Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
10 Apr

Does Red Meat Clog Your Arteries After All?

T-boneI’ve been asked to comment on the latest media deluge to suggest that red meat is again the primary cause of atherosclerosis, heart disease, and your impending doom. At least this time they’re targeting something other than cholesterol: this time it’s carnitine.

Carnitine is found in red meat, mostly, as well as dairy, tempeh, and some other meats, and it performs a number of important roles in the human body, foremost of which is the transportation of fatty acids into the mitochondria for breakdown into useable energy. It’s so important to basic function that we make endogenous carnitine by synthesizing it from the amino acids lysine and methionine. Vegans and vegetarians, who tend to run deficient in carnitine, benefit greatly from supplementation (or a nice steak). It’s even been used to reduce atherosclerosis (albeit in rabbits), improve arterial function, and help heart failure patients recover. Carnitine is not some evil compound.

Oh, the study. Let’s get into it. It consisted of several sections, actually.

First, they fed humans eight ounce steaks (amounting to roughly 180 mg carnitine) with a side of 250 mg carnitine tabs. Omnivores showed increased blood and urine levels of Trimethylamine oxide (TMAO), a compound associated with cardiovascular disease, while vegetarians and vegans (who were somehow able to get the steak down) showed far lower levels of TMAO in their blood and urine.

Next, they tested what was producing the TMAO by administering antibiotics. Eliminating gut flora populations with antibiotics also eliminated the food-induced increase in TMAO, showing that the intestinal microbiota were metabolizing carnitine into TMAO. After allowing the subjects’ guts to repopulate, they ate more steak. The increase in TMAO after eating steak reappeared, confirming that gut flora metabolism of carnitine was responsible. Subjects with higher levels of Prevotella bacteria in their guts saw the biggest increases in TMAO.

(As it turns out, gut flora convert carnitine to TMA, which the liver then converts to TMAO using a hepatic enzyme called FMO3, but it’s easier to just say carnitine converts to TMAO.)

They also tested ApoE-deficient mice and got similar results. Feeding mice carnitine increased TMAO levels in serum and doubled arterial plaque formation over control, while giving antibiotics abolished this effect. So, in a certain strain of mice, dietary carnitine increases TMAO levels, which accelerates atherosclerosis. If you recall from this week’s Dear Mark, ApoE status is strongly associated with cardiovascular disease risk, and these mice were totally deficient in it. They were bred to be extremely sensitive to atherosclerosis in order to facilitate research. It’s a common and useful tool – it’s not like they’re trying to pull a fast one – but we should be aware of it.

They also examined how TMAO increases atherosclerosis in mice: by reducing reverse cholesterol transport. In other words, it impaired the mouse’s ability to remove cholesterol from the arterial wall without decreasing cholesterol uptake or synthesis to the same degree, creating a net surplus of cholesterol in the wall and speeding up atherosclerosis.

Now, before you unplug your chest freezer full of grass-fed beef and start buying wheat futures, keep reading.

The initial association between TMAO and cardiovascular disease in humans is just that – an association. Causation is not established, and it may even be that cardiovascular disease or some other common event increases TMAO as a response to injury or disease. An increase in serum TMAO is, for example, a marker of certain kidney injuries (PDF). It could merely be correlation or even reverse causation. We simply don’t know.

We don’t know if the experimental results in rodents apply to humans. Sure, the omnivorous people who ate steak and took supplements saw an increase in serum TMAO, but atherosclerosis was not measured. The same mechanisms that affect ApoE-deficient mice may not apply to humans.

It was the gut flora, not the carnitine. While subjects who typically ate meat saw the biggest increases in TMAO – which the researchers saw as evidence of the gut flora adapting to the host diet – and were characterized as having Prevotella-dominant guts, most evidence suggests that Prevotella bacteria are associated with carbohydrate-rich diets. That said, accumulating evidence suggests that the hundreds of species living in our guts can’t be quite so easily and neatly cataloged or categorized.

You know what else raises TMAO? Fish. That’s right – heart attack-inducing, artery-clogging, linked-to-every-disease-state-known-to-man fish actually contains TMA, the metabolite that converts to TMAO in the body. TMA is what gives fish the “fishy smell,” and when people eat fish, urine TMAO increases. Strangely, the latest research shows that fish is consistently associated with better cardiovascular health, not worse (despite the TMA content and effect on TMAO levels).

FMO3, which as you’ll recall from the parenthetical above is responsible for the conversion of TMA to TMAO, does things other than produce heart disease. It is also involved in the metabolism of selenium (an important cardioprotective, thyroid-protective, and cancer-protective nutrient).

TMAO itself may not be “all bad.” It’s an osmolyte – a protein stabilizer. It’s even been used to prevent cataract formation in mammalian eye lenses.

Choline, another important nutrient found in eggs, meat, dairy, and offal with a similar structure to carnitine, was shown a couple years ago to convert to TMAO after exposure to certain types of gut flora, causing researchers to suggest it too promotes atherosclerosis (see Chris Masterjohn’s take on it). And yet eggs have been vindicated over and over again for their beneficial or neutral effects on heart health, including the most recent one I mentioned this past Sunday.

It’s complicated, in other words.

That’s not to discredit the results of this latest study; sufficient amounts of TMAO do appear to accelerate atherosclerosis in rodents. Impaired reverse cholesterol transport, which TMAO produces (again, in rodents), probably accelerates atherosclerosis regardless of species, all else being equal. We should definitely keep an eye on this and any other future research. I’m particularly interested in what this means for research into the effects of gut flora on human health.

Ultimately, this admittedly interesting research is all very preliminary. Rodents bred to be especially sensitive to cardiovascular disease (ApoE-knockouts) develop atherosclerosis at twice the normal rate when exposed to TMAO in the diet and/or serum. That’s all that they’ve established. Humans with the right (wrong?) gut flora composition also generate serum TMAO in response to dietary carnitine, but increased atherosclerosis has not been shown. And, contrary to their assumptions, a relationship between red meat (not processed meat) and cardiovascular disease has not been established in the literature. Quite the contrary: recent epidemiological evidence seems to exonerate the fresher, redder stuff.

If anything, this serves to underline (not undermine) the basic gist of the Primal eating philosophy. Eat a variety of foods. Don’t just eat steak. Eat fish, and eggs, and chicken liver, and pork chops. Don’t just eat meat. Eat vegetables. Eat probiotic-rich foods (probiotics have already been used to lower TMAO levels, while kimchi consumption was said to account for the inter-individual differences in TMAO production in another study). Eat prebiotic-rich foods, so as to provide food for your gut and diversify the population.

That last bit is key. We have to realize that it’s the gut flora modulating the effects of carnitine and TMAO – not the carnitine (or red meat) itself. It may be that we Primal eaters (as if you could categorize us so easily) have the absolute worst kind of gut flora, the kind that produces TMA by the truckload to be carted off to the liver for conversion into TMAO, and we’re about to start dropping off like flies. But I doubt it. I think the way we eat is more likely to diversify our guts and give us a floral profile associated with better health, rather than worse. But we’ll see. We still have a lot to learn about what lurks – and lives – inside us.

I’m sure you’ll be inundated with other writers giving their thoughts today and in the near future, but these are my initial ones. Hope it helps!

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. So… I should be supplementing with daily antibiotics to lower my dangerous TMAO levels? Seems legit.

    Nick wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Yep…time to replace your daily probiotic with a daily antibiotic! Imagine what they could do for the Pharmaceutical Industry!

      Jake Dickenson wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • IV pennicilin, here I come! hahah…. Who would volunteer to wipe out their gut flora, that’s what I’m wondering. There had better be lifetime compensation involved.

      Erin wrote on April 10th, 2013
  2. I currently supplement Acetyl L-Carnetine, so now I am wondering if I there is any cause for concern. Is there any reason to believe that I could be causing myself harm?

    Jake Dickenson wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • It depends on how much Acetyl L-Carnitine you are taking and for how long. I usually don’t take it for much longer than 10 days at a time, in order to help reduce excess bodyfat prior to competition.

      Too much and it seems to dry out my muscles.

      Josh Diesel wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • I would assume that if you’re eating meat and seafood on a regular basis, than the carnitine supplement isn’t necessary.

      I think this falls in line again with the “get your nutrients from whole food sources” mindset since supplementation is often at levels beyond what we’d naturally get from a food source.

      Cherice wrote on April 10th, 2013
  3. Thank you, Mark, for addressing my concerns so quickly.

    Wenchypoo wrote on April 10th, 2013
  4. LMAO at the study.

    Nick wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Why would you laugh at the study? It is what it is. The media may have interpreted it in whatever fashion it chose to do, but I doubt you’re qualified to “LMAO” at the study.

      D wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • +1 Do most people actually bother to read Mark’s posts before firing off broadsides? Mark certainly did not LHAO at the study.

        Harry Mossman wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • LMAO/TMAO. It’s a play on words. Lighten up.

