>red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years
Isn't this essentially nothing? Am I misinterpreting these results?
Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
11–20 of 59 posts
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#12I would love to see the BMI as another dimension in the study. Given that a portion of meat would have _10-20x_ more calories than an equal amount of vegetables, you need to try hard to get overweight on a mostly vegetarian diet.
Of course, stating that red meat causes CVD is much more sensationalist than merely confirming that extra weight does it, since it implies that ~90% of the population [0] are making an unhealthy choice.
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#13Note that this wasn't actually a study, they just looked at 6 other studies and based a consensus on that.
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#14I'm looking forward to the keto rebuttal.
The way your body processes food during ketosis is so different from processing "traditional" diets that I hardly think it would be relevant enough to warrant a rebuttal.
I do like hearing Mark's opinions on such things though: https://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mea...
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#15I would love to see the BMI as another dimension in the study. Given that a portion of meat would have _10-20x_ more calories than an equal amount of vegetables, you need to try hard to get overweight on a mostly vegetarian diet. Of course, stating that red meat causes CVD is much more sensationalist than merely confirming that extra weight does it, since it implies that ~90% of the population [0] are making an unhea…
However if the vegetarian diet consists of mostly starches and grains it is pretty easy to put on weight.
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#16I'm looking forward to the keto rebuttal.
What rebuttal? > red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years 0.62% increase over 30 years is next to nothing, especially when you consider that many people have shit diet habits anyway.
I'd actually expect that to be higher than it is, just given that red meat has been vilified for 50+ years by public health officials.
I'm not sure if there's a name for the reverse of healthy user bias, but I like to think of it as blaming baseball for oral cancer, rather than the chewing tobacco common among players in the sport.
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#17Just as bad to lump both red meat and processed food into the same category. The additives in the latter have been shown definitively to do harm, whereas there is less evidence about the former.
Did you read the article? The analysis and results treats then separately: "processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02% over 20 years and 1.74% over 30 years red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years" > The additives in the latter have been shown definitively to do harm, whereas there is less evidence about the former. The article is evidence of their rel…
I haven't read the article yet, but going from the headline, I certainly assumed they were claiming the same/similar risk for both red and processed meat.
From the summary you gave, it certainly does seem like a click-baity headline. Personally I would have hoped for better from the NHS (even if I wouldn't have expected it).
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#18I would love to see the BMI as another dimension in the study. Given that a portion of meat would have _10-20x_ more calories than an equal amount of vegetables, you need to try hard to get overweight on a mostly vegetarian diet. Of course, stating that red meat causes CVD is much more sensationalist than merely confirming that extra weight does it, since it implies that ~90% of the population [0] are making an unhea…
However if the vegetarian diet consists of mostly starches and grains it is pretty easy to put on weight.
That's exactly I would love to see BMI as another dimension in the study, as it would fully eliminate this speculation.
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#19>red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years Isn't this essentially nothing? Am I misinterpreting these results?
Welcome to the world of nutrition science, where the methodology is shoddy, the evidence is poor, and the recommendations are ridiculous.
Re: Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review
#20I would love to see the BMI as another dimension in the study. Given that a portion of meat would have _10-20x_ more calories than an equal amount of vegetables, you need to try hard to get overweight on a mostly vegetarian diet. Of course, stating that red meat causes CVD is much more sensationalist than merely confirming that extra weight does it, since it implies that ~90% of the population [0] are making an unhea…
Meat is rarely the source of excess calories in a person’s diet.
Sugars, starches, dairy.