Rood vlees: feit en fabel: zoek de 10 verschillen


New member
Van rood vlees eten ga je eerder dood

dinsdag 13 maart 2012

Door: Monique Smits

Het eten van veel rood vlees kan het leven verkorten. Dat blijkt uit een studie van de Harvard Medical School onder 120.000 volwassenen.

De onderzoekers ondervonden dat het eten van veel rood vlees gepaard ging met een significant verhoogd risico op het overlijden aan hart- en vaatziekten en kanker. Zodra het rode vlees wordt vervangen door vis, kip of noten, worden deze risico's verlaagd.

Een extra portie onverwerkt rood vlees bij iemands dagelijkse voeding verhoogt het risico op overlijden met 13 %, de kans op dodelijke hart- en vaatziekten met 18 % en de kans op overlijden aan kanker met 10 %. Bij verwerkt rood vlees, zoals ham en salami, liggen de risico’s nog eens een paar procent hoger.

Met de studie suggeren de onderzoekers dat het verzadigde vet van rood vlees de oorzaak is van de toenemende kans op hart- en vaatziekte. Het natrium in verwerkt vlees zou de kans op die ziekten verhogen door het effect van natrium op de bloeddruk.

De onderzoekers analyseerden de gegevens van bijna 38.000 mannen tussen 1986 en 2008 en de gegevens van zo'n 84.000 vrouwen tussen 1980 en 2008.

Van de Amerikaanse gezonde voeding-expert Brian Ornish mag je af en toe best een stukje rood vlees eten. "Maar beschouw het als een traktatie."

Oorspronkelijke bron:,0,565423.story

All red meat is bad for you, new study says

A long-term study finds that eating any amount and any type increases the risk of premature death

By Eryn Brown, Los Angeles Times

March 12, 2012, 4:28 p.m.

Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.

For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

"Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Crunching data from thousands of questionnaires that asked people how frequently they ate a variety of foods, the researchers also discovered that replacing red meat with other foods seemed to reduce mortality risk for study participants.

Eating a serving of nuts instead of beef or pork was associated with a 19% lower risk of dying during the study. The team said choosing poultry or whole grains as a substitute was linked with a 14% reduction in mortality risk; low-fat dairy or legumes, 10%; and fish, 7%.

Previous studies had associated red meat consumption with diabetes, heart disease and cancer, all of which can be fatal. Scientists aren't sure exactly what makes red meat so dangerous, but the suspects include the iron and saturated fat in beef, pork and lamb, the nitrates used to preserve them, and the chemicals created by high-temperature cooking.

The Harvard researchers hypothesized that eating red meat would also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause, Pan said. And the results suggest they were right: Among the 37,698 men and 83,644 women who were tracked, as meat consumption increased, so did mortality risk.

In separate analyses of processed and unprocessed meats, the group found that both types appear to hasten death. Pan said that at the outset, he and his colleagues had thought it likely that only processed meat posed a health danger.

Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.

But Pan said the bottom line was that there was no amount of red meat that's good for you.

"If you want to eat red meat, eat the unprocessed products, and reduce it to two or three servings a week," he said. "That would have a huge impact on public health."

A majority of people in the study reported that they ate an average of at least one serving of meat per day.

Pan said that he eats one or two servings of red meat per week, and that he doesn't eat bacon or other processed meats.

Cancer researcher Lawrence H. Kushi of the Kaiser Permanente Division of Research in Oakland said that groups putting together dietary guidelines were likely to pay attention to the findings in the study.

"There's a pretty strong supposition that eating red meat is important — that it should be part of a healthful diet," said Kushi, who was not involved in the study. "These data basically demonstrate that the less you eat, the better."

UC San Francisco researcher and vegetarian diet advocate Dr. Dean Ornish said he gleaned a hopeful message from the study.

"Something as simple as a meatless Monday can help," he said. "Even small changes can make a difference."

Additionally, Ornish said, "What's good for you is also good for the planet."

