Health & Wellness

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said

  • Last Updated:
  • Sep 21st, 2020 1:53 pm
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
584 posts
279 upvotes
OAlton wrote: I'm expecting a response from you because you've proven that you ramble on for no apparent reason.
Here you go, wouldn't want to disappoint you.
Another Ad Hominem I see. You continue to prove my point.
Thanks.
Last edited by qman23 on Jul 22nd, 2020 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
130 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
qman23 wrote: Here you go, wouldn't want to disappoint you.
Another Ad Hominem I see.
Thumbs up for you
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
584 posts
279 upvotes
By the constant brigading of nonsense, apparently there is a misunderstanding about what constitutes actual evidence based.

This is a simply written article from the Royal Statistical Society showing just how weak even strongly correlated observations can be, at determining causality.

It shows a horrendous failure rate when observational studies are tested in repeated follow-up controlled experiments.

83% proven wrong in the one study mentioned, and 100% proven wrong in their independent random sampling.
Also to note, these studies had much more robust data collection methods and stronger correlations than the observational nutritional studies that are being used to set public policy.

Observational studies are only good for two things. Generating hypotheses, and clickbait headlines.
https://xkcd.com/882/
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
130 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
qman23 wrote: By the constant brigading of nonsense, apparently there is a misunderstanding about what constitutes actual evidence based.

This is a simply written article from the Royal Statistical Society showing just how weak even strongly correlated observations can be, at determining causality.

It shows a horrendous failure rate when observational studies are tested in repeated follow-up controlled experiments.

83% proven wrong in the one study mentioned, and 100% proven wrong in their independent random sampling.
Also to note, these studies had much more robust data collection methods and stronger correlations than the observational nutritional studies that are being used to set public policy.

Observational studies are only good for two things. Generating hypotheses, and clickbait headlines.
https://xkcd.com/882/
Gosh you sound like a woman who just got divorced.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/246/5470096

Please read and educate thyself. This is one study. There are a TON more. P.S. this is a current paper

"In conclusion, in this systematic analysis of a contemporary cohort of half a million men and women from the UK population, we found that consumption of red and processed meat and alcohol was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. "
Deal Fanatic
May 14, 2009
6375 posts
1203 upvotes
OAlton wrote: Gosh you sound like a woman who just got divorced.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/246/5470096

Please read and educate thyself. This is one study. There are a TON more. P.S. this is a current paper

"In conclusion, in this systematic analysis of a contemporary cohort of half a million men and women from the UK population, we found that consumption of red and processed meat and alcohol was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. "
From the study...
Compared with those in the lowest category, participants in the highest category of reported total red-meat intake were slightly older, more likely to be smokers, had a higher BMI and body-fat percentage, had a higher alcohol intake and had lower intakes of fruit, vegetables and fibre. The same was true for processed-meat intake, with the exception of age, which was similar between the two categories.
No surprise there...People who eat the most red-meat were also more likely to make other poor lifestyle choices which contribute to poor health outcomes. It’s not just high red meat intake that raises risk of (which of course risk/association =/= causation) cancer.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
130 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
amz155 wrote: From the study...



No surprise there...People who eat the most red-meat were also more likely to make other poor lifestyle choices which contribute to poor health outcomes. It’s not just high red meat intake that raises risk of (which of course risk/association =/= causation) cancer.
Are you surprised that 40-50% of the globe smoke? That's like saying you won't take into count their ethnic background because genetics doesn't matter.

When setting up a proper scientific experiment with multiple variables that could affect results, your statistical analysis is the most powerful weapon.
In any case, the study took into count their smoking habits. Why not? Wouldn't you like to see some sort of correlation or relationship?
It's not saying red meat doesn't.... rather, it DOES and when paired with other negative lifestyle factors than you are at an increased risk.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right in my explanation. If you didn't take into count their life style, then your study is BIASED and will likely be rejected. I peer-review and I publish.
Deal Fanatic
May 14, 2009
6375 posts
1203 upvotes
I didn’t remotely suggest that lifestyle factors not be taken into consideration. What I meant was that poor lifestyle choices cumulatively contribute to risk. It’s not JUST eating too much red meat that increases cancer risk.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
130 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
amz155 wrote: I didn’t remotely suggest that lifestyle factors not be taken into consideration. What I meant was that poor lifestyle choices cumulatively contribute to risk. It’s not JUST eating too much red meat that increases cancer risk.
True and obvious my man. If you smoke like a chimney and eat red meat they increase your risk. It's not to say that red meat doesn't increase it or smoking doesn't increase it alone. It's very possible actually. Lots of vegan smokers for example.....
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
584 posts
279 upvotes
OAlton wrote: Gosh you sound like a woman who just got divorced.

https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/49/1/246/5470096

Please read and educate thyself. This is one study. There are a TON more. P.S. this is a current paper

"In conclusion, in this systematic analysis of a contemporary cohort of half a million men and women from the UK population, we found that consumption of red and processed meat and alcohol was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. "
And full circle once again.
This thread was started because a paper analyzing the best RCT studies available, was written to an evidence based (GRADE) standard that calls into question the conclusions of studies just like this one.
A meta analysis of the best gold standard RCTs that have been done, failed to support the hypothesis that meat is causal to poor health outcomes.

