This month’s newsletter was curated and edited by: J.W. Holloway and his Team

Synopsis

Many past generations of meat-eaters would be dumbfounded if they could learn of the condemnations now being brought against the eating of red meat. They would be astounded to hear that the food they considered to be premier, is now being condemned. They might even find these condemnations, slander. Consider that the criticisms of red meat as food have arisen mainly in the West after World War II. No food is without fault in terms of the provision of health to the eater. Therefore, it is essential to address the healthfulness of red meat from an objective point of view, one containing nutrition and science. The truth of the matter is vital to everyone who considers eating red meat. On a global scale, the food industry is scrutinized more than at any time in history with the advent of ever-faster communications, along with massive data sources making reliability ever more questionable, even conflicting while also obtaining more precise data.

This is a result of consumers’ focus on health, the environment, and humane animal treatment, as evident in concerns about product composition, labeling, health claims, safety, and sustainability (Troy and Kerry, 2010). In particular, the health claims are critical issues for the red meat industry in the 21st century because of the written word. Namely, that reported relationship of red meat consumption and cardiovascular disease and colorectal cancer found in epidemiological studies specifically implicating fat content and fatty acid profile (Jung, Huang, and Joo, 2016a, b; Cross et al., 2007; Kontogianni et al., 2008; and Bingham, Hughes, and Cross, 2002;); however, results are not consistent. Conflicting, precise data comes with many studies reporting the benefits of lean beef as a part of a healthy diet (Campbell and Tang, 2010; Layman et al., 2008; Roussell et al., 2012; and McAfee et al. 2010).

Commentary

This limited series of the occasional e-letters are comprised of five (5) articles and will appear over a five-month, one per month, which began on the 1 February and will be accessible through Facebook/enhancedexchange.
We are pleased to release the latest issue Part 1! summarizes the biology of each extrinsic trait to set the stage for discussions of production system elements that impact each trait. Therefore, we review the scientific literature of the healthfulness of red meats presenting research results that are both favorable and unfavorable. In this manner, an attempt to obtain a clear vision of the healthfulness of eating red meat is obtainable. Because of the pervasive impact of total fat content and fatty acid profile on beef quality, these two issues remain predominant, especially the aspects concerning appearance, tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and healthfulness. Issues pertaining to the biological considerations and the production system elements impacting these issues, along with the two predominant issues, are explored throughout these E-letters. This first section will focus on a more general approach as to why red meat is beneficial to your health. Nevertheless, because food safety is a primal necessity for consumer satisfaction, discussion of production system elements necessary for food safety was undertaken for deliberation and remains of primal importance; therefore, it will be the topics of discussions separately in the future E-letters.

Interestingly with deliberations supporting recent realization that other characteristics of beef (besides the possibility of contribution to acute diseases) contribute to the health and well-being of the consumer. Contributions are in evidence but are not able to be sensed at consumption (Jime´nez-Colmenero, Carballo, and Cofrades, 2001), these other factors will be cataloged as “extrinsic factors” and discussed here. In this dialogue, the overall impact of red meat on the human diet is explained first. Then, because fat, in particular, is a primal source of criticism of red meat as a food, the second part of the discussion focuses on fat, including fatty acid profile. Therefore, the emphasis is on the influences on human health and the essential biology as ultimately impacting means to alter fat and fatty acid content through manipulation of the production system. The discussion content on the role of red meat in human nutrition highlights the fact that the subject is highly controversial. Research is reported to support both positive and negative roles in human health.

Analysis

Contribution to Man’s Evolution

Anthropology has recognized the importance of food and diet variations for four defined evolutionary eras: 1) Opportunist Hunting, the primordial condition; 2) Organized Hunting, hunting had advanced to a bigger scale, lasting (2) two to (3) three million years; 3) Animal and Plant Domestication, about (10,000) ten thousand years ago; and 4) Luxurious Meat Consumption, meat considered as a disease risk (Larsen, 2003). Eaton and Konner (1997) stated that human genes had not altered much since the Paleolithic period, the era of opportunistic hunting. Humans are animals, vulnerable to the same environmental stresses as other animals (Zucoloto, 2011). Illustration of the four eras depict in light of this timeline; there are several possible influences of diet on human evolution:

