Eating processed meat such as sausages increases the likelihood of heart disease, while red meat does not seem to be as harmful, a study suggests.

A Harvard University team which looked at studies involving over one million people found just 50g of processed meat a day also raised the risk of diabetes.

But there was no such risk from eating even twice as much unprocessed meat, such as beef, lamb or pork.

This was despite the fact the two forms of meat have a similar fat content.

Writing in the journal Circulation, the researchers speculated that given the similar quantities of cholesterol and saturated fats, the difference may be explained by the salt and preservatives added to processed meats.

This is defined as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting and includes bacon, sausages, salami and other luncheon meats.

Salt can increase blood pressure in some people, a key risk factor for heart disease.

In animal experiments, nitrate preservatives can promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance, which can in turn lead to heart problems and diabetes.

Similar lifestyle

The team from Harvard School of Public Health looked at 20 studies involving more than one million participants from 10 countries.

On average, each 50g serving of processed meat per day - the equivalent of a sausage or a couple of rashers of bacon - was associated with a 42% higher chance of developing coronary heart disease and a 19% higher risk of diabetes.

Although cause-and-effect cannot be proven by these types of long-term observational studies, all of these studies adjusted for other risk factors," said Renata Micha, lead author.

"Also, the lifestyle factors associated with eating unprocessed meats and processed meats were similar, but only processed meats were linked to higher risk."

Victoria Taylor, senior heart health dietician at the British Heart Foundation, said: "If you like red meat, this can still be included as part of a balanced heart-healthy diet.

"Go for lean cuts and aim to cook from scratch using healthier cooking methods like grilling or baking. If you need to add flavour, then try using fresh and dried herbs, spices and chillies instead of salt."

A spokesman for BPEX, which represents pork producers, insisted processed meats could form part of a balanced diet.

He suggested further research was needed before any dietary recommendations could be made.

"Various studies indicate that high consumption of processed meat can be indicative of an overall poorly balanced diet: therefore it could be other aspects of the diet that are contributing to the increase in risk," he added.

Soladrin wrote:Pretty much everything.

KingCracker wrote:

Soladrin wrote:Pretty much everything.

That would be me, and anything I eat healthy is easily made up for in the amount of whole milk I consume. Gallon challenge? PFF easily done my friends.

Also I dont really care what the "scientists found" to be bad, because they change their minds all the friggin time. Eggs are good, eggs are bad, no wait.....OK eggs are good....no no no the yellow part is bad the white part is good.....unless you eat the yellow part on certain Sundays of the year because the lunar pull makes them good.

And everything we eat/make today will give us cancers of everything anyways. So I guess if you have to die from it, might as well of tasted good going in

Soup and a roll wrote:You can ignore most of the 'increases risk' scaremongering. If you are increasing your chance from tiny to ever-so-slightly less tiny it's fine. Other things are less cool. Sunbeds are going to give you problems after a decade, try not to get liver fibrosis and smoking is, if you'll forgive me, moronic with the amount of evidence linking it to morbidity and mortality.

KingCracker wrote:Also I dont really care what the "scientists found" to be bad, because they change their minds all the friggin time. Eggs are good, eggs are bad, no wait.....OK eggs are good....no no no the yellow part is bad the white part is good.....unless you eat the yellow part on certain Sundays of the year because the lunar pull makes them good.

sebster wrote:That's only the case if you take the reports in the media as representative of the science. Science itself is building a very sophisticated understanding of nutrition. The media is skimming that picking out random articles and using them to say 'wine reduces cancer!' on Monday, and 'wine causes cander' on Tueday.

usernamesareannoying wrote:last i heard vegetable were bad for you now so what the feth are we supposed to eat?

JEB_Stuart wrote:

sebster wrote:That's only the case if you take the reports in the media as representative of the science. Science itself is building a very sophisticated understanding of nutrition. The media is skimming that picking out random articles and using them to say 'wine reduces cancer!' on Monday, and 'wine causes cander' on Tueday.

Apparently it also impedes typing

metallifan wrote:Science is to the 21st Century what the Church was to the 15th Century.

Back then, they scared people with "God will send you to Hell for eating an animal on Sunday! Women are sent by Satan! Kill Muslims in the Crusades to save your soul! Hurr!"

Now it's "You're going to die from eating! You're going to die from not eating! Breathing is bad! Breathing is good! You're going to die either way! Hurr!"


Same turd, different century.

J.Black wrote:

metallifan wrote:Science is to the 21st Century what the Church was to the 15th Century.

Back then, they scared people with "God will send you to Hell for eating an animal on Sunday! Women are sent by Satan! Kill Muslims in the Crusades to save your soul! Hurr!"

Now it's "You're going to die from eating! You're going to die from not eating! Breathing is bad! Breathing is good! You're going to die either way! Hurr!"


Same turd, different century.

It's not that the Science is bad, it's more how it's reported on and treated by the government. The Media these days wields much more power than the Scientists and there's nothing like a good bit of selective journalism and scaremongering to get the money flowing in.