The U.S. Dietary Guidelines Committee’s latest recommendations call for a reduction in red meat consumption, promoting more plant-based proteins like beans, lentils, and peas. In this video, we explore the reasoning behind this shift, examining the sources of information that may have influenced these guidelines. Are these recommendations based on science, or could external factors be at play? This deep dive into the U.S. dietary landscape reveals the complex layers behind setting national food standards and encourages viewers to consider the implications for everyday food choices.
Transcript:
Introduction
Have you seen the news that the US Dietary Guidelines Committee is recommending that we all eat less meat? Yeah, it’s true. The committee that makes recommendations to the US dietary guidelines for Americans says you need to eat less red meat and eat more beans, lentils, and peas. Also, eggs, poultry, and meat should be your last resort for protein. It’s a pretty strong recommendation. So we should assume it comes from a background of strong science and is based on clear evidence for health benefit without outside influence from industry, right? The problem is, is that that couldn’t be further from the truth. So here’s what you need to know about these recommendations and what I think we should be focusing on instead. Welcome to Metabolic Mind, a nonprofit initiative of Baszucki Group, transforming the study and treatment of mental disorders by exploring the connection between metabolism and brain health. Thank you for joining us on this journey.
Background on U.S. Dietary Guidelines and Red Meat Recommendations
First, let’s start with the basics. The US Department of Health and Human Services, along with the Department of Agriculture, released the US dietary Guidelines for Americans every five years, and they’re due for an update in 2025. There’s a committee of 20 individuals who make recommendations to these agencies about what should change in the guidelines based, you know, compared to the prior ones. Now, unfortunately, we can, I guess we can clearly say that these guidelines have done very little to help us improve our collective health. Given the explosion of the metabolic health epidemic. We’re in with some reports citing 93% of Americans having markers of poor metabolic health and 50% having pre-diabetes or diabetes.
The Societal Impact of Dietary Guidelines
So since these guidelines are stated to be for healthy individuals only and not to treat disease, we can kind of see that they should be very limited in their reach, but unfortunately they aren’t. So let’s be clear, these guidelines are very impactful in our society.
Should Government Influence Dietary Choices?
I did a recent video you can watch about how we shouldn’t let the government tell us how to eat and we should make our own health choices, but that’s for us as individuals. I have the luxury to eat however I want regardless of what the guidelines say, right? But when our kids go to school and get a breakfast of orange juice and muffins and sugary cereal, low fat chocolate milk, that’s thanks to the guidelines. And when military or elder care facilities serve meals with around 12% of calories from protein, and that mostly from, you know, plant sources, which aren’t as well absorbed with 60% of the calories from carbohydrates, you can thank the guidelines for that. So, so we should make no mistake that I won’t listen to the guidelines, but they’re incredibly impactful to our society. So if a government agency is going to recommend less red meat and lowering the priority for eggs, poultry, and meat, shouldn’t it be based on rigorous science and and shouldn’t the focus be on health unencumbered by outside industry influence? I mean, I think the clear answer to those questions is a resounding yes, we should all agree. But is it? Unfortunately there, I think answers are resounding no.
What the Evidence Says About Red Meat Consumption
We often hear that the majority of evidence points to red meat being harmful. But what we need to recognize is that the majority of the evidence comes from very low quality data from nutritional epidemiology studies where those who eat more red meat also smoke more and drink more and exercise less and eat more calories and just have a, have a less healthy diet and lifestyle overall. And the impact on health is so small that there’s truly no way to know whether it’s the meat that is harmful or the overall unhealthy lifestyle. So the evidence is very weak, but, but that’s not the only problem. A 2022 study reported that 95% of the guideline committee members had a conflict of interest with the food or pharmaceutical industries. And a US right to know study said 13 of those were medium to high risk conflicts. Some members had as many as 30 conflicts. So it’s clear that there’s quite a bit of outside influence and bias that’s affecting these guidelines. And an article written by the 2005 committee chair and a 2010 committee member explicitly describe the lack of scientific rigor and integrity, namely selectively ignoring some research and including others. They use the analogy that it’s like playing sports without a referee rules or sidelines. And that was from a former chair of the committee. But, but let’s take a step back. Okay, here’s how I see this personally. What happens when I eat less meat, poultry and eggs while I eat more carb heavy sources of protein? I need to eat more of them, thereby eating more calories. And for me, those foods are less satiating. So I’m hungrier. I tend to have less energy and I feel more sluggish. I’ve done the experiment, I’ve seen the results. So who is the government to tell me I’m wrong and, and given the number of patients I’ve seen, I know I’m not the only one.
Key Areas for the Dietary Guidelines Committee to Address
So is red meat the problem the committee should be tackling? Or should they be doubling down on a Whole Foods dietary approach, getting rid of subsidies for soda and ultra processed junk food and and helping make real food more affordable and accessible for all Americans? I mean, what would be better? Limited red meat or having people eat more red meat in the context of a whole Foods lower carb, lower ultra processed diet? That may seem like a false dichotomy, but I don’t think it is because we have to remember, hunger, cravings and emotions play into what we eat, not to mention the need for nutrients and protein. And if someone finds red meat addresses hunger, cravings, nutrient, and protein needs so that they eat fewer calories, they crave less junk food, they improve their metabolic health, then by all means we should be recommending more of that, not less.
Recommendations from Dr. Bret Scher
So here’s what I think we need to do, and what I hope our government can soon realize. One, get rid of everyone who has a conflict with the food or pharmaceutical industry. That should be a no-brainer. Clean house. And start over with experts who are focused on health and not influenced by corporations. Two, realize that nutrition epidemiology studies are a very weak level of evidence and should not be used to make blanket recommendations for all Americans. If we’re going to make recommendations on what to eat, they need to be based on strong science. And if the evidence isn’t strong, that’s okay, but that means we need to recognize that and not make recommendations. We shouldn’t be forced into saying something we can’t support with strong evidence, especially for health outcomes for individuals. Three, realize there isn’t one healthy way for everyone to eat and instead focus more on the makeup of the diet as a whole and less on the specific foods. For instance, focus on whole foods, foods that are naturally occurring and nutrient dense now. Now that has to be fair. That’s a common statement we hear from the guidelines committee, but we, we can’t be selective about Whole foods, not just the whole foods that fit our preconceived notions, but all nutrient dense, naturally occurring foods in the context of a healthy diet, including meat, eggs, and poultry, which to be honest, are some of the most nutrient dense foods we have. And four, we need to measure how our diet and lifestyle affects our health. Do we care about the specific foods if we’re objectively approving our health? I mean, I would think not. Instead of the dietary guidelines, we should have metabolic health guidelines. We should say, live your life and eat in a way that normalizes your blood pressure, your triglyceride to HDO ratio, your weight and your visceral fat, your inflammatory markers, et cetera, because what we’ve been doing clearly isn’t working. So let’s get rid of industry conflicts and shoddy science and bring the focus back to health. And whether or not we eat red meat shouldn’t matter in that context.
Closing Thoughts on Dietary Choices and Guidelines
So what do you think? I mean, I’d love to hear from you and how you think we should address the dietary guidelines and what we can do to get out of this metabolic disease epidemic we’re in. So please leave a comment and and thank you for watching. I’m Dr. Bret Scher. We will see you here next time at Metabolic Mind, a nonprofit initiative of Baszucki Group.
