass-fed/finished sourcing), naturally saturated fat and cholesterol. How many meta-analyses studies based upon rigorous scientific standards have shown supportive evidence for the current low-fat, low cholesterol, meatless diets for health? Literally Z-E-R-O. How many randomized, controlled, double-blind studies support any of this? Again…Z-E-R-O. –Big fat goose egg. But when has that ever stopped economically driven propaganda?

Data from the most rigorous scientific studies to date (including the most recent one from McMaster University, not listed below) demonstrate the following with respect to fat and cholesterol’s role in promoting metabolic diseases:

According to (now former vegetarian) Zoë Harcombe, PhD, “37 out of 40 cohort.rct/meta-analyses studies showed fat was a NON-issue when it came to adverse metabolic effects and disease.” The only three studies showing adverse effects were the following:

Trans fats in Chowdry’s study were one of the three studies showing negative health effects. The Hooper study showed problems when saturated fats were swapped out for polyunsaturated fats. The other one was also regarding trans fats (as bad).

In all of the randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and meta-analyses from the seven teams of researchers, there was no finding demonstrating adverse effects of total dietary fat, whatsoever. There was nothing significant found regarding adverse effects on all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality or coronary heart disease mortality. Nothing related to physical or nonfatal myocardial infarctions, stroke or coronary heart disease events. Zero, zip, nada. These seven groups of studies constitute the totality of all of the best available evidence in this regard, and anything else is either cherry picked or the result of some poorly constructed observational study that tells you nothing accurate.” [From Zoë’s brilliant presentation at the Ethical Farming Conference on 16th May 2019: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCy7BUsYcFs&t=2715s]

The problem, of course, is that the mythology and orthodoxy surrounding all this is heavily entrenched in the zeitgeist of public consciousness to the point of barely being questioned by the majority of the population. This is true of a great many currently assumed popularly asserted narratives (where there is vicious intolerance to any manner of questioning), almost all of which have invested economic interests attached to them, and typically employ convenient phrasing such as “The Science is settled” as a means of cavalierly discrediting any legitimate challenge to the subject matter. Whenever you see that type of terminology/phrasing/mindset applied to any mainstream public proclamation, red flags need to be immediately deployed en masse. True science is never “settled”. The far more accurate term one needs to substitute in these cases (in place of so-called immutable “science”) is “institutional orthodoxy”. It’s the same thing that Galileo faced in his now infamous trial, daring to suggest that the sun and not the earth was the center of our Galaxy [see my article: ‘LOW-CARB ON TRIAL (GALILEO HAD IT EASY)’ – https://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/low-carb-on-trial-galileo-had-it-easy/].

Science is not the last word, after all, but rather the latest word. And it needs to be pointed out that there is good science and bad science to be had. Unfortunately, it all gets lumped together in ways that confuse and confound anyone trying to pay attention. The average person is inclined to throw their arms helplessly up in the air and adopt a state of cynicism toward the entire subject matter. This is also by design. Discretion really is the better part of valor, but is also tragically rare. Search engines (well, the biggest of them, anyway) and the most commonly prevailing social media platforms have been overwhelmingly co-opted/taken over by the interests of Big Pharma and other trans-national corporate interests (and all this implies), and a number of quality alternative health websites have either been removed from the search engines entirely, or deeply buried and/or their Facebook/Twitter accounts, etc. have been de-platformed by mainstream social media as a means of unabashed, concerted censorship and silencing of narratives that conflict with the economic interests of the prevailing status quo. And all this is but a scratch on the surface of a much deeper and more dangerous/perilous iceberg. This should terrify literally everyone. And we should all be seeking alternatives to these predominating platforms/search engines. But again, I digress.

Even where (supposed) science may fail us, certain common sense, immutable facts do continue to prevail:

Every last human on earth is here today because their ancestors consumed meat (including plenty of red meat), organs and animal fat as a predominant dietary staple. And anatomically and physiologically speaking, we are all far more alike as members of the human species than unalike. What ultimately defines us as a species, after all, is not our differences, but those things we share in common. Along with many other universally common, basic macronutrient/micronutrient requirements, we all (among other things) additionally share a predominantly hydrochloric acid-based digestive system–as opposed to a fermentative one employed by herbivores–relying upon the consumption of complete, animal source protein for necessary HCL secretion, ionization of key dietary minerals, and subsequent digestive signaling necessary for the proper digestion and assimilation of other numerous, critical dietary nutrients. There are essential fatty acids and fat soluble nutrients present–if not abundant–in red meat, organs and animal fats that quite literally cannot be gotten in a fully utilizable/ bioavailable fashion from plant-based foods or in any other way. There is quite literally zero evidence for vegetarianism or veganism anywhere in the human fossil record. Another fact.

All this said, there is good reason to avoid the excessive consumption of processed and chemically laden meat products, as well as commercially predominant feedlot meats, for a variety of health and environmental reasons. I also do make the case for the moderation of our dietary protein intake for the optimization of our health in especially this modern day and age—something I offer detailed reasoning and sound evidence for in both of my published books, Primal Body, Primal Mind and Primal Fat Burner, and elsewhere. Believe it or not, I am not a proponent of the currently popular ‘Carnivore Diet’. But that’s another subject for another blog post. That said, in no way do I or can I even begin to negate the essential role of animal source foods in the optimized human health equation. And btw—there is not a single plant-based superfood on earth that can even begin to hold a candle to liver (even having 4 times the amount of vitamin C per 100g than an apple!). It should be noted in the table below that the form of vitamin K listed is K1—a predominantly plant based form of K….but nowhere near as important to human health as K2 (MK-4)—found exclusively in the fats and organ meats of naturally foraged animals. —Again, another blog post for another day in the works.

It is of course, animal meats/organ meats/tissues and especially fats that served to make us fully human in the first place.

Unless we are seeking to become something other than/less than human, we cannot ignore that simple fact.

~ Nora Gedgaudas, CNS, NTP, BCHN

PS. I’ll be releasing my latest online educational program called The Primalgenic® Plan soon. For more information and to sign up for updates on the program release, click here.