Can Red Meat Be Good For You?

November 28, 2025 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Everything You Wanted To Know About Red Meat

Author: Dr. Stephen Chaney

Nutrition is a bit like politics and religion. Everyone has an opinion, and there is not much grace for those with different opinions.

And everything is black or white. There is no middle ground. Red meat is a perfect example. Cardiologists tell us the saturated fat and cholesterol in red meat increases our risk of heart disease. Oncologists tell us red meat increases our risk of colon, breast, prostate, and pancreatic cancer.

The association with red meat consumption and colon cancer is so strong that the World Health Organization has classified red meat as a probable carcinogen.

Vegans and vegetarians tell you to avoid red meat at all costs and substitute plant proteins in its place.

Keto and carnivore diet enthusiasts tell you that red meat is healthy if you avoid any plant foods containing carbohydrates (which is most plant foods).

Who is right? Is red meat good for you or bad for you? As usual, the answer is somewhere in the middle. We also need to stop looking at individual foods and start looking at the overall diet. We need to ask how our overall diet alters the effect of red meat on our health.

But first, let’s explore:

Why red meat is good for us.

Why red meat is bad for us.

How diet can help us minimize the bad and maximize the good.

I call this section, “Everything You Wanted To Know About Red Meat”.

Everything You Wanted To Know About Red Meat

Why Red Meat Is Good For Us.

Red meat is an excellent source of protein, iron, and vitamin B12. Plus, the iron in red meat is primarily found in the heme molecule and heme iron is absorbed much more efficiently than other forms of iron.

Red meat contains creatine, which powers our muscles. You can think of creatine molecules as little power packs that are charged when we eat and release a burst of energy whenever we begin to exercise.

Red meat contains carnitine, which helps our muscles use fat as an energy source. This is particularly important for heart muscle.

But both creatine and carnitine also have a dark side, which I will discuss below.

Why Red Meat Is Bad For Us.

When we think about heart disease:

The traditional view is that saturated fat and cholesterol are the problem, and we can reduce our risk of heart disease simply by choosing leaner cuts of meat.

Other experts feel the link between red meat and heart disease is more complicated. For example, some recent studies have suggested that the carnitine in red meat can be converted by gut bacteria to TMAO, and TMAO increases our risk of heart disease. I have discussed this in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”.

When we think about cancer:

When fat and juices from the meat drip onto an open ﬂame, carcinogenic polyaromatic hydrocarbons are formed that stick to the surface of the This can be reduced, but not eliminated, by lower fat meat choices.

When red meat is cooked at high temperatures, amino acids in the meat combine with creatine, which is found in all red meats, to form carcinogenic heterocyclic amines. This can be reduced, but not eliminated, by cooking the meat at lower

The nitrates and nitrites used as preservatives in many processed meats react with amino acids from the meat to form carcinogenic N-nitrosamines in our intestines.

Heme iron, which is found in all red meats, also combines with amino acids in the meat to form carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds in our intestines. This mechanism is inherent in all red meats and cannot be eliminated by choosing lower fat cuts or cooking at lower

Finally, diets high in red meat increase several markers of inflammation, and inflammation increases the risk of both heart disease and cancer.

How Can Diet Help Us Minimize The Bad And Maximize The Good?

I’m going to start this section with a provocative statement: “Plant foods are the antidote to all the bad effects of red meat.” Let me explain.

Plant foods are an excellent source of:

Antioxidants

Polyphenols and other phytonutrients

Fiber

Plus, the fiber and phytonutrients found in plant foods support the growth of beneficial gut bacteria.

Here is where it gets very complex:

Beneficial gut bacteria convert some of the foods we eat into compounds that are absorbed into the bloodstream and improve blood sugar control, reduce cholesterol synthesis, and reduce inflammation.

Polyphenols support the growth of certain gut bacteria, and those gut bacteria can convert these polyphenols into compounds that can be absorbed from the intestine. This necessary for many polyphenols to exert their beneficial effects in the body.

And, as you might expect, the gut bacteria of meat eaters and vegetarians is very different.

