Ah, the enduring allure of the scapegoat. For years, unprocessed red meat has been blamed for the obesity epidemic that afflicts a shocking percentage of adults: a good 40%. Four out of ten, got it? An army. And with obesity, diabetes, heart problems, skyrocketing blood pressure come hand in hand. Naturally, we would look for a culprit, right? And meat, the juicy kind, the kind that reminds us of 'barbecue' and 'family Sunday', well, it was a perfect candidate. Easy to point the finger at, often demonized. And yet a recent study, published in the respectable journal Obesity and led by the brains of the Texas Tech University, says the exact opposite. It says, that is, that red meat consumption has shown no significant effect on weight gain, obesity, or related metabolic conditions. It's like finding out that the butler wasn't the culprit: a nice twist for those who were expecting the usual spiel. But is it really news or just another chapter in a complicated story?
So red meat is acquitted?
Let's put some order on the plate. The research we are talking about comes from Texas Tech University and, as mentioned, found a home in the magazine Obesity. The core of their work? Understanding whether the Red meat unprocessed really does have such a strong link to weight gain, obesity, and those pesky metabolic conditions that often come with them. We're talking about measurable things, not just words: body mass index (BMI), body fat percentage, cholesterol (the good kind, HDL, and the bad kind, LDL), triglycerides. Parameters that doctors look at with some attention.
And the result? Hold on tight: no significant effect of unprocessed red meat consumption on any of these parameters in adults. Nobody. Zero. Nada. The doctor Nikhil V. Dhurandhar, one of the big shots in the Department of Nutritional Sciences of the Texas Tech, put it bluntly: “Our study is the first to fully examine the totality of the causal evidence, which shows no protective or adverse effect of unprocessed red meat intake on obesity".
Now, you will say: but how? They have always portrayed it as absolute evil, or almost. And here comes the beauty (and the ugliness) of science and communication.
The problem of ghosts on the plate
Most of the dietary recommendations on the consumption of Red meat are based, or were based, on observational studies. What does that mean? It means that you ask people what they eat, you look at their health, and you look for correlations. If those who eat more steak also tend to be fatter or sicker, you assume a link. Sounds logical, right?
Doctor Dhurandhar explains well the limit of this approach: it is often based on self-reported data, which is like asking you to remember exactly what you ate in the last six months, with precise grams and portions. Impossible. And then there are a thousand other factors at play: those who eat a lot of meat may smoke, do less sport, eat fewer vegetables, have a less healthy general lifestyle. Blaming only the steak becomes a bit too simplistic.
The study of the Texas Tech University, instead, focused on controlled intervention studies. They selected research where participants were directly given the Red meat to eat, monitoring the effects under more controlled conditions. It's a bit like comparing an interrogation where the suspect can lie (observational study) with a surveillance video that shows exactly what happened (controlled study). This approach, guided by rigorous guidelines (the PRISMA), reduces potential bias and directly evaluates the effect of that specific food. And according to them, it's the most comprehensive analysis on the subject so far.
Red Meat in the Evidence Grinder
But be careful. This doesn't mean you can gorge on ribs and Florentine steaks from morning to night without a care in the world. First, because we're talking about Red meat unprocessed. And here the donkey falls for many past alarmisms. The meats processed (cold cuts, sausages, industrial hamburgers, etc.) are another story. There the evidence on health risks, especially for some types of cancer, seems much more solid. Organisms such as theAIRC They have been stressing this for a long time and giving precise indications (here you can find their guidelines: https://www.airc.it/cancro/informazioni-tumori/corretta-informazione/le-carni-rosse-fanno-male-alla-salute). The Veronesi Foundation also simulated the beneficial effects on public health of a reduction in processed meat consumption (https://www.fondazioneveronesi.it/magazine/articoli/alimentazione/meno-carne-lavorata-qual-e-leffetto-sulla-salute). And even the risk of dementia has been linked to excessive consumption of Red meat processed, as emerged in a study presented at AAIC 2024 that he told you about NeuroInfo (https://neuroinfo.it/congresso/aaic/2024/un-consumo-eccessivo-di-carne-rossa-processata-potrebbe-aumentare-il-rischio-di-demenza/).
Do you see the difference? Unprocessed red meat (the fresh cut, so to speak) versus processed meat (the one with additives, preservatives, various processes). The study of the Texas Tech only talks about the first category and focuses on obesity and metabolic parameters. Other research, such as the meta-analysis published in Nature Medicine laid down by the University of Washington (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z), examined a wider range of health outcomes (cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, stroke, mortality), reaching conclusions that, while suggesting small benefits from a reduction, they define as based on evidence of low certaintyA complex picture, we were saying.
There is also another aspect, which you can decide how much weight to give: This research was funded by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor of the Beef Checkoff and the Texas Beef Council (TBC). Neither the NCBA nor the TBC were involved in the design of the study, the collection and analysis of the data, or the publication of the results, of course. But they still put up the money. I don't want to think badly, and it would be wrong to do so. But I had to give you the information.
A weight on the conscience… or just on the scales?
There is also the human aspect. People Red meat eats it, and often enjoys it. It is a source of quality protein and other essential nutrients. And, not least, protein-rich foods like meat can increase the feeling of satiety. You will feel fuller, so to speak. And feeling fuller can help you control how much you eat, supporting diets and lifestyles that are useful for weight loss or maintenance.
Dhurandhar touches on an interesting point: the stigma that has been created around the Red meat it may even prevent some people from consuming it, causing them to miss out on the potential satiety benefits that could help them manage their weight. It’s a paradox: you demonize a food that, given how our bodies work, could help you avoid overeating, at least in certain circumstances.
Hope, he says Dhurandhar, is that this study provides “a comprehensive view of the research,” so that “clinicians and consumers can make informed decisions about the role of raw beef in healthy lifestyles.” Informed decisions, not based on fear or inaccurate generalizations.
Navigating the sea of diets
So, what do we learn from this latest installment of the “Food: Friend or Foe” saga? We learn that the science of nutrition is damn complicated. That there is no single food that alone will make you gain or lose weight, get sick or heal. That diets are a complex ecosystem of foods, habits, lifestyles, genetics and, let's face it, even a little bit of luck.
We also learn that recommendations change, become more refined, and sometimes reverse (or appear to) as studies emerge with more rigorous methodologies or different perspectives. Feeling lost? You’re in good company. One day a food is good, the next day it’s bad.
This study on the Red meat unprocessed is not the final word. It is a piece that adds to the puzzle. An important piece, because it challenges a rather deep-rooted idea and forces us to look at the data with a more critical eye, distinguishing well between the various types of meat and the various types of studies. And while science tries to unravel this complex tangle, we mere mortals remain there, with our fork in hand. What do we do? We listen to the Texas Tech and bite into that steak with less guilt? Or do we stick to the old guidelines, just to be on the safe side?
There is no easy answer. Perhaps the only sensible thing to do is to remember that balance is often key, that variety on your plate helps, and that no single food is solely responsible for your health or your waistline.
Maybe one day we will eat meat grown in a laboratory, solving the ethical and environmental doubts (as I wrote to you in this in-depth analysis on Futuro Prossimo), but for now, the question of the Red meat untried and its impact on obesity remains there, hanging by a thread of studies and interpretations. The scapegoat defended himself well this time. But who knows, maybe the next culprit is already around the corner, ready to end up in the dock, while we are still trying to figure out what to put on the plate without feeling guilty or at risk.