        Nick wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Um… I think you missed it. TMAO LMAO…

        Andy wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Yes Harry, on here I doubt anyone is actually reading Mark’s post on it, (tongue planted firmly in cheek).

          Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • T. Colin Campbell. China Study.

        Just because someone’s “qualified” doesn’t mean they’re right.

        Though it might be more appropriate to LAAO (laugh anyone’s ass off) at the study *conclusion.* That’s pure opinion, not pure data.

        Dana wrote on April 10th, 2013
  5. These “studies” that continue to vilify red meat, fat, & cholesterol are getting out of control. Once again, data that shows association, not causation.

    Eric R wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Right. Red meat is what eggs were a few years ago. Most such studies are flawed for one reason or another and shouldn’t be blindly taken as gospel. If researchers want to legitimately demonize something, why aren’t they taking a closer look at sugars and grains? Why are those always such a sacred cow?

      Shary wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • It is just big Pharma and Agra trying to secure their future. There are more people waking up to the truth about sugars and grains every year. It is their life blood, they cannot afford to loose it.

        Kev wrote on April 11th, 2013
        • +1

          RenegadeRN wrote on April 11th, 2013
  6. So they tested the TMAO levels in the urine. Doesn’t that mean the body is flushing it out? It makes me think of your Gout article


    zack wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1

      GHEE wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +2

      Izzy wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1

      Sunny wrote on April 11th, 2013
  7. Every scientific research study that concerns red meat should be required to classify the source of their meat. Grass/grain/GMO fed is a variable known to make a difference in the scientific community.

    These studies just seem to be getting more ridiculous, as if they are digging for new reasons to stop people from eating meat…

    Josh S wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1

      It seems as if their aim is to vilify meat, red meat in particular.

      Sean wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Grass fed, grass fed, grass fed…once and for all. Can we please get studies that demarcate between the crap and the good stuff? We intuitively know that there is a difference!

        Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Agreed!
          This is how I feel about studies vilifying hormone replacement therapy ( when appropriate) that do not differentiate between bioidentical hormones and such shite as Premarin. Progestin is NOT progesterone! Etc.

          RenegadeRN wrote on April 11th, 2013
      • Lets be clear,

        Their aim is to get results that help them get more funding for further research.

        Kevin wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Except that the researchers trying to vilify meat don’t care what kind of meat it is – they don’t want us eating any.

      Ann wrote on April 10th, 2013
  8. What Eric (and Mark) said. Yeesh.

    Gwen wrote on April 10th, 2013
  9. Also, do we know who funded this study? Who are the key players behind this and what are their affiliations? Not that it isn’t already dubious enough on its own, of course.

    Austin wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • This paper made it into a high-impact (Nature) journal because it is a rigorous big study on a topic that has a lot of public health interest and relevance. We do, in fact, know who funded the work. You can look at the link above; it was published in Nature Medicine. Most of the contributing authors are at legitimate major research centers (The Cleveland Clinic, UCLA, etc). The funding is primarily from federal (NIH) grants, some from the American Heart Association. You can actually ready the paper yourself if you wish.
      This is not a BAD study. The authors do not say that eating red meat will give you heart disease. The authors say what Mark said, that mice have this reaction, and that gut microbiota are important, and that carnitine supplementation should be looked at more closely, and that more work is needed.
      The MEDIA say that red meat will kill you. Scientists (disclosure: I am one, though I don’t work on this stuff) just tell you what the data are, and these authors were very thorough in describing the work they did and the methods they used. Metabolism is really complicated, as are the causes of complex disease like heart disease, and it’s impossible to design a perfect study using enough humans to get meaningful results. So I guess I’m defending the researchers; they did a pretty good job working with all the variables.
      It’s never clear that results of studies in which the subjects ate the SAD will apply to Team Grok. I’d love to see some long-term data on the health of the paleo/primal cohort, but those data just don’t exist. No single research study should be the basis for your diet or dietary changes. Knowledge accumulates over a long time, so it’s important to look at the whole picture rather than individual pixels.

      anabelle wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Come on anabelle, legitimate research centers? They can’t even use real meat that’s grass fed! Just more conventional wisdom poppycock!

        Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Mark constantly says to eat grass fed meat if you can but that conventional meat is still very good for you.

          Harry Mossman wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Yes Harry, but if you do, don’t eat the fatty part!

          Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Whether you’re eating grass-fed or grain-fed beef, you’re stilling ingesting the same amount of carnitine. And really, since the majority of America eats grain-fed beef, it really makes more sense if they did in fact use grain-fed beef in the studies. And it would also make more sense for readers to then worry about their consumption of beef. If you eat only grass-fed beef and you believe this study does not apply to grass-fed beef, then you have nothing to worry about.