1. Anthropological data have also suggested the essential importance of meat consumption in the ability of humans to evolve to an erect posture (Pereira and Vicente, 2013). This posture is considered as the first and most important characteristic distinguishing humans from their ancestors. Posture is a distinguishing characteristic since it allowed more efficient locomotion and load-carrying capacity, which is essential advantages in hunting (Abitbol, 1995; and Wang and Crompton, 2004).
2. Mann (2007) postulated that cranial, dental, and bowel morphological evolution resulted in elevated energy and, ultimately, to an elevated brain/body size ratio. Pereira and Vicente (2013) also noted that the analysis of hominid fossils reveals a visible evolution of cranial and dental characteristics. In comparison to other humanoids, human molar teeth size has decreased, the jaws and front teeth have become stronger, and shearing crests have grown. These evolutionary developments can be explained through the emerging need to tear and chew meat rather than as previously to grind leaves, fruits, seeds, and cereals (Speth, 1989).
3. Considering their body size, primates in general, and humans have metabolically expansive large brains that result from the encephalization process (Aiello, 1992). However, the unusual human brain encephalization is not clearly related to increases in the size of the brain as for other primates but to a relative decrease in human body size (Henneberg, Sarafis, and Mathers, 1998). This is possibly the result of macro-evolutive enlargement. The evolution of human brain chemistry can be characterized by two determinants: the brain requires a homeostatic ionic and electrical information flux, and the sophisticated communication network associated with the human nervous system is conducted by transmembrane transfer systems, which are primarily composed of lipids. Brain lipids are composed of phosphoglycerides and cholesterol (Pereira and Vicente, 2013). They are particularly rich in long-chain fatty acids, primarily arachidonic (C20:4n:6) and docosahexaenoic acids (C22:6n:3), both arising from dietary animal tissues (Crawford, 1970).
4. The gastrointestinal tract features also evolved as the result of evolving dietary preferences. Gut features evolve considering that the gut of herbivores and pure carnivores require different physiological and metabolic adaptations than those by herbivores who evolved a sacculated stomach and well-developed caecum and colon (Pereira and Vicente, 2013). In comparison, a carnivore’s stomach is well developed and acidic with a relatively well-developed small intestine. Homo sapiens are omnivores, thus fitting somewhere between the carnivore and herbivore categories. In comparison to herbivores, Homo sapiens have a simple stomach and a relatively long small intestine but also a reduced caecum and colon (Mann, 2007). The fact that the small intestine is the most prominent organ in the human digestive tract is the result of the need for adaptation to a varied diet, including nutritionally dense foods (Milton, 1999).
5. A factor complicating the nutritional requirements of humans as omnivores is the fact that humans cannot efficiently synthesize the amino acid taurine from its precursors, methionine and cysteine (Chesney et al., 1998), possibly due to low levels of cysteine sulfinic acid decarboxylase (Schuller‐Levis and Park, 2006). Thus, taurine is a dietary requirement of humans and is almost exclusively found in animal products. Even though human proteins do not contain taurine, this amino acid has been reported to be instrumental in several essential biological functions, including its role as an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent. Taurine, therefore, is instrumental in cardiovascular disease prevention. Accordingly, taurine is a vital amino acid in human diets, highlighting the importance of dietary meats since it is almost exclusively found in animal products (Wójcik et al., 2010). Other essential compounds required by humans, such as heme compounds or other porphyrin iron-rich compounds, are only present in meat (especially red meat) and are preferably absorbed from meat as compared to that of other sources containing the ionic iron forms. Herbivores cannot absorb these heme complexes and depend only on ionic forms for absorption (Bothwell and Charlton, 1982).

Contribution to Heart Disease & Cancer

Teicholz (2014) reviewed the human nutrition literature and cataloged the development of the science of human nutrition in the United States (U.S.), showing the systematic error that occurs in any scientific field when an attractive hypothesis appears intuitively correct is promulgated by a charismatic scientist. The promulgation occurs to the extent that it is then acceptable, then accepted, and then subsequent research is oriented to bolster the hypothesis, and research funding agencies erroneously reward the discovery of evidence supporting the “party line.”  The hypothesis is ostensibly reinforced by researchers whose main goal is to have successful careers. Therefore, they conduct research in a manner that not only assures that the hypothesis is proved, but that their careers are promulgated. Teicholz (2014) documents how the hypothesis becomes unassailable dogma. The hypothesis that she addresses is that “if you eat fat, you will become fat.” The bottom line of Teicholz (2014) is that “a higher fat diet is almost assuredly healthier in every way than one low in fat and high in carbohydrates.”

