Holy Cow: Does Meat Really Cause Diabetes?

Is your steak really a one-way ticket straight to Club Diabetes? This week, Aimee slices into the research behind those fear-mongering headlines blaming red meat for type 2 diabetes. We’ll unpack the big studies (EPIC-InterAct, NHS, HPFS) and serve up the nuance your metabolic health actually needs — all with a side of sass. Grab your fork — this one might save your sanity (and your steak).

Episodes Mentioned in this Podcast:

Episode 10 - Lose Weight and Lower Blood Sugar by Asking These 2 Questions Before Each Meal

Episode 43 - Must Have Nutrients to Balance Blood Sugar!

Episode 51 - Can You Eat Too Much Protein?

Find Research Citations and Transcript at Blasphemous Nutrition on Substack

Work with Aimee

Photography by: Dai Ross Photography

Podcast Cover Art: Lilly Kate Creative

How to Leave a Review on Apple Podcasts
Via iOS Device
1. Open Apple Podcast App (purple app icon that says Podcasts).
2. Go to the icons at the bottom of the screen and choose “search”
3. Search for “Blasphemous Nutrition”
4. Click on the SHOW, not the episode.
5. Scroll all the way down to “Ratings and Reviews” section
6. Click on “Write a Review” (if you don’t see that option, click on “See All” first)
7. Rate the show on a five-star scale (5 is highest rating) and write a review!
8. Bask in the glow of doing a good deed that makes a difference!

