Thirteen years have passed since this piece was written, yet the central tension it addresses has not eased. Industrial food production has only grown larger, more consolidated, and further removed from natural systems, while confusion around nutrition, meat consumption, and health outcomes has intensified rather than resolved.
Studies continue to circulate, headlines continue to simplify, and consumers remain caught between fear-driven messaging and lived experience. What follows reflects a perspective shaped by evolutionary biology, direct observation, and long-term practice. While some data points may now be dated, the underlying questions about how food is produced, what “red meat” actually represents, and why source matters as much as substance remain unresolved. Read this not as a historical artifact, but as a framework for thinking clearly about food in a system that still rewards scale over sense.
A Harvard study in epidemiology first hit the mainstream media on March 12, 2012. It was conducted by members of the Harvard School of Public Health and published in the Archives of Internal Medicine:
The purpose of this study was to discover the relationship between red meat consumption and mortality. Basically, it observed the diets of approximately 140,000 men and women for up to 28 years. Summarizing, the results were as follows:
“Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total Cardio-vascular disease and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk”
How Red Meat Was Defined in the Study
In this study all of the red meat consumed was either qualified as unprocessed – beef, pork, or lamb – or processed, which included: bacon, hot dogs, sausage, salami, bologna, and other processed meats. Specifically:
“In these two large prospective cohorts of US men and women, we found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality, and this association was observed for unprocessed and processed red meat, with a relatively greater risk for processed red meat.”
As one would expect, the fine folks at Harvard took into account all of the covariates, such as age, body mass index, smoking, physical activity, congenital or family history of disease, illnesses, etc. They also provided the expected, requisite explanation of all the statistics and other data.
Backlash From High-Protein and Paleo Communities
This study caused an uproar with high protein diet advocates and experts. Much of the vitriolic criticism directed at this study came from the “Atkins” and ketogenic dietary camps. Some of it came from those who respect and follow a Paleolithic or human evolutionary dietary philosophy. Being a dedicated practitioner of Paleolithic eating, I fully understood this dissention. I have since read many of the stormy, critical comments from very intelligent, scientific people.
What surprised me the most about the harsh critiques of this study was that they primarily dwelled on the following points of contention:
-
This was an “observational” study, and as such was inherently flawed.
-
The subjects in the study likely did not answer their questions honestly all of the time.
-
It would be very unlikely that the subjects of the study could accurately remember all of the food they had consumed when recording this at a later time.
-
Scientific studies are often misrepresented by the researchers who conduct them.
-
The red meat definition included both processed and unprocessed versions, and the unprocessed versions are likely far worse; misrepresenting the accuracy of the final conclusion.
-
Meat eating could be a marker for those adopting other less healthy lifestyle habits which would also likely increase chances of mortality.
-
Correlation is not cause.
Alright, that stuff all makes sense – great critical commentary. Hooray for our side!
Why the Findings Still Feel Right
Wait a minute….. Something about the results of this study still gnaws at me. The idea that these findings are “wrong” just doesn’t sit right. Somehow, I just know that if you regularly eat lots and lots of “slim-jims”, hot dogs, steaks, ground beef, bologna and pork from the grocery store – you’ll be far more likely to get heart disease or cancer, than if you didn’t eat those foods. I’ve been to places like Ruth’s Chris Steak House and the processed meats section of the grocery store. I see the obvious, anecdotal test subjects regularly consuming these foods. I think we all do!
Reconciling Paleo Diet Success With the Harvard Study
I have used our Paleolithic era diet as my dietary compass with smashing success for over 20 years. I eat as much red meat as I want – and I eat a lot of it. My blood work and that of all the Paleo-diet people I know comes back scoring in the highest percentiles indicating good health. So how can the diet and health of true Paleo-diet practitioners and the findings of this Harvard study be so contradictory? I submit to you that they are not. In fact, they absolutely support each other.
A vital tenet of successfully following a Paleolithic diet is ensuring that the animal foods consumed are PASTURED, NATURALLY RAISED, OR OTHERWISE AS CLOSE TO WILD AS POSSIBLE.
The difference between the meats used in this study and the meats true Paleo practitioners consume is like NIGHT VS. DAY.
Confirmation From Harvard Researchers
Surprisingly, this fact was but a mere footnote mentioned at the end (if at all) in the many dissenting commentaries I have read that criticized this Harvard study.
I contacted The Harvard School of Public Health directly just to make sure I wasn’t missing anything here. I wanted to be sure that there was a very high likelihood the subjects in this study were eating the modern, industrially raised red meats most commonly consumed in our society. My email was returned by one of the Doctors who conducted the study:
“We did not have the information on whether the red meats were from grain-fed or grass-fed animals, and I am not aware of any other cohort studies that have this kind of data. But since the cohort was run from 1980s towards now, I assume that most of the red meats in the markets were grain-fed meats.”
Suspected Harmful Components of Modern Red Meat
In the comments part of this study, there in an attempt to address “why?” they discovered a correlation between eating modern red meat and increased mortality. Specifically, the study identifies the likely causal elements in red meat, high consumption of which are strongly associated with disease:
-
Saturated fat
-
Cholesterol levels
-
Sodium
-
Nitrates
This helped to confirm the high likelihood that the “unprocessed” meats especially from this study were not from “pastured, naturally raised” cows, pigs, or lambs.
Modern Feedlot Meat Versus Naturally Raised Meat
With respect to these factors, one type of meat (mass consumed, industrially-farmed) points to ill-health and disease, with the other (pastured, naturally raised meat) directing the other way, toward good health.
This is what actually unifies the findings of this study with the truth. You see, this study might be observational, but the health ramifications of eating our modern, confined-animal feeding operation foods, vs. those which are truly naturally raised are indeed profound.
Evolutionary Science and Fatty Acid Imbalance
Technological developments of the industrial revolution allowed for the practice of feeding grains (primarily corn) to cattle in feedlots. In the USA, prior to 1850 virtually all cattle were free range or pasture fed and were typically slaughtered at 4–5 years.
Modern feedlots hold over 100,000 cattle that are characteristically obese (>30% body fat) and a 545 kg steer can be brought to slaughter in 14 months. “Marbled” meat results from excessive triacylglycerol accumulation in muscle interfascicular adipocytes. Animals in the wild, pasture fed or free range rarely exhibit this trait.
99% of all beef consumed in the USA is now produced from grain-fed, feedlot cattle. Such meat has a much higher proportion of omega-6 fatty acids to omega-3 and a much higher saturated fatty acid content.
Fat Type Matters More Than Fat Quantity
Research strongly suggests that absolute amount of dietary fat is less important than type of fat. Most saturated fats and trans-fatty acids are detrimental when consumed in excessive quantities. Further, the balance between omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids is integral in preventing chronic disease and promoting health.
Higher intakes of omega-3 fatty acids may reduce cardiovascular disease risk via multiple mechanisms, including reductions in blood clotting, serum triglycerides, and inflammation.
Major Sources of Saturated Fat in the U.S.
The six major sources of saturated fats in the United States are:
-
Fatty meats
-
Baked goods
-
Cheese
-
Milk
-
Margarine
-
Butter
The current omega-6 to omega-3 ratio in the USA is approximately 10:1, compared to an estimated 2:1 or 3:1 in hunter-gatherer diets.
A Thought Experiment: Two Identical Cows
Twin #1
Raised naturally with its mother, grazing pasture, drinking clean water, and living socially within a herd.
Twin #2
Removed from its mother early, confined indoors, force-fed corn and rendered animal products, routinely medicated with antibiotics, hormones, and steroids, then slaughtered prematurely.
Which cow would you prefer to consume?
What the Study Really Confirms
The vast majority of the “unprocessed” meats in the Harvard study would have come from animals like Twin #2. This study only reinforces what evolutionary science has already revealed.
Red meats from mass-produced, industrially raised animals — processed or unprocessed —
ARE BAD FOR YOU AND LIKELY TO INCREASE YOUR CHANCES OF DYING
THANK YOU HARVARD!
The Real Takeaway
Modern meat, processed or unprocessed, can be dangerous to your health relative to its naturally raised counterpart. To those who eat according to evolutionary principles, all modern industrial meat is processed at the animal level.
The tragedy of this study lies in the confusion it creates for the public. Without understanding the difference between naturally raised and industrial meat, dietary confusion persists and agendas thrive.
The Only Useful Conclusion
If you are going to eat food from any animal, to protect your health:
Make sure it was naturally raised
Sean is an NSCA (National Strength and Conditioning Association) Certified Personal Trainer (CPT). He is also an NSCA Certified Strength and Conditioning Specialist (CSCS). Sean has the unique distinction of achieving a Westside Barbell certification from elite athletic strength trainer and Westside founder, Louie Simmons.
Sean is a 3-time Ontario Provincial Boxing Championships competitor and has held over a dozen national and world raw, masters power-lifting records. Sean’s main areas of interest include advanced strength training and anthropology & diet. Specifically, his area of practical study has been successfully following an evolutionary diet in contemporary society.