Does red meat cause cancer?
Vložit
- čas přidán 6. 05. 2024
- Get the 5 Tactics in My Longevity Toolkit and my weekly newsletter here (free): bit.ly/3UPErVm
Watch the full episode: • 300-Special episode: P...
Become a member to receive exclusive content: bit.ly/3O0pEnY
This clip is from episode 300 ‒ Special episode: Peter on exercise, fasting, nutrition, stem cells, geroprotective drugs, & more.
In this clip, they discuss:
- Why nutritional epidemiology is such a difficult subject to study
- How lifestyle variables disrupt nutrition research
- The importance of insoluble fiber for preventing colorectal cancer
- And more
--------
About:
The Peter Attia Drive is a deep-dive podcast focusing on maximizing longevity, and all that goes into that from physical to cognitive to emotional health. With over 90 million episodes downloaded, it features topics including exercise, nutritional biochemistry, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, mental health, and much more.
Peter Attia is the founder of Early Medical, a medical practice that applies the principles of Medicine 3.0 to patients with the goal of lengthening their lifespan and simultaneously improving their healthspan.
Learn more: peterattiamd.com
Connect with Peter on:
Facebook: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDFB
Twitter: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDTW
Instagram: bit.ly/PeterAttiaMDIG
Subscribe to The Drive:
Apple Podcast: bit.ly/TheDriveApplePodcasts
Overcast: bit.ly/TheDriveOvercast
Spotify: bit.ly/TheDriveSpotify
Google Podcasts: bit.ly/TheDriveGoogle
Disclaimer: This podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute the practice of medicine, nursing, or other professional healthcare services, including the giving of medical advice. No doctor-patient relationship is formed. The use of this information and the materials linked to this podcast is at the user's own risk. The content on this podcast is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Users should not disregard or delay in obtaining medical advice for any medical condition they have, and they should seek the assistance of their healthcare professionals for any such conditions. I take conflicts of interest very seriously. For all of my disclosures and the companies I invest in or advise, please visit my website where I keep an up-to-date and active list of such companies. For a full list of our registered and unregistered trademarks, trade names, and service marks, please review our Terms of Use: peterattiamd.com/terms-of-use/ - Věda a technologie
In every study, they quickly define red meat and processed meat (bacon, salami, etc) as interchangeable. It would be nice if a study broke it down into silos, between red meat, processed meat, red meat cooked at high temperatures (i.e barbecue), same with processed meats (nitrosamines, anyone?), and perhaps frying both. Im sure they results would be similar but the delineation between the two would make it much more clearer.
I’m also curious how much an effect char marks or “burnt” meat affects cancer. I can image that burning meat probably produces a lot of byproducts that are cancer causing as well. So if you grill your meat or even searing meat might increase certain types of cancer.
High saturated fat is already well implicated when it comes to heart disease. So that alone is a reason to cut back on red meat intake.
@@bobhill4364negative
@@bobhill4364no thanks
Even though grass fed ruminant is extremely nutrient dense, it's still quite acidic and your colon struggles with all red meat.
And are we talking about a cooked at home grass feed steak? Or a McDonald's cheeseburger? Because these studies never differentiate the two
They do. Read them before commenting.
Both.
Unless you KNOW for a fact (i.e. you live next to the farmer, you know them, and you can observe everything they do from animal to your plate), you are relying on some sleazy marketing campaign to be honest with you. Good f’ing luck with that.
They do, like literally all of them
That's it, just 50 grams a day, which the WHO recommends, increases the risk of cancer by 20%
I don’t understand those that claim the evidence regarding the negative health effects of higher consumption of red & processed meats is weak, but then make unsupported claims like “seed oils are toxic” or that eating organic grass fed beef has significantly better health outcomes than conventional beef, while those claims are not supported by the balance of evidence.
Attia has claimed that seed oils are bad for you smooth brain
@@programking655 Those claims aren’t supported by the balance of evidence.
@@brad36905 Well turns out I’m also smooth brained, I meant “hasn’t”. Peter Attia has not claimed that seed oils are bad for you.
Oh, but they are.
@@sunnyguitardude Where’s the data to support that claim?
To quote the comic George Carlin, “I like a little cancer in my food and water.”
Hong Kong has the highest meat consumption per capita and is top 3 with average life expectancy. Pork and beef is very popular and consumption is estimated to be 3 times higher than UK.
They also eat a lot of vegetables with their meat
That IS bro science.
WHO classifies as 2A :) but for sure there is no
data.. but a youtuber knows it better
Japan consumes spam as well....red meat and seafood is mainly eaten together with vegetables. They are however eat less chicken and Okinawa is blue zone. I would like to see a blue zone vegan town as well if it exist??
@@scotthawke7828it's not a lot. Vegetable is a side dish with the meat main dishes. Chinese people eat a lot of pork..Koreans however do eat a lot of vegetables
@@viccapalihan364 Even when meat is a main dish whether that be Sichuan hotpot or K BBQ for example it’s never consumed in Western quantities like a 16oz cowboy steak.
Thank you for subtitles. The video is very useful. I like your channel.
Thank you so much for interesting video. Please if possible turn on auto subtitles. Many people want to understand the text of this useful video.
i just hit the CC button and I see auto generated subtitles....
Interesting one...thanks.
I am also referring to our health influencer. Lets see you got it right when it comes to health and longevity. And i also want to thank you for you work even though i don't always agree, but it is a good work
I remember searching for these studies once. These observational studies are no different than junk. They categorized hamburgers and pizza as red meat and participants were also smokers. Imagine doing the report yourself, what did you eat every day for 10 years? The accuracy would be equal to shooting at the opposite direction and expecting it hit a bird.
Interesting, the Seven Day Adventist omnivores are far healthier than the general population. When compared to Seven Day vegans they had twice the diabetes risk as vegans even when controlling for BMI. If it’s really just random garbage some observational studies would show animal based foods to have a risk lowering effect.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 I believe the study you're referencing is exactly the kind of study he's calling out as flawed. It's a survey based study.
@@hamsterbrigade It’s all random nonsense let’s just pretend it doesn’t exist.
Sure
Great job Peter. I think you had a great and balanced answer.