Transcript

0:00

Every few months a new headline storms the gates of the internet. Screaming meat will give you diabetes. Go plant-based to save your soul, but before you toss your burger into the trash, let's unpack the real science behind me and diabetes. It's a little juicier than you would think Today we're digging past the headlines and serving up the nuance that your health actually deserves. So grab your toric. This one might save your sanity as well as your steak. Hey Rebels. Welcome to Blasphemous Nutrition. Consider this podcast your pantry full of clarity, perspective, and the nuance needed to counter the superficial health advice so freely given on the internet. I am Amy, the unapologetically candid host of Blasphemous Nutrition and a double degreed nutritionist with 20 years experience. I'm here to share a more nuanced take. On living and eating well to sustain and recover your health. If you found most health advice to be so generic is to be meaningless or so extreme that it's unrealistic. And you don't mind the occasional F-bomb, you've come to the right place. From dissecting the latest nutrition trends to breaking down published research and sharing my own clinical experiences, I'm on a mission to foster clarity amidst all the confusion and empower you to have the health you need to live a life you love. Now, let's get started. Welcome back to Blasphemous Nutrition. I'm your host Aimee, a double degreed functional nutritionist helping you age like an absolute badass sans celery juice, baptisms, and guilt laden confessions over steak night. Today we're gonna tear into the sacred cow of the meat causes diabetes narrative, and I'm bringing receipts, a sprinkle of saltiness and the kind of nuance that is totally absent from your social media feed. Now, if you've been around here long enough, you already know I have not abandoned my love of protein to join any kind of meatless mosque of veganism. I am decidedly pro protein bias, fully confessed, but i'm here neither to convert you into a carnivore, nor hand you a tofu rosary. I'm here to help you think critically about the science, the. Actual science behind the headlines that we read because most people don't read beyond the headline. Or maybe they get to the first paragraph before they get distracted by the next thing on TikTok. So today I'm gonna tackle the claim that meet. Especially red and processed meat is a one way express ticket On the Hogwarts train to type two diabetes, you have seen articles citing really big and impressive names. The Epic Interact study, the nurses health study, and the health professionals follow up study. These studies are practically treated like Gospel Scrolls at a vegan revival meeting. And while we're here, I'm also gonna address the elephant or perhaps the cow in the room, research funding. Studies that are published don't exist in a vacuum. They are absolutely shaped by what gets funded, what's trending, and what headlines will ultimately get shared. Right now, there's a really strong cultural and institutional push to reduce meat consumption, partly for health reasons and partly for climate reasons. So, while the environmental impact of meat is a valid discussion that deserves its own sermon, and I will get to it in a future episode, today, I'm gonna stick strictly to the health side and more specifically diabetes risk. So let's start by getting our hands dirty with the actual research that sparks all of these meat, diabetes headlines. I wanna focus on three massive long running studies that get a lot of press and also a lot of prestige. First is the epic interact. Now this is a European study. That tracked over 340,000 people across eight countries. Researchers were looking at diet and its relationship to type two diabetes because this is a problem across the world. It is certainly not limited to North America alone. And the big takeaway that gets plastered on headlines is that people eating more red and processed meats have a higher risk of developing diabetes. We have the nurses' health study, which is a classic, so so much of the published research on chronic disease refers to the nurses health study. This American Classic started way back in 1976, originally looking at women's health, and over time they started using all of the data collected over multiple decades to examine everything from hormone use to dietary patterns. The nurses' health study loves to point fingers at red and processed meats linking them to higher cardiovascular disease and diabetes risk among female users. Similarly, the health professionals follow-up study is kind of like the nurses' health studies little brother launched in 1986. This study followed male health professionals and surprise, surprise. Same conclusion, more red and processed meat intake is associated with a higher risk of type two diabetes. So there are specific reasons why these kinds of studies dominate the headlines. First, they're massive. When you're looking at. Tens or hundreds of thousands of people. These big numbers add power and validity to a study. So this gives greater confidence to the researchers that what they're seeing is an accurate association and it impresses journalists. There's also really long follow ups. Many of these. Studies track people for decades, so it kind of feels like a crystal ball for chronic disease prediction. Chronic disease, does take multiple decades to develop, and often begins in an imperceptible, silent fashion. So having data over time is legitimately very, very valuable here. And we have prestige points. I mean, when Harvard or big European consortias stamp their name on these research papers, it's kind of treated as gospel truth. Clout, carries far whether or not it is earned. And finally, simple storylines are sexier. Eat meat, get diabetes is a lot more clickable than complex. Interactions between diet, lifestyle, genetics, and