Our read is that the decision to eat steak or red meat is well supported, though experts offer conflicting views on its health implications.
Our read is that red meat offers several beneficial nutrients and may improve certain health markers, with some experts suggesting it is safe and good for humans.
However, other experts associate red meat consumption with increased risks for various cancers, type-2 diabetes, and all-cause mortality.
The debate is further complicated by discussions around the quality of evidence, confounding factors in studies, and the relevance of in vitro findings to human dietary intake.
Bryan Johnson warns that one additional daily serving of red meat is associated with a 13% increase in all-cause mortality risk, and processed red meat increases this risk by 20% (2x). He also states that higher red meat consumption is associated with increased risk rates for several cancers, including lung (+26%), endometrial (+25%), rectal (+22%), liver (+22%), colon (+17%), and breast (+9%) (1x). Bryan Johnson also notes that red meat consumption increases the risk of type-2 diabetes, with one daily serving of unprocessed red meat associated with a 12% risk increase and processed red meat with a 32% risk increase (2x). He advises that consuming large daily quantities of red meat can be dangerous and lead to serious conditions like bowel cancer or heart disease (1x). Andrew Huberman states that increased consumption of red meat is associated with poorer embryo development, worse IVF outcomes, and increased staging of endometriosis (1x). Paul Saladino frequently argues that the classification of red meat as a probable carcinogen is based on weak evidence with limited statistically significant associations (7x), and that the IARC WHO report on red meat and cancer is inconclusive and lacking (6x). He also suggests that epidemiological studies on red meat and health outcomes can be misleading due to confounding factors (2x), and that observational epidemiology associating red meat consumption with increased cancer risk in men may be confounded by unhealthy user bias (2x). Paul Saladino also states that the claim that red meat is inflammatory and harmful due to specific compounds is not well-substantiated by current evidence for typical human dietary intake (2x).
More evidence is needed to support limiting red meat intake, as Rhonda Patrick suggests (1x). Bryan Johnson recommends regular biomarker measurements to ensure red meat consumption is not causing irreparable damage (2x). Paul Saladino notes that the unhealthy user bias suggests that individuals who disregard mainstream health advice and consume red meat may also engage in other risky behaviors (10x).
Benefits hold across the populations where it's been tested.
Benefits hold across the populations where it's been tested.
The effect size is large enough to matter clinically, not just statistically.
The intervention improves the primary outcome at standard doses in healthy adults.
The intervention improves the primary outcome at standard doses in healthy adults.
Animal-model results don't translate to the human protocol being recommended.
The headline effect shrinks once you account for trial quality.
The headline effect shrinks once you account for trial quality.
Animal-model results don't translate to the human protocol being recommended.
Animal-model results don't translate to the human protocol being recommended.