Fasting and Autophagy interfere with Hypertrophy. It’s extremely difficult to navigate a formula that works with strength training.
We've been eating meat for millions of years, ruminants are our ancestral food, prior to agriculture, our primary source of calories and fat was meat, mostly red. Feed animals on grains, pumpt them full of drugs and, process the heck out of it and suddenly I'm not so sure.
And it was good enough to get us a life expectancy of 24 years.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 Correlation vs causation. Your thought: We lived shorter lives, therefore meat was killing us.
Reality: Poor sanitation, lack of medical knowledge, violence and hardship, and a host of other things contributed to the lower life expectancy of our ancestors.
@@UnskilledGrappler Yes, those things killed people before heart disease had a chance to.
We also had much higher incidents of incest back then, so what's your point? Ow yea, you don't have one.
@@anabolicamaranth7140 You literally just said you discovered a diet that is better than what nature has selected us to eat. God, I can just imagine how pleased were the people who spent any time of their lifes on your presence, id bet most of them stuck around
Hey Pete, thanks for the no-nonsense, direct answers. This is why I subscribed.
Same here. I always prefer people who cut straight to the chase and tell me what I like to hear.
I mean he’s completely wrong but yeah
@@MagicButtersClass yeh who cares about science and facts lol. just get the confirmation we need and carry on burying our heads in the sand! 🤣
@@MagicButtersClass Oh really? How so? Please explain.
I’d probably refer to him as Peter since he has no idea who you are. Thanks
Are there any studies on the risk of cancer difference between people on the carnivore vs non carnivore vs vegetarian etc. That would eliminate all the problematic variables
The problem is that the methodology in epidemiologic nutritional research does not meet the standards of other sciences. Nutritional epidemiology is pseudo-science.
The problem is people saying nonsense like this on the internet when they have no idea what they’re talking about
You know the data is more robust in nutritional science than exercise science, right?
@@HWCWTD I should have been more precise: nutritional epidemological studies, nutritional science was too broad a term. Nutritional epidemologiology is junk science. This is very important, because it is being used in the “culture wars”, and is misinforming regarding what healthy nutrition is. It is also being misused in the food-isms, ideologies of not eating this or that.
I am very much in favor of nutritional science, but it is for all practical purposes impossible to make valid outcome studies, that bring useful insight to the table.
I work in hi (bio) tech food industry, and I can tell that from that experience, I try not to eat anything that has been touched by the food industry. I can’t avoid processed milk, and I need cheese. Eggs, meat, plants, are of course industrially produced (I am not rich), but I try to get it as close to un-touched as I can afford.
You really, really don’t want to eat what comes out of our industry. It is insane.
Statistical control is an impossibility in nutritional science
@@iblisthemagewhy do you need meat cheese and eggs
Yes or no?
Damn, my gran knew this shit 60 years ago. Left school at 14 as well. " a little of what you fancy does you good."
@PeterAttiaMD Have you considered having Dr Walter Willett on your show to discuss what we can (and perhaps can't) learn from nutritional epidemiology?
You talk about data , did the meat companies provide the data . Get real Peter I’ve worked in abattoirs the standard is down to price and the cheaper it gets it’s full of chemicals and fed on absolute shit until it gets a long journey and an often not very quick exit .
You get real, there's always "industry" and lobbies behind all data. With that said, be rational and understand that because there's money behind something it doesn't make it wrong.
@@Gruso57 just read back what you’ve said and then think about the consequences of allowing that data to be accepted.
Love the logical breakdown Peter is so proficient at doing
As i said in previous video, eventually we will know you hot it right because we are getting older and we will know who are those with better biomarkers and blood work and longevity.
(Part 2)- Eat less. In Narure, calories are not only difficlt to come by, but they are not often in large amounts. You might kill a mammoth and eat it entirely, even the skin, for 10,000 calories in one sitting. but on other occasions you might find an orchard with only 2 or 3 apples that are not rotten and get only 300 calories even after not eating for 3 days. Or instead of catching a mammoth, you catcn only a single salmon at the river for 50 calories, and you eat not only the flesh but even the eyes for that rich vitamin D.
- Don't eat too many carbs with too many fat in one meal. This is perhaps the single most important thing when it comes to improving your health. A lot of the sickness that you see in people is not caused by eating carbs or fats, but from eating them *together* . Let me explain. Foods in Nature that are rich in fat are almost never rich in carbohydrates, and vice versa. For instance, carbohydrate-rich foods such as grains have little fat in them, and in the case of fruits almost no fat at all. Likewise, foods that are rich in fat are also rich in protein, but not in carbs. Cashews or milk, for meat, for instance, have very little carbohydrate in them. Meat onky has the trace amount of glycogen in them, for instance. Foods that are rich in fat are naturally high in protein but have only small amount of fat, usually around 5% (rye, ehat, barley) and not at all(apples, peaches, etc)
I would need 100 paragraphs to explain why eating carbohydrate and fat together in large amounts produces severe metabolic problems but most people without graduate degrees in biochemistry and physiology would not understand it. Suffice t say that the design of our metabolism is such that we can utilize *either* carbohydrate or fat as fuels, but not both at the same time. Eating large amounts of these 2 different fuels at once produces severe metabolic problems in energetic substrate partiotning not worth getting into. I wouldneed to give a crash course on the Krebb';s Cyclwe, and that would be too grating and complicated for most people.
Eating too many carbs and fats *together* is at the root of a lot of the sickness and diseae that you see in people.
Eating pasta with some tomato sauce is perfectly fine, but eating that same pasta with tomato sauce and parmeggiano cheese is a problem exscept as a special treat because we were not designed to eat that many cabs with that many fat at once. Foods that are rich in both carbohydrates and fats are not found in Nature.
Eating butter can be perfectly fine(unless you have a genetic tendecny towards cardiovascular disease), but eating that same butter spread on bread is very problematic.
Eating cream *or* cane is perfectly fine, but eating ice cream is very problematic except as a very special treat because eating that cream with large amounts of sugar is a cobination not found in Nature and thar we did not evove to eat - putting aside the gigantic quantities of calories.
