21–30 of 59 posts
We should be more critical about matters concerning our diet, as studies like the former will be used by the media and professionals to back potentially life-changing advices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
>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?
Essentially nothing: for an individual? Yes. For a population? No.
You or I may not care about a 0.62% increased CVD rate for ourselves over 30 years, but that does translate to 6,200 extra possibly-preventable cases of CVD per million people. That's about 76,000 diagnoses annually in the US alone.
Note that this wasn't actually a study, they just looked at 6 other studies and based a consensus on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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).
I’m sorry, but that’s simply an unwarranted assumption.
>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: 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?
> Isn't this essentially nothing? Essentially nothing: for an individual? Yes. For a population? No. You or I may not care about a 0.62% increased CVD rate for ourselves over 30 years, but that does translate to 6,200 extra possibly-preventable cases of CVD per million people. That's about 76,000 diagnoses annually in the US alone.
How would this compare, for example, to not smoking, drinking less alcohol, wearing sunscreen, safe sex, not exercising enough, etc.
(Picked things that I think we have a high standard of evidence for and fairly large effect, but that people often neglect due to wanting to do the harmful