[STUDY] Eating red meat raises 'substantially' risk of cancer or heart disease death

[immovablestone]

Wrong. I get paid quite a lot of money by some really, really big companies to discern correlation and causation across some rather large data sets.

Then you are very likely part of the problem, congratz on making the word a little worse for profit...

 

[immovablestone]

You and a lot of other people who don't know about the inaccuracies of correlated studies. They don't mean shit because you can draw a link between just about anything and CVD. Anyone of those people could have died from genetically inherited diseases, or poor dietary habits in general, etc..

And there are many different kinds of doctors, so just because you have a PHD doesn't mean that you know a fucking thing about nutrition. If I had a PHD and told you that fucking yourself in the ass with an 18v drill and a 3 foot auger bit attached to it was good for your health, would you do it?

 

[Butler]

Here's an interesting critique / dismemberment of the study by Mark Sisson

Will Eating Red Meat Kill You? | Mark's Daily Apple

Good find. It's unsurprising to find it, like many other rebuttals, devolving into a breaking down of the shortcomings of observational studies.

 

[cooks1]

Drivel. Absolute preposterous drivel.

Smokers or not? Location? City or Country address? Professional risk factors? Proximity to heavy industry with abundant emissions? Genetic/Family History (the biggest factor by far).

And this is just for starters.

And all that is before, before you even begin to look at the rest of the diet these people consumed. What about ice cream? Soda? Potato Chips? Candy bars? Fried Foods?

Unless you put people in a lab to isolate all these factors, or find a way to have them the same across the board, or at the very least categorize these factors along side the meat consumption, you will never, ever, produce anything definitive.

 

[cooks1]

Wrong. I get paid quite a lot of money by some really, really big companies to discern correlation and causation across some rather large data sets.

But enough about me.

At no point did I say that there was a causative relationship, only that one is suggested by the (rather substantial) data. As such, it's worthy of note, if nothing else.

If this were true, you would be the first in line to call Bullshit on this study.

Sky divers might have shorter lifespans than the average person, for example. By not because of sky diving. The sky diving is simply one indicator of a person that is more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors and occupations. And it is the higher risk aggregate that increases mortality.

 

[PLftw]

i eat red meat everyday as well and if i get cancer or heart disease ill let you guys know...

 

[K Flow]

Drivel. Absolute preposterous drivel.

Smokers or not? Location? City or Country address? Professional risk factors? Proximity to heavy industry with abundant emissions? Genetic/Family History (the biggest factor by far).

And this is just for starters.

And all that is before, before you even begin to look at the rest of the diet these people consumed. What about ice cream? Soda? Potato Chips? Candy bars? Fried Foods?

Unless you put people in a lab to isolate all these factors, or find a way to have them the same across the board, or at the very least categorize these factors along side the meat consumption, you will never, ever, produce anything definitive.

Exactly. You can literally correlate any food to whatever health condition you want.

 

[kpt018]

If this were true, you would be the first in line to call Bullshit on this study.

Sky divers might have shorter lifespans than the average person, for example. By not because of sky diving. The sky diving is simply one indicator of a person that is more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors and occupations. And it is the higher risk aggregate that increases mortality.

But what if you controlled for all variables to test the risk of sky diving? Wouldn't you find that even if the risk of dying skydiving were low, mortality rates for people who don't sky diver is lower? You can't die from sky diving if you don't sky dive!

I am not qualified to determine if the study is legite or not. But it makes sense to me.

 

[Butler]

If this were true, you would be the first in line to call Bullshit on this study.

How do you know I didn't? How do you know my Facebook page hasn't turned into a running commentary completely slating it?

You don't.

I simply stated that there's no conversation surrounding what is one of the most substantial (in terms of sample size and duration) studies of its kind on this here D&S forum.

If you were all such fans of the scientific method, you'd appreciate the gesture. It's a great conversation starter and a good starting point further controlled studies that, god forbid, try to ascertain causative relationships, rather than simply associative ones.

Sky divers might have shorter lifespans than the average person, for example. By not because of sky diving. The sky diving is simply one indicator of a person that is more likely to engage in higher risk behaviors and occupations. And it is the higher risk aggregate that increases mortality.

Again, thanks for that...

 

[rms13]

Robb Wolf's reaction:

Is red meat healthy?

Basically, don't freak out

 

[Bubblun]

well, i am italian and in every health program on tv in italy they tell that eating to much red meat is not good because increase risk of cancer and heart problems.
so i don't think that is a circumstance.

once a week is good, every day not.

 

[immovablestone]

on tv

Well shit, then it must be gospel!

 

[Bubblun]

Well shit, then it must be gospel!

they are well known doctors, so yes.
never heard of "Mediterranean diet"? maybe is not the favourite diet of gym fanatics, but is well known to be the best diet for long living.

 

[cooks1]

How do you know I didn't? How do you know my Facebook page hasn't turned into a running commentary completely slating it?

You don't.

Then call BS on it here and now.

You put a study up for people to discuss. We do. Some think it's BS. You get pissy.

I am beginning to think there is a Disney movie somewhere in here.

 

[Endo]

they are well known doctors, so yes.
never heard of "Mediterranean diet"? maybe is not the favourite diet of gym fanatics, but is well known to be the best diet for long living.

Eat an excessive amount of those same foods and don't exercise; you'll have CVD too. :icon_lol:

In all seriousness, its not simply one factor or another, its the combination of a lifestyle that is unhealthy. The sooner people learn this, the sooner we can see less and less threads like this, and move on to more meaningful topics that actually raise an eyebrow or two.

Again, there are plenty of "well known" doctors that are total fucking quacks. And just because you're well known, doesn't mean that you're not a fucking quack. And if you're right just because you're a doctor, then what the fuck happens when two doctors disagree? Does the world implode?

 

[Beechwood]

Thought that Dr. Briffa had a nice write up on the observation study that red meat is dangerous. It makes one cynical about research studies to see stuff like this.

"Red meat kills? It’s flagrant bias that’s killing me…"

Red meat kills? It’s flagrant bias that’s killing me… | Dr Briffa's Blog - A Good Look at Good Health

excerpt:

...This review is accompanied by an invited commentary from Dr Dean Ornish – a proponent of low-fat eating and a noted vegetarian [5]. He concludes, in a word, that the answer to the question of whether red meat is bad for us is ‘yes’. But he can’t possibly do that on the basis of this type of evidence. Nowhere in his commentary does he refer to fact that associations do not prove causality – it’s simply not mentioned.

Dr Ornish does refer, however, to human studies in which relatively high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets have led to improvements in health markers such as weight, blood pressure and blood fat levels. In fact these human studies (and there are many) have been found to improve a range of health markers across the board. But Dr Ornish dismisses these studies by referring to one single study which was, wait for it, performed in mice bred to have a genetic glitch which makes them particularly susceptible to heart disease. How this applies to humans is anyone’s guess, and one thing we know for sure it’s not relevance to humans is tiny compared to studies done in actual, err, humans.

Dr Ornish sweeps aside ton of good evidence is swept aside in favour of a small amount of quite useless science instead. More bias? You decide.

 

[Seriously-Dead]

Call me when the anti-meatheads actually come up with experimental evidence that meat is bad for you, in terms of physiology. Until then... yaaaawwwnnnn.

 

[miaou]

ITT: a lot of good comments along with some pretty obnoxious comments.


Journalists reposting on scientific findings are notorious for overplaying, over-sensationalizing and misinterpreting study results. Having said that, completely dismissing large sample-sized correlational studies is plain dumb.

What that study says is that, in their fairly large data set, while controlling for so and so confounders, eating more red meat, both processed and unprocessed, is correlated to a significantly higher mortality rate. It should be noted that grouping together processed and unprocessed red meat was a major point of criticism for similar older studies, and the design of this study was such that it would separate the two.

That's it. How you are going to interpret the findings is a different thing. This study obviously doesn't prove causation, but it is certainly better to be aware of this correlation than be unaware of it. The authors also comment on possible mechanisms via which daily red meat consumption might increase mortality risk (things like heme iron, sodium, nitrites, and certain carcinogens that are formed during cooking).

Everyone should be doing their own assessment of the existing data and reaching their own conclusions as to which dietary choices they are going to make.

 

[Nemesis48]

Surprised no one posted this yet, and i'm a little late to the game, but hope people check this out.

Debunked:

Do Unhealthy Meat Eaters Live Shorter Lives? | Dietdoctor.com

Experienced Heart Surgeon About What Really Causes Heart Disease | Dietdoctor.com

Always Be Skeptical Of Nutrition Headlines: Or, What “Red Meat Consumption and Mortality” (Pan et.al.) Really Tells Us - GNOLLS.ORG

Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science

tl;dr the data was manipulated and it was not a randomized controlled trial, making it irrelevant as a report on causality, it's only potentially useful as an observation. Of course the observation is worthless if the data has been manipulated and there are a ton of confounding variables, which there are, as usual in studies like this.

 

[Butler]

Journalists reposting on scientific findings are notorious for overplaying, over-sensationalizing and misinterpreting study results. Having said that, completely dismissing large sample-sized correlational studies is plain dumb.

It took nearly four pages, but thanks miaou for the level-headed response.