With this in mind, let’s come back to the concept of plant foods being the antidote for red meat.

In terms of heart health,

You may remember that I said above that the carnitine in red meat can be converted by gut bacteria into TMAO which increases the risk of heart disease. The operative wording here is “can be”. It turns out this only happens with the gut bacteria of habitual meat eaters. Here is the study that showed that:

- When habitual meat eaters were fed an 8-ounce sirloin steak, both carnitine and TMAO increased in their blood and urine.

- When vegans were fed the same 8-ounce steak, only carnitine increased. No TMAO was detected.

- When the meat eaters were treated with an antibiotic that wiped out their gut bacteria prior to eating the steak, no TMAO was detected. This showed it was the gut bacteria in the meat eaters that were responsible for converting carnitine to TMAO.

Fiber from whole grains, fruits, and vegetables binds to cholesterol and flushes it out of the intestine, preventing its absorption into the bloodstream.

Plant-based diets are anti-inflammatory.

In terms of cancer,

The ﬁber found in fruits, vegetables and whole grains binds to polyaromatic hydrocarbons and heterocyclic amines and ﬂushes them out through the intestines.

Polyaromatic hydrocarbons require activation by the liver before they become carcinogenic. Indoles and isothiocyanates found in broccoli, cabbage, and other cruciferous vegetables inhibit the enzymes that catalyze this activation.

Antioxidants found in fruits, vegetables and whole grains reduce the formation of N-nitroso compounds in the intestines.

A largely plant-based diet appears to favor a population of intestinal bacteria that is less likely to convert compounds in meat into cancer-causing chemicals. [Note: This is a new area of research, so the data supporting this mechanism of cancer prevention are less deﬁnitive than for the other three ]

These observations are based studies designed to identify the mechanisms by which plant-based diets negate the bad effects of red meat. For example, let me share a recent study (T Onali et al, Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 141, 109906, 2025) asking whether berries could negate the bad effects of adding red meat (pork) to a typical Finnish diet.

How Was This Study Done?

This study was conducted by a group of scientists at the University of Helsinki. They recruited 43 adults aged 20-68 and divided them into two groups. Each group was told to continue with their regular diet, except that consumption of any red meat or berries other than the foods they were provided with was prohibited.

Each group was given an extra 5 ounces of pork (minced pork, pulled pork, pork strips from fillet, cold cuts, sausages, and bacon) to eat each day.

One group was also given 1 cup of berries (bilberries, strawberries, cloudberries, raspberries, lingonberries, and blackcurrant) to eat each day.

- Note: These are the foods most familiar to people from Finland in each category.

They were provided with these foods on a weekly basis.

This intervention portion of the study lasted four weeks.

Dietary intake was assessed in each group using 3-day food records (two weekdays and one weekend day) at the beginning and the end of the study.

Participants in the study collected stool samples on two consecutive days at the beginning and end of the study. These stool samples were analyzed in the following ways:

Bacterial DNA was extracted from the stool samples and used to determine which gut bacteria were present in the stools.

The stool samples were homogenized and filtered to:

- Determine the polyphenols and polyphenol metabolites present in the stool samples.

- Determine whether low molecular weight compounds present in the stool samples were able to inhibit the growth of human colon cancer cells in cell culture.

What Did The Study Show?

The dietary analysis found that total calories, protein, carbohydrate, fat, and saturated fat did not change significantly in either group. This indicates that the study participants likely substituted the pork they were given for other high-fat meats they were eating before the study.

However, in the group that was also given berries fiber, vitamin C, vitamin E, manganese, and several polyphenols increased significantly. This suggests that study participants likely substituted the berries for less healthy foods they were eating before the study.

The study found that:

In the red meat-only group the relative abundance of beneficial Roseburia and Fecalibacterium gut bacteria was decreased. This did not occur in the red meat + berries group.

In the red meat + berries group the concentration of several beneficial polyphenols and polyphenol metabolites was increased.

