All Red Meat is Bad for You

Perpetual Student said:
Yes, of course that is a naive description of what is done to control for confounding factors. As on who is trained in demographics, I can assure you it is not quite so straightforward when dealing with multiple factors. Additionally, I am nor sure the population used -- 38,000 men and 84,000 women -- is big enough when controlling for all these: smoking, obesity, alcohol, exercise. Does the study mention any attempt to control for geography: region, urban, suburban, rural, etc.? Population studies, using questionnaires can be notoriously misleading.
I would also like to know more about the researchers histories, the source of funding and the motivation behind the study.
I have seen too many population studies that are later contradicted by better studies using alternative methods.
I remain unconvinced.
Click to expand...

If the hypothesis that eating red meat in general and processed red meat in particular caused bowel cancer was a crazy new hypothesis, sure, I'd be equally skeptical. However that hypothesis has a very high probability of being true and we know that from previous studies.

I think a rational observer has to bump that hypothesis to an even higher level of certainty as a result of this extra data. It's definitely an observation we'd be more likely to see in a world where red meat causes bowel cancer than in a world where it doesn't, hence it's evidence of greater or lesser strength for the hypothesis that red meat causes bowel cancer.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If the hypothesis that eating red meat in general and processed red meat in particular caused bowel cancer was a crazy new hypothesis, sure, I'd be equally skeptical. However that hypothesis has a very high probability of being true and we know that from previous studies.

I think a rational observer has to bump that hypothesis to an even higher level of certainty as a result of this extra data. It's definitely an observation we'd be more likely to see in a world where red meat causes bowel cancer than in a world where it doesn't, hence it's evidence of greater or lesser strength for the hypothesis that red meat causes bowel cancer.
Click to expand...

So this is not really a surprise new result, then, but rather just confirms something that was known, or at least suspected, for a while.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
If the hypothesis that eating red meat in general and processed red meat in particular caused bowel cancer was a crazy new hypothesis, sure, I'd be equally skeptical. However that hypothesis has a very high probability of being true and we know that from previous studies.

I think a rational observer has to bump that hypothesis to an even higher level of certainty as a result of this extra data. It's definitely an observation we'd be more likely to see in a world where red meat causes bowel cancer than in a world where it doesn't, hence it's evidence of greater or lesser strength for the hypothesis that red meat causes bowel cancer.
Click to expand...

I have been discussing the broad conclusions of the study, which go far beyond associating red meat with bowel cancer.
In any case, dietary fiber is known to reduce bowel cancer; did the researchers control for dietary fiber? Again, by anecdote, the big red meat eaters I have known seem to eat little fiber. The latter is just another example of the kind of confounding factor that can invalidate a study of this kind, which has been my point.
 
It doesn't invalidate the study at all. The study itself is a cohort study that follows morality rates in populations versus their overall red meat consumption (because consuming some isn't as unhealthy as consuming a whole lot; having a diet high in red meat). It's already understood that red meat increases mortality rates, we don't need this study to determine that. We see an increase in cardiovascular disease and cancer that has a dietary association, that being red meat.

We can't say the pathology (yet) of red meat and these chronic diseases, what we CAN say is that the dietary risk is there, and multiple studies demonstrate this.

I understand the skepticism, there's obviously more to disease that diet, but to write it off and be a perpetual fence sitter and NOT a perpetual student is silly. I mean this study is pretty much saying "The sky is blue, bears @#*! in the woods" at this point. Smoking is unhealthy, does smoking kill you? No, it increases mortality though. Does being sedentary kill you? No, it increases mortality though. Does red meat kill you? No, but it DOES increase mortality. That's the point. And when you put all three together, your mortality increases a lot more. So this article is accurate, "red meat IS BAD FOR YOU" which can be read as "red meat is unhealthy for you." If you some day in life have a goal to be healthy(er) cutting red meat will be to your advantage. Stop being so incredulous to that plain fact.
 
Last edited:
Nasty Neil said:
First, I ask, Are you living to see how long you can live for?

OR, Are you living to ENJOY your life as much as possible?

As I am for enjoying my life, I care less if red meat may be bad for me IN THE LONG Run or not.
Click to expand...

To a point, I agree with you. However, too much enjoyment of one kind can sap the enjoyment out of other areas of your life. Since I've started eating healthier and exercising more, I definitely get more enjoyment out of life...even though I can't eat cake anymore.

Red meat? In moderation.
 
Lowpro said:
It doesn't invalidate the study at all. The study itself is a cohort study that follows morality rates in populations versus their overall red meat consumption (because consuming some isn't as unhealthy as consuming a whole lot; having a diet high in red meat). It's already understood that red meat increases mortality rates, we don't need this study to determine that. We see an increase in cardiovascular disease and cancer that has a dietary association, that being red meat.

We can't say the pathology (yet) of red meat and these chronic diseases, what we CAN say is that the dietary risk is there, and multiple studies demonstrate this.

I understand the skepticism, there's obviously more to disease that diet, but to write it off and be a perpetual fence sitter and NOT a perpetual student is silly. I mean this study is pretty much saying "The sky is blue, bears @#*! in the woods" at this point. Smoking is unhealthy, does smoking kill you? No, it increases mortality though. Does being sedentary kill you? No, it increases mortality though. Does red meat kill you? No, but it DOES increase mortality. That's the point. And when you put all three together, your mortality increases a lot more. So this article is accurate, "red meat IS BAD FOR YOU" which can be read as "red meat is unhealthy for you." If you some day in life have a goal to be healthy(er) cutting red meat will be to your advantage. Stop being so incredulous to that plain fact.
Click to expand...
Stop being so credulous of a relatively small study with multiple confounding factors.
Here is an example of how wrong population studies can be. SIMVASTATIN/ALZHEIMER'S This study established a strong link between simvastatin and reduction of dementia (a 50% reduction!). The study was huge: based on a population of 4.5 million and 700,000 simvastatin users! It was later proven to be wrong: BAD NEWS
 
How about you just go to Pubmed, type in "red meat" and sit back and go "oh holy tits!" You cannot be expected to be taken seriously when there are MANY nutritional reports that show overconsumption of red meat to lead to higher mortality. It's like you're grabbing the report and saying "This isn't enough to convince me!" and chucking it over your shoulder into a massive stack of similar reports saying the same thing. If you're going to ignore just one study, one PRELIMINARY STUDY which is all it is (I told you again, and if I have to forge brass knuckles that say PRELIMINARY STUDIES AREN'T CONCLUSIVE" and beat the impression into your forehead I will) and then become a perpetual fence sitter, then I'll melt down some brass.
 
Interesting study. It will be equally interesting to see if they eventually investigate the differences between processed and unprocessed, or pastured vs CAFO, meat, as they made a note in the intro that they made no distinction between the two.
 
Lowpro said:
How about you just go to Pubmed, type in "red meat" and sit back and go "oh holy tits!" You cannot be expected to be taken seriously when there are MANY nutritional reports that show overconsumption of red meat to lead to higher mortality. It's like you're grabbing the report and saying "This isn't enough to convince me!" and chucking it over your shoulder into a massive stack of similar reports saying the same thing. If you're going to ignore just one study, one PRELIMINARY STUDY which is all it is (I told you again, and if I have to forge brass knuckles that say PRELIMINARY STUDIES AREN'T CONCLUSIVE" and beat the impression into your forehead I will) and then become a perpetual fence sitter, then I'll melt down some brass.
Click to expand...

How would you account for the grossly wrong results of the massive study linking simvastatin and AD that I linked above? There were also earlier smaller studies indicating a similar benefit. A 50% reduction in AD incidence due to the use of simvastatin using a population of 4.5 million! And it was later proved to be wrong!
See, the key to scientific evidence is to understand and demonstrate a causality. Anything short of that is not conclusive as so many past medical missteps have demonstrated. Drink the kool aid if you like; I prefer to wait for real scientific evidence.
 
Perpetual Student said:
How would you account for the grossly wrong results of the massive study linking simvastatin and AD that I linked above? There were also earlier smaller studies indicating a similar benefit. A 50% reduction in AD incidence due to the use of simvastatin using a population of 4.5 million! And it was later proved to be wrong!
See, the key to scientific evidence is to understand and demonstrate a causality. Anything short of that is not conclusive as so many past medical missteps have demonstrated. Drink the kool aid if you like; I prefer to wait for real scientific evidence.
Click to expand...

Okay if you don't want to argue this data, then I don't even know why you're posting anymore. I've already said that this data isn't conclusive; this is a cohort study. None of them are conclusive, they are merely collated data, and they are often used to support hypothesis but really I see them used in grant writing. That's all it is, that's all I have said it is.

But you have this WICKED hard-on for believing otherwise, and you want to compare it to this alzheimers thing, as if all of a sudden the scientific world must be torn asunder over it. You have no real point, you're merely hand waving and avoiding the points I've made. I don't NEED this study to determine red meat to have detrimental effects to health, there's a bunch that do a better job and are more specific to disease, such as CVD and colon cancer, not to mention general diet concerns leading to things such as diabetes; I say it's general because those studies compare cohorts that aren't similar, such as rural farmers who have a drastically different diet than urban populations (the book The China Study is an example)

All this cohort study does is support previous data in terms of assessing mortality risks with diet. It doesn't look at just "death" but what caused death, such as CVD and cancer, and surprise surprise the people with access to a lot of processed red meat have higher diagnosis of both of these. This is expected from the data specifically indicating those risks.

This isn't conclusive, no one said it is, it's supportive of the theory though, and you cannot ignore that. The fact that you're doing it and accusing ME of drinking the kool aid means you are the one who needs to step back, read what's been said here, and reassess your position, because right now you're arguing for the fool.
 
All food kills you.
So does no food.
But food tastes better and takes longer.
For Christ's sake, do we want to live for ever?
Steak pie for dinner.
With extra grease.
 
Perpetual Student said:
The study mentions that confounding factors such as smoking, obesity, exercise, alcohol intake and other life style factors have been taken into account, but I don't see much detail as to how that was done.
It has been my (non-scientific and purely anecdotal) observation that meat eaters tend to partake in many of the above mentioned factors to a greater degree than more health conscious people. So, I am far from satisfied that these factors have been adequately addressed in this study.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'd want to know that also. Entirely possible for the hypothesis to be correct, and a study to be flawed.

I don't know if these links have already been posted, but they raise some good points.


http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/
 
mike3 said:
So this is not really a surprise new result, then, but rather just confirms something that was known, or at least suspected, for a while.
Click to expand...

What's new in this study is that it shows a linear relationship between the amount of red meat consumed and total mortality. Previous studies have shown significant differences only for the highest vs. the lowest quintile of meat intake. As a firm believer in the principle of parsimony, I strongly suspected that the only reason that the linear relationship did not appear in earlier research was lack of statistical power or imprecision in exposure measurement. This study, with a huge follow-up period of 3 million person-years and state-of-the-art dietary assessment, seems to bear that out.

Jay
 
Perpetual Student said:
The study mentions that confounding factors such as smoking, obesity, exercise, alcohol intake and other life style factors have been taken into account, but I don't see much detail as to how that was done.
Click to expand...


They measured them and included them as covariates in the models (as explained in the paper).

Jay
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom