For decades, red meat has been at the center of a contentious debate in nutrition and health. On one side, we have those who claim it’s an essential source of high-quality protein and nutrients. On the other, critics argue that it’s a major contributor to chronic diseases like cancer and heart disease.
Initially, these concerns focused on red meat’s cholesterol and saturated fat content. However, as the case against dietary cholesterol and saturated fat has weakened, researchers and advocates of plant-based diets have shifted their focus to a new proposed culprit: heme iron. This form of iron, found predominantly in animal foods and especially abundant in red meat, has become the latest mechanism proposed to explain the purported health risks of red meat consumption.
But what’s the real story? Does heme iron deserve its reputation as a health villain, or is the truth more nuanced?
In this article, we’ll examine the latest research on heme iron and its potential health effects. I’ll analyze a comprehensive study that has caused quite a stir in the media and scientific community and break down what it really means for your diet and health.
As we explore this topic, we’ll go beyond the headlines and sound bites. We’ll look at the actual numbers, discuss the importance of context in nutrition research, and provide you with the tools to think critically about these complex issues.
Whether you’re a devoted carnivore, a strict vegetarian, or somewhere in between, understanding the facts about heme iron can help you make more informed decisions about your diet. So let’s cut through the noise and get to the meat of the matter—pun very much intended!
Understanding Heme Iron
Before we dive into the research, let’s take a moment to understand what heme iron is and why it’s gotten so much attention.
Heme iron is a form of iron that’s bound to a protein called hemoglobin or myoglobin. It’s found primarily in animal foods, particularly red meat, poultry, and fish. In contrast, non-heme iron is the form found in plant foods like leafy greens, legumes, and fortified cereals.
What makes heme iron unique is its high bioavailability. Our bodies can absorb heme iron much more efficiently than non-heme iron—about 15-35% of heme iron is absorbed, compared to only 2-20% of non-heme iron. This efficiency is part of what makes red meat such a potent source of dietary iron.
To put this in perspective, a 3-ounce serving of beef contains about 1.7 mg of heme iron. You’d need to eat several cups to get the same amount of absorbable iron from spinach. This is why iron deficiency is less common among people who regularly consume red meat.
However, this same efficiency has led some researchers to hypothesize that heme iron could have negative health effects when consumed in large quantities. The theory is that excess iron could lead to oxidative stress in the body, potentially damaging cells and DNA.
It’s important to note that iron, including heme iron, is an essential nutrient. It’s crucial for oxygen transport in our blood, energy production, and many other bodily functions. The question isn’t whether we need iron—we do—but rather whether high intakes of heme iron specifically might have unintended consequences for our health.
As we explore the latest research, remember that nutrition science is complex. The effects of a single nutrient can vary widely depending on the overall context of an individual’s diet and lifestyle. With that in mind, let’s look at what the most recent evidence tells us about heme iron and health.
The Heme Iron Hypothesis
The idea that heme iron might be harmful to health didn’t emerge out of nowhere. It’s based on a combination of observational studies, mechanistic research, and some plausible biological theories. Let’s break down the heme iron hypothesis and the reasoning behind it.
The core of the hypothesis is this: while iron is essential for health, too much of it—particularly in the form of heme iron—might increase the risk of certain chronic diseases. This idea gained traction as researchers observed associations between high red meat intake and increased risks of conditions like colorectal cancer, heart disease, and type 2 diabetes.
Why might heme iron be problematic? There are a few proposed mechanisms:
- Oxidative Stress: Iron is a pro-oxidant, meaning it can promote the formation of harmful free radicals. The thinking is that excess heme iron might lead to oxidative damage in the body, potentially harming DNA, proteins, and lipids.
- N-nitroso Compounds: Some researchers have suggested that heme iron might stimulate the formation of N-nitroso compounds in the gut. These compounds have been linked to cancer in animal studies.
- Altered Gut Microbiome: There’s some evidence that high heme iron intake might negatively impact the balance of bacteria in our gut, potentially leading to inflammation.
- Iron Overload: While iron deficiency is more common, iron overload can occur in some individuals. Excess iron can accumulate in organs like the liver and heart, potentially causing damage over time.
It’s worth noting that these mechanisms are largely based on in vitro (test tube) studies or animal research. Translating these findings to real-world human health effects is not straightforward.
Moreover, previous research on heme iron and health has been mixed. Some studies have found associations between high heme iron intake and increased disease risk, while others have found no significant relationship. This inconsistency is part of what makes the topic so contentious.
Remember, in science, a hypothesis is just that—an educated guess based on available evidence. It’s meant to be tested, challenged, and refined. As we examine the latest research, we’ll see how well the heme iron hypothesis holds up to scrutiny.
Examining the Evidence: The Latest Study on Heme Iron and Type 2 Diabetes
In 2024, a comprehensive study published in Nature Metabolism by Wang et al. brought new insights into the relationship between heme iron intake and type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk (Wang et al., 2024). This study is particularly noteworthy because it not only examined epidemiological associations but also integrated blood biomarker and metabolomic analyses.
The researchers analyzed data from 204,615 participants (79% females) across three large US cohorts: the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), Nurses’ Health Study II (NHS2), and the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). The follow-up period extended up to 36 years, providing a substantial timeframe to observe long-term effects.
Key findings from this study include:
- Heme Iron and T2D Risk: The study found that heme iron intake was associated with a higher risk of T2D. The multivariable-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) comparing the highest to the lowest quintiles of heme iron intake was 1.26 (95% confidence interval: 1.20-1.33; P for trend <0.001).
- Dose-Response Relationship: A generally linear association was observed between heme iron intake and T2D risk. For every 1 mg per day increment in heme iron intake, there was a 28% increase in T2D risk (HR: 1.28; 95% CI: 1.22-1.34).
- Other Forms of Iron: Interestingly, intakes of total iron, non-heme iron, dietary iron, and supplemental iron were not associated with T2D risk in the multivariable-adjusted models.
- Contribution to Dietary Patterns: The study found that heme iron accounted for 65.6% of the association between unprocessed red meat and T2D risk. It also explained between 8.7% and 26.2% of the associations between various dietary patterns and T2D risk.
- Metabolic Biomarkers: Higher heme iron intake was associated with unfavorable profiles of several metabolic biomarkers, including higher C-peptide levels, higher triglycerides, lower HDL cholesterol, and higher inflammatory markers.
- Metabolomics: The study identified several metabolites, including L-valine, L-lysine, and uric acid, that may affect the association between heme iron intake and T2D risk.
While these findings suggest a potential link between heme iron intake and T2D risk, it’s important to note that this is an observational study and cannot prove causation. The authors also acknowledged several limitations, including potential residual confounding and that most participants were white health professionals, which may limit generalizability.
Interpreting the Results: Beyond the Headlines
While the findings from Wang et al. (2024) seem to paint a concerning picture of heme iron intake, it’s crucial to dig deeper and interpret these results in a broader context.
Relative vs. Absolute Risk
When interpreting this study’s results, it’s crucial to consider the distinction between relative and absolute risk and the magnitude of the risk reported.
In most fields outside nutrition, relative risks of less than 100% are often considered indistinguishable from chance. As I pointed out in my article, Why You Should Be Skeptical of the Latest Nutrition Headlines: Part 1:
“According to the late epidemiologist Syd Shapiro, cofounder of the Slone Epidemiology Center, at the higher end of this range, one can be guardedly confident, but ‘we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less than [100 percent], and when estimates are much below [100 percent], we are simply out of business.’”
Other prominent figures in the field echo this sentiment. Marcia Angell, former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, stated, “As a general rule of thumb, we are looking for a relative risk of three or more [before accepting a paper for publication], particularly if it is biologically implausible or if it’s a brand-new finding.”
In the Wang et al. (2024) study, the reported relative risk (hazard ratio) for type 2 diabetes when comparing the highest to lowest quintiles of heme iron intake was 1.26, or a 26% increase. This falls well below the 100% threshold mentioned above, suggesting that we should interpret these results cautiously.
A significant limitation of the Wang et al. study is that the authors did not provide multivariate-adjusted data that would allow for the calculation of absolute risk. This is problematic because relative risk can often exaggerate the perceived magnitude of an effect.
To illustrate this point, let’s consider an example from a different study. In a study by Lescinsky et al. (2022) on red meat consumption and colorectal adenomas, the absolute risk increase between the lowest and highest intake groups was only 0.031%. This tiny absolute increase could potentially be due to residual confounding or other biases rather than a true causal effect of the exposure.
Without absolute risk data, it’s challenging to contextualize the practical significance of the 26% relative risk increase reported in the Wang et al. study. A seemingly large relative risk increase could correspond to a very small absolute risk increase, which might not be clinically meaningful.
Study Heterogeneity and Uncertainty
The authors noted substantial between-study heterogeneity and uncertainty in their findings. When accounting for this heterogeneity, the confidence intervals for many associations became much wider, indicating less certainty in the results than the headline figures might suggest.
- Geographical Differences: It’s worth noting that this study was conducted in US cohorts. Previous research, such as the meta-analysis by Fang et al. (2015), found that significant associations between heme iron intake and health outcomes were primarily observed in American cohorts but not in studies from other countries. This suggests that factors specific to the American diet or lifestyle may influence these results. (See the “Context Matters” section below for more on why this is important.)
- Potential Confounding Factors: The study adjusted for numerous confounding factors, but residual confounding is always possible in observational studies. For instance, people who consume more heme iron (primarily from red meat) may have other dietary or lifestyle habits that increase their risk of type 2 diabetes. The authors noted that those with higher heme iron intake were generally less physically active, more likely to smoke, and had lower intakes of fiber, fruits, and whole grains.
- Healthy User Bias: In the US, lower red meat intake (and thus lower heme iron) is often associated with healthier lifestyles and dietary patterns. This “healthy user bias” could partially explain the observed associations. (See this article I wrote a while back on why the healthy user bias is such a huge problem in nutrition research.)
- Nonlinear Relationships: The study observed a flattening of the risk curve at higher heme iron intakes, suggesting a possible threshold effect. This non-linear relationship complicates the interpretation of the results and suggests that the impact of heme iron may not be as straightforward as “more heme iron equals higher risk.”
When you consider these factors, this study’s conclusions are on even shakier ground. The relationship between heme iron intake and type 2 diabetes risk is likely more complex than a simple cause-and-effect relationship.
Context matters!
To fully understand the implications of the Wang et al. (2024) study, we need to consider heme iron intake within the broader context of overall dietary patterns and nutritional interactions.
The Role of Overall Dietary Patterns
Heme iron doesn’t exist in isolation in our diets. It’s primarily found in red meat, which is part of broader dietary patterns. In the US, people who consume more red meat (and heme iron) tend to get it from McDonald’s, Burger King, hot dogs, and other highly processed and refined foods—whereas people who eat more heme iron in other countries tend to get it in healthier foods.
This likely explains why the Fang et al. study (2015) showed an association between heme iron intake and cardiovascular disease in the US but not other countries. This is a crucial point that casts serious doubt on our ability to infer a causal relationship between heme iron intake and biomarker levels in this current study and diabetes risk.
Potential Protective Effects of Other Nutrients
The potential interaction between heme iron and other dietary components is another important consideration.
A key example of this comes from a study by de Vogel et al. (2015), which investigated the effects of chlorophyll on heme-induced colon cancer in rats. Chlorophyll, a pigment abundant in green vegetables, can block the adverse effects of heme in the gut. Specifically, feeding rats chlorophyll prevented heme iron’s cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects.
The researchers proposed chlorophyll may “sandwich” heme molecules, forming hydrophobic complexes. This interaction could potentially block the covalent modification sites of heme, thus preventing the formation of cytotoxic heme metabolites in the gut.
These findings suggest that the overall dietary pattern in which heme iron is consumed is crucial. Consuming red meat (high in heme iron) alongside green leafy vegetables (high in chlorophyll) might mitigate some of the potential negative effects of heme iron.
Individual Variation
The study’s findings represent average effects across large populations. Individual responses to heme iron intake may vary based on genetics, diet, lifestyle, and other factors. For instance, the study found stronger associations among participants with lower BMI, suggesting that body composition might influence the relationship between heme iron and T2D risk.
Practical implications and conclusion
Given the complexity of the relationship between heme iron intake and type 2 diabetes risk, what are the practical takeaways of this recent study?
Focus on Overall Dietary Pattern
Focusing on overall dietary patterns is more beneficial than fixating on a single nutrient like heme iron. The study showed that heme iron explained only a portion of the association between various dietary patterns and T2D risk. This suggests that other diet components also play significant roles in health outcomes.
Balance Your Plate
Research by de Vogel et al. (2015) on the protective effects of chlorophyll against heme iron in the gut suggests that eating plant foods along with animal foods has a protective effect. This is one of the many reasons I’ve long argued that the optimal human diet contains both plant and animal foods—not one or the other. When consuming foods high in heme iron, like red meat, consider pairing them with chlorophyll-rich green vegetables.
Consider the Bigger Picture
While this study focuses on type 2 diabetes risk, dietary choices affect overall health in numerous ways. Red meat, the primary source of heme iron, provides important nutrients like high-quality protein, vitamin B12, and zinc. These benefits should be weighed against potential risks when making dietary decisions.
Finally, as I pointed out in the section above about relative vs. absolute risk, this study did not prove that consuming heme iron increased the risk of diabetes. It simply showed that higher intakes of heme iron are associated with an increase in certain blood biomarkers and diabetes risk.
While it’s tempting to assume these factors are causally related, relative risks lower than 100 percent in nutritional epidemiology are unreliable.
References
de Vogel, J., Jonker-Termont, D. S., van Lieshout, E. M., Katan, M. B., & van der Meer, R. (2005). Green vegetables, red meat and colon cancer: chlorophyll prevents the cytotoxic and hyperproliferative effects of haem in rat colon. Carcinogenesis, 26(2), 387-393. https://doi.org/10.1093/carcin/bgh331
Fang, X., An, P., Wang, H., Wang, X., Shen, X., Li, X., Min, J., Liu, S., & Wang, F. (2015). Dietary intake of heme iron and risk of cardiovascular disease: A dose–response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases, 25(1), 24-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.numecd.2014.09.002
Lescinsky, H., Afshin, A., Ashbaugh, C., Bisignano, C., Brauer, M., Ferrara, G., Hay, S. I., He, J., Iannucci, V., Marczak, L. B., McLaughlin, S. A., Mullany, E. C., Parent, M. C., Serfes, A. L., Sorensen, R. J. D., Aravkin, A. Y., Zheng, P., & Murray, C. J. L. (2022). Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study. Nature Medicine, 28(10), 2075-2082. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-022-01968-z
Serafini, M., Bellocco, R., Wolk, A., & Ekström, A. M. (2002). Total antioxidant potential of fruit and vegetables and risk of gastric cancer. Gastroenterology, 123(4), 985-991. https://doi.org/10.1053/gast.2002.35957
Wang, F., Glenn, A. J., Tessier, A. J., Mei, Z., Haslam, D. E., Guasch-Ferré, M., Tobias, D. K., Eliassen, A. H., Manson, J. E., Clish, C., Lee, K. H., Rimm, E. B., Wang, D. D., Sun, Q., Liang, L., Willett, W. C., & Hu, F. B. (2024). Integration of epidemiological and blood biomarker analysis links haem iron intake to increased type 2 diabetes risk. Nature Metabolism. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42255-024-01109-5
Shapiro, S. (2004). Looking to the 21st century: have we learned from our mistakes, or are we doomed to compound them? In Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety (Vol. 13, Issue 4, pp. 257–265). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.903