Another thing: it is hoeless to compare the health of certain people to others. Centenarians, and especially semi-supercentenarians(ages 105+) are absolute freaks of Evolution, and what applies to them is somply not relevant to average people. Thre have been cases of Centenarians that smoked 2-3 packs of cigarettes a day for 50-60 years, never exercised a day in their lives, and ate nothing but fatty cheese and cake, and still went on to outlive the average person by almost 30 years. How healthy you are, and how good you feel, has a lot more to do with your genes than with anything else.
Centenarians are people that, ages 90 or 100, have a health profile compatable to that of a healthy 60 year-old or even younger than that.
Consider Jeanne Calment. Do you know how she celebreated her 8oth Birthday? By cycling 30 miles without any training. How many even 20 year-olds can hop on a bike and cycle 30 miles without any trianing? Not many Ms.Calment went on to live almost another 43 years after that.
Centenarians and especially semi-Supercentenarians are absolute monsters of Evolution. They have this health and longevity because it is written into how their genes code proteins, not because of a diet or exercise.
Consider Christian Mortensen, the second oldest man ever. On his 113th Birthday, he...went to work. He was a tailor, and at age 113 he could still stand for 10 hours straight. The average male 35 years younger than him was dead and buried, while he could still stand for hours at that age. He went on to live almost 3 years after that. Do you know what was Mr.Mortensen's favorite dish? Roasted pork. He also smoked cigars every day for almost 80 years. His health only declined severely at age 115, and he died soon hereafter.
Mr.Mortensen's dad lived to 99 despite being a heavy smoker, and his mom died at 103 during a time when average women died at 63. GENES.
The reason why these people live so long is not a special diet or exercise regimem, but simpley because Evolution made their bodies more duable. It is the same reason(to a higher degree) why Bowhead whales live to age 210.
They put cells of Centenarians under the stress of oxidants and radiation, and they showed that their cells repair DNA better than ours, Bowhead whales repair DNA even better than Human centenarians. Centenarians also have superior protein homoestasis despite having decrease growth signaling, and they have a cardiovascular profile that no amouns of statin can give you. Not to mention that they can have thei superior cardiovascular status while having superior insulin signaling, while statins induce insulin resistence.
You cannot "cheat" your way to having what Evolution didn't give you. Jeanne Calment lived into her 13th decade for the same reason that young Brook Shields was gorgeous. It's GENES. Just like there is no amount of mediucation or dietary change that can give you the health of a Supercentenarian like Jeanne Calment, there is no amount of plastic surgery that can give you the facial bone structure and symmetry of a young Brook Shields. GENES. It;s the film "Gattaca" in real life. But most people don't want to hear this because we live in hper-egalitarian times.
Stop trying to find a "magical" diet orlifestyle, and just do the best with what you have.
Is selling jerky considered a conflict of interests?
on top of that, there is a huge difference between meat and "meat" .. one thats organically, naturally grown cattle or wild animals compared to a bird who lived in catacombes, never sees daylight or a single bug, eats grains etc. And then the processing - 1) one meat thats not heat processed or heatprocessed in avocado oil or butter 2) meat thats heatprocessed in oil thats good for jetfuel or car fuel on machine lubricants etc.
Just about all foods are processed.
@@VernCrisler True but there are many that are not and that's what I eat. Just whole foods unless I have no choice (which is rare).
@@VernCrisler how come? You mean veggies, fruits, mushrooms,fish, eggs, wholemilk, seads nuts berries??
@@BillyBoy66 Milk is processed. Anything you eat from a can or box is processed. Whey protein is processed. Fast foods are processed. Popsicles and ice cream are processed. Fish is processed, unless you catch your own. Vegetables and fruits are processed starting with herbicides, insecticides, etc. If you don't eat processed vegetables or fruits, you are probably eating a lot of bug larvae. You can have all of that, I don't mind. If we didn't eat processed foods, our teeth would by now have been ground down from all the dirt and sand in the food. Without food processing, we would have died from botulism long ago.
@@VernCrisler I think you misunderstand 'processed'... or maybe it's me. I don't consider a grass fed steak as processed. Nor do I consider free range chicken or eggs processed, as well as organic veggies, etc. I consider them whole foods. By your definition, you'd have to live out in the wild and produce ALL your own food. My view of 'processed' is if the whole food has been manipulated in a way that it no longer looks like the original food you started with. White rice is processed, brown rice is not. Flour is processed. etc... see my point?
What is the recommendation for grams of fiber per day? 25 grams for women?
Dr Attitia probably thinks it’s essentially a non issue. He was in ketosis for years. He isn’t now but I doubt his opinion has changed that much. If you’re eating any fruit and vegetables at all it’s not something to worry about.
Dietary Fiber Intake May Influence the Impact of FTO Genetic Variants on Obesity Parameters and Lipid Profile
It appears that the more the better as long as you are digesting it well.
The way you cook the red meat also matters: grilling, frying, or steaming
What about air fryer?
@@j.davila4523 i think it has to do with the char burnt meats which are known carcinogens . i personally don't eat grill or bbq meats that often .
IT dies Matter, but does Not Change the fact of just 50 grams a day, which the WHO recommends, increases the risk of cancer by 20%
What is crazy is that Peter can give statements like nutritional epidemiology is trash and say with full confidence that red meat does not contribute to cancers. So if we are disregarding nutritional epidemiology where does the confidence in any outcome come from ? If nutritional epidemiology is trash we should just state that atm we don't know.
yes
Hi Dr Attia, thank you for endless helpful information you share with us. Nothing to do with today’s subject, but I need your thoughts about the connection between hearing loss and dementia. My husband, lost hearing in his right ear, and has tinnitus, many years ago.. Two years ago was diagnosed with vascular Dementia and Alzheimer’s.
Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Million thanks!!!
I'm no doctor, but I do have a hearing impairment. I wear two hearing aids that go inside the ear. I've been hard of hearing since I was a little boy. I'm now 58. To answer your question, there is a strong possible connection between hearing loss and dementia. That's why people with hearing loss must get hearing aids. Hearing aids can reduce the possibility of getting dementia.
@@uuzoo must?
@@2cupojoe136 Yes, must. Hearing aids can reduce dementia 50% or more. Without them there is a better chance one will get dementia. Take your pick?