social determinants may influence diabetes risk in heterogeneous ways. Yeah, that just doesn't really quite fit on a headline banner. But here's the thing, just because something is big and the study itself has. What is referred to as power due to the number of participants just because it comes from a prestigious university, it doesn't make it immune to flaws. So I wanna address these studies with both steelman arguments and a little spicy side eye. First, let's play fair. Okay? If I'm gonna take apart these studies. I want to understand the strongest case for the claim that the study is making. I'm not about a straw man. When we understand opposing viewpoints, we can better empathize with how our opponent got to where they are. In this, we often can find common ground and. With that common ground more effectively poke holes in the flaws and biases of that argument. So here are some of the strengths that these studies offer. Firstly, there are consistent associations across multiple big studies. The Epic interact, the NHS, the HPFS, right? The three studies that I mentioned earlier have a similar narrative. More meat and more processed meat intake is linked to a higher risk of developing type two diabetes. Even if the studies are in different countries and different population, this pattern repeats when it comes to epidemiological studies. Repeated signals can suggest that there is something very real going on. Additionally, these studies do propose biological mechanisms and researchers love mechanisms because a mechanism, especially when validated, helps explain what we see observationally. So here's what these. Studies suggest may be at play. Heme iron, which is abundant in red meat, can promote oxidative stress and damage pancreatic beta cells because iron in high doses acts as an oxidant. Additionally, nitrosamines, which are formed during the processing of meats or high heat cooking, are hypothesized to contribute to insulin resistance. Advanced glycation and products known as ages from charred meats specifically are believed to worsen inflammation and insulin signaling. And then finally, saturated fats in certain cuts of meat might impair insulin sensitivity in some contexts and in some individuals. This one is still very much like uncertain. I'll leave it at that. These studies also suggest dose response trends. So when we have a dose response relationship, it's basically saying in this instance that the more red meat or processed meat that people report eating, the higher their diabetes risk appears. In research lingo, dose response patterns strengthen the argument for causality. Even if the nature of the research itself, such as observational studies which, you know, all epidemiological studies are observational studies, and these studies cannot be. Used to ascertain causality because their very nature is observational, right? However, when we see dose response patterns in observational research, it strengthens the argument that causality may be relevant. And then we have the adjustment of confounding variables. These studies typically claim to adjust for confounding variables or aspects that may coexist within the study participants that could jack things up like smoking a high BMI. Physical activity, alcohol, other dietary factors like sugar intake. And the argument is that even after controlling for these variables, the meat diabetes link persists. So even if you are a steak loving, ribeye worshiping protein fanatic like myself, it is important to acknowledge that. This research that is being heavily promoted in the mainstream media and with, um, me hating influencers on social media. Isn't just something pulled out of a wellness influencer's ass. It's based on decades of data. It's been published in widely respected journals, and it's been peer reviewed by intelligent researchers. Well often promoted as the contrary. The existing research is not suggesting that meat is evil. It's actually suggesting that the patterns that are observed in this research deserve a closer look. And while I might not be buying into the whole sermon, I do respect the rigor that it takes to build such an argument. However, there's the part they leave out. These are the heretical notes that they do not want you to read. Now in these big observational studies, people who eat more red meat and processed meat tend to be different. In many other ways than people who do not eat high intakes of redder processed meats, they're more likely to smoke. They tend to be more sedentary. They also tend to consume fewer fruits, vegetables, and have an overall lower fiber diet. Because they often eat more ultra processed, calorically dense foods in general, and they may also drink more sugary beverages and alcohol. In other words, high meat intake is often part of an overall western dietary pattern among the worst in the world, which is heavy on processed food, light on produce, and typically paired with a more sedentary lifestyle. And researchers know this, they do try to adjust for these differences statistically, but here's the problem, adjusting. Confounding variables is kind of like trying to fix a crooked foundation By patching the cracks in the drywall, you can tidy it up, but the underlying structure is still unstable. Even after adjusting for things like smoking, BMI and physical activity, there are always, always, always unmeasured or poorly measured confounders that are kind of hiding in the shadows. For instance, how accurately did people actually report their exercise habits and their alcohol consumption? Did researchers account for stress levels, sleep quality, socioeconomic status in detail. And what about nutrient synergy, like the benefits of more fiber and polyphenols? When meat is consumed alongside a ton of veggies, was that taken into consideration? Unknowns like this can totally tilt the results. Making meat more