In the red meat + berries group, the filtrate obtained from stool samples inhibited the growth of several human colon cancer cell lines in cell culture experiments. These experiments did not identify which berry polyphenols were responsible for inhibiting the growth of cancer cells. It also did not determine whether the polyphenols came directly from the berries or were created when gut bacteria modified the polyphenol(s).

But these experiments did show that something from a high berry diet inhibited colon cancer cell growth.

The author’s concluded, “Berry supplementation to a diet high in red and processed meat led to berry-derived polyphenolic metabolites in the feces, beneficially modified gut microbiota, inhibited the viability of colon cancer cells, collectively suggesting potential in cancer prevention.

The difference seen in gut metabolism was probably induced by the higher intakes of dietary fiber, vitamin C and E, manganese, and polyphenols by the berry diet.”

Can Red Meat Be Good For You?

This study is one piece of the puzzle to help us understand the effect of diet on the benefits and risks of red meat consumption. Here is what I mean by that.

We can think of scientific investigations in terms of solving a large puzzle with lots of little pieces. If you are a puzzle enthusiast, you know the best way to solve a complicated puzzle is to put the edge pieces together first and then fill in the rest of the puzzle.

In this context, the studies showing that small amounts of red meat are not harmful in the context of healthy, primarily plant-based diets like the DASH and Mediterranean diets are the edge of the puzzle. Smaller studies that define the mechanisms of this effect and provide proof these mechanisms are accurate are the interior pieces that fill out the puzzle. This study is one of those interior pieces.

So, what does that mean for you? It means that diet context is important.

Most of the studies showing the bad effects of red meat have been done in the context of the typical American diet. That might consist of an 8 or 12-ounce steak with fries and either a soft drink or iced tea. Fruits and vegetables, if present at all, are minimal. Dessert usually consists of some sugary treats.

In this context, red meat is bad for you.

In contrast, consider the place red meat occupies in a primarily plant-based diet. Red meat becomes a condiment rather than the main course. Think of 2-3 ounces of red meat as part of a green salad or stir fry with a variety of greens and other vegetables. You might have beans, whole grains, or another vegetable to round out your plate. Dessert would be whatever fruit is in season. And your beverage might be water, milk, or herbal tea.

In this context, the bad effects of red meat disappear. In short, there are no bad foods, only bad diets.

I started this blog with the question, “Can red meat be good for you?” You may be wondering if I have answered that question.

At the beginning of this article, I listed the good things about red meat, namely that it is a good source of protein, iron, vitamin B12, carnitine, and creatine.

If you remove the bad, only the good remains. So, the answer is, “Yes. In the right diet context red meat can be good for you”.

The Bottom Line

You have heard that red meat is bad for you. It increases your risk of heart disease and cancer. You should avoid it at all costs.

But is that true? In the article above I:

Describe both the benefits and risks of red meat.

Discuss how plant foods negate many of the bad effects of red meat.

Share a study providing proof of that concept.

Share how you can enjoy the benefits of red meat while avoiding the bad effects of red meat consumption.

For more details read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

______________________________________________________________________________

My posts and “Health Tips From the Professor” articles carefully avoid claims about any brand of supplement or manufacturer of supplements. However, I am often asked by representatives of supplement companies if they can share them with their customers.

My answer is, “Yes, as long as you share only the article without any additions or alterations. In particular, you should avoid adding any mention of your company or your company’s products. If you were to do that, you could be making what the FTC and FDA consider a “misleading health claim” that could result in legal action against you and the company you represent.

For more detail about FTC regulations for health claims, see this link.

https://www.ftc.gov/business-guidance/resources/health-products-compliance-guidance

______________________________________________________________________

About The Author

Dr. Chaney has a BS in Chemistry from Duke University and a PhD in Biochemistry from UCLA. He is Professor Emeritus from the University of North Carolina where he taught biochemistry and nutrition to medical and dental students for 40 years.

Dr. Chaney won numerous teaching awards at UNC, including the Academy of Educators “Excellence in Teaching Lifetime Achievement Award”.

