Texas Tech researchers’ rigorous analysis of available data challenges longstanding public health assumptions about the risks of consuming unprocessed beef.
Obesity affects 40% of adults in the U.S. and elevates the risk of chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes and high blood pressure. Nutrition scientists and health professionals increasingly aim to understand how specific nutrients, foods and dietary patterns may contribute to obesity risk. Animal-sourced foods, such as red meat, are often called into question as part of this public health dialogue.
Texas Tech University researchers recently aimed to provide more understanding into whether red meat is linked with obesity risk and related conditions. Their study, published in the prestigious journal “Obesity,” found no significant effect of unprocessed red meat consumption on weight gain, obesity or related metabolic conditions in adults – including body mass index (BMI), percent body fat, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides.
“Beef contains high-quality protein and other essential nutrients and people enjoy this key source of nourishment – yet they’re often discouraged to consume red meat based on recommendations primarily driven by observational evidence,” noted the lead researcher, Nikhil V. Dhurandhar, Helen Devitt Jones Endowed Chair, Paul W. Horn Distinguished Professor, chair of the Department of Nutritional Sciences and associate dean for innovation for the College of Health & Human Sciences. “Our study is the first to fully review the totality of causative evidence, which shows no protective or adverse effect of unprocessed red meat intake on obesity.
“As such, while unprocessed red meat consumption has declined in the U.S., the prevalence of obesity, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease has skyrocketed – which makes a poor case for the role of beef in promoting the obesity epidemic.”
Dhurandhar explains the problem with previous related studies is they are based primarily on observational data, which often rely on self-reported dietary and lifestyle recall information that can be inaccurate and confound study results and conclusions.
Instead, the researchers used rigorous research methods by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 human clinical trials, including parallel-arm randomized controlled trials and randomized crossover trials. They only focused on studies that determined the effect of direct feeding of unprocessed red meat to participants rather than studies that used self-reported data.
These controlled interventions and methodological approaches reduced potential bias and directly assessed effects of specific dietary interventions on health outcomes, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines. The result is the most comprehensive evaluation of red meat intake and obesity to date, according to Dhurandhar.
In addition, to promote transparency, the team has publicly shared codes, calculations and data utilized in the analysis through an interactive dashboard. Scientists are encouraged to access and review the data as they consider designing similar studies in the future.
The authors believe it’s important for scientists to build upon this research for improved public health recommendations.
“Protein-rich foods, such as beef, may improve satiety and fullness, which can help support lifestyle and dietary behaviors that promote weight loss and healthy weight maintenance,” Dhurandhar added. “However, the stigma surrounding unprocessed red meat’s role in obesity may keep many from consuming red meat, thus missing out on benefits such as satiety, which may be important for weight loss and management. This study offers a complete view of the research, so clinicians and consumers can make informed decisions about the role of unprocessed beef in healthy lifestyles.”
This research was funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA), a contractor to the Beef Checkoff and the Texas Beef Council (TBC). Neither NCBA nor TBC were involved in the study design, data collection and analysis or publication of the findings.