villainous appearing than it actually is. It's also crucial to point out that these studies often pool all red meat together. Processed deli ham, charred sausage on the grill, home-cooked grass fed steak, it's all thrown into the same bucket. I mean, that said, higher quality studies like the data from the nurses health study do tease these apart. In the nurses health study comparing the extreme ends of processed meat intake groups, those who consumed the most processed red meat had a 51% higher associated risk of developing type two diabetes. Unprocessed red meat showed a weaker link about a 40% higher risk. But here's where we gotta hit the pause button, because these percentages are relative risks. What does that mean? Let's say your absolute base risk of diabetes is 10%, and I'm basing that off of. The fact that one in 10 Americans, or 10% of the American population has diabetes, so let's say you have a 10% absolute risk of diabetes. If you increase your relative risk by 50%, your new absolute risk is 15% because 50% of 10 is five. And 5% plus 10% is 15%. Your actual risk is not 51%. That's your relative risk and relative risk sounds much, much scarier than what it actually is. The epic interact study that European study noted that each 50 gram increase in red meat that's shy of two ounces was linked to an eight to 12% higher relative risk. Again, it's relative risk, not absolute risk. So again, if our baseline, absolute risk of getting diabetes is 10%. We're looking at an absolute risk increase from the each 50 grams of red meat to equate a 0.8 to 1.2% total increase. So. Well, if you eat a 16 ounce steak every goddamn day, your absolute risk of developing diabetes would jump from 10% to 17 to 21%, and that's because 16 ounces is 450 grams, or nine times that 50 gram increase. Now, while that's significant, it isn't necessarily to be equated with the risk of smoking to developing lung cancer, right? We can't say that. But when it comes to how headlines are shared, one would think that eating a steak every day is. As likely to give you diabetes as smoking a pack of cigarettes is likely to give you lung cancer, and that's simply not the case. A huge, huge, huge factor with these long-term observational studies is the food frequency questionnaire. Food frequency questionnaires are the bane of a nutritionist's existence. They offer value in research because they are a very efficient and low cost way to collect data. But damn is it fraught with massive inaccuracies. The data in these big observational studies mostly comes from questionnaires asking people to recall their typical diet over the past year, sometimes even longer than a year, and we're fucking terrible at this. I mean, I can't even remember what I ate two days ago, let alone what I was eating this time last year. Plus we have a tendency to under report the bad stuff. Oh, you know, I have a bacon cheeseburger like once or twice a year and over. Report the good stuff. Oh, I always make sure to get vegetables every single day. I see this tendency firsthand when observing a certain family member, tell a medical provider about what they eat versus what I actually see them do in day-to-day life. And you know, that's not unique to any individual. We're all kind of prone to this. It's just human nature. So food frequency questionnaires also presume that people can adequately identify what a serving of food entails and then estimate their own consumption of that serving. Even if you knew that a serving of vegetables was half a cup could you accurately look at the amount of vegetables on your plate and estimate how many half cup servings was there? Most of us can't do that, and if these base measurements are flawed, there is simply no amount of statistical wizardry that can fully rescue them. Garbage in, garbage out. It's as simple as that. When you look at studies conducted in metabolic wards or very tightly controlled feeding trials, which are admittedly much, much shorter in duration due to cost, we see that red meat does not consistently wreck insulin sensitivity or blow up your fasting glucose. In several cases. What is. Observed in tightly controlled clinical research or randomized controlled trials is improvements in weight, muscle mass, and diet quality that overshadow any individual food effect. And this is a really valuable consideration. While randomized controlled studies are much shorter, and that is an absolute limitation. All of the confounding of variables that we discussed earlier are largely eliminated when the study is well controlled. Additionally, the amount of the villain in question is accurately recorded, weighed and measured before being given to the participant to consume. So to make up for the lack of a huge cohort, a meta-analysis of several smaller controlled feeding trials can add power to the counter hypothesis that meat does not increase diabetes risks, and those meta-analyses have been done. So while observational studies like the nurses health study may suggest there are associations between red meat consumption and diabetes risks. Randomized controlled trials do not support any causal link between me intake and type two diabetes risk. The scary headlines that we are reading are built on association and not proven cause and effect while the observational research that leads to these headlines. May provide a hypothesis that is worth testing. It absolutely should not be integrated into your Health Commandments or give you any kind of bacon guilt. Additionally, there is an unspoken topic. That makes most researchers squirm harder than a cat in a bathtub, and that is funding and trend chasing. The blunt honest to God truth is that research does not happen in a vacuum. It happens in a world where grant committees, public health priorities and cultural narratives decide what is going to get funded, what will be published, and what will be