          Mark A wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • What I meant by “legitimate research centers” is that this study was performed by actual scientists rather than researchers at the “Vegan Center Performing Studies To Stop People From Eating Animals.” (which I made up. I hope that doesn’t exist)

          anabelle wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • I eat CAFO meat fat, thank you. Someone broke down the fatty acid composition, I think it might have been Kresser, and the biggest difference between CAFO and grass-fed meat is the CAFO has lost its omega-3. You can make that up by eating whole fish, or using cod liver oil.

          One of the selling points of grass-fed meat is its leanness, because we kill our ruminant animals too young now for maximum profits, and instead of letting the cattle get older before slaughter, they kill them at the same age the CAFO-finishing ranchers do. The grain-finishing, in fact, was supposed to make up for the lack of age.

          A hunter-gatherer nearly always favors a fatty animal over a lean one. Good luck adding extra ruminant fat to make up for the lack of it in your meat cuts. It’s expensive and eventually, if everyone wises up about this, and until practices change, there will not be enough to go around, particularly among the dairy-sensitive, which is a heck of a lot of people.

          Dana wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Clearly your wisdom is lost on most of the people here who are obviously highly qualified to make judgments on the validity of the research. Don’t forget, it’s acceptable in modern times to view science in a manner identical to religion. It’s belief based… (i.e. I don’t “believe” in global warming and my “belief” is just as valid as scientific research).

        D wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • +1

          Harry Mossman wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • +1

          Kev wrote on April 11th, 2013
      • +1 I said something similar. Honestly people, most of the time it’s not the researchers being the pricks, it’s how it’s being reported which is an entirely different problem.

        JMH wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Well done Annabelle. Two types on here…1) they type to objectively consider new information…2) “defenders” who drank the kool-aid and lost their objectivity. Everything isn’t black and white and there will much more to this story, be patient and follow along objectively, and don’t…jump…to conclusions (although it would make a cool mat).

        Jim wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • I think the Kool-aid may be what you are drinking. What do you think when you see red meat? How broad a statement can you get? Where did the red meat come from? What was it fed? I hope they do keep up all the research, the more legitimate the better,but when the testers use terms like red meat…they already lose me.

          Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • There is plenty of obvious bias in this article, Annabelle. The title alone shows bias. L-carnitine, available in many foods, and gut flora are the focal points of this study, but the title of it singles out red meat.
        The obvious bias of the researchers shows in the last sentence of the abstract: “Intestinal microbiota may thus contribute to the well-established link between high levels of red meat consumption and CVD risk.”
        What “well-established” link?
        The only place I know of that this “well established link” exists is in the well-debunked book “The China Study” by T. Colin Campbell, also well known as a “Vegan Bible”. Mark has debunked it with the help of blogger and MDA contributor Denise Minger (Raw Food SOS).

        F Jeff wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • SAD gut may be different from Primal gut, Nocona, let it play out, you may get what you want in the end. These are some pretty bright people working on this, and there’s always more to do.

          Jim wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • +1 Jim

          Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • They chose this project to study red meat.
          If you read the first paragraph of the introduction, you will see that they were trying to suss out why red meat has been associated with CVD (and you can see their citations for that information), as previous work has shown that the fat and cholesterol are maybe not the cause (citations for that, too), which surprised the world of CW (not us) and has therefore launched further research.
          The title singles out red meat because the broad question is about red meat, although the specific finding is about carnitine + microbiome.
          It is not perfect, but it is rigorous research. Science builds off of previously published work, so all work is somewhat biased because is framed in the context of what is generally considered to be true (in this case, CW).

          Would I rather see work on the effects of grass-fed beef on the grain-free gut? You betcha.

          anabelle wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Seriously. If red meat made people sicker than grain does, I shouldn’t have started feeling better when I cut back the grain and ate more of the meat. If these “everybody knows” statements they trot out were in any way valid, there shouldn’t be any exceptions to the rule on the scale of normal variation. They say “red meat increases CVD risk” the way they would say “liquid cyanide above X quantity is always a poison to humans” or “you die in X number of minutes without oxygen”. The two statements are not even on the same *planet* in terms of meaning.

          Dana wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Actually, if you read the interview in NYT by the lead researcher, he directly says he loves meat, but that he is dropping his personal consumption based on this work (his own), because it is SO absolute. :) So they do assume meat is bad for you in public related to the study.

        Dr Jason wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • +1 annabelle. Well said.

