Longevity Doctor Peter Attia Says the Red Meat-Cancer Connection Is Bad Science

[Bob]

Longevity Doctor Peter Attia Says the Red Meat-Cancer Connection Is Bad Science

Story by Kelsey Kryger, C.P.T.

 

Red meat might not deserve its long-standing reputation as a dietary villain, as Peter Attia, M.D., shared on the Triggernometry podcast recently. 

Attia is a physician specializing in longevity and optimal health, with a background in surgical oncology and nutritional science. As the founder of Early Medical, he focuses on using research to improve lifespan and health. 

Several studies have suggested red meat consumption be linked to colon cancer, diabetes, and other cardiovascular diseases. But, Attia calls this an enduring example of bad science that never dies—especially because epidemiology only identifies associations rather than causations.  

"People consuming red meat and people not consuming red meat tend to be proxies, on average, for very different behaviors," Attia says. 

He explains that people consuming red meat typically eat more processed foods, while people who avoid red meat usually engage in healthier habits, like eating fruits and vegetables or exercising regularly. 

"When you strip all of those things away and you normalize, for say, vegetable consumption, that cancer-causing effect of red meat completely vanishes," he says. 

Plus, not all red meat is created equally. Consuming a highly-processed beef jerky sticks or bacon is far different than eating grass-fed beef, he says. 

Ultimately, the red meat debate is more nuanced than it’s often portrayed. Attia emphasizes that broad generalizations fail to account for critical lifestyle factors, which significantly influence health outcomes.

"When you just compare people who eat red meat versus people who don't, you're going to get that difference in risk," Attia says. "But, when you start to correct for everything—including for servings of vegetables in a day—all of a sudden, the supposed harm of red meat goes away." 

 

ARTICLE SOURCE: https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/longevity-doctor-peter-attia-says-the-red-meat-cancer-connection-is-bad-science/ar-AA1xXlO2?

[Geezy]

Slowly but surely the “science” is catching up with what we already know.
It’s still progress though and I’ll take it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Scott F.]

I'm glad to hear it. As of late, I would be in a lot of trouble. LOL

Scott

[ketomonster]

trust the science dude, I still social distance and wear a mask. Haven't been sick in months!

[Geezy]

trust the science dude, I still social distance and wear a mask. Haven't been sick in months!

Haha. I’ve never worn a mask and have never distanced anything. Lol.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Skeptic]

10 minutes ago, Geezy said:

Haha. I’ve never worn a mask and have never distanced anything.

I was just gonna say the same thing.  

[ketomonster]

 science deniers

[Geezy]

 science deniers

Or someone who has actually studied the science.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bob]

On 3/18/2025 at 8:28 PM, ketomonster said:

trust the science dude, I still social distance and wear a mask. Haven't been sick in months!

I'm not sure if you are being serious or facetious here, lol.

I have a few friends that still mask up in crowded or indoor settings. One of them personally has major respiratory issues, and another has a handicapped child with an extremely low immune system and doesn't want to bring anything home to them. 

Masks and social distancing do indeed reduce your risk of infection. But I think covid-19 has devolved and become just a common cold now, taking it's place next to the other 4 coronaviruses that circulate and infect mankind. The initial strain and earlier generations of the virus that did indeed pack a wallop are long gone.

I lost several friends, both young and old, during the pandemic.

[ketomonster]

I 

53 minutes ago, Bob said:

 

I lost several friends, both young and old, during the pandemic.

So the masks, the distancing, the hospitals and all the "medicines" didn't work.  Sounds to me like the recommendations to eat more heart healthy foods

[Geezy]

4 hours ago, ketomonster said:

I 

So the masks, the distancing, the hospitals and all the "medicines" didn't work.  Sounds to me like the recommendations to eat more heart healthy foods

When I was studying medicine back in the 70’s we were trained and well informed that masks cannot and will not stop a virus. A mask is only useful for stopping a bacterium. 

[ketomonster]

I read the warning on the box the mask came in, not that I bought a box  "does not provide any protection against any virus"  

Edited March 20 by ketomonster

[Bob]

On 3/20/2025 at 11:40 AM, ketomonster said:

So the masks, the distancing, the hospitals and all the "medicines" didn't work.

Depends what you mean by "work" - or rather, what you want the word "work" to mean for you.

I find that people in the "masks don't work" camp have in mind the false expectation that the mask would be the equivalent of a bullet proof vest, as if you should be able to put in on and be "shot at" by viruses at point blank range and have you be invincible. 

In reality, a mask acts as filter to reduce the number of germs that you breathe in or breathe out. I work in construction and do demolitions, so I know a bit about masks. The effectiveness of the mask will depend on the size of the particles floating around in the air. In construction that could be asbestos. In this case, it's viruses.

It's about risk reduction, not "protection". "Risk" is variable, depending on a lot of factors. For example, my high triglycerides put me at higher risk of cardiac disease. This doesn't mean I am guaranteed not to get cardiac disease. Likewise, a mask doesn't guarantee that you won't catch a virus. It's just a layer of risk reduction.

And the type of mask effects that variability. The cloth masks by themselves were damn near useless. You would have to wear like half a dozen of them layered on top of each other. The surgical masks were slightly better (they are worn by medical staff for a reason), and the ever uncomfortable N95 were the most effective. 

Social distancing is also effective. It's common sense that if you sneeze in my face I will likely get sick. But if you sneeze 20 feet away from me, my risk of getting sick is reduced.

I previously said...

On 3/20/2025 at 10:16 AM, Bob said:

I have a few friends that still mask up in crowded or indoor settings. One of them personally has major respiratory issues, and another has a handicapped child with an extremely low immune system and doesn't want to bring anything home to them. 

I want to add that this is in my congregation of approximately 100-ish attendees. Everyone in the congregation has caught covid at least once, most people 2 or 3 times or more. We even had an outbreak that affected almost everyone at the same time. But these individuals who mask up religiously have NEVER caught covid, 5 years and counting. They haven't had the flu, a cold, or even a sniffle either. 

 

[Scott F.]

The mask is there to protect other people from you, not the other way around. There is basically no filtration from the outside in and only from the inside out. The biggest reason it works is that your breath is moist and wet. When you exhale the moisture binds to the fibers of the mask, your moisture provides the primary membrane for filtration as it builds. The mask does not provide much but the membrane you create stops you from spreading yourself to others. 

The mask is not the filter, you creating a primary membrane creates filtration.

Scott

[Bob]

1 hour ago, Scott F. said:

The mask is there to protect other people from you, not the other way around. There is basically no filtration from the outside in and only from the inside out.

This is kinda sorta true, and kinda sorta not. It depends on what we consider a "mask".

I previously said...

3 hours ago, Bob said:

The type of mask effects that variability. The cloth masks by themselves were damn near useless. You would have to wear like half a dozen of them layered on top of each other. The surgical masks were slightly better (they are worn by medical staff for a reason), and the ever uncomfortable N95 were the most effective.

Maybe now it's best to differentiate between a "mask" and a "respirator".

The cloth mask by itself is useless. You would need to wear multiple ones. The recommendation was at least 3 cloth masks. The principle here was that it would not protect you from others, but would deflect your exhalation out the left and right sides instead of directly at the person in front of you.

I spoke incorrectly about the surgical masks. They are even more useless than the cloth mask. They are designed to protect against droplets from both the surgeon's mouth to the patients wound, and from the patients fluids splashing towards to surgeon's mouth, but will be ineffective against aerosols and small particles.

The N95's, which is a respirator, not a mask, offers the best incoming protection, but if it has a vent to make exhalation easier and to prevent moisture buildup inside the mask, then it does nothing to protect others from you. It's simply protecting you from others and doing a pretty damn good job of it too. But they are the most uncomfortable.