promoted. And right now there is a major cultural and institutional push to reduce meat consumption, not just for personal health, but for planetary health. The climate conversation has become a powerful tailwind, or maybe more accurately a kind of hurricane pushing researchers, policy makers and journalists to focus on meat reduction, which, in some cases leads to creating research with an end in mind, right? Rather than asking the question, does meet impact diabetes ease? The question that some researchers will step into is to what degree does meet. Cause diabetes or does meet cause diabetes, right? So there's almost like leading with the premise rather than asking an open-ended question and studying that and subtle, almost imperceptible biases in the original question can. Lead to unconsciously omitting or overlooking important aspects of research that might be discovered when one is stepping into the research with an open-ended question. And all of this sounds a little conspiracy, theor theory ish, is that even a word? But it isn't. It's simply how academic incentives work. If you're a researcher who studies a really hot topic that is in alignment with public concerns such as climate change and chronic disease, your paper and the university you work for is more likely to get additional funding, more likely to get published, and way more likely to get picked up by media outlets. This is unequivocally a good thing for you and your boss, right? And it's. Near impossible to disregard that when looking at the research that you want to conduct. It's also important to remember that scary headlines sell. Meat will give you diabetes is prime clickbait real estate. So this relationship that exists between funding research, media hype, and the possibility of future research dollars down the road creates a self-reinforcing cycle. A study finds a small association. The media amplifies that with fear-based headlines. The public freaks out. More funding flows to the same narrative to further confirm or refute that initial finding. And we repeat this process ad nauseum until everybody is scared of stake. So while the environmental impact of meat deserves deep, serious discussion, if for no other reason than the science on that is as shaky as a food frequency questionnaire, when we conflate environmental ethics with health science and the same breath, it does muddy the waters. These are two very distinct conversations. And that's your teaser. I am gonna dive into the climate impact of meat in its own future episode, but for now, let's keep the microscope focused on diabetes risk only. Okay, so I've had a little fun poking holes in the mainstream narrative, and now I want to build a case against the idea that meat is your Pancreas's personal grim Reaper. First Meat is not just this block of saturated fat waiting to clog your arteries and spike your blood sugar. It is a nutrient-dense source of high quality protein, and protein is a fucking metabolic rockstar. It increases satiety so you're not rummaging through the snack drawer 30 minutes after lunch. It helps preserve and build muscle mass, which is one of the most powerful protectors we have against insulin resistance as we age. And protein also has a higher thermic effect, meaning your body uses more energy to digest protein as compared to say, digesting carbs or fat. I talk about this at length in several podcast episodes. I'll put these links in the show notes, but you'll wanna check out episode 10, lose weight and lower blood sugar by asking these two questions before each meal. Episode 43 must have nutrients to balance blood sugar and episode 51, can you eat too much protein? Check those out to get the full scoop on how protein is a metabolic powerhouse. Muscle mass acts as metabolic armor, because without it, we lose muscle, especially as we age, due to the reduction of hormones which encourage muscle mass retention and sarcopenia. Is a massive underappreciated risk factor for insulin resistance and type two diabetes. Having a higher protein intake, does help maintain lean body mass and support glucose disposal or the storage of glucose in that muscle. Yes, muscle gives you shape, it gives you strength, and it adds a sexy factor, but. More importantly, it is a critical storage place for blood glucose. The more metabolically active muscle that you have, the better your body can handle carbohydrate and keep insulin sensitivity on point. Muscle is absolutely key to aging like a badass. Red meat provides several important nutrients in greater concentration and nutrient found in plant foods such as vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is essential for red blood cell formation, neurological function, and DNA synthesis. B12 deficiency can lead to anemia. Fatigue nerve issues as well as cognitive decline, all things that we definitely do not wanna deal with at any stage of life. And then there's heme iron. This is the form of iron that your body absorbs most efficiently, and it happens to be the form found in animal protein. Unlike non-heme iron, which is found in plants. Heme iron does not depend on as much of your gut environment or the presence of vitamin C in order to be absorbed. Having low iron levels can lead to anemia as well as impaired oxygen transport resulting in fatigue, weakness, and brain fog. And then we have zinc. Zinc is critical for immune health, for wound healing, as well as insulin storage and secretion in the pancreas. Zinc also plays a role in taste and smell. So yeah, it also helps you kind of savor that ribeye Zinc from red meat is highly bioavailable, meaning your body will actually absorb and use it more efficiently. The big lesson here is that when eaten is part of a balanced diet with plenty of fiber, rich veggies and healthy fats, meat can be a health supporter rather than a saboteur. And the reality is we don't eat nutrients in isolation. We eat meals, and meals are a complex array of nutrients, and those nutrients interact with one another. Demonizing a single food while ignoring the dietary context that that food is in is like. Well, it's kind of like blaming one candle for burning down the cathedral when the building itself was made out of untreated wood and there were no smoke detectors. A diet that includes unprocessed meat, plenty of vegetables. Highend fiber with minimally processed foods has a dramatically different metabolic impact than a diet of hot dogs, soda and squid game marathons. What accompanies that meat on your plate, how it is prepared and how it is eaten. All of these factors absolutely impact the health outcome of that food. I also wanna reiterate the relative versus absolute risk that I talked about earlier. Most of the scary numbers that we saw from the nurses' health study. And the European Epic interact study. Our relative risk increases an eight to 12% relative increase, which was what was cited in the Epic Interact study. Sounds concerning on paper. But again, if your baseline absolute risk of diabetes is 10%, then that relative risk increase translates to an absolute risk of 10.8 to 11.2%. It's not exactly the apocalypse. Same goes for the NHS data. A 40 to 51% higher relative risk among those who consume the most red meat or processed meat. Sounds really damning. Is it important? Yeah, but it's no guarantee of disease and it is definitely not evidence that meat alone is the cause. It reflects an association. It suggests that there is a signal and that we need to investigate further with more accurate studies that are designed to establish. Probability of cause. At the end of the day, red meat can totally support your metabolic health when it's part of a balanced, produce rich diet, and an active lifestyle. And that protein helps protect your muscle mass. It helps reduce cravings by regulating your appetite and it can support insulin sensitivity. When we demonize a single food group, it distracts us from the bigger picture, what our overall dietary patterns are, our physical activity levels are, how our stress levels are, and what our sleep looks like. So look, if the arguments I've made have not convinced you, but you ed me, there are smart evidence backed ways to minimize these potential downsides while keeping all of the nutrient winds that red meats provide. When we look at processed meats specifically, these are believed to be more problematic than unprocessed meats because they tend to be higher in sodium nitrates, nitrites. And sometimes sulfites. These compounds are used in processed meats to preserve color, to extend shelf life and to enhance flavor. But they do carry some concerns. Nitrites, and other nitroso compounds are formed during high heat cooking. And they've been associated with insulin resistance and higher cancer risk in some studies. Now, I have not looked in any kind of depth at this association. I'm just noting that the association does exist and it's pretty prevalent in the observational research. Sulfites, which are common in deli meats may affect gut health, and they're believed to increase oxidative stress. To what degree they do. That is up for debate. And then we have the high sodium content of processed meats. That is definitely of concern for a lot of people because a high sodium diet is linked to higher blood pressure and metabolic stress over time. But I will add that blood pressure balance is a relationship between sodium. Potassium and magnesium. The latter tube being found in produce. So pairing your grilled steak with some green veg is a very solid strategy. And then finally, we have those ages, those advanced glycation and products ages are formed when meats are cooked at really high temperatures such as grilling or frying or broiling. Which honestly is my favorite way to have a steak ages can promote oxidative stress and inflammation in the body. And these are two players in the insulin resistance and type two diabetes development camp. So it's not something to poo poo and while the strength of the existing evidence. Is a little shaky. If you have several significant risk factors for diabetes, it's completely reasonable to still be concerned. So here is what you can do to minimize the potential risks that have been observed in the research. First, choose less processed meats, opt for fresh, unprocessed cuts instead of deli slices or sausages. Your steaks, your roasts, ground beef, whatever you can get from the butcher's counter, right? And then you wanna choose lower risk cooking methods. Avoid habitually charring or broiling meat as that increases those ages. Instead, favor lower, slower cooking methods. Use your slow cooker, make a stove top stew, maybe braise that meat or do a soy. This reduces age formation and. If you do grill, one of the easiest and tastiest ways to cut down on advanced glycation end products is to marinate your meat before cooking. Marinating, especially with acidic ingredients like lemon juice, vinegar, yogurt, and using herbs and spices and even olive oil, can reduce age formation. Significantly, sometimes up to 50% or more. This is because the acid helps break down proteins and prevents charring of the meat, while the antioxidants in herbs and spices and olive oil act as these little metabolic bodyguards to protect you. So remember the holy Trinity of a delicious and protective marinade, acid, fat and flavor. If you marinate your red meat for at least 30 minutes, you're in good shape, but overnight is even better from both a flavor standpoint and an age reduction standpoint. And of course, you will want to pair that red meat with plants. Combine your meat with lots of fiber, rich, colorful veggies, because these also have the polyphenols and antioxidants that mitigate some of the hypothesized oxidative stress from an iron rich meat heavy meal. Think of vegetables as a fire extinguisher for oxidative stress. Whether that stress is coming from meat or the inflammation is coming from other factors in your life. Vegetables are wonderful at dousing inflammation. If you do choose to buy deli meats, Look for options with minimally added nitrites, nitrates, and sulfites. These options do exist, but they are often more expensive and a little bit harder to find. And then finally, you'll wanna moderate your dose if you're really concerned. Remember no one food that makes or breaks your health bank account the dose matters. Having two pounds of bacon daily is not the same as enjoying a couple slices of a high quality prosciutto on Sundays. You may be wondering if the story is so messy, why do these studies keep getting published and paraded around like the holy grail? Big observational studies are kind of the darling children of nutrition headlines. They look really impressive because of the sheer amount of people included in those studies. They're often from prestigious institutions And they're easy to turn into a morality tale, which seems to kind of be the foundation for nutrition recommendations in the western industrialized world. Studies like the Epic Interact, the NHS and the HPFS do follow hundreds of thousands of people over decades, and that scale makes them look rock solid, especially as they're dispersed to the population via media. I mean, if 300,000 people participated in this study and there was association, it's hard not to think of that as relevant and true. But even if it's true, an association is not causation. Associations in observational research are intended to be a hypothesis generator, not some final verdict from the Supreme Court of Health and Longevity. Researchers themselves usually attest to this very fact in their paper, in the conclusion section, something that never gets revealed in mainstream media. And just as researchers need funding to keep their jobs, our news media needs our eyeballs to stay relevant and in business. They know an emotion evoking headline is gonna be seen and spread. We're all prey to that. Media outlets also know most people don't read past the headline. Much less dig into relative versus absolute risk and what that ultimately means. And any way, they're not in the business of science education. They're kind of in the business of getting your attention. Because research funding often flows to topics that are culturally trending and politically relevant. If your study supports the meat is bad narrative, it's more likely to get published in a big name journal, more likely to get media coverage and more likely to help secure future grant money for your team and the university you work for. It's simply the messy reality of academic incentives. Scientists are people too. They have to keep the lights on. They have to fund their labs, and they have to publish to keep their careers. Nutrition headlines love to crown new Saints and crucifying new sinners practically every week. One minute Broccoli's the next Messiah. And. I may actually be guilty of spreading that one. And then the next week, bacon is the antichrist. But the reality is that meat totally can be part of a resilient, badass aging strategy, or it could be a contributor to poor health if it's part of your ultra processed, sedentary sleep deprived life. But we can't let headlines or influencers dictate one's moral standing via the dinner plate. There is no single food that's going to save you nor damn you for that matter. Health is built through daily rituals. The meals that you repeat, the movement you choose, the boundaries you establish around stress and sleep, and the way that you stack habits that are going to support the health that you want. Rather than another restrictive doctrine, find a strategy that honors your reality. Rather than falling for the fear, seek out the evidence. Remember context, not commandments from on high. I mean, eat the damn steak if you want to. And if you have a high risk of diabetes and you are not satisfied with the counter arguments I've provided, marinate the steak, pair it with veggies, limit it to once or twice a week, rather than having it every day, which actually gets super expensive anyway, support your body further by moving it.Sleep well laugh often. And live from Love. Health is so much more than any single food that we eat or omit. And in all honesty, it's so much more than whatever we put on our plate. I know you know that, but it bears repeating because I often focus just on the food bit. But even with this podcast, it's important not to lose the forest for the trees. No. All right folks. That's all I've got in me today. I hope you enjoyed this episode. If anyone came to mind while you were listening, please share this episode with them, and if you haven't yet subscribed, doing so will ensure that all future episodes like that meat and Climate change one, get dropped into your feed as soon as they're published. And until then, stay salty, stay curious, and I will see you next time. Any and all information shared here is for educational and entertainment purposes only, and is not to be misconstrued as offering medical advice. Listening to this podcast does not constitute a provider client relationship. Note, I'm not a doctor nor a nurse, and it is imperative that you utilize your brain and your medical team to make the best decisions for your own health. The use of information on this podcast or materials linked to this podcast. Are at the user's own risk. No information nor resources provided are intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Be a smart human and do not disregard or postpone obtaining medical advice for any medical condition you may have. Seek the assistance of your healthcare team for any such conditions and always do so before making any changes to your medical, nutrition or health plan.