Doc, you seemed to have used "meat" and "processed meat" interchangeably. While I would categorize my diet as "carnivore," I would also say it is almost devoid of "processed meat." That said, the studies you referred to didn't seem to have results that were significant'y in favor of "no meat" whatsoever. Your thots? (PS love your work - both these videos and your podcasts on your website.)
Attia changing his stance on meat & cancer. He will soon change his stance on saturated fat/high LDL causing heart disease. I promise.
If that's where the money is, sure.
@@HWCWTD hallelujah that he’s changing his stance. And there is no money in promoting a diet of saturated fat as there is no money in curing illness. Peter is a dick, I doubt he will ever preach such truth.
@@sunnyguitardude there IS . The meatindustry does fund influencers
@@danielweiss4498 so you’re not ok with hardworking folk like Chaffee or Baker actually making some money. But you’re completely fine when the entire processed food, vegan, and the pharmaceutical industry rake in unimaginable amounts of money despite the fact that the overall populace is sicker than it has ever been. Good to know. Your priorities are certainly straight.
@@sunnyguitardude I dont Care about that . WHO classifies as 2A :) but for sure there is no
data.. but a youtuber knows it better
What about the increase of intestinal inflammation as proclaimed by orthomolecular teachings?
And what are your thoughts about orthomolecular teachings in general?
Cheers
You need to have Matt Nagra on.
WHO classifies as 2A :) but for sure there is no data...
That's it, just 50 grams a day, which the WHO recommends, increases the risk of cancer by 20%
No.
Ah No! But sugar, flour/bread and seed oils "Yes".
An issue with the position here is that we don't categorise white meat or fish as cancer causing. If the hypothesis is that the studies showing increased risk with red meat is due to lack of vegetables, or that people can't reliably recall their dietary pattern, or that people who eat less red meat are richer, or healthier in other ways, why do we not see the same results with chicken and fish? I don't think there's a satisfying response to that and it does imply that red meat has a promoting effect on cancer occurrence. That effect does appear relatively small but from a societal health perspective that could impact thousands of people. It makes sense to make people aware of this probable problem and people can do with that information as they please.
I don't think it needs to be downplayed even if you continue to consume red meat. I consume alcohol even though I think it's bad for me, and I don't need to pretend it's fine to justify my consumption.
People walk around with the attitude it wont be me until it is. Nobody cares about anything. Until it affects them personally.
Its plain and simple. Non-vegetarians will never believe these studies, vegetarians will always believe these studies. Few exceptions of course
Believe what you want. But the IS Always reallity No Matter what someone believes
@@danielweiss4498 no idea what you want to say
This is what I thought, too, until I read about the gc variant of sialic acid, which humans cannot break down, and to which we develop antibodies. Coincidentally it’s highest in beef and pork, and lowest in kangaroo, venison, duck and rabbit.
You read bullshit. Eat your meat woman
The other option is GMO carbs and gasoline(sugar)
Kangaroo!? For real?
@@karencox3235 Yep, this article is not the last word, but it is an introduction to a possible direct link between certain species of red meat and cancer. Stay tuned….
Forgot the link: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9858279/
And?
but ... seeing the Neu5GC research, which is existing in red meat and can directly induce inflammation ... isn't this a measurable risk factor for cancer which can be directly observed ?
There is specific research that clearly shows that there is no increased cancer risk.
Funny, the only thing that seems to sidestep my crohns is a diet high in red meat. I start eating garlic, or pastas or hardy vegetables like broccoli, I can feel disabled for days to weeks just from that one meal. Meat with a limit on everything else gives me some semblance of normalcy that I’ve lost since the disease developed.
Vegan for the animals
George "The Animal" Steele says thank you.
No, but it causes giddiness and satiation.
From the American Institute of Cancer Research: “Eat no more than moderate amounts of red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb. Eat little, if any, processed meat.”
Arguments from authority aren’t arguments.
@@UnskilledGrappler They have reviewed the science to make their recommendations. Arguments from those who aren’t familiar with the science aren’t valid arguments.
@@UnskilledGrappler Following your logic, no authority figures can be trusted. Do you consider Peter Attia your authority & do you believe his arguments?
Them and AHA are corrupt
Thank you PA! Preach the obvious truth 🥩🥩🥩. How can something we evolved/adapted to eat almost exclusively be killing us. With that understanding, humans should only eat natural grass/pasture fed, antibiotic/hormone free red meat and don't throw out the organs!
Guessing school wasn’t really your thing…
But nevertheless, in practical terms, red meat is very often strongly processed, is very high in saturated fats - which by themselves have ample of evidence to be dentrimental to health and has a bad amino acid composition with very high values of methionin, which at least in hundrets auf animal studys (including primates!) is live-shortening. I think Peter should also put these lines of evidence into account, which are both causal and robust, because the mechanics, why methionine and saturated fats are dentrimental, are well established.
Show me these studies that show methionine is life shortening as you called it. It’s the most important amino acid for methylation processes
There's no evidence that saturated fats are detrimental to health. The only fats shown to be bad are trans fats.
I really struggle with the interpretation of studies on this. How can Gregor and others cite data that animal protein, casein etc turn on cancers. Are all the studies epidemiological?
Have we finally debunked The china study?
From the statements, I’m sure it’s almost impossible to control for other lifestyle factors making it impossible to say either way?
Great video; thankyou.
China study has been debunked for ages.
Greger is not that interested in actual hard outcome data from human studies. He is famous for cherry picking mechanistic speculations and roaming around petri dishes, anything to bolster his vegan agenda. For anything else, he literally uses white out.
Greger you mean? TMAO, IGF-1. Plenty of studies show blood results and other stuff in clinical trails. Protein elevates growth hormones. Not good for cancer. Big pharma is looking into meds to down regulate growth hormones. Follow the big pharma money. Greger is right looking into that. Lots is not causal tho.
Nailed it! 5:20-~6:00.
For those interested in better understanding nutrition I recommend the CZcams channel "Nutrition Made Simple!" by Gil Carvalho, MD PhD. His video "We're all confused about Red Meat. Here's Why." is one of the best videos about how science works. It explains how we can come to scientific conclusions in the absence of absolute certainty.
Maasai & Inuit both live exclusively on animal products (with no vegetables) and don't get cancer, so the lack of plant foods is not the problem.