Dr Chaney also ran an active cancer research program at UNC and published over 100 scientific articles and reviews in peer-reviewed scientific journals. In addition, he authored two chapters on nutrition in one of the leading biochemistry text books for medical students.

Since retiring from the University of North Carolina, he has been writing a weekly health blog called “Health Tips From the Professor”. He has also written two best-selling books, “Slaying the Food Myths” and “Slaying the Supplement Myths”. And most recently he has created an online lifestyle change course, “Create Your Personal Health Zone”. For more information visit https://chaneyhealth.com.

For the past 45 years Dr. Chaney and his wife Suzanne have been helping people improve their health holistically through a combination of good diet, exercise, weight control and appropriate supplementation.

Is Red Meat Healthy For You?

January 28, 2020 by Dr. Steve Chaney

Why Is Red Meat So Controversial?

The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the World Health Organization and other organizations have been telling us for years that diets high in red meat are likely to increase our risk of chronic diseases. If you are like most Americans, you have been trying to cut back on red meat.

However, the latest headlines are saying things like: “Red meat is actually good for you” and “Most adults don’t need to cut back on red meat for their health”. Where did those headlines come from?

A group calling itself the Nutritional Recommendations Consortium (NutriRECS) has reviewed the scientific literature and said: “The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork.” They have issued guidelines (BC Johnston et al, Annals of Internal Medicine, 171: 756-764, 2019) saying that adults really don’t need to change the amounts of red meat they are eating.

As you can imagine, that has proven to be a controversial recommendation. Many of the top experts in the field have questioned the validity of the study and have condemned the guidelines as misleading.

However, most of you don’t care about arguments between the experts. Your questions are: “What does this study mean to me?” Is everything I have been told about red meat wrong?” “Is red meat healthy after all? Can I really eat as much as I want?”

Why Is Red Meat So Controversial?

If you are confused by the latest headlines, it’s not your fault. Over the past few decades you have been bombarded by conflicting headlines about red meat. One month it is bad for you. The next month it is good for you. It is fair to ask: “Why is red meat so controversial? Why is it so confusing?”

Perhaps the best way to answer those questions is to review the scientific critique of the latest guidelines saying we can eat as much red meat as we want and then look at the authors’ rebuttal.

The best summary of the scientific critique of these guidelines is a WebMD Health News report. Let me cover a few of the most important criticisms:

#1: The NutriRECS group was not backed by any major health, government, or scientific organizations. The members of this group self-nominated themselves as gurus of nutritional recommendations. In an earlier publication they concluded that the evidence was too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less sugar. But in that review they stopped short of recommending that adults could eat as much sugar as they wanted.

#2: The review left out 15 important studies showing that diets high in red meat are associated with increased disease risk. If those studies had been included in the analysis, the link between meat consumption and disease would have been much stronger. Even worse, the omitted studies met the author’s stated criteria for inclusion in their analysis. No reason was given for omitting those studies. This suggests author bias.

#3: The authors used an assessment method that prioritizes evidence from randomized controlled trials and downgrades evidence from association studies. As a result, multiple association studies showing red and processed meat consumption increases disease risk were discounted, and a few randomized controlled clinical trials giving inconsistent results dominated their analysis.

Let me state for the record that my research career was devoted to cancer drug development. I am a big proponent of the value of randomized controlled trials when they are appropriate.

· Randomized controlled trial are perfect for determining the effectiveness of new drugs. In this context it is appropriate. In a drug trial it is easy to design a randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. In addition, every participant already has the disease. If a drug has a benefit, it is apparent in a very short time.

· However, randomized controlled trials are not optimal for dietary studies. In the first place, it is impossible to design a placebo or have a “blinded study”. People know what they are eating. In addition, diseases like heart disease, cancer, and diabetes take decades to develop. You can’t keep people on specific diets for decades.

· In addition, because randomized controlled trials are short, they can only measure the effect of diet on disease markers like LDL cholesterol. These disease markers are imperfect predictors of disease outcomes. I will discuss this in more detail next week.