An HR of < 2 in an observational study is considered data noise. An HR of at least >3, preferably >5 is required to even be considered interesting enough to follow up with a control study to test it's hypothesis. (This is what the Link to the Statistics Society was attempting to show.)
The highest HR in the study you posted was 1.19 for processed red meat.

This particular study is especially egregious as it was based on self reported food questionnaires from a Western country.
There is a well known self selection bias on food reporting, where health conscious people consciously or unconsciously report eating healthily to the existing cultural norm.
In western countries, saturated fat is demonized and so health conscious people avoid it. (or say they do)
In Asian culture cohorts where red meat is considered a health food, the opposite results have been found. (Still RR < 2 )
Meat intake and cause-specific mortality: a pooled analysis of Asian prospective cohort studies
Conclusions: Ecological data indicate an increase in meat intake in Asian countries; however, our pooled analysis did not provide evidence of a higher risk of mortality for total meat intake and provided evidence of an inverse association with red meat, poultry, and fish/seafood. Red meat intake was inversely associated with CVD mortality in men and with cancer mortality in women in Asian countries.


If you feel that study you shared does support causation, you must be a big supporter of dairy?
Because it shows a protective effect of milk, HR 0.93
or maybe it just shows that because milk is generally considered a health food in Western countries, health conscious people drink it.

This is epidemiology 101,
As a researcher, I would think you'd know this already.

In adequately designed studies we can be
reasonably confident about BIG relative risks, sometimes;
we can be only guardedly confident about
relative risk estimates of the order of 2.0, occasionally;
we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less
than 2.0, and when estimates are much below 2.0, we
are quite simply out of business
.

Samuel Shapiro
Emeritus Director, Slone Epidemiology Center, Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Last edited by qman23 on Jul 23rd, 2020 1:43 pm, edited 8 times in total.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
584 posts
279 upvotes
OAlton wrote: Are you surprised that 40-50% of the globe smoke? That's like saying you won't take into count their ethnic background because genetics doesn't matter.

When setting up a proper scientific experiment with multiple variables that could affect results, your statistical analysis is the most powerful weapon.
In any case, the study took into count their smoking habits. Why not? Wouldn't you like to see some sort of correlation or relationship?
It's not saying red meat doesn't.... rather, it DOES and when paired with other negative lifestyle factors than you are at an increased risk.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I'm right in my explanation. If you didn't take into count their life style, then your study is BIASED and will likely be rejected. I peer-review and I publish.
And who would know more about the limitations and flaws in statistical analysis of studies, than the Royal Statistical Society?
They have made suggestions on how to potentially improve reliability of Observational studies, but their recommendations have been ignored (per the article).

If you peer review and publish observational studies, would you care to share why your industry continues to ignore best practices? Imagine if airline, transportation or nuclear industries were allowed to hold such low standards.
Could you also tell us why RTC, intervention, and controlled clinical trials continually fail to support the claims made by these observational studies?
Jr. Member
Aug 7, 2016
159 posts
130 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: It's actually hilarious since most posters in here are after hard scientific data and @zoro69 just bursts in randomly with some clickbait headline and then disappears before finding another one instead of discussing the basis of the article itself.

This is the most laughs I've had this week.
Agreed. Hilarious and provides support for @qman23s position because there is no rebuttal just gish galloping.

lolz at the new guy bragging about his IQ yet doesn't even understand what the thread is about.

Pretty sure this guy's IQ is higher.

“People who boast about their I.Q. are losers.”
― Stephen Hawking
Jr. Member
Apr 13, 2019
112 posts
11 upvotes
qman23 wrote: So Joel provided actual evidence that animal products are bad for you?
Please do share! Gregor, Katz Barnard et al will be so excited. :)

Edit: I assume you mean Joel Fuhrman? I can't find an interview related to diet by a Joel Thurman. Fuhrman repeats the same unsubstantiated tropes the rest of the gang does.
It is his book also. His diet works

Top