Minnesota Farmer


HDL, LDL and beef
May 27, 2010, 8:08 pm
Filed under: Animal care, Corn, Farm, food, science | Tags: , ,

Here’s some interesting information out of Texas.

“Grass-fed beef may not have as many healthful traits as some perceive, according to results from a recent Texas AgriLife Research study. Dr. Stephen Smith, an AgriLife Research meat scientist, and a team of researchers have found that contrary to popular perception, ground beef from pasture-fed cattle had no beneficial effects on plasma lipid. However, high monounsaturated fat ground beef from grain-fed cattle increased HDL cholesterol, increased LDL particle diameters, and decreased insulin, suggesting that ground beef produced by intensive production practices provides “a healthful, high-quality source of protein.” “We wanted to see from this study if product from pasture-fed and corn-fed cattle had different effects on LDL or HDL cholesterol,” Smith said. “We looked at the scientific literature and could not find any justifications for the statement that pasture-fed beef is better for you. All we found were rat studies in which they were fed omega-3 fatty acids, so we wanted to know if this applied to beef from grass-fed cattle.” The study, funded by the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, used Angus cattle raised at the McGregor AgriLife Research Center. One group of cattle was fed a pasture diet with supplement hay. The steers were kept on pasture until 20 months of age. A second group of Angus steers was fed the same way a feedlot operator would and kept on a corn-based diet until 16 months of age, then reaching USDA Choice status. A third group of Angus steers were fed the corn-based diet the longest, until reaching USDA Prime. The fat in cattle that are high in marbling is low in saturated and trans-fats, and higher in monounsaturated fats. Beef cuts from the plate and flank taken from all three grades were made into a ground beef product, containing 24 percent fat. Next, a group of 27 men completed a three-way crossover study. Each group rotated, consuming five 114-gram ground beef patties per week for six weeks from each of the three sets of cattle used in the study. “There really were no negative effects of feeding ground beef from the pasture-fed cattle,” Smith said. “We did see many positive effects in men that consumed ground beef from corn-fed cattle. The ground beef from the USDA Prime cattle increased HDL cholesterol and LDL particle diameter. Both effects are protective against cardiovascular disease. The Prime ground beef also decreased insulin, so it may have some protective effect against type II diabetes.” Smith said the study results surprised many. “As we talked to some user groups and told them that we had found pasture-fed beef is higher in saturated trans-fat, they were shocked.” Smith presented the findings to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association last year and is now sharing among consumers and producers. He recently gave a presentation at the Texas Human Nutrition Conference in College Station. Smith said he did receive some initial negative feedback from ranchers in the grass-fed beef business, but he isn’t telling them that what they are doing is wrong. “I know that cattle are adapted to growing on high-roughage, pasture diets, but my focus is the beef product,” he said. “A lot of producers are receptive. What I’m trying to show them is that the longer cattle are fed a corn or grain-based diet, the healthier the product will be.” “I realize cost is involved – feeding corn is expensive. But, if you want a healthier product, you need more marbling. Time on feed is a big factor.” The study team included Dr. Rosemary Walzem, AgriLife Research poultry scientist, and Dr. Stephen Crouse, researcher from Texas A&M University’s health and kinesiology department.”

Those of us who eat beef always knew that it tasted good, now we find out it’s good for us too.  The Japanese like their beef highly marbled.  Perhaps they knew.

Michael

Advertisements

2 Comments so far
Leave a comment

Besides the obvious potential for conflict of interest, this article doesn’t link to the study. I would like to know the design of the study so I could make my own conclusions but, from what’s in the article here are my thoughts…

The article uses the term “healthier” through the lens of heart disease and uses cholesterol markers (i.e. HDL, LDL) as it’s sole criteria for determining the healthiness of the product.

HDL and LDL particle size are important, yes, but were they statistically significant? The article is very vague and doesn’t expand on pasture-raised cattle at all. Smith said “There really were no negative effects of feeding ground beef from the pasture-fed cattle” and then gives it the cold shoulder!

The composition of the products are obviously different, so if we shift our ‘healthiness’ lens to that of cancer, would we come to a different conclusion?
“Smith said the study results surprised many. ‘As we talked to some user groups and told them that we had found pasture-fed beef is higher in saturated trans-fat, they were shocked.'”

This shocked me too because “saturated trans-fat” doesn’t exist! Of course, I know it was just a little misunderstanding of lipid biochemistry. He meant “saturated AND trans-fats” because trans-fats by definition must be unsaturated. Nevertheless, this shocking fact should be pleasing to those who purchase and consume grass-fed beef because there are two classes of trans-fats. Natural, which are created by ruminants (like cows, sheep, goats) and artificial, which are created by hydrogenating oils. The trans-fat that is being detected in the beef is a very potent anti-cancer agent called CLA.[1] The longer the cattle are on corn and soy, the less the produce.

Studies have even shown this to be good for the heart! So, to conclude, we must look at scientific studies as a whole and be aware of what lens we are looking through.

[1]Ip, C., J. A. Scimeca, et al. (1994). “Conjugated linoleic acid. A powerful anticarcinogen from animal fat sources.” Cancer 74(3 Suppl): 1050-4.

Comment by shawn

Why is it wrong for those who produce a product to support research that puts their product in a good light? Is the research only right if it a product in a bad light?

Comment by Michael




Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s



%d bloggers like this: