The Risks of Eating Meat Differ Between Individual and Population Levels

Whether eating red meat raises blood sugar depends on who you ask, according to a new study.

Misha Feriukov/Shutterstock

Eating more red meat might be good for your blood sugar—or bad for it—depending on which set of numbers you trust.

A new study presented at the annual American Society for Nutrition’s Nutrition 2026 meeting found that when individuals changed their red meat intake, their blood chemistry pointed toward better blood sugar control. But zoomed out to the population level, the opposite pattern emerged.

The findings highlight the importance of distinguishing between personal dietary changes and external influences such as lifestyle and genetics, challenging the way researchers interpret the health impacts of red meat—and emphasizing the need for more personalized approaches to nutrition advice.

The study was partly funded by the Beef Checkoff, a beef industry marketing and research program, along with the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service.

Researchers drew on data from the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis, which included 4,567 people. They measured their metabolites in the blood, and checked fasting blood sugar and insulin levels.

Why the Gap Matters

Researchers split the data two ways: one showing how changes in an individual’s red meat consumption over time relate to their own blood chemistry, and another showing how red meat intake relates to blood chemistry at the population level, considering other factors such as age, lifestyle, and genetics.

Of 47 metabolites linked to eating unprocessed meat, five tracked metabolite changes at the individual level and suggested a beneficial effect on blood sugar and insulin, while 33 other metabolites showed strong relationships across the population. Metabolites linked to broader population factors showed negative health outcomes such as poorer blood sugar regulation and insulin resistance.

In other words, eat more meat, and your body’s chemistry may respond well. But when the data reflects meat eating on a population level, other factors—lifestyle, genetics, social circumstances—seem to muddy the picture, making red meat look worse than it may be for any one person.

Sotiria Everett, a registered dietitian and clinical assistant professor at Stony Brook Medicine, not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times that one of the study’s more interesting limitations is that it didn’t account for overall dietary patterns, leaving room for what researchers call “unmeasured dietary confounding” when an outside factor tied to both diet and health skews the results.

“The study’s key finding is that when tracking changes within the same individual, plasma metabolites associated with unprocessed red meat intake are linked to better glucose control and lower insulin levels,” she said. But other markers, such as changes in gut bacteria, weren’t measured.

Hope Barkoukis, a registered dietitian and chair of the Department of Nutrition at Case Western Reserve University, and not involved in the study, told The Epoch Times that while plant-based meat alternatives may be better for the environment in many ways, they’re certainly not necessarily imparting greater health benefits than unprocessed animal meats.

“Hot dogs, bacon, cold cuts, sausages, not only have high processing, with considerable recent information linking processing to all types of negative health effects on systemic health, [but] they also contain many preservatives which are not healthy, such as nitrites,” Barkoukis said.

By contrast, she added, recent research suggests poultry is largely health-neutral, eggs aren’t as harmful as once thought, dairy may help lower Type 2 diabetes risk, and seafood carries real health benefits. Plant-based meat alternatives may be easier on the environment, but they are not automatically healthier than unprocessed animal meat, she added.

“I believe the biggest misconception,” Barkoukis said, “is that all meats are alike and have an identical impact on a specific individual’s health.”

What the Findings Mean for You

People should consider the quality of the meat.

“If available and affordable, 100 percent grass-fed beef may offer a somewhat more favorable nutrient profile, including higher levels of certain omega-3 fatty acids and bioactive compounds compared with conventionally raised beef,” Everett said.

However, these differences do not outweigh the importance of overall dietary pattern, portion size, and frequency of consumption, she added.

Another often-overlooked factor is how meat is prepared. High-temperature cooking methods such as grilling, charring, broiling, and pan-frying can produce heterocyclic amines and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, compounds associated with increased cancer risk. “Lower-temperature methods such as braising, stewing, or slow-cooking generally produce fewer of these compounds,” Everett said.

For those who enjoy grilling, she recommended marinating meat with herbs, spices, citrus, or vinegar-based marinades, which may help reduce the formation of potentially harmful compounds during cooking.

“My practical advice is to choose unprocessed, lean cuts of red meat, occasionally, preferably from responsibly raised sources when feasible, prepare them using gentler cooking methods when possible, and consume them within a diet rich in vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, nuts, and seeds,” Everett said.