If want to eat a nice piece of meat once a month, but you eat a lot insoluble fiver in a daily basis, and also soluble, i think you think be ok.
I have no references but once I saw a Reddit cancer researcher talk about some relation to TMAO.
Also, some talk about combining chlorophyll rich foods with red meat. What say you, Peter? I know you are a legit ex cancer surgeon who hunts to eat.
Nobody knows what they are talking about. Ive know people who are 90 percent red meat , barely any veggies that lived to be 90. And vegetarians that had cancer in their 40s.
Please debate Nick Hiebert (The nutrivore)
Gas station turkey meat…eww
Meat quality does matter but fiber definitely helps prevent it if meat intake is high
I'd argue even the lowest quality meat, given it is clean (no additives) does not cause any harm. It's just less nutritious, except its protein and fat content that are the same as high quality meat. Studies reveal higher omega3 in grassfed beef for example, which is more anti-inflamatory, but whoever gets on a meat only diet, it's automatically avoiding a high omega6 diet anyway. The difference between quality of meats would negligible.
The idea that colon cancer is caused by “lack of insoluble fiber” is also based on observational studies and, thus, also not proven by science. Tribal peoples who subsist primary on animal products with very little fiber have very low colon cancer rates. I think that , over the years, that Peter (whom I greatly respect and follow regarding areas such as TRT) has increasingly moved towards the middle. He now says that vegetable oils are not that bad. If you’re going to write a book that is a best seller and get quoted by mainstream press like Newsweek, you have to move towards the middle. Whereas I used to believe most of what Peter says was gospel, I now am selective in that he has become compromised. Still a brilliant doctor no doubt.
That's because those people are dying in their 30s and 40s from other illnesses and diseases. They literally don't live long enough to get cancer
Sellout you mean. The evidence that mainstream evidence is incorrect is seeping in everywhere, yet he still falls back on standard b/s. If they’re not promoting carnivore, they’re likely not worth listening to.
My mom didn't eat any meat and died of cancer. 🤷♀️
My father smoked 3 packs of cigarettes everyday for 60 years and lived to 98?
Couldn't you compare chicken lovers to red meat lovers?
Important to consider that cancer rates have gone up due to people eating far less food with amygdalin. I suggest reading up on laetrile and how it was shown to prevent and cure cancer. The evidence is strong, but since you cannot patent anything from nature, it was buried.
The saturated fat in red meat only causes heart disease if you have the ApoE4 allele or cholesterol hyperabsorption.
In that case, you will have to eat lean red meat with olive oil instead.
If not, enjoy your saturated fat!
Not me though, because I am an ApoE4 carrier and sterol hyperabsorber, so it's only lean red meat and olive oil for me. :(
Do you know where I could learn more about this?
@@N22883 Look up 'Dr Gundry ApoE4' and 'Thomas DeLauer ApoE4'.
@@N22883 Me too.
Go on…
Me to sounds interesting
No amount of research can convince someone who always cites biases, confounding factors, and the impossibility to conduct “rigorous” human trials. Just because you live a healthy lifestyle and consider yourself immune to potential risks associated with certain food intake, it is simply irresponsible to say that nutrition matters little to the ordinary folks, who generally do not have the luxury of time and resources to work out and bio hack themselves like you do.
Red meat doesn't cause cancer. Full stop. Regardless of Peter's socioeconomic status. Stop listening to Michael Gregor
….says the guy selling jerky.
Nearly everything gives cancer. The End.
Even the natural radioactivity in building materials. We should stop living inside homes.
@@Gojimarubut tents have prop 65 warnings on them….
Not true…processed meats and alcohol. Eat your veggies.
@Gigi-nv5ev I mean, even some fruits and veggies aren't ideal. The pesticides? They'll probably always be better than the ultraprocessed crap that most people scarf down, but still not perfect. It's really hard to find perfectly clean food. Maybe things like avocados, with a thick, impenetrable skin.
@@Tritiuminducedfusion We get much of our veggies from our garden, so we do have control over that. Also, thorough washing can really help. Fruits & veggies contain such good nutrients that are magical to our bodies and brains. I highly doubt that anyone would get cancer from fruits and vegetables! We are here because of our hunter & gatherer ancestors. Eventually, they used fire to cook meat, but that was not often as in three or more times a day like many people do. Meats are also inflammatory and intentionally injected with chemical that are adverse to human. If we have meats, we need cleaner meats and eggs, too.
Did they do the same study using white meat, replacing red meat. Surely that would be a good comparison.
Finally!
Peter, the title of the podcast is does red meat cause cancer. You were talking about processed meats sausage, etc. the whole podcast was "word salad"!😢
Humans don’t need fiber.
This guy definitely is not up to the latest updates in epidemiology technology, if you are quoting epidemiology from the 90, 80...ect i agree wholeheartedly with you, but since then epi have become a very serious branch of research medicine thanks to its advances. Epi is not your usual survey anymore guys, this is serious science and who doesn't understand that is either slow or really has a lot to learn yet.
Buy my jerky!
Red meat does play a large role in cancer development when you eat a standard western starch based diet. I’d rather be vegetarian completely or carnivorous completely. When you live in the middle that’s when trouble appears. (Chronic Randle cycle activation, MTOR hyperactivity etc.)
Wrong, just 50 grams a day, which the WHO recommends, increases the risk of cancer by 20%
@@danielweiss4498 lol keep appealing to authority and disregard all the facts I just said. Tumors shrink on a carnivore diet. The WHO is full of shit.
Good grass fed meat is very nutritious thing you can eat. The vegans and pharmaceutical companies will say otherwise. Guess who sponsors all those studies. Get it.
WHO classifies as 2A :) but for sure there is no
data.. but a youtuber knows it better
Dude eats 10 sticks of Jerky a day. Who thef would listen to this guy about anything nutrition related?
(long read,)(Part1)Eating grilled/charcoaled red meat *absolutely* increases your risk of stomach and intestinal cancer. This is not even debatable. The heterocyclic aromatic hydrocarbons produced when you burn meat are *proven* carcinogens. However, whether lean meat that is boiled in water increases the risk of stomach and intestinal cancer is a lot more debatable.