In an editorial that accompanied the study, Ornish wrote that a plant-based diet could help cut annual healthcare costs from chronic diseases in the U.S., which exceed $1 trillion. Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.

Die 120.000 volwassenen uit die studie van de Harvard Medical School, aten vast geen biologisch rood vlees...

Mike: de interessant tekst van jouw aangehaalde link zegt dat in gangbaar hedendaags rood vlees ook meer verzadigd vet zit dan omega 3-vet.

Hierboven heb ik in het eerste artikel vetgedrukt dat het verzadigde vet in rood vlees als probleem wordt aangewezen door de onderzoekers.

Wat mij betreft klok en klepel verhaal.

Is het probleem van hedendaags (rood) vlees o.a. dus dat de oorspronkelijke ratio verzadigd vet versus omega 3-vet uit zijn verband is geraakt? (of ik heb dat verkeerd begrepen)?

Dit ipv dat verzadigd vet slecht zou zijn uit zichzelf wat zowiezo een fabel is: het is omgekeerd: verzadigd vet is gezond.

A comprehensive study conducted by researchers from California State University (CSU) in Chico, and the University of California (UC), Davis, that was published in Nutrition Journal in 2010 is just one of many that shows the major differences between grain-fed, feedlot meat and grass-fed, pastured meat.

In this study, researchers evaluated the way feeding cattle grass, which is their natural food of choice, compares to feeding them grains, which is not their natural food of choice and is often responsible for making them sick. They found that in virtually every nutritional category evaluated, grass-fed meat was far superior to grain-fed meat.

The omega-3 fatty acid profile in grass-fed meat, for instance, was found to be similar to that of fatty fish, which is often recommended by health officials as a type of meat that promotes health. Grass-fed animals were also found to produce meat that is higher in conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), a healthy fat that fights obesity; carotenoids, organic antioxidant pigments that protect cells from cancer-causing free radicals and promote healthy immunity and reproductive function; and vitamin E tocopherols, which protect against cardiovascular disease and cancer.

"Research spanning three decades supports the argument that grass-fed beef has a more desirable SFA (saturated fatty acids) lipid profile as compared to grain-fed beef," write the authors in their conclusion. "This results in a better n-6:n-3 (omega-6 to omega-3) ratio that is preferred by the nutritional community" (

Learn more:

Women who reduce lamb and beef in their diets are more likely to suffer depression, according to the new study. Red meat halves risk of depression

Experts admitted surprise at the findings because so many other studies have linked red meat to physical health risks.

The team made the link after a study of 1000 Australian women.

Professor Felice Jacka, who led the research by Deakin University, Victoria, said: "We had originally thought that red meat might not be good for mental health but it turns out that it actually may be quite important. When we looked at women consuming less than the recommended amount of red meat in our study, we found that they were twice as likely to have a diagnosed depressive or anxiety disorder as those consuming the recommended amount.

"Even when we took into account the overall healthiness of the women's diets, as well as other factors such as their socioeconomic status, physical activity levels, smoking, weight and age, the relationship between low red meat intake and mental health remained.

"Interestingly, there was no relationship between other forms of protein, such as chicken, pork, fish or plant-based proteins, and mental health. Vegetarianism was not the explanation either. Only nineteen women in the study were vegetarians, and the results were the same when they were excluded from the study analyses."

Professor Jacka, an expert in psychiatric health, believed the diet of the sheep and cattle was relevant.

"We know that red meat in Australia is a healthy product as it contains high levels of nutrients, including the Omega-3 fatty acids that are important to mental and physical health," she said.

"This is because cattle and sheep in Australia are largely grass fed. In many other countries, the cattle are kept in feedlots and fed grains, rather than grass. This results in a much less healthy meat with more saturated fat and fewer healthy fats."

Weer wat nieuw bewijs aangaande het verschil real vs processed:


Forum statistieken

Nieuwste lid
Word vaste donateur van dit forum