Did these researchers rush to blame red meat for diabetes?

My morning routine includes sitting on the porch — hair hopelessly tangled, caffeine in-hand — scrolling through recent findings in science. Call it a desperate attempt to jumpstart my brain early in the day.

It usually takes a little while for my neurons to fire up. But, a couple of weeks ago, when I read that red meat consumption is associated with type 2 diabetes, based on an analysis of 1.97 million people? I sat up, bolt-straight. You see, it’s not just that I’m an avid meat-eater — I’m also a scientist … and that’s one hell of a clinical claim.

It’s certainly not the first time that red meat has been brought under fire for a possible linkage to diabetes. But, many of those historical studies are peppered with limitations — which makes interpreting their results difficult, if not impossible. But this new study published in The Lancet: Diabetes & Endocrinology must be better, right? I mean, it includes data from just under 2 million participants. So, does this mean it’s time to trigger mass closures of cattle ranches and replace our rib eyes with compacted wheat gluten patties?

… definitely not.

The new study by Li, et al. is chock full of complex analyses and big statistics to help us make sense of a possible dietary risk for this complicated disease. Type 2 diabetes has been, and is projected to remain, a major health crisis for the United States. So, studies like this one absolutely can and should be conducted. Human health depends on it. But, as with any scientific publication, results should be reviewed with care before an onset of public panic.

Some things the study team did right:

• The study is big — really big. With data from this many people, it reduces the likelihood that the study results are due to chance. Theoretically, the findings from something of this magnitude should be a bit more reliable for us to base generalized conclusions on, when compared to smaller studies.
• Global representation. In an unprecedented protocol, the research team was able to include data from 20 countries. This wide swath of cultural inclusion ensures that we’re not making claims about how the human body works, based only on certain humans in certain areas of the world.
• Mathletes. The study team went to great lengths to collect a lot of information about each participant they included. They were able to grab things like age, BMI, ethnicity, whether they smoked or drank alcohol, preexisting medical conditions, what they ate, how active they were, and a wide variety of other characteristics. They analyzed these pieces of information to help them understand if red meat was a viable culprit in the development of diabetes, or if something else was.

Some things the study team didn’t do right (and why eating red meat is still OK until further notice):

• “Scout’s honor.” The study participants self-reported a few key factors, importantly physical activity and dietary information. The problem with self-reporting is that it introduces something called “recall bias” into the study, where participants may not have reported these metrics accurately because they forgot. So, they could be over-estimating their activity levels or under-estimating how many vegetables they ate — both of which could skew the overall results.
• Pre-diabetes is important. The research team was interested in evaluating red meat intake and capturing who ultimately developed diabetes. So, for the purposes of this study, it was important that none of the participants started out with diabetes. However, while scientists made sure to exclude data from people with the disease initially, they did not say whether or not they excluded those who were pre-diabetic and would have had a higher risk to develop type 2 diabetes anyway. This could have contributed to higher reported rates of diabetes, unrelated to red meat consumption.
• Assuming we’re extreme creatures of habit. For most of the participants, dietary information was only collected one time. Considering the study followed the medical history of these participants for years, we can’t assume that they didn’t develop diabetes simply because their diets never changed.
• Family history unknown. For some of the data input, family history of diabetes was not well documented. Because there are known genetic factors that significantly increase a person’s risk for type 2 diabetes, this would be critical to capture for everyone included.

The lists above are far from exhaustive but aim to give you a better perspective on an otherwise complex scientific study.

In the end, it’s unclear whether the small increased risks highlighted in this research hold any true clinical relevance. Our personal health is shaped by balance, moderation, and what best fits our unique physiological needs. Studies like this should serve as tools to inform, not dictate, empowering you to make decisions that reflect your own health journey — remember: context matters.

I certainly commend the research team for the massive efforts necessary to conduct a study of this kind. A gigantic undertaking and exceptionally important.

For some strange reason, I’m now craving steak.

Leah Elson is an American scientist, author, and public science communicator. She has two pit bulls and sixty-eight houseplants.