Eddie Abbew’s statements came as an answer to a member of the audience. As his answer focused on inflammation, let’s start by detangling the links between red meat consumption, inflammation and diabetes, before addressing specific claims.

Type 2 diabetes, the most common form of diabetes, develops as a result of a combination of insulin resistance and pancreatic beta-cell dysfunction. Insulin resistance occurs when insulin-sensitive tissues like muscle, liver, and fat fail to respond effectively to insulin, while beta-cell dysfunction reduces the pancreas’s ability to produce sufficient insulin to compensate for elevated blood sugar levels. 

The exact cause of these cells’ failure to secrete enough insulin is not fully understood. However, recent research has shown that inflammation might play a significant role in the development of diabetes and its complications (source). Inflammation refers here to chronic inflammation, that is to say long-term inflammation that lasts for prolonged periods of months or years, causing damage to tissues (source).

Claim 1: Eating Only Red Meat for a Month is the Best Way to Reduce Inflammation

Eddie Abbew starts by suggesting that eating only red meat for a month is the best way to reduce inflammation.

‍Fact-Check: Diet changes can help to minimise inflammation. However, there isn’t one single food that can help to reduce inflammation; instead, experts often recommend focusing on healthy eating patterns. One good example is the Mediterranean Diet, which has been associated with lower levels of inflammation (source). 

Elimination diets often leave people feeling better because they are removing other foods which may be causing discomfort, like processed foods, refined sugars, and potential dietary triggers (like gluten or Fodmaps), rather than them actually benefiting from the meat. This can give them a false sense of cause and effect.

So what about red meat? Some studies show that red meat is not inherently inflammatory (source). However, while short-term consumption may not immediately trigger inflammation, Eddie Abbew’s answer ignores the long-term risks of chronic inflammation and diabetes linked to habitual (and excessive) intake. A one-month red meat diet excludes essential nutrients like Vitamin C, folate, or fibre. It also excludes important dietary sources of antioxidants and polyphenols, compounds found in plant foods that are known to help reduce inflammation. 

Eddie Abbew’s suggestion overlooks balance and the risks associated with over-consumption. When it comes to red meat, dose matters (source). Indeed studies show that greater consumption of processed and unprocessed red meats is associated with a greater risk of type 2 diabetes. In the UK, the NHS advises people who currently eat more than 90g of processed or unprocessed red meat per day to reduce it to 70g (source).

‍

Claim 2: Red Meat Does Not Cause Diabetes or Heart Disease

Eddie Abbew challenges the idea that red meat consumption is linked to diabetes and heart disease, suggesting that there is no real proof. By saying that “it’s all lies”, he doesn’t deny that there are studies showing a link; rather the implication seems to be to disregard them because they do not offer real evidence. 

‍Fact-Check: A close look at all of the evidence available first shows us that this is a very complex question. While there isn’t a single study that proves a definite causal link, this doesn’t mean that there is no reasonable evidence to support that limiting red meat intake, particularly when swapped with plant-based proteins, can decrease the risk of developing type 2 diabetes or heart disease.

Numerous studies have consistently shown that both unprocessed and processed red meat are associated with a higher risk of these conditions. For example, a 2023 Harvard study of 216,695 participants found that each daily serving of processed red meat (e.g., bacon) increased diabetes risk by 46%, while unprocessed red meat raised it by 24% (source). A meta-analysis of 4.4 million people confirmed these associations (source).

‍

Strength of evidence

There are several factors to take into account here, among which: consistency across populations and study types; biological plausibility; and adjustments of variables. Together, these can help us increase our confidence in the findings showing an association between red meat intake and disease risk. 

‍

1. Consistency

One way of increasing our certainty levels about the health impact of a food is when results from observational studies are repeated across different study types and populations. This helps to reduce the likelihood that preliminary results might have been accidental.

This is what a recent meta-analysis published in The Lancet aimed to address: it included data from 31 cohort studies across 20 countries, and showed similar trends, with a greater impact from processed red meat.

Conversely, there are studies, including recent Mendelian randomization studies, which have found no causal relationship between red/processed meat and diabetes or cardiovascular disease (source). Looking at the big picture of the available evidence, it is important to remember that what red meat is replaced with makes a difference. For example, substituting red meat with plant-based proteins (e.g., legumes, nuts) has been shown to reduce diabetes risk (source). 

‍

2. Biological Plausibility

The second factor is biological plausibility. This refers to the idea that a scientific hypothesis or theory is consistent with current known mechanisms underlying a particular phenomenon. In other words, are there mechanisms that could explain why that food might increase or decrease the risks of developing a disease?

Red meat contains heme iron and compounds like glycine, which may promote insulin resistance and oxidative stress. Processed meats also often include preservatives (e.g., nitrates) linked to inflammation and beta-cell dysfunction (source), and contain saturated fats, which can raise LDL cholesterol levels and increase cardiovascular risk.

Although these remain hypotheses, what we can see here is that there are mechanisms which align with results from observational studies showing an association between a higher intake of red meat and the development of chronic diseases. 

‍

3. Adjustments of variables

Finally, adjustments of confounding variables help researchers to understand if it is indeed consumption of the food in question causing the observed result, or rather another factor (like physical activity or lack of; habits like smoking; health background of participants, low fibre intake, etc.)

That is why studies use statistical analysis to control for such confounders.

‍

Claim 3: The people who come up with [claims that red meat causes diabetes or heart disease] are the ones selling you ultra-processed foods 

Fact-Check: No study definitely proves a causal link between eating red meat and chronic disease, but many show strong associations. Together, these studies form the basis of dietary guidelines. These guidelines are not promoted by food companies selling ultra-processed products; they are promoted by health agencies, as well as charities supporting patients who suffer from these conditions. 

‍

Dietary guidelines do not focus exclusively on red meat. They advise limiting red meat consumption, while acknowledging it as a source of essential nutrients (source). But they also very clearly advise the public to limit consumption of ultra-processed foods, which the NHS says “are not needed in our diet, so should be eaten less often and in smaller amounts” (source).