· Consequently, most of the major studies in nutrition research are “association studies” where the investigators ask people what they customarily eat and look at the association of those dietary practices with disease outcomes. These studies aren’t perfect, but they represent the best tool we have for determining the influence of diet on disease outcomes.

#4: The authors included people’s attitudes about eating meat in their analysis. Because many meat eaters stated they would be unwilling to give up meat, the authors downgraded the association between meat consumption and disease risk.

· That really had the outside experts scratching their heads. They agreed that people’s attitudes should be considered in discussions about how to implement health guidelines. However, they were unanimously opposed to the idea that people’s opinions should be a factor in crafting health guidelines.

#5: The authors ignored the environmental impact of meat consumption. As I indicated in a previous issue of “Health Tips From the Professor”, this should be a major consideration when choosing your diet.

#6: The authors may have been influenced by the beef industry. The NutriRECS group stated that the Agriculture and Life Sciences (AgriLife) program at Texas A&M provided generous support for their study. While that sound innocuous, the AgriLife program receives financial support from the “Texas Beef Checkoff Program”, which is a meat industry marketing program paid for by cattle ranchers.

#7: The beef industry influenced the studies the authors relied on in their review. The beef industry supports randomized controlled clinical trials on red meat and influences the outcome of those studies in ways that minimize the health effects of red meat consumption. I will give some examples of this next week. Unfortunately, these are the studies the NutriRECS group relied on for their recommendations.

What Did The Authors Say About Their Guidelines?

Because I like to provide a balanced evaluation of nutrition controversies, it is only fair that I summarize the authors argument for their recommendations. However, I will add my commentary. Here is a summary of their arguments.

#1: Nutritional recommendations should be based on sound science. In principle, this is something that everyone agrees on. However, as I noted above randomized controlled trials are not always the best scientific approach for studying the health effects of diet.

My comment: In matters of public health it is better to be safe than sorry. Simply put, it is better to warn people about probable dangers to their health rather than waiting decades for certainty. Smoking is a perfect example. The Surgeon General warned the US public about the dangers of smoking long before the evidence was conclusive.

Smoking is also an example of how industry tries to influence scientific opinion. The tobacco industry supported and influenced research on smoking. Industry funded research tended to minimize the dangers of smoking. Next week I will show how the meat industry is doing the same concerning the dangers of red meat.

#2: It is difficult to get good dietary information in association studies. That is because most association studies ask people what they have eaten over the past few decades. There are two problems with that.

1) Most people have enough trouble remembering what they ate yesterday. Remembering what they ate 10 or 20 years ago is problematic.

2) People listen to the news and often change their diets based on what they hear. What they are eating today may not resemble what they ate 10 years ago.

My comment: That is a legitimate point. However, in recent years the best association studies have started collection dietary information at the start, the mid-point, and the end of the study. I agree we need more of those studies.

#3: The authors claim they found no statistically significant link between meat consumption and risk of heart disease, diabetes, or cancer in a dozen randomized controlled trials that had enrolled about 54 000 participants.

My comment: That statement is highly misleading. One of those studies had 48,835 participants. That study wasn’t even designed to measure the effect of red meat consumption. It was designed to measure the health effects of low fat versus high fat diets. The difference in red meat consumption between the two groups was only 1.4 servings per day, a 20% difference. Even with that small difference in red meat consumption, there was about a 2% reduction in some heart disease outcomes, which the authors considered insignificant.

That leaves 11 studies with only 5,165 participants, which averages out to 470 participants per study. Those studies had too few participants to provide any meaningful estimate of the effect of red meat on health outcomes.

In addition, the meat industry influenced the design of some of those studies to further minimize the effect of red meat on health outcomes, something I will discuss next week.

#4: The authors found a slight effect of red meat consumption on heart disease and cancer deaths in association studies, but said the decrease was too small to recommend that people change their diet.

My comment: This represents the folly of looking at any single food or single nutrient rather than the whole diet. We need to take a holistic approach and ask questions like: “What are they replacing red meat with? What does their overall diet look like?

For example, let’s look at what happens when you reduce saturated fats, something I discussed in a previous issue (https://www.chaneyhealth.com/healthtips/are-saturated-fats-bad-for-you/) of “Health Tips From the Professor”. When you replace saturated fats with:

· Trans fats, your heart disease risk increases by 5%.

· Refined carbohydrates and sugars (the kind of carbohydrates in the typical American diet), your heart disease risk increases slightly.

· Complex carbohydrates (whole grains, fruits and vegetables), your heart disease risk decreases by 9%.

· Monounsaturated fats (olive oil & peanut oil), your heart disease risk decreases by 15%.

· Polyunsaturated fats (vegetable oil & fish oil), your heart disease risk decreases by 25%.

· Unsaturated fats in the context of a primarily plant-based diet like the Mediterranean diet, your heart disease risk decreases by 47%.

While we don’t have such precise numbers for red meat, we do have enough evidence to know that the situation with red meat is similar.

· Replacing high-fat red meat with low-fat red meat or white meat in the context of a typical American diet will probably have only a modest effect on disease risk.

· Replacing red meat with plant protein in the context of a typical American diet (think Impossible Burgers or the equivalent at your local Fast Food restaurant) will also probably have only a modest effect on disease risk.

· Replacing red meat with white meat or plant protein in the context of a primarily plant-based diet is likely to significantly reduce disease risk.

Is Red Meat Healthy For You?

Let’s return to the question I posed at the beginning of this article: “Is red meat healthy for you?” In the context of headlines saying: “Red meat is actually good for you”, the answer is a clear No!

· The saturated fat in red meat is associated with increased heart disease risk.

· However, it’s not just saturated fat. Other components of red meat are associated with increased risk of heart disease and cancer. I will discuss those next week.

There are simply too many studies that show an association between red meat consumption and disease risk to give red meat a clean bill of health. We can’t say red meat is healthy with any confidence.

However, that doesn’t mean we need to eliminate red meat from our diet. The health risks of red meat are determined by the type of red meat consumed, the amount of red meat consumed, and the overall composition of our diet. So:

· If you are thinking in terms of a juicy 8-ounce steak with a baked potato and sour cream, red meat is probably not healthy.

· However, if you are thinking of 2-3 ounces of lean steak in a vegetable stir fry or a green salad, red meat may be healthy.

Of course, one question I am frequently asked is “What about grass fed beef? Is it healthier than conventionally raised beef?” I will answer that question next week.

The Bottom Line

A group calling itself the Nutritional Recommendations Consortium (NutriRECS) recently reviewed the scientific literature and said: “The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork.” They then issued guidelines saying that adults really don’t need to change the amounts of red meat they are eating.

When you examine the pros and cons carefully, it becomes clear that the NutriRECS group:

1) Put too little emphasis on association studies with hundreds of thousands of participants showing a link between red meat consumption and increased risk of heart disease and cancer.

2) Put too much emphasis on very small randomized controlled trials that had no possibility of evaluating the effect of red meat consumption on disease risk. In part, that is because many of the randomized controlled trials were funded and influenced by the meat industry, something I will discuss next week.

3) Did not ask what the red meat was replaced with or look at red meat consumption in the context of the overall diet.

Based on what we currently know:

1) Replacing high-fat red meat with low-fat red meat or white meat in the context of a typical American diet will probably have only a modest effect on disease risk.

2) Replacing red meat with plant protein in the context of a typical American diet (think Impossible Burgers or the equivalent at your local Fast Food restaurant) will also probably have only a minor effect on disease risk.

3) Replacing red meat with white meat or plant protein in the context of a primarily plant-based diet is likely to significantly reduce disease risk.

That means:

1) If you are thinking in terms of a juicy 8-ounce steak with a baked potato and sour cream, red meat is probably not healthy.

2) However, if you are thinking of 2-3 ounces of lean steak in a vegetable stir fry or a green salad, red meat may be healthy.

Of course, one question I am frequently asked is “What about grass fed beef? Is it healthier than conventionally raised beef?” I will answer that question next week. Stay tuned.

For more details, read the article above.

These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This information is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.