For instance: Does a diet rich in saturated animal fat cause cardiovascular disease? The short answer is:
"Not necessarily."
The long answer is:
"It's complicated."
Likewise, does a diet rich in carbohydrates lead to insulin resistence and diabetes? The short answer is:
"Not necessarily".
The long answer is:
"It's complicated."
The problem here is that most people are not very intelligent or scientifically literate. Most people want "guidelines for life", and prescriptions of what they should do. They want very simple and straighforward "rules of thumbs for life". But the problem is that such simple rules of thumb often don't exist.
I am a PhD biochemist, and most people don't really understand just how difficult it is to prove things scientifically. For instance, something as simple as showing that scurvy is caused by a lack of ascorbic acid(vitamin C) took 30 years to prove. It took another 50 years to demonstrate the role of vitamin B12, which is involved in folate recycling and the role of adenosylcobalamin in prolonging certain acyl chains of fatty acids which is needed for the production of myelin, and cobalamin deficiency eventually needs to peripheral neuropathy.
Here is a fact: metabolism is not only hyper-complicated, but flexible. Trying to determine what is the "ideal" diet for human beings is problematic for several reasons:
1. We didn't Evolve to be healthy or long-lived, but to reproduce. It is a mistake to assume that there is an "ideal" diet because Nature doesn't care about ideal things. Nature cares about survival. And your survival is only really important until the age of around 20. For instance, why do we get only one set of adult teeth, even though teeh get easily eroded? Becase the one set of teeh you have is good enough to keep you alive until the age of 20 or 25 until you have your teeth. After that, it doesn't really matter what happens to you. A Human Being is like a flower that blossoms to attract polinizing insects(sexual mates). After you have surved your purpose of spreading your DNA to the next generation, your body is disposable. Evolution doesn't care what happens to you. To Evolution, you do not need to be super-healthy or long-lived. All you need is to be healthy "enough" and long-lived "enough": to pass on your DNA, which means mostly ages 20-25. That is the reason why people in their late teens to early twenties are beautiful. Because everything works perfectly and harmoniously, because Evolution mainstains that structure for the purpose of reproduction. After you had babies, you are as good as dead as far as your DNA is concerned.
2. Assuming that food is easy to get. A lot of people that support specific diets such as veganism, or keto diet, or Paleo, or Mediterranean assume that, in Nature, you can "choose" what to eat. This is a follish. Nature is not an all-you-can-eat buffet. Calories in nature are scarce and hard to come by. This is the key mistake that the "Vegan" and "Keto|" and "carnivore" people make. They assume that there is an "ideal" diet out there and that all health problems follows from not following that diet. Again, Nature doesn't care about you having "perfect" health. And, in Nature, animls that must eat a specific diet are not as well-equiped to survive as animals with flexible metabolisms.
This is not to say that there aren't animals that eat "niche" diets. There are. Lions, for instance, are obligate carnivires and they die when live stock is low. Cows are ungulates that must eat grass and massive amounts of cellulose to survive. But there are very, very, very few animals in Nature that have developed truly niche diets. Such niche diets evolve *rarely* when a particular type of food becames much more available than others for a very long period of time, which allows Evolution to act on genes that are designed to work best under that diet. The classic examples are grass and meat, both universal on planet Earth. But most living things eat both animal and vegetal matter, and that includes even those few animals with specific diets. For instance, are cows "vegans"? No! Why? Because even though they eat only grass, they still eat pounds of insects from the grass that they eat. Likewise, are lions absolute carnivores? No! Why? Because lions eat mostly organs, and the liver especially is fulk of glycogen(carbohydrate). The "vegan" and "carnivore" diets are "aseptic" diets that simply don't exist in Nature.
You want to know the *truth? Humans are *omnivores* . Like, in fact, 95% of all animals. For instance, a cat like a lion cannot even taste sweat. Humans, conversely, have a natural sweet tooth and, unlike lions, actually seek out carbohydrate-rich foods such as fruits. Do you think a lion craves apples or bananas? No. The lion, in fact, cannot even taste them! Likewise, Humans are not genuine herbivores like cows, and this is proven by the fac tthat vitamin B12 is present only in animal foods, and vegans that do not supplement become very sick. Cows, conversely, get all the B12 that they need from simply eating the cobalt present in grass, which gets converted by bacteria in the small intestines and absorbed. Humans, conversely, have a digestive system that does not allow them to get the B12 produced by bacteria in the gut. So Humasn must eat B12 that is already made from the foods that they eat. When you tell this to vegans, they go crazy because this simple fact pretty much disproves Veganism. They make all sorts of excuses, like saying that B12 is present in soil. But it's not Cobalt is present in soil, but not Cobaliamin(B12). 2 very different molecules. Likewise, people that eat "carnivore" end up suffering from scurvy if they do not supplement with vitamin C, because vitamin C is present only in plant foods. When you tell this to carnivores, they flip and make all sorts of excuses, like that most of the need for vitamin C comes from high-carbohydrate diets since carbs deplete ascorbic acid(not true). You can prove to the proponents of carnivore that this diet is abnormal for Humans(just like Veganism), by pointing out that sailors in the past ate lots of fish rich in omega-3 and protein abd zero carbs, and yet despite their zero carb diets they still developed scurvy. They only stopped having scurvy when they started to squeeze lemon juice over their fish!
But most people don't want to hear these things because it takes away from their fantasy of a "perfect" diet. The hallmark of a good scientist is that, when reality proves your theory wrong, you discard the theory and not reality. Discarding reality is not a good thing to do.
The reason why people get so angry when you disprove their stupidity is because a lot of people are vey sick, and they want to feel better. While they are wrong that diet is the cause of their sickness, which in most cases is just the result of bad genes and failed auto-repair as you age, it is is true that diet does play a role in why so many people are so sick all the time.
The reason why so many people are sick is not necessarily from eating carbws, or fats, or allergens, etc. It's mostly from eatiing too much, too often and the wrong combinatios of foods.
Even though there is no such thing as a "perfect" diet tor the many reasons that I elucidated, I can give you a simple "guideline" of what to do to improve your health when it comes to die to achieve the best health that is possible for a human being of a given age.