She says that the recent body of research indicates that the only way to consume an adequate amount of fat to stay healthy is to consume saturated fat associated with whole fat dairy, eggs, and meat—even fatty meat (these foods are a necessary component of a healthy diet) (Teicholz, 2014). Teicholz (2014) documents that over the past decade, a preponderance of high-quality scientific studies has shown this to be the case to the extent that the evidence is overwhelming. This body of work has demonstrated beyond doubt that a high-fat, low carbohydrate diet will “fight heart disease, obesity, and diabetes” performing better in this regard than “the Mediterranean diet” and the commonly accepted “healthy” low-fat diet promulgated in the West. The low-fat diet has developed a bad track record in all crucial dimensions as evidenced by rapid escalation of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease since it was prescribed by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 1961 and then adopted by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1980 as the official dietary plan for all American men, women, and children.

The AHA prescription was based on the all appealing hypothesis of Dr. Ansel Keys that he and others “proved up” in epidemiological studies in which, as shown above, one cannot extricate a single factor from the jumble of interrelated and totally confounded effects on any variable of interest (in this case heart disease). The hypothesis went viral in the U.S. because it sounds right, and its proponents were good salesmen. The initial “foothold” was gained by the fortuitous timing that the President of the United States after the end of World War II, Dwight Eisenhower, had a heart attack. His doctor ultimately accepted the hypothesis providing the needed venue to popularize the notion by prescribing a rigorous diet to the President, who eventually died of heart disease while on a diet. Dr. Keys, however, had gained the momentum necessary to set a path through his influence in the AHA, the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. National Institute of Health (NIH) to set the hypothesis in stone as the law of the land (Teicholz, 2014). 

Teicholz (2014) summarizes the course of events this way: “This fundamental mistake by low-fat diet proponents has been compounded over the years in several ways; by billions of dollars spent to prove the hypothesis, by vested interests lining up behind it, and by research careers coming to depend on it. Biases developed and hardened. Researchers quoted inadequate studies back and forth to each other, confirming their biases, as if in a hall of mirrors. Critics were sidelined and silenced. Researchers conducting experiments that didn’t back the ‘party line’ faced the probability of not being successful in attaining grants from the most prestigious organizations (NIH, NSF, and AHA) as well as meeting the likelihood of failing to get their work published in prestigious peer-reviewed journals, thereby wrecking their careers (failing to make tenure).” “Consequently, eventually, a universe of nutrition experts came to believe that meat, dairy, and eggs were dangerously unhealthy foods, forgetting that their ancestors had ever milked a cow.

Initially, animal fats were condemned for raising blood cholesterol, then for raising low-density lipoproteins (LDL’s). Now, we know that both metrics are unreliable indicators of heart disease.” Now, according to Teicholz (2014), “the case against saturated fat has collapsed.”But, finally, as reported by Teicholz (2014), over the last decade, definitive clinical research trials have been reported that a low-fat diet does not fight obesity, heart disease, diabetes, or any kind of cancer. The low=fat diet tested in these clinical trials was the one promoted as being the ideal: plenty of fruits and vegetables, whole grains, and a limited amount of lean meats. This diet has been ingrained into the psyche of Americans to the degree that there may be no way to turn back. Teicholz (2014) sites definitive trials (not epidemiological trials) conducted since 2000 that reveal the problems with low-fat, low-meat diets (Johnson, 2012; Krauss, 2000; and Siri-Torino, 2010).

The following problems were identified by these researchers in low-fat, low-meat diets:

1. The reduction of animal products in diets means that dietary fat is mostly vegetable and olive oils. Olive oil has not been consumed widely in the past and has not been shown to benefit health. Vegetable oils, on the other hand, are highly unstable and, when heated to temperatures required for frying, create trans fats and oxidation products that have shown to be harmful to health.
2. Diets with low levels of animal products risk being deficient in many nutrients discussed in this text. Red meat, cheese, eggs, and whole milk are the richest source of nutrients required for growth, reproduction, and prevention of muscle and bone deterioration with aging.
3. The reduction of animal products in diets results in people getting their needed energy from carbohydrates (human bodies are programmed to get energy one way or the other). Obesity, heart disease, and diabetes have been shown to result from diets high in refined carbohydrates, not from diets high in fat or meats.

Teicholz (2014) concluded that the research from controlled clinical trials conducted during this millennium bolster the history of man in that it is shown that beef (even fatty beef) always has and will continue to occupy the center of the plate because it is the most nutritious food in the world. Binnie et al. (2014) indicated that the action demanded by current evidence is a fundamental science base change in thinking in dietary consultation toward inclusion of unprocessed red meats in a healthy diet. They refer to an inconsistent history in reports of epidemiological trials concerning the relationship between consumption of red meats and health (Micha, Wallace, and Mozaffarian, 2010; Wyness et al., 2011; Teicholz, 2014). The relationship adds to recent research indicating differential effects on health from consumption of unprocessed red meats and processed meats, as shown in large population studies both in Europe and North America.

These more recent studies have shown no association between intakes of unprocessed red meat and any cause of death, including cardiovascular disease or cancer (Kappeler, Eichholzer, and Rohrmann, 2013; and Rohrmann et al., 2013). In the largest meta-analyses of worldwide evidence yet reported, Micha et al. (2010) reported no association between unprocessed red meat and cardiovascular disease. These recent epidemiological trials differ from earlier studies in that they collected data targeted toward differentiating lifestyle components conducive to chronic disease (Binnie et al., 2014). The results of these population studies designed to distinguish causes of disease are supported by controlled experimentation that has found that, within the context of heart-healthy diets: 1) the effect of lean red meats on LDL-cholesterol is no different than white meats (Davidson et al., 1999; Maki et al., 2012; and Roussell et al., 2012), and 2) red meats have a relatively neutral fatty acid profile with respect to blood cholesterol levels (Wyness et al., 2011). 

When this is combined with recent research increasing the understanding of human requirements for key essential nutrients such as high-quality protein throughout the lifecycle and the fact that red meats are the richest sources of bioavailable essential nutrients as reported in other sections of this text, there is strong evidence for emphasizing the value of nutrient-rich foods such as red meats as part of a healthy diet (Elango, Ball, and  Pencharz, 2012; Elango et al., 2010; FAO, 2013; and Binnie et al., 2014). Binnie et al. (2014) indicate that the initial reason for recommendations to limit red meat intakes was to reduce saturated fat intakes. Large, recent meta-analysis studies have concluded that there is no clear evidence to support these dietary guidelines designed to decrease saturated fat intake (Chowdhury et al., 2014; Siri-Tarino et al., 2010).

Conclusion

Deduction made are from the erect posture to cranial, dental, and bowel morphological transformation, it is undeniable that the consumption of red meat had and has an impact on the species Homo sapiens evolution. Namely, red meat contains specific compounds which are crucial for optimal development (such as long-chain fatty acids, required for brain lipids). Furthermore, Homo sapiens is an omnivore (despite misleading trending ideas). Said differently, we are between the carnivore and herbivore categories, among other things, due to the need for adaptation to a varied diet including nutritionally dense food, the small intestine is an essential organ of the human digestive tract. Interestingly, humans cannot adequately synthesize the amino acid taurine. Nevertheless, it has been stated that this amino acid is instrumental in several significant biological functions, including its role as an antioxidant and anti-inflammatory agent.

Consequently, taurine is vital in combating cardiovascular disease. Indeed, taurine is a human dietary requirement and, besides, is almost exclusively present in animal products. Notably, there are criticisms of animal fat rising blood cholesterol and increasing lower density lipoproteins (LDL); we know as a matter of the fact that both metrics are unreliable indicators of heart disease. Similarly, a low-fat diet does not fight obesity, heart disease, diabetes, or any cancer unlike many implies. There is new evidence indicating that these guidelines inadvertently contributed to dietary changes associated with the rapid rise in the prevalence of obesity since the 1970s, as well as other risk factors conducive to heart disease (Danaei et al., 2009; and Slater et al., 2009). Satiety factors are a base source of the trend, illustrating governing food intake dictates that a decline in caloric intake from nutrient-rich foods such as beef, milk, and eggs is a real issue.

This is said as compensated for by an increase in caloric intake from fats (including trans fats) and refined carbohydrates found in many processed convenience foods (Slater et al., 2009). This shift recognition and use is a significant contributor to the epidemic of obesity and chronic disease in first world countries. Therefore, there is a need for a paradigm shift in dietary guidance regarding nutrient-rich foods such as red meats (Binnie et al., 2014). Underscoring, Binnie et al. (2014) concluded that “in an era when people in developed nations are increasingly overfed, but undernourished, emphasizing the value of eating a healthy balance of nutrient-rich minimally processed foods, including lean red meats, is likely to better serve public health (than focusing on dietary restrictions of red meats).” As a result, this upshot might make you wonder, could red meat contribute to the prevention of heart disease, diabetes, or even cancer? We want to proceed further, more in-depth on this controversial subject. Therefore, please join us on the (1) first of next month for Part (2!) Two in order to learn more about Red Meat & its Contribution to the Prevention of Heart Disease & Diabetes and Cancer. Thank you for reading the entire E-letter; please share it with others who also care. We look forward to your comments and having you with us again next month; we will be thrilled in having you with us; thus, we will take your trust in us with great honor and appreciation.