        Julie wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • +1

        Txomin wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • I don’t find the American Heart Association a good source for science. Any study that hits the mass media is going to be misinformation, we’ve seen that time and time again. When are we going to stop allowing these people to cloud our minds? Long term data solidifying primal/paleo… try hundres of thousand (probably even millions, see book “Hidden History of the Human Race”) of years of existence. Not to mention grass fed was never even addressed.

        Reminds me of the Monsanto study on their rats… Monsanto conveniently stopped their findings at 3 months, and an independent study found that all the detrimental health benefits occured at 4 months (kindney failiure, massive tumors)

        This garbage science needs to stop.

        J Money wrote on April 12th, 2013
        • +1

          ylla fucilla wrote on December 11th, 2013
      • There has been studies of epigenetics. A diet change can change how our genes are expressed(turned on or off). It does the same to the bacteria in our bodies. They change /adapt rapidly to a diet change as well. Bacteria are literally a part of our mitochondria, and serious consequences occur if they are killed off. A diet change can be beneficial to a person, and the bacteria adapt to help the person in a different way. E Coli deprived of sugar will adapt to a stain that ferments glutamate(handy if too much glutamate in the brain). If a diet is really bad, the bacteria change as well, and whether they are able to adapt to help us, or adapt to harm us, we are still trying to figure that out.

        I am a science geek, but never worked as a scientist, and never went to college, although I took all those college prep biology 1, 2 and chemistry. I won a Bausch & Lomb Honorary Science award medal back in 1970. Now it is more of a hobby, applying our diet to my understanding of how my body works, and what the diet can do to improve my health. If there are any risks associated with this diet, they should be minor, compared to using drugs to fight disease, as they can be a much too potent a change to our mitochondria, and our epigenetics.

        Epigenetics helps explain how our Paleo diet changes our bodies so strikingly. .

        There are studies done on animals, and how the grains, and other food affects the bacteria inside the animal.

        Any comments appreciated.

        Cindy C wrote on April 12th, 2013
    • It behooves us to differentiate between bad science, and bad science reporting. The study seems pretty solid. It’s not making any connections that aren’t there, and is useful for ideas for other research. It’s how it’s being touted in the newspapers that’s the problem, and it’s a recurring one. Half the studies used to demonize meat aren’t actually saying that, and the researchers can get pretty pissy about how their work gets misused, justifiably so.
      We look at the study, see what it actually says. Sometimes the researchers are pushing an agenda, sometimes they’re not. This time, they’re really not. It’s interesting information, once you look past the hype. There’s a type of bacteria in our gut that takes this nutrient and turns it into something that’s correlated to heart disease, and killing it stops that. It doesn’t take a biochemist to figure out the problem’s not the meat, it’s the bacteria, assuming there’s a problem at all, which we’re not certain of, and that’s all the *study* is saying. Don’t get so annoyed you get biased the other way. The researchers are mostly sane, though it would be nice if they’d started considering what the meat ate in their notions, though it also makes sense to use what the general population eats in a study like this looking for ideas of questions to ask later. It’s the reporters we need to ride the butts of.

      JMH wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • EXCEPT in the title of their study……why point out the connection to red meat, when l-carnitine is in so many other foods?

        F Jeff wrote on April 10th, 2013
  10. Just curious… under ‘red meat’ does the study mean only beef? Or would it also include other red meats, like lamb, buffalo, venison, etc.?

    Kate wrote on April 10th, 2013
  11. Breathing oxygen causes heart disease! Oxidative stress leads to damage of the endothelium, which leads to atheroma, and then to heart disease, therefore OXYGEN is the cause of heart disease! So all we need to do is stop breathing and then we won’t die of heart disease (just asphyxiation.)

    Adriane wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Hmm… Could it be that we were not (gasp!) meant to live forever?

      Shary wrote on April 10th, 2013
  12. My main issue with this study would be the supplementation of the carnitine tablets. That introduces a variable to the study right there. No human is ingesting tablets of the stuff, we get it from food. The study should have been done solely with the meat to test levels. But that would require people to consume ~1.25 lbs of red meat and if the meat was consumed in a single sitting would make the study damn near impossible.

    Andrew wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1 I too was wondering why they supplemented with carnitine

      mars wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Ummm, excuse me. Many people do take carnitine supplements.

      Harry Mossman wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Yes they do, but do they also eat red meat every day? Probably some do both, but at the price of halfway decent red meat, I would guess that most of us don’t.

        I agree with the others who thought the study would have more credibility if they had omitted the carnitine supplements. As it is, it looks more like they were just try to beef up their case (no pun intended) against red meat.

        Shary wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • And eat rice and beans and corn…

        Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Are the supplements the same type as the compound found in the meat? Genuine question since I don’t know about carnitine but iron in meat for example can have a different molecular composition than an iron supplement. If they are the same, does the body process them the same? Since the meat has other compounds that may hinder/help the body to utilize the carnitine. Questions like this are usually why I’m skeptical of nutritional science. Scientific studies strive to eliminate all variables other than the one being testing but to do so with food, you have to eliminate the other elements of the food that we would otherwise eat along with it. Which would then introduce variables to the study.

        Andrew wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Same for choline. Supplemental choline increases TMAO; choline from lecithin (which you find in egg yolk and probably liver) does not. As Chris Masterjohn pointed out.

          Dana wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Does anybody know if the carnitine profile is different with CAFO and Grass Fed beef? It may be the same amount of carnitine, but what of the molecular composition?

          Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
  13. Once again Mark, your pragmatic approach (as opposed to the knee-jerk, gloom and doom of traditional media) is refreshing and very much appreciated.

    Bob C wrote on April 10th, 2013
  14. I’m still having my Fish Tacos with Citrus Dressing tonight.

    BrynsterD wrote on April 10th, 2013
  15. Thanks for addressing this Mark!

    mars wrote on April 10th, 2013
  16. Carnitine supplements are readily available at health food stores and in energy drinks. The study looked at multiple facets of carnitine metabolism in multiple species. Although it was not a human intervention using cardiovascular disease/atherogenesis as an outcome, it is a strong study. It would be a shame to dismiss it without looking into it as many here are doing.

    The lead author of the study was quoted in the mainstream write ups as being a lover of a good steak. I don’t think he was setting out to condemn meat consumption. Analysis of a study should be done first and foremost on the study itself.

    DanielS wrote on April 10th, 2013
  17. How many ‘Fred Flintstones’ dropped dead at the Bedrock Quarry from clogged arteries? I’m thinking not many.

    According to this study, Mr. Slate would have been out of business long ago.

    BrynsterD wrote on April 10th, 2013
  18. It is hard to come to the conclusion they did about red meat when they made them supplement the carnitine. If they had just eaten the meat, maybe. To me, it seems they forced them to eat more carnitine than one would usually get in any meal.

    TL wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Their conclusion relates to carnitine, not read meat, no?

      D wrote on April 10th, 2013
  19. So the things that increase TMAO:

    Carbohydrates, red meat, choline (eggs, meat, dairy, and offal).

    Clearly there is a “mediator” variable accounting for this. The primary problem I see with these studies is that they compare “health conscious vegetarians” against any old person that also eats meat (smokers, dunkin donought aficionados, carbaholics and maybe a few primal “outliers” they likely removed from analysis). There is 0% effort to compare “health conscious vegetarians” against “health conscious fat/meat eaters”, until this is done I’m going to continue to assume that “process carbs are bad and make ANY diet worse”.

    Until researchers (like me) control for their sample populations and remove their bias against ANYONE who eats fat/meat, there is no relevant study. I DO knock this study, I knock it hard.

    Sean wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1. I agree. Knock knock, who’s there? NOBODY!

      Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Yes, this!!!!!!

      Meg wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • AGREED!!!

      Erin wrote on April 10th, 2013
  20. Anyone have a headache now.

    Note to self: keep eating a variety of clean meat, veggies & fruit. Done and done. :)

    Joanne - The Real Food Mama wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1

      Sean wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Keep calm and eat real food.

      anabelle wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Nice, Anabelle!

        Tim wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1

      Pam wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • +1

      Karen wrote on April 10th, 2013
  21. Timely and thorough. Thank you, Mark.

    Finnegans Wake wrote on April 10th, 2013
  22. Just another time wasting smoke screen by big agra, the government and the vegans. It’s time they learn we no longer listen to their agenda driven BS. We listen to commonsense and our bodies (how we look feel and perform).

    Groktimus Primal wrote on April 10th, 2013
  23. Examine (found them via you) also had a post on it:

    Sam Grant wrote on April 10th, 2013
  24. “It’s complicated”

    Reading that sums it up pretty well… It’s amazing how we take isolated ideas/studies (which are cool that we do them) and attempt to make such broad assumptions in something as complex as the human body/experience.

    It never fails to amaze me.

    luke wrote on April 10th, 2013
  25. A good response to the media misinterpretations of an otherwise interesting but not Earth-shattering research paper. It’s too bad many studies are blown out of proportion and publicised by journalists who don’t understand the basic aims of the study they are reporting on, let alone the conclusions.

    Thank you Mark for taking a more level-headed look at it. (And for breaking down the trickier sciencese for the rest of us :D)

    Jasmine wrote on April 10th, 2013
  26. What about all those animal studies suggesting that supplements combining l-carnitine with alpha lipoic acid reduce age-related damage?

    Ted wrote on April 10th, 2013
  27. the thin red line – red meat is bad
    maybe the study is fine but they just accumulate “material” against red meat
    all they do is scare people until we stop eating altogether

    Stan wrote on April 10th, 2013
  28. Another really good example of why you have to read and understand the study and not just the headline.

    Jane wrote on April 10th, 2013
  29. And with that, I am off to eat a burger – lol!

    Thank you Mark for clarifying everything. Honestly though, considering how long I have enjoyed grass-fed red meat and how healthy I feel, I don’t feel like any study is going to make me stop eating it!

    GiGi wrote on April 10th, 2013
  30. The carnitine supplementation was necessary so they could identify that it was the carnitine being metabolized into TMAO. Theoretically, there should be no difference in the TMAO levels resulting from Grass fed vs. conventionally raised beef, or any other red meat. It could, perhaps, even be higher in elk, venison, etc. due to higher metabolic demands of active tissue (increased carnitine). Red meat makes up the majority of Carnitine consumption for pretty much everyone. Dismissing good research will do more to push your views to the fringe than anything else. Great points above, Mark, and thanks for not dismissing this!

    DanielS wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • It may all have to do with the gut flora in the end. Hope they do better syudies in the future. I like your ideas on elk, venison, etc. maybe having higher carnitine levels and what that might mean. Why would you theoretically say there should be no TMAO difference in grass fed vs. conventionally raised beef? I would think the whole profile would be different. Feed on GMO corn and soy, or grass fed and finished like they were meant to eat, and I know which one I would choose.

      Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • I know which one I choose as well. And we can probably modify our heart disease risk based on the types of fats we are consuming (omega-3/6 balance) But in this study we are looking at a nutrient, L-Carnitine, which is necessary for muscle function. Both grass fed beef and conventionally raised beef need muscle function. There is little to none TMAO in either type of beef. Just the ‘pre-cursor’ which is turned into TMAO in the presence of certain intestinal bacteria.

        I don’t see any reason why grass-fed would have less of the L-carnitine which allows their muscle’s to function.

        DanielS wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • Probably because the carnitine is the same regardless of what the cows ate.

        Mark A wrote on April 10th, 2013
      • The primary difference between grass-fed and conventionally fed beef is in the ratio of fatty acids (e.g., more omega-3 fats in grass fed beef) and increased levels of some of the vitamins associated with grass (beta-carotene, vitamin E, volatile fat-soluble compounds that contribute to flavor, etc.). Carnitine does not fall into this category, but rather is synthesized from amino acids lysine and methionine. Carnitine is required for very very important metabolic processes, and because it is both acquired through diet and biocynthesized, I would heavily suspect that levels are the same intra-species. Nevertheless, I cannot be sure that there is no difference between grass-fed and conventional, because it has not been conclusively demonstrated to my knowledge.

        Another reason they probably did not control for grass-feeding is because so few people consume grass-fed beef compared to conventional red meat. If you are trying to answer PUBLIC HEALTH questions, then you want to study what will be most relevant to public health, and in the United States that is consuming conventional beef. Why would the researchers studying this particular topic go through the money and the hassle to satisfy the theoretical qualms of a relatively small (from a public health perspective) group of health-minded paleo advocates?

        I would urge everyone to please see the perspective of the scientists before you attack them. It’s not like they jumped on the cholesterol and saturated fat bandwagon. They considered the gut flora, which is very new and cutting edge research, and one of the newer fields of interest to those in the Paleo community, too!!

        There are many good reasons to eat grass-fed, but avoiding dietary carnitine is not one of them. This is a fantastic and well-controlled study, and just as fantastic is Mark’s tempered and reasoned treatment thereof. When some individuals attempt to disregard or debunk science on a reflexive basis as I see in some of the comments, we delve into the fringe, into pseudoscience, and into the land of unfalsifiability, which is antithetical to the principles of our Paleo and Primal movement.

        Richad wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • +1

          Harry Mossman wrote on April 10th, 2013
        • Perfect.

          DanielS wrote on April 11th, 2013
        • Well said. It doesn’t do anyone any good to simply become parroting apostles without understanding the reasons for choosing to eat or live a certain way.

          Even the tried-and-true “I feel better so I must be doing the right thing” should be questioned. Things like high blood pressure and atherosclerosis can’t be “felt.” Whether red meat causes heart disease or not, it’s at least a good idea to attempt to understand metabolic processes.

          Think about this: we’re one of only a handful of countries in the world where beef is a primary protein source. We’ve also perfected factory-based agriculture to the point where the vast majority of beef consumed is a factory product, not a natural food. This has happened in large part because of government subsidization and protectionist laws that allow big ag to flourish. Why would there be any kind of conspiracy, government or otherwise, that would poke holes in this very profitable system? And if the vegans really are behind it, we should thank them because none of us really want these grotesque and inhuman farming practices to continue either.

          Much of the rest of the world relies on a much wider variety of proteins than we do here in America. Sheep, goats, pigs, chickens (and other domesticated fowl like turkeys guinea hens, squab, quail), rabbits, game meats, ostrich, etc. The list goes on and on. And in many cases, these alternate meat sources are raised naturally on the food they are meant to eat because they come from small farms where it’s probably the cheapest and easiest way to raise them. Maybe we do eat too much beef. Maybe there are consequences. Just a thought.

          Mark A wrote on April 11th, 2013
  31. I’m relieved to hear your comments, Mark. But lots of people do take carnitine supplements. My ten year-old, for example, has been taking carnitine for the last seven years and we were told he would need it for the rest of his life. He has a mitochondrial disorder, and needs the carnitine supplement to help his processing of fatty acids. I am concerned about this study. The field of genetic medicine and those who specialize in metabolic disorders are scrambling now to reevaluate the children taking carnitine long term.

    Kristin wrote on April 10th, 2013
  32. Doesn’t any study involving mice and heart disease these days need to pass through this filter first?

    pup wrote on April 10th, 2013
  33. The fact that the same people that have said for the last 60 years that sat fat in meat causes heart disease are all of a sudden saying “We were wrong. It’s not the sat fat its the carnitine”…hmmmm….I’m I bit inclined NOT to believe them. I heard this on the radio the other day. They actually used the word CAUSE. I just don’t get it anymore.

    Heather wrote on April 10th, 2013
  34. I’m just hoping that all these silly meat-hating articles lead to a decrease in demand and price for red meat leaving more for me and my Primal friends. Is that wrong? 😉

    Jennifer wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Wow, love the thought! Let’s keep these anti-red meat articles flowing…

      Nocona wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • But then I worry about my lovely lovely butcher at my favourite farm shop going out of business. He’s already had to half his days open because of drop in business due to austerity. These unscientific reporters with their fear-mongering headlines must be really terrible for hard-working, conscientious small-scale farmers who are endeavouring to produce healthy, well-butchered meat at affordable prices.

      freerangepiglings wrote on April 11th, 2013
  35. I just saw this study on the news the other day. I continued to eat my pork sausage, one heart-attack-laden bite at a time. *sarcasm*.

    Mark P wrote on April 10th, 2013
  36. As a vegetarian who eats lots of eggs and consumes whey protein drinks and has embraced most all of the other (non-meat) aspects of the primal diet … and have learned a great deal from Mark, I suspect he is right on about this. If you eat a variety of food including a lot of veggies and leafy greens and ingest probiotics, eating some grass fed beef once or twice a week should not be a big deal IMHO. I like Mark’s quip about the vegetarian test subjects that “were somehow about to get the steak down” LOL.

    George wrote on April 10th, 2013
    • Somehow *able* to get the steak down, sorry about that, oh for an edit button. :)

      George wrote on April 10th, 2013
  37. In an unusual turn of events, I read about this study before seeing your take on it on MDA! I knew you would get to it soon enough… I’m pleased to see that my own interpretation was very similar to yours (score 2 points of validation for me!). I was left with the questions of “what intestinal flora (or should that be fauna) composition would be optimal?” and “does my primal diet help me keep a diverse collection or result in a narrow representation of different flora/fauna?” I was disturbed by the implied goal of future research of learning which to wipe out with antibiotics or other chemical approaches — as if there is enough information on the variety of populations, what influences their diversity and numbers or how you could selectively target just the “bad” ones… Anyway, I think the take-aways for me were stick with variety in what you consume, minimize supplements (since you should get what you need through the variety) and monitor the many, many potential indicators of health rather than fixating on single details that may or may not be the driving determiner of YOUR situation.

    Thanks as always for the great info, thorough analysis, and well-documented peer-reviewed literature references. I am so inspired!

    AlexAlive&Kickin wrote on April 10th, 2013

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2016 Mark's Daily Apple

Subscribe to the Newsletter and Get a Free Copy
of Mark Sisson's Fitness eBook and more!