- Go through periods of famine. In Narure, calorioes come and go. Our metabolism evolved for periods of famine. Going up to 4 or 5 days without eating is perfectly healthy and natural. The longest you can without eating is a week, two tops. Going more than 2-3 weeks without eating is incredibly dangerous and actually can accelerate ageing and disease for several reasons not worth getting into. In the old days, we called this starvation. Now it's fancy to call it autophagy. But autophagy is not a longevity-boosting mechanism as people think, but a survival-boosting mechanism. If you read the works or Vera Gorbunova(PhD molecular biologist working on the field of ageing) prolonged starvation dramatically accelerates ageing(if you are about to die from starvation, your DNA stops auto-repair completely and boosts fertlity to pass on to the next generation at any cost to you)
Peter Attia is obviously manipulating information of some research results he mentions to his financial bias as investor of meat products.
When u eat more meat there is less space for fiber and phytonutrients :). That is such a excuse for the obvious
Fiber hate: Younger people were not around when Boomers etc were sold on fiber. Lots of older people were force fed prunes and fiber cereal and Metamucil. Not coincidentally, their senators were getting millions of dollars from those companies. Fiber can just be gotten if you'd eat a vegetable once in a while. So there is a healthy middle ground. Most Americans need to eat more whole grains and vegetables. Because here is a secret that an astonishing number of Americans do not know - diarrhea is not normal! If you regularly have diarrhea multiple tikes per week, stop blaming gluten or seed oils or Mexicans or Chinese people. Start eating a damn vegetable once in a while. You can thank ne later.
That may be true in a few situations. But if you’re suffering from IBS, colitis, or Crohn’s disease fiber is NOT your friend. I suffer from a type of colitis brought on by a lifetime of gastrointestinal autoimmune issues. The gastroenterologist told me the only solution was a daily steroid for the rest of my life. That solution didn’t work for me because I didn’t think I had a steroid deficiency, so I started an elimination diet. Before I started an elimination diet to find out what was causing the problem I was on the toilet 20 or 25 times a day. My life revolved around the closest toilet. Over the course of a year or so, as I eliminated foods, the most relief came with the elimination of all fibrous foods, of any kind. It didn’t matter whether it was from grains, fruits, or vegetables. They irritated my colon. Although quitting grains seems to have helped the most. Now after almost 10 years since I eliminated fiber, things are normal. I eliminated everything but meat. It was the only way to arrest the condition. My bloodwork, which I check every 6 months is phenomenal. Whole body MRI shows nothing but normal wear and tear for 72 yo. And calcium cat scan of my heart shows clear arteries.
My mitochondrial clock, Horvath, shows my age to be around 60.
I’m not making any recommendations. I’m merely pointing out that everyone is different. Some people may have to experiment with different solutions to solve their problems. One size does NOT fit all. I haven’t averaged more than 4 or 5 grams, probably less, of fiber a day in close to a decade and due great.
@@johndoe-gt6gpwell said and glad you are well! People need to see there’s hope but it takes time and effort.
does things like Metamucil have any additional benefits as a supplement?
Telling people to eat more fiber to prevent colorectal cancer seems confusing. If fiber is so good for us, why are people with diverticulitis told not to eat fiber during flare ups? If fiber was the cure, wouldn't more of it be required during bad episodes and not less?
What does diverticulitis have to do with cancer? [I can't respond on this thread because the Uboob Algo keeps on deleting my replies.]
"if x is so good then why does it not work in this one very specific and rare example?". If nuts are so good why do people with nut allergies die from them? Do you see how stupid and braindead your question was?
@@VernCrisler "The risk of having colorectal cancer after an episode of acute diverticulitis is 44-fold higher than that of an age- and gender-adjusted reference population."
Meyer, Buchs, Ris. (2018 Oct 24). Risk of colorectal cancer in patients with diverticular disease. Pubmed.
Perhaps because they have a medical condition?
There are no current guidelines recommending against fiber for people with diverticulitis. There was a "low residue diet", but this has largely been discredited. Divericulitis is very poorly understood, so I'd take any information on it as highly tentative.
At end of the day centenarians eat very little meat or none. Okinawans. Coloretal cancer developed countries is the highest, but to fair animal is not the only contributor
Incorrect . My parents are from Sardinia meat is eaten almost ever other day.
Total Nonsense.
Are your parents centenerians?
Meat has quality protein, there is not doubt, but it also has a lot saturated fats as well. High consumption of meat is not healthy at all . Look for studies in National Library of Medicine and see for yourself
@@gilbertcacti6353 my grandparents are 97 and 101 currently. My parents are in their 70s and thriving. We all eat the same diet. Now let me clarify. We are not eating large amounts of meat every other day, but lamb, specific cuts of pork, fish and beef are eaten in moderation. Frequently but in moderation. Wild Vegetables like fennel, Swiss chard, carrots and beans etc are also eaten.
I don't know if he's just lying or genuinely doesn't understand relative risk ratios.
Sugar causes cancer BTW.
And Red meat , Smoking and 1000 other things
No it doesn't
Carb + sugar = best friend of cancer
You’re missing the word refined
Protein on the other hand…
Poor Peter, he likes to eat animal products thus can’t help but make excuses for his bad habits.
The WHO never said red meat causes cancer. They said consumption of red meat elevates the risk of cancer by a small amount. There is a difference between the two statements
Who cares says the super fit and healthy vegetarian since 1977!
It’s not red meat it’s any type of animal protein. Specifically the heme iron, heterocyclic compounds, TMAO, and endotoxins. It doesn’t matter what type of meat or if it’s grass fed or not. It’s any meat period. That’s the problem. We know after a person consumes meat, inflammation and damage to the endothelial cells within the artery take place for hours after animal flesh is consumed. They show this in the Game Changers. And on average if a person has three meals per day with animal protein at the center of a plate and you’re puzzled why people develop cancer? Seriously? Especially in the colon, pancreas, and prostate.
The World Health Organization in 2015 designated red meat as a Group 2A CARCINOGEN meaning it probably causes cancer. This was after reviewing over 800 studies. If there wasn’t any evidence there would be any classification at all.
So why continue to doubt and fight the evidence? Is it personal bias? Pressure from the medical, pharmaceutical, or other special interests? Only you will know. It’s time to stop being disingenuous. We know what causes disease especially cancer. It’s animal protein! Haven’t you read the China Study by Dr. T. Colin Campbell?
