Health & Wellness

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 23rd, 2020 8:03 pm
157 replies
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
139 upvotes
Yeah, the link @Qman23 posted quotes Harvards position.
Rather than respond to the veracity of the report, their reaction is...

In a statement, scientists at Harvard warned that the conclusions “harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research.”

editors of medical journals generally see themselves as the purveyors of enlightenment, and selectivity of evidence to serve the established doctrine is the most common form of scientific dishonesty.
because of this culturally narrow framework, they often publish things which later could turn out to be embarrassing, like this.
Deal Addict
Feb 4, 2010
3693 posts
2492 upvotes
To me, if the nutrition guidelines were any good so many people wouldn't be obese/diabetic.

It's also important to look at who is funding/sponsoring the research - I'm very suspicious of any MNC funding "research"...that's where the fallacy of "breakfast is the important meal of the day" came from.
Before responding to someone (online or offline) ask yourself: is it true? is it helpful? is it kind? is it necessary? This comes from an old Sufi adage that is so relevant today.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
4410 posts
2360 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
The problem is that they use the GRADE recommendation technique to review data quality. This method require very high quality evidence.

This was design for field where randomised controlled trial is the norm, like testing the efficacy of a new medication.

Nutrition study don't have that level of quality evidence.

Base on this guideline method, the association with tobacco and cancer get average-low quality evidence too (impossible to have randomised controlled trial).

If you use GRADE technique for psychology field, every single research subject get a low to very-low quality evidence.

But yeah, red meat combined with a great diet rich in fruit and vegetable is probably not that bad.
Last edited by vonblock on Oct 2nd, 2019 8:35 am, edited 1 time in total.
Newbie
Sep 16, 2019
54 posts
34 upvotes
hierophant wrote: To me, if the nutrition guidelines were any good so many people wouldn't be obese/diabetic.
No chance. Look around, there are so many obese and overweight people. It's ridiculous. I have lived overseas for about a decade and coming back to Canada, I was utterly shocked. I can assure you, these people aren't that way because of any guidelines. They are that way because they refuse to put effort into cooking for themselves and eating healthy options. They would rather come home from work, get some take out rubbish, slop it into their mouths, and then sit on the couch all night eating potato chips and chasing that down with pop or beer, whiling watching numbing TV or browsing on their phones.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 13, 2012
2974 posts
759 upvotes
Toronto
"Eat Less" would be more appropriate.
¯\_(・_・)_/¯
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
139 upvotes
LoyalToTheCoil wrote: ...............I have lived overseas for about a decade and coming back to Canada, I was utterly shocked............
yes, and those same people are the ones who are eating all the processed meats, on pizza hotdogs kfc etc.
whereas the health conscious people are the ones who try to "eat right" by the guide, exercise more etc.
Hence the healthy user bias impossible to filter out in these studies.

speaking of overseas,

Controversy on the correlation of red and processed meat consumption with colorectal cancer risk: an Asian perspective.

points out that most studies on meat and colorectal cancer risk ignore 2/3 of the globe.

“Among 73 epidemiological studies, approximately 76% were conducted in Western countries, whereas only 15% of studies were conducted in Asia. Furthermore, most studies conducted in Asia showed that processed meat consumption is not related to the onset of cancer. Moreover, there have been no reports showing significant correlation between various factors that directly or indirectly affect colorectal cancer incidence, including processed meat products types, raw meat types, or cooking methods.”

If these studies to include Asia are added, the preponderance of evidence shifts from almost zero evidence of association, to zero evidence of association. There’s no correlation with colorectal cancer and meat, processed or otherwise.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
4410 posts
2360 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
There was a funny scientific paper that was written once by smart researchers.

It shows that we shouldn't recommend people to use parachute when jumping out of a plane because the scientific evidence are weak and there were no randomised controlled trial.

They even recommended that people who advocate for that kind of guideline participate in a randomised study by jumping out of a plane with or without parachute.

This new guideline that use extremely strong criteria cutoff is the same. It's an old debate in the scientific community really.

Read this classic paper, it's a gem!

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
Abstract
Objectives To determine whether parachutes are effective in preventing major trauma related to gravitational challenge.

Design Systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources: Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases; appropriate internet sites and citation lists.

Study selection: Studies showing the effects of using a parachute during free fall.

Main outcome measure Death or major trauma, defined as an injury severity score > 15.

Results We were unable to identify any randomised controlled trials of parachute intervention.

Conclusions As with many interventions intended to prevent ill health, the effectiveness of parachutes has not been subjected to rigorous evaluation by using randomised controlled trials. Advocates of evidence based medicine have criticised the adoption of interventions evaluated by using only observational data. We think that everyone might benefit if the most radical protagonists of evidence based medicine organised and participated in a double blind, randomised, placebo controlled, crossover trial of the parachute
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
139 upvotes
While the authors found no statistically significant benefit of parachutes, they were only able to enroll participants on small stationary aircraft on the ground and thus cautioned against extrapolation of their findings to high-altitude jumps.

Offering the subjects a choice in the jump height skew the results.
An animal study would be better as, unlike nutrition, gravitational energy has identical effects on all known terrestrial species so an HED should be rudimentary to establish.
This in fact demonstrates the difference between actual science and epidemiology, as the experiment would be repeatable by all researchers rather than open to interpretation.


Any comments on why the IARC would ignore the Asia studies in it's analysis and recommendations?

Also to note, while the quality of evidence might be the same as for smoking, I'm sure you very well know the risk factor for smoking is far higher.
On a side note, what did the evidence show for pipe smokers and all cause mortality? What is the protective effects of smoking against dementia, and Parkinsons? Is there an age at which the neurologically protective effects of smoking outweigh the cardiovascular and cancer risks? If so, why is this not commonly known?
Like I said, selectivity of evidence to serve the established doctrine is the most common form of scientific dishonesty, and observational studies are most open to being interpreted however one wishes to spin them, to create the narrative desired.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
4410 posts
2360 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
Tceight wrote:
Also to note, while the quality of evidence might be the same as for smoking, I'm sure you very well know the risk factor for smoking is far higher.
Yes, that's a problem with red meat studies, the risk factor is quite low.

Comparing the highest quartile meat eater with the lowest quartile, you only get a risk ratio of about 1.2-1.3 for cardiovascular death.

That's really low in the nutritional field. If it was backed by strong randomised controlled trials, this would be concerning, but coming from observational studies..... You need to be cautious.
Deal Fanatic
Sep 16, 2004
9278 posts
1709 upvotes
Toronto
These types of studies are wet dreams for Cardiologists and Big Pharma.
By all means, eat up.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
4410 posts
2360 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
gh05t wrote: These types of studies are wet dreams for Cardiologists and Big Pharma.
By all means, eat up.
They declared no conflict of interest relating to the meat industry. Don't know about others.

Image
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 19, 2001
8422 posts
2097 upvotes
If you belive that "study", watch this

Top