Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Subby

Red meat flat out bad: study

90 posts in this topic

All red meat is bad for you, new study says - latimes.com

 

Eating red meat — any amount and any type — appears to significantly increase the risk of premature death, according to a long-range study that examined the eating habits and health of more than 110,000 adults for more than 20 years.

 

For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.

 

Even worse, adding an extra daily serving of processed red meat, such as a hot dog or two slices of bacon, was linked to a 20% higher risk of death during the study.

 

"Any red meat you eat contributes to the risk," said An Pan, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston and lead author of the study, published online Monday in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I saw this last night on the news & was alarmed at the negatives of bacon & I eat a lot of bacon .

 

The report really favoured fish & chicken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with percentages (as no doubt everyone knows) is that they can be misleading. I recall a similar study showing red meat consumption increases your risk of pancreatic cancer by 70% or some similarly alarming figure.

 

It is easy to misread these stats as you are x% likely to die of Y if you eat Z. The truth is more subtle. For instance, say your actual basic risk of dying of heart disease is 10%. Red meat consumption increases this by 20%. That corellates to increasing your risk to 12% (not 30% as some might mistakenly believe.).so the actual overall increase here could've minimal - it's not clear from these stats.

 

In any case, you aren't going to see me cut back on the steakandbacon. Then again, I'm the sort of person that watched the PETA "if slaughterhouses had glass walls" video and concluded that the solution was to improve slaughter standards rather than to stop eating meat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

69 years as a medium rare, meat-eatin' carnivore. When they ask me how I likes my steak...I tell 'em, "Bring that bad boy to the table, I'll hack off a chunk and ride the rest of it home!" If God wanted me to be a vegetarian...he shoulda' made the other animals faster and smarter. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Face it, we are not getting off this planet alive!

 

We watch our carbs to the best of our ability and eat what God provides. There is nothing else we can do.

 

The present administration in DC has made red meat unaffordable for us, things do not appear as if they will be improving anytime soon, either.

 

At least we are not reduced to eating bugs - yet. . . :D

 

Janice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have cut back my bacon. Instead of having it every day, I'm saving it for weekends only. I've also started having chicken more often and try to remember to have fish twice a week.

 

You think some really smart cows put this study together?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The problem with percentages (as no doubt everyone knows) is that they can be misleading. I recall a similar study showing red meat consumption increases your risk of pancreatic cancer by 70% or some similarly alarming figure.

 

It is easy to misread these stats as you are x% likely to die of Y if you eat Z. The truth is more subtle. For instance, say your actual basic risk of dying of heart disease is 10%. Red meat consumption increases this by 20%. That corellates to increasing your risk to 12% (not 30% as some might mistakenly believe.).so the actual overall increase here could've minimal - it's not clear from these stats.

 

In any case, you aren't going to see me cut back on the steakandbacon. Then again, I'm the sort of person that watched the PETA "if slaughterhouses had glass walls" video and concluded that the solution was to improve slaughter standards rather than to stop eating meat.

 

That particular stat fiddle is irrelevant to this study - they are talking about net percentages of people dying over a long period of time, meat vs not. I'm sure there are a heap of detailed considerations though with how the data is dealt with here, I haven't read it in detail yet. I would not be so quick to dismiss it myself, but I'm not at all surprised you were quick to defend red meat though - I know your long term aims ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Face it, we are not getting off this planet alive!

 

We watch our carbs to the best of our ability and eat what God provides. There is nothing else we can do.

 

If God provides mass farmed meat, he would also provide soylent green if someone cared to produce it. The argument that current meat production is natural or that anything humans do is acceptable as God is behind it all, neither really work for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have cut back my bacon. Instead of having it every day, I'm saving it for weekends only. I've also started having chicken more often and try to remember to have fish twice a week.

 

You think some really smart cows put this study together?

 

I honestly don't know if I'm going to cut down much more on red meat. I probably have it most days. This study, if it bears through, is a lot more compelling than the previous statistical findings against red meat (see Deus's comments) I think for the moment I'll concentrate on more quality, a little less, and keep cultivating a taste for alternative forms of protein.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Nebraska (home of Omaha Steaks) we are pretty sure its GREEN FUZZY meat that's bad for you :)

 

Lets face it, none of us (D) are likely to die early due to eating red meat. I would go with uncured bacon though, but that's just me - I get terrible skin itch after eating cured ham and bacon.

 

As a research scientist, one can often prove the idea he/she is fixated on. Remeber the guy who came up with "cholesterol is bad for you" idea and removed from his research statistics of each country that did not fit his data (like France whose population eat a lot of cholesterol rich foods and have low heart disease rate)?

 

In this research in question they hardly took into consideration other information of subjects' lifestyles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In Nebraska (home of Omaha Steaks) we are pretty sure its GREEN FUZZY meat that's bad for you :)

 

Lets face it, none of us (D) are likely to die early due to eating red meat. I would go with uncured bacon though, but that's just me - I get terrible skin itch after eating cured ham and bacon.

 

Not sure what you are facing there - well controlled T1s, for example, have closed the life expectancy gap to within something like 2 years of their non-D conterparts. Whereas, if the study bears out, a 10% reduction may be something like 7-8 years. Additionally, it would be an assumption that the 10% does not get added on to the already reduced expectations of a diabetic. I don't know the life expectancy of a well controlled T2 (and I suspect stats woud be flawed/not up to date at this stage), but either way I don't consider a number of years off my life which may well be happy and healthy, something to casually shrug off. Each to their own.

 

As a research scientist, one can often prove the idea he/she is fixated on. Remeber the guy who came up with "cholesterol is bad for you" idea and removed from his research statistics of each country that did not fit his data (like France whose population eat a lot of cholesterol rich foods and have low heart disease rate)?

 

Doesn't really comment on this study though, does it. As a research scientist, I'm a bit surprised you seem to hold your entire field in such contempt.

 

In this research in question they hardly took into consideration other information of subjects' lifestyles.

 

Yes, this is definitely a dark corner of the study. Still in my book, it hardly deals a killing blow to staying open minded about this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not sure what you are facing there - well controlled T1s, for example, have closed the life expectancy gap to within something like 2 years of their non-D conterparts. Whereas, if the study bears out, a 10% reduction may be something like 7-8 years. Additionally, it would be an assumption that the 10% does not get added on to the already reduced expectations of a diabetic. I don't know the life expectancy of a well controlled T2 (and I suspect stats woud be flawed/not up to date at this stage), but either way I don't consider a number of years off my life which may well be happy and healthy, something to casually shrug off. Each to their own.

 

I should add that those amounts of time are just out of a hat and not based on the findings, and going to be more than the findings. I don't know what the amount of times are they talking about, and I'm not sure exactly how it converts to the idea of "time at the end". I'm just not entirely sure it follows that if you have a condition that may take you out early, you should not worry about other considerations that may also do so or hasten to do this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Red meat flat out bad: study

 

Flat out bad?!?

 

I don't listen to, read, or get all wigged out by studies. I remember when egg was good, then egg was bad, then egg is okay if you don't eat the yolk, then egg is okay but only this many....

 

The best study for us is the one we do on our own self. I haven't bothered to write a paper on my own study because who would read it or listen?

 

And ditto what Janice said, "we are not getting off this planet alive!" And if a study comes along and says that we will live forever when we are reduced to eating bugs I will ignore that one, too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Red meat flat out bad: study

 

Flat out bad?!?

 

Yes (!??!) That's a paraphrase of the study title and general thrust of the article. This is a section of diabetes forums called "Scientific Studies" and it's often customary to indicate the study in the title.

 

I don't listen to, read, or get all wigged out by studies.

 

...which additionally begs the question as to why you are posting here if you are not reading the study and have no interest in the sub-forum subject.

 

As for getting "wigged out", that's completely in the eye of the beholder. I've been frankly amazed how fast people feel they need to defend their habits against some measly study or other, as if it's mere existence is a threat or challenge that must be rebutted. This is a place to post studies, that I did so doesn't mean I'm pushing it on you or even suggesting you take it seriously by default. It's here for consideration. If you get so "wigged out" at the mere presence of discussion about a study, I can only suggest avoiding sub forums and threads that get your goat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Subby, the wording "flat out bad" just made me chuckle for wording a scientific study. My comments were not directed at you personally.

 

I feel however that I should answer your question "...which additionally begs the question as to why you are posting here if you are not reading the study and have no interest in the sub-forum subject." - I find all matter of subjects interesting, and provide my own opinion and sometimes experience regarding them. I shall continue to do so, and will likely enjoy those sub forums and threads that get my goat. Thank you for your suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife saw that on the news, been on to me ever since. What it doesn't clarify is the majority of the people in the study were probably eating a SAD diet. High carbs, high saturated fat is highly bad for you from what I've reading. Body doesn't seem to know what to do with both. You have to pick one or the other in my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subby, the wording "flat out bad" just made me chuckle for wording a scientific study. My comments were not directed at you personally.

 

I don't actually post that many threads, for someone who replies to a heap of them: when I do, I like to try and find a quirky title in some form or other, as long as it fills the function. The intent of "flat out bad" was to ironically suggest that there is bias here, and though we all know that irony is a dangerous art on a forum, I live in hope some people may pick up on it from time to time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If God provides mass farmed meat, he would also provide soylent green if someone cared to produce it. The argument that current meat production is natural or that anything humans do is acceptable as God is behind it all, neither really work for me.

 

Subby,

 

If you want to misunderstand me, it is your right. However, I hope you will read what I wrote again. I can not afford red meat, I eat what I can afford and am grateful to have it. I am grateful to God for it because everything comes from Him, whether you give Him the credit, or not. We don't eat packaged hamburger meat/pink slime. We eat chicken. I can recognize chicken meat on the bone and that is how I buy it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Janice, I think I understand you. You said everything comes from God as a point of something to be grateful for. If that is the case, you must be grateful for a lot of bad things.

 

That's something I don't agree with. You're truly welcome to hold it. You disagree with me, that's fine, but do you really think I read you wrong?

 

Such a comment from me is not giving you a rise or intending to offend you. I'm a philosophy student. It's my constant job to consider and test ideas and concepts. I don't like the idea of justifying everything because it comes from God, because that can be used to justify, well, anything at all. Again, you and others are welcome to do so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As for getting "wigged out", that's completely in the eye of the beholder. I've been frankly amazed how fast people feel they need to defend their habits against some measly study or other, as if it's mere existence is a threat or challenge that must be rebutted. This is a place to post studies, that I did so doesn't mean I'm pushing it on you or even suggesting you take it seriously by default. It's here for consideration. If you get so "wigged out" at the mere presence of discussion about a study, I can only suggest avoiding sub forums and threads that get your goat.

 

study's seem to be a favorite for the press just because of a peoples interest and sales. How many times has this been done, Quite a few I think.

 

There's a time of life as it's not forever. ;)

 

It's a spin that creates the newspaper's money!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not really surprised to read this, it's certainly a black day for the Paleo community. This news won't affect me as I'm a vegan now, but I still have fond memories of yummy steaks and I think bacon is one of the most delicious things ever invented. It's a shame that so many tasty foods are good for your taste buds but not your health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would not be so quick to dismiss it myself, but I'm not at all surprised you were quick to defend red meat though - I know your long term aims

 

Ha, very true!

 

I'm still not sure if my 'stat fiddle' applies here - I'm not particularly good with stats but my reading is still that this survey shows risk increase, rather than [/i]absolute[/i] risk. We're told that if you ate processed red meat, you were 20% more likely to die during the study. If you look at the actual study, the average death rate is around 63%. That's pretty high in any case.

 

The conclusion is also: Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.

 

The obvious point being those who consume a lot of red meat may also have lifestyles that increase their risk of morbidity anyway. As has been pointed out, burgers for one thing are red meat. Someone who eats a burger from McDonald's every day may be at more risk than someone who eats a steak every day - and the reasons for this could go beyond simply eating red meat.

 

Yes, I do have a personal agenda as I am fond of all kinds of meat and particularly enjoy 'processed' meat such as good bacon and salamis. My conclusions are not impartial. But I do think there is a risk in extrapolating the claims from the evidence too far - the survey doesn't actually conclude red meat consumption makes you more likely to die early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, I do have a personal agenda as I am fond of all kinds of meat and particularly enjoy 'processed' meat such as good bacon and salamis. My conclusions are not impartial. But I do think there is a risk in extrapolating the claims from the evidence too far - the survey doesn't actually conclude red meat consumption makes you more likely to die early.

 

Um, I'm sorry for your bacon, but yeah, it actually does conclude that. All red meat is bad for you, new study says - latimes.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't. If you look at the actual study itself (rather than the analysis by an overworked, underpaid journalist who isn't a scientist), you will see it concludes: Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk.

 

This is a really important distinction that needs to be understood. The survey didn't prove that eating red or processed meat increases mortality by 20% - it proved there is is a correlation between eating red meat and an early death. Rule 101 of stats is that correlation does not equal causation - this is why I put forward some theories about the lifestyles of people who eat a lot of red meat.

 

Let's take things to an extreme example to illustrate what I'm getting at.

 

Say you've got a sample of car drivers. One group drives on a road without tyre marks on it. The other group drives on a road with tyre marks. The study finds that the 'tyre mark' group have a 20% increased risk of having an accident while driving.

 

The accurate survey conclusion is that driving on a road with tyre marks is associated with a higher risk of having an accident.

 

Then you have your layman journalist (or member of the general public) see this, and doesn't have the statistical discipline to understand that correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

See where this is going? Yep, you get a headline saying "Tyre marks cause accidents".

 

Whereas of course, we all know that a road with tyre marks all over it probably has all sorts of things that make it more dangerous. The tyre marks are simply a physical sign there's something wrong with the road. There obviously needs to be a follow-up study, namely "why do roads with tyre marks have more accidents?" And for this meat study? "Why do people who eat more red meat have higher mortality rates?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites