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
 
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...


What's that? The imprecautionary principle?
 
crimresearch said:
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/
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks. I'm looking forward to hearing from those who have defended the study in question -- after they take the time to read those commentaries.
 
Last edited:
Perpetual Student said:
Yes, thanks. I'm looking forward to hearing from those who have defended the study in question -- after they take the time to read those commentaries.
Click to expand...


Zoe Harcombe, the author in the second link, has no idea what she's talking about. I don't even know where to start. Her analysis is simply nonsensical. And any shred of credibility that Taubes may have had just went out the window by saying that Harcombe did a "wonderful job of dissecting the article." How embarrassing for both of them.
 
I just read the article from the OP.

Interestingly, it says the fish lowers the rate by 7%, less than the other dietary interventions mentioned.

And "(red meat) also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause," Accidents? Infections? Lung conditions? Ulcers? This kind of absoluteness gives me doubts. Like the way the Woos tell us that (____) cures EVERYTHING.

Maybe there s some kind of selection bias here? Like "Unhealthy people crave meat, and eat more of it. And since unhealthy people have a higher mortality rate..."

I also wonder whether some of the groups they controlled for have a negative correlation? What if smokers who eat more meat live longer than smokers who eat less meat?

Until they come out with the defining mechanism, I'll keep my doubts. And I suspect it will be something indirect- like digesting red meat depletes some reserve of an enzyme, and with out it the white cells don't do something to control some unrelated activity. And we'll all be eating more rutabagas to keep those reserves filled. Or something.
 
For the most part, eat whatever you want and live between 70 and 80. Live any longer and be a burden to society.
 
jt512 said:
Zoe Harcombe, the author in the second link, has no idea what she's talking about. I don't even know where to start. Her analysis is simply nonsensical. And any shred of credibility that Taubes may have had just went out the window by saying that Harcombe did a "wonderful job of dissecting the article." How embarrassing for both of them.
Click to expand...
Wow... that certainly proves everything beyond any doubt whatsoever.

I mean, who needs facts or examples when we've got your Godlike declarations?
 
casebro said:
And "(red meat) also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause," Accidents? Infections? Lung conditions? Ulcers? This kind of absoluteness gives me doubts. Like the way the Woos tell us that (____) cures EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...


You're misinterpreting "any cause." It just means "total mortality." That is, the more red meat there was in the diet, the higher was the risk of death per unit time. It doesn't mean that red meat was associated with death from every cause, such as homicide, vehicular accidents, and whatnot.

Jay
 
jt512 said:
Zoe Harcombe, the author in the second link, has no idea what she's talking about. I don't even know where to start. Her analysis is simply nonsensical.
Click to expand...

She clearly knows something about statistics, but at the same time some of the other things she says are indeed simply nonsensical and I'm baffled as to how anyone who knows anything about statistics typed those words.

Is she a meat industry PR person, or did she learn statistics by thumbing randomly through an old first year textbook, or what? Does she just not understand the idea of controlling for a confounding variable?

And any shred of credibility that Taubes may have had just went out the window by saying that Harcombe did a "wonderful job of dissecting the article." How embarrassing for both of them.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
 
casebro said:
I just read the article from the OP.

Interestingly, it says the fish lowers the rate by 7%, less than the other dietary interventions mentioned.

And "(red meat) also be linked to an overall risk of death from any cause," Accidents? Infections? Lung conditions? Ulcers? This kind of absoluteness gives me doubts. Like the way the Woos tell us that (____) cures EVERYTHING.

Maybe there s some kind of selection bias here? Like "Unhealthy people crave meat, and eat more of it. And since unhealthy people have a higher mortality rate..."

I also wonder whether some of the groups they controlled for have a negative correlation? What if smokers who eat more meat live longer than smokers who eat less meat?

Until they come out with the defining mechanism, I'll keep my doubts. And I suspect it will be something indirect- like digesting red meat depletes some reserve of an enzyme, and with out it the white cells don't do something to control some unrelated activity. And we'll all be eating more rutabagas to keep those reserves filled. Or something.
Click to expand...

I agree. Ultimately, looking for causality is how real science is done. Population studies can yield clues to give us a direction for further study. However, basing conclusions only on population studies has misled researchers and the public too many times for us to simply slip into this kind of flawed thinking once again. We have many confounding factors (both those identified in the study and those that remain unknown), we have the exigencies of data from questionnaires, we have statistical variability with quite tenuous statistical results, and we might have the potential of researcher bias.
Some months ago on another thread, I asked medical professionals on this forum to explain how a study of 4.5 million people conducted over some considerable number of years about simvastatin and Alzheimer's can show a 50% reduction in that disease and end up being dead wrong. The only answer I got was some vague mantra about the problematic nature of population studies. If a study showing a 50% reduction of the incidence of some disease can be so wrong, how could we give any credibility to a study with the thin results of this one concerning eating red meat where there is no demonstrated causality?
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that, in this study, high mortality was associated with high consumption of red meat and lower serum cholesterol levels. So you're going to have to make a choice between which conventional wisdom you want to go with.
 
Perpetual Student said:
Some months ago on another thread, I asked medical professionals on this forum to explain how a study of 4.5 million people conducted over some considerable number of years about simvastatin and Alzheimer's can show a 50% reduction in that disease and end up being dead wrong. The only answer I got was some vague mantra about the problematic nature of population studies.
Click to expand...

It and similar incidents being so damned common (see Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research by John P. A. Ioannidis, MD) is a puzzle I'm mulling over at the moment.

Possibly gold standard studies are too often asking the wrong questions. Possibly the desk drawer effect is in full swing and many studies which fail to achieve statistical significance aren't getting published. Possibly outright cheating is substantially more common than we'd like to think. Possibly other things. Almost certainly a combination of several things is responsible.

Whatever it is though, at least one in six or seven top-tier studies with statistical significance get totally overturned in a relatively short time frame in medical research. I believe some specific biomedical fields (I think it might have been medical genetics) are even worse.
 
"False DICHOTOMY.

You DO not have to GIVE up either to pursue the OTHER!"

MAYBE so, in your MICKEY MOUSE OPINON!
 
"For the most part, eat whatever you want and live between 70 and 80. Live any longer and be a burden to society."

REALLY?

I would like to be around when you are my age (77) and see IF you are still saying the same thing.

AND, IF you had a CLUE, you would know there are more than a few people over 80 who still contribute a LOT.
 
Kevin_Lowe said:
It and similar incidents being so damned common (see Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research by John P. A. Ioannidis, MD) is a puzzle I'm mulling over at the moment.

Possibly gold standard studies are too often asking the wrong questions. Possibly the desk drawer effect is in full swing and many studies which fail to achieve statistical significance aren't getting published. Possibly outright cheating is substantially more common than we'd like to think. Possibly other things. Almost certainly a combination of several things is responsible.

Whatever it is though, at least one in six or seven top-tier studies with statistical significance get totally overturned in a relatively short time frame in medical research. I believe some specific biomedical fields (I think it might have been medical genetics) are even worse.
Click to expand...
Ahhh.. so when Taubes says that sort of medical study has a poor track record for holding up under replication, he has zero credibility...

But when you copycat the same idea, you're an unimpeachable expert who doesn't have to provide facts and figures because no one but you could possibly understand them?

Same old same old.
 
NewtonTrino said:
It should be considered red meat. But it should also be considered a bunch of other things including a bunch of food additives and processed who knows what.
Click to expand...

The separated processed from unprocessed meat.

IDB87 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not sure exactly what you mean here, but they did separate processed from unprocessed. It's mentioned in the LA times report and in the abstract of the paper.
 
crimresearch said:
Wow... that certainly proves everything beyond any doubt whatsoever.

I mean, who needs facts or examples when we've got your Godlike declarations?
Click to expand...

Since you have obviously not given any critical thought yourself to the Harcombe piece, it seems unlikely that you are sincerely interested in a detailed critique of it. However, if I'm wrong and you are, then insults and sarcasm are not likely to persuade me to invest the time and effort to produce one.

Jay
 
jt512 said:
Since you have obviously not given any critical thought yourself to the Harcombe piece, it seems unlikely that you are sincerely interested in a detailed critique of it. However, if I'm wrong and you are, then insults and sarcasm are not likely to persuade me to invest the time and effort to produce one.

Jay
Click to expand...

I'm interested in hearing it though, and am not in the least sarcastic.
 
NewtonTrino said:
It should be considered red meat. But it should also be considered a bunch of other things including a bunch of food additives and processed who knows what.

How do you statistically separate it out? For example if fast food was extra bad for you and people who ate "red meat" are really just eating a lot of fast food how can you simple blame "red meat", instead of blaming processed crap?
Click to expand...

I think that's one of the things they tried to sort out with this study -- processed (i.e. nitrate-laden) vs. unprocessed meat, and they both were about equally bad for you.


Of course, they really need to separate this out for obesity -- is a 250-lb. vegetarian really doing a lot better than a 250-pound McDonald's addict? Or a home-made hamburger addict, for that matter?




One study claimed nitrates dissolved into chemicals that specifically kill off the insulin-generating cells in the pancreas, which is what helps lead to type II diabetes. However, nobody seems to have ever done an autopsy on a type II diabetic to see if their pancreas is sub-optimal.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom