By , medical review by

Is red meat healthy, harmful or neutral? Should you enjoy it freely on your low-carb, keto diet, or limit your consumption?

Depending on which expert you ask, these questions may receive very different answers.

Has a strong link between red meat and heart disease, cancer, or other diseases been established? Will consuming it on a regular basis shorten your life or put you at risk of health problems?

Here is our guide to what we currently know about red meat, so you can make an informed decision about whether to include it – and how much – in your own diet.

Disclaimer: Many health and nutrition experts consider red meat to be potentially dangerous when it comes to long-term health. A careful analysis of the science shows that there is room for debate given the quality of evidence on which current conventional wisdom is based. Many health and nutrition experts consider red meat to be potentially dangerous when it comes to long-term health. A careful analysis of the science shows that there is room for debate given the quality of evidence on which current conventional wisdom is based. We recognize that many of the studies cited have both pro- and anti-meat funding biases. While the funding source does not invalidate the data, it does question its strength. That is one of the many reasons detailed in this guide why the evidence is not as strong as we would like on either side of the argument. This guide is our attempt to summarize current scientific evidence. It is written for adults who are concerned about meat intake and health. Discuss any lifestyle changes with your doctor. Full disclaimer

What is red meat?

Red meat comes from mammals. When raw, it usually appears dark red because it contains a lot of myoglobin, the iron-rich protein that stores oxygen in animal muscle. The red meat category includes beef, pork, lamb, veal, goat, bison, venison and other game.

The term “red meat” can be a bit confusing, though, since veal and pork flesh are often light in color while duck, as well as salmon and some other fish are reddish. However, when discussing meat from a nutritional standpoint, “white meat” refers to poultry and fish, which contain less myoglobin and iron than red meat.

Red meat can be fresh or processed. Fresh red meat is exactly what it sounds like: meat that contains no additives, requires refrigeration, and needs to be consumed within a few days, after roasting, grilling, or stewing etc.

Processed red meat is a broader term referring to meat that’s been modified by salting, curing, smoking, canning, or treating with preservatives. Popular types include bacon, salami, sausage, hot dogs, and jerky.

The shelf life of various processed meats span a very wide range; certain types last for only a few days in the refrigerator, while dried or canned types can remain edible for several months or even years when stored at room temperature. Additionally, some processed meats contain salt as their sole additive, whereas others may include sugar, starch, other fillers, and chemicals such as nitrites.

Benefits of eating red meat

Animal foods are an important part of our evolutionary past, having likely played a critical role in our development as a species. They have even been credited with allowing us to develop the large, complex brains that are unique to humans, although evolutionary science like this is imprecise at best. Indeed, we may be genetically wired to enjoy the flavor and texture of meat from a very early age.

In addition to being tasty and filling, red meat provides many nutritional benefits:

High-quality protein: A 100-gram (3.5-ounce) serving of red meat contains about 20-25 grams of protein, depending how fatty it is (leaner cuts have more protein). Like eggs, dairy, and other animal products, red meat provides protein that is considered complete, meaning it contains all nine essential amino acids in the amounts your body needs. Learn more about protein: Protein on a low-carb or keto diet Guide Along with fat and carbohydrates, protein is one of the three macronutrients (“macros”) found in food, and it plays unique and important roles in the body. Here’s a guide to everything you need to know about protein on a low-carb or keto lifestyle.

A 100-gram (3.5-ounce) serving of red meat contains about 20-25 grams of protein, depending how fatty it is (leaner cuts have more protein). Like eggs, dairy, and other animal products, red meat provides protein that is considered complete, meaning it contains all nine essential amino acids in the amounts your body needs. Learn more about protein: Several vitamins and minerals: Red meat is an excellent source of many important micronutrients, including vitamin B12, niacin, selenium, zinc and potassium.

Red meat is an excellent source of many important micronutrients, including vitamin B12, niacin, selenium, zinc and potassium. Heme iron: All types of red meat are rich in heme iron, which your body absorbs more easily than the non-heme form of iron found in plants. Consuming red meat on a regular basis may help increase your iron stores and prevent iron-deficiency anemia.

All types of red meat are rich in heme iron, which your body absorbs more easily than the non-heme form of iron found in plants. Consuming red meat on a regular basis may help increase your iron stores and prevent iron-deficiency anemia. May help preserve muscle: It’s an unfortunate fact that we usually lose muscle as we age due to hormonal and other physiological changes. In one study, older women who consumed 160 grams (5.6 ounces) of red meat six days a week in combination with resistance training achieved greater gains in lean muscle and strength than the resistance-training-only group. Similar improvements have been shown in studies of young and middle-aged men who consumed beef and triathletes who took beef-based supplements, when compared to men of similar age who ate lacto-ovo vegetarian diets or took whey-based supplements during strength training.