How many studies do you need exactly Peter before people in the medical field acknowledge meat is as harmful as tobacco. Let’s just hope it’s not 7,000. Meat isn’t just incredibly cruel it’s incredibly harmful to our health and the planet. It’s time to take the blind folds off now and do better.
Notice how he doesnt address any mechanisms of actions, any actual legitimate claims as to why meat does cause cancer are not addressed at all.
processed meats are carcinogenic which he touches on, but again, doesnt discuss mechanism, essentially avoids the topic of mechanistic action of cancer formation from red meat, there are several pathways, not just one.
Even what hes saying hes not answering clearly.
Yes, you can get it, but also opens with nonsense, says its because not enough vegetables and fibre in the diet, again avoiding the topic of red meat. This guy is very frustrating.
"all epidemiology belongs in the waste basket", man. Avoids epidemiology, avoids mechanisms of action, which are known, methionine, heterocyclic amines, both known causes of cancer super high in red meat.
I mean he goes on to quote epidemiology, after disparaging it. Really?
This is an argument.
He asks how can we untangle the variable from the effect, i.e., well, you don't dismiss all the epidemiology outright, you use it to draw on, with the rest of the data, mechanistic, and so on, and that's not what peter wants to do.
He doesn't want to address the large body of data suggesting mechanism at play here.
He wants to bury his head in the sand.
After disparaging epidemiology, goes on to quote it to support his case.
You cant make this up, but that's what's happened. And people in the comments, yea yea I agree Peter.. God. Look at the body of evidence and draw some conclusions based on all the evidence.
It doesn't have to be epidemiology, but if all of it, constantly produces the same results, higher fibre more plant diverse diet, mininal meat consumption, if all data shows that produces better health outcomes, why ignore all of it?
especially when we understand what is happening with cancer formarion, at a mechanistic level, why it happens.
This guy is a dinosaur unfortunately and when they all die off, the new crop of scientists will take the mantle and say yes, excess red meat consumption causes cancer, you should probably try not to have it like the guy who is telling you its fine, is doing. He consumes red meat multiple times a day, something he failed to mention.
what an absolute failure of a response as a health professional.
Im very grateful to peter for his contribution to health for the world, but his take on these topics is biased, and quite frankly, cowardly.
"you need to do better."
well said. I'm a paid member of his podcast and early medical program, and I've noticed his evasive and dismissive attitude whenever it comes to nutrition. I suspect the reason why he's so famously frustrated with nutritional research is that almost no scientific studies produce the results that support his preference on food intake.
You now say that vegetable oils are not that bad...so, you are now compromised.
He did..?
Sponsored by the beef council ...
I love red meat :/
I love cocaine
I Love heroine
And yet, we never see benefits from more meat. Across the board, it's the same trend. Those populations who eat less meat and more veg, tend to live longer and how fewer chronic disease deaths. If the Epi was truely useless then why dont we see more studies of benefits from an exlusion of plants?
Because no one is paying for those studies. There's no money in it, and the militant vegans who otherwise run food studies wouldn't publish it if it didn't support their narative.
Never see the benefit of eating meat? You're circle of people who you have listened to is small. It's a really easy way to get some kinds of protein naturally, so long as you don't go overboard. And yes, there's many studies that still show we break down and use the proteins better than the vegetarian ones. Not to say you can't, but still. It's a lot easier to go hard on building muscle, etc from there. And if you're totally going vegan, I'd like to see you find a way to get omega 3 or some of these things we see in study after study significantly lowers heart attack risk, etc from plants.
Note: this is not me saying we can't be healthy vegans, or any lifestyles from there but we need to stop with the absolutes, and realize everything thing is pros and cons and moderation in life. What are the trade offs? The moment you ever say none you're usually in delusion.
For just a brief moment, I thought Peter was finally going to speak some sense until he said it's what you're not eating. 😂
Show me the evidence of fiber
Google, LibGen, LibX exist. Look up the white papers yourself, it's not hard.
@@throwaway450 People deliberately turn a blind eye on clear-cut evidence, confirmation bias is strong among the carnivore-esque folk.
Yep @@Maiden4eva1995
@@Maiden4eva1995 irony is strong with vegetarians
@@Maiden4eva1995Understand “healthy user bias” in clinical research.
Youre not spitting any science man. Im gunna unfollow, i dont learn anything new from your videos
Source: trust me bro
lmao so you didn't even watch the video, nice bro
Did you listen? He just listed a bunch of sources.
@@raekian3935 No, he just discredited tons of research done by true scientists, citing biases, confounding factors, and impossibility to conduct human trials.
@chokachu you do realize he is an actual practicing physician and hires a team of people at his practice and their only job is to shift through scientific papers, research, physician editorials, and pretty much anything to do with health, right???? Or did you just spout your opinion without any facts or research
Whats the source for your comment?
Absolutely nobody needs Fiber LMFAO Fiber , Carbs and Sugar is nothing but Inflammation.
A lot of blah blah to dance around the fact that you are better off eating fruits and vegetables and less meat.
You don’t listen well. But I suppose when you’re already convinced of something, it’s hard to listen.
@@UnskilledGrappler The irony. What did he say? Despite all the blah blah, he suggests that the negative impacts of meat can be mitigated with fruit and vegetable intake lol. The takeaway should be to limit or eliminate meat from the diet.
The point is pretty clear that all studies suggesting red causes cancer are junk because they cannot deal with all confounding factors. You need a mechanistic causal chain from red meat to cancer, which doesn’t exist outside of specific nitrated food like pepperoni. I don’t know how you missed that, but it’s the fundamental problem with the statement and really has nothing to do with vegetables.
@@bobhill4364 you are biased, and your logic is flawed. Your conclusion (that was by no means the "takeway" from this clip) would be applicable if red meat had no benefit to the human diet, but that is not the case. B12 (and other B vitamins), iron, zinc, protein, etc. are all very good reasons to consume red meat, and if you eliminate it from my your diet it's most likely because of your convictions and not because it's the optimal way to live.
@@FredDark Yikes. Like Attia, you failed to form an argument..