It’s an unfortunate fact that we usually lose muscle as we age due to hormonal and other physiological changes. In one study, older women who consumed 160 grams (5.6 ounces) of red meat six days a week in combination with resistance training achieved greater gains in lean muscle and strength than the resistance-training-only group. Similar improvements have been shown in studies of young and middle-aged men who consumed beef and triathletes who took beef-based supplements, when compared to men of similar age who ate lacto-ovo vegetarian diets or took whey-based supplements during strength training. May help prevent frailty: In a recent study of older women, consuming higher amounts of animal protein, including red meat, was linked to a decreased risk of weakness, loss of strength and other changes that often occur with aging. In addition, animal protein sources may benefit lean body mass preservation regardless of the physical activity level.

What does the research show with respect to meat’s potential harm?

Over the past several years, news media have reported on studies showing an association between eating a lot of red meat and increased risks of cancer and heart disease. Some articles have even stated that meat is flat-out “killing us.”

But how strong are these associations, especially when considering all available types of studies? Let’s take a look at the research on red meat and disease risk to date and assess the strength of the evidence.



Red meat and cancer

In October 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) issued a press release classifying processed meat as “carcinogenic” and red meat as “probably carcinogenic” in humans. While the epidemiological studies reviewed by the committee suggest an association, other studies question the strength of the association.

Cancers other than colorectal : In large reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, researchers have found inconsistent results. One very large meta-analysis found that the absolute effects of red meat on cancer risk are extremely low, with the certainty of evidence being low to very low. While some have shown no association of red meat and cancer risk, others have shown a positive association with gastric, esophageal, breast, and prostate cancer.

: In large reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, researchers have found inconsistent results. One very large meta-analysis found that the absolute effects of red meat on cancer risk are extremely low, with the certainty of evidence being low to very low. While some have shown no association of red meat and cancer risk, others have shown a positive association with gastric, esophageal, breast, and prostate cancer. For those that did show an association, the hazard ratios were quite small, in the range of 1.06 to 1.4. In comparison, cigarette smoking has a hazard ratio greater than 3.0 for being associated with cancer, meaning people who smoke are three times more likely to get cancer than those who don’t smoke. Therefore although the observational studies can suggest an association between red meat and cancer, the low hazard ratios make it less suggestive that red meat causes cancer. Colorectal cancer: Colorectal cancer is by far the most common type of cancer studied regarding its relationship to red meat. Here, studies have shown a more consistent association. However, once again the association is very weak with hazard ratios mostly below 1.4. While this does not invalidate the data, the weak hazard ratios do raise the question of what it is, exactly, about meat that may increase risk. In some cases, the association with colorectal cancer has been attributed to heterocyclic amines (HCAs) and other potentially harmful compounds that form when meat is cooked at high temperatures. Therefore, it seems reasonable to infer that limiting high-temperature cooking of red meat could mitigate the very small risk of colorectal cancer. The heme iron found in red meat has also been suggested to play a causative role in colorectal cancer, based on findings in animal studies and some epidemiological studies in humans. However, other studies have failed to show a connection between ingesting these substances and developing colorectal cancer.

While many observational trials suggest red meat is associated with colon cancer, some researchers point out that other lifestyle factors could influence those results. With low hazard ratios, it’s difficult to completely exclude that high sugar consumption, alcohol intake, smoking, decreased physical activity, lack of vegetable intake or other factors impacted the results.

In contrast to the large amount of observational research available, very little experimental research on red meat consumption and colon cancer exists, at least in humans. One study in people with precancerous colon polyps found that cutting back on red meat over a four-year period did NOT decrease the risk of polyp recurrence. In addition, a review of RCTs comparing a lower vs. higher red meat consumption used the GRADE system to quantify the strength of the evidence. The authors concluded there is no meaningful increase in cancer with higher red meat consumption.

Moreover, systematic reviews of experimental studies in animal and cell cultures have found that the meat amounts tested were frequently much larger than what most people eat, and that many studies didn’t include potentially protective whole foods that are typically consumed in healthy, balanced diets.

While there are compelling mechanistic data to explain how compounds in red meat or produced by the cooking of meat could cause CRC, it’s important to remember that plausible mechanisms are not sufficient to prove a causal relationship.

Red meat and heart disease

Many observational studies show a relationship between eating meat and the risk for heart disease, stroke and heart disease deaths. Others show a link with processed meat but not minimally processed red meat.

One large review failed to find consistent and definitive relationship between red meat and increased risk of ischemic heart disease (also known as coronary artery disease). But another large review found evidence for an increased risk of heart disease and all-cause mortality, albeit extremely small.

One meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (considered the strongest, highest-quality evidence) showed that eating three or more servings of red meat per week had no adverse effects on CVD risk factors like cholesterol, triglyceride or blood pressure values.

A 2019 review of RCTs and cohort studies used the GRADE technique to assign a level of quality to the studies comparing more vs less red meat intake. They found no meaningful increased cardiovascular risk from higher red meat consumption, though the evidence was derived mainly from one of the twelve eligible studies and considered low- to very-low-certainty.

Part of the problem is separating the effects of red meat from the effects of other dietary and lifestyle factors. The evidence suggests that those eating meat as part of a high-carb and high-fat Western diet tend to be less healthy than those choosing not to eat meat. If this represents you, then the data suggest red meat consumption is associated with heart disease risk, as is poor baseline health.

But what if you aren’t eating a standard Western diet? What if you aren’t unhealthy at baseline? Here, the data are much less conclusive regarding the role of red meat and heart disease.

Another concern is that red meat may raise levels of TMAO (trimethylamine-N-oxide) in the body, which some some studies show is correlated with increased heart disease risk. Yet what’s often not mentioned is that eating many other foods — including fish — also raise TMAO. In addition, the production of TMAO is dependent on the gut microbiota, not just the consumption of red meat.

As we have written about the inconclusive evidence for a relationship between TMAO and CVD, questions remain regarding the role of TMAO as an independent risk marker or causative factor for coronary disease.

Red meat and insulin-resistant conditions

Some studies suggest that eating red meat on a regular basis may increase the risk of diabetes and other conditions characterized by insulin resistance.

Diabetes: Several large reviews of observational studies have found weak associations between frequent red meat and processed meat consumption and diabetes risk. Once again, however, we need to consider this association between meat and diabetes risk in a real-world context: it is possible that many of these study subjects were also eating high carbohydrate diets and low-quality foods. It is critical to note that randomized controlled trials have shown impressive improvement in diabetes with unlimited animal food sources, including red meat. This makes it much less likely that the meat itself leads to diabetes, as opposed to the combination of foods that tend to be higher in fat with high carbohydrate foods combined with other poor lifestyle habits.

Several large reviews of observational studies have found weak associations between frequent red meat and processed meat consumption and diabetes risk. Once again, however, we need to consider this association between meat and diabetes risk in a real-world context: it is possible that many of these study subjects were also eating high carbohydrate diets and low-quality foods. It is critical to note that randomized controlled trials have shown impressive improvement in diabetes with unlimited animal food sources, including red meat. This makes it much less likely that the meat itself leads to diabetes, as opposed to the combination of foods that tend to be higher in fat with high carbohydrate foods combined with other poor lifestyle habits. Obesity and metabolic syndrome: A 2014 systematic review showed a weak relationship between red meat and obesity but a much stronger one between red meat and large waist size. Analysis of data from the PREDIMED trial — a large study exploring health-related effects of the Mediterranean diet — found that people who reported the highest red meat intake were more than twice as likely to develop metabolic syndrome and eight times as likely to be centrally obese (defined as having a very large waist size) as those who reported the lowest meat consumption. This association remained even after researchers made adjustments for the participants’ self-reported smoking, alcohol consumption, calorie intake and physical activity. On the other hand, a well-controlled trial in overweight and obese people found that including 500 grams (17.6 ounces or approximately three servings of 6 ounces each) of lean red meat per week as part of a Mediterranean diet resulted in equal weight loss and reduction in metabolic risk factors compared to following the same basic diet but eating much less red meat. And a recent meta-analysis of 24 RCTs found no differences in glycemic control, insulin sensitivity, or inflammatory markers among metabolically healthy people during diet periods where average red meat intake was less than 0.5 servings (35 grams) per day compared to more than 0.5 servings per day. How can we interpret these data? For those eating a standard Western diet with high carbohydrates and high fat, red meat consumption is likely associated with insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome. However, other studies show that low-carb diets that include red meat successfully treat type 2 diabetes and insulin resistance. Therefore we come back to the concept that the overall content of the diet may be more important than the specific intake of red meat.

Red meat and gout

Gout, one of the most acutely painful joint conditions, is characterized by high levels of uric acid in the blood (hyperuricemia). People with gout are usually advised to strictly limit the amount of red meat they eat.

However, a recent systematic review of 19 observational studies found that consuming red meat intake was only weakly associated with gout and elevated uric acid levels, whereas alcohol and fructose intake were found to have stronger correlations with each of these conditions.

Red meat and all-cause mortality

As with the sections above, multiple epidemiologic studies have shown a weak association between meat consumption and increased risk of death. However, once again these studies have low hazard ratios consistently under 1.4, and they are subject to healthy user bias and other weaknesses of epidemiological studies.

Given that the data do not convincingly show a significant correlation between red meat intake and all-cause mortality, it’s not surprising that recent large reviews and meta-analyses failed to show any link between red meat intake and all-cause mortality.

What’s more, a 2013 review of dietary habits among Asians not only found no association of increased risk of death among red meat eaters but also a slightly decreased risk of CVD mortality in men and cancer mortality in women who reported the highest intake of meat.

Just as with the risk for cancer and heart disease, what else is eaten with the red meat likely plays a significant role as do other health habits. For instance, one study tried to control for these factors and recruited “health conscious” participants. They found no mortality difference between meat eaters and vegetarians.

However we can’t completely ignore the data associating red meat with mortality. If someone fits the common subject profile in many of the epidemiologic studies, eating 40-50% carbohydrates, overweight and metabolically unhealthy, then those who eat more red meat have a slightly higher risk than those who do not. Is it the meat or is it other unhealthy lifestyle choices? That remains to be proven.

We also need to ask, what happens when they lower their carbohydrates, lose weight, reverse metabolic disease and improve their overall lifestyle? In that situation we do not have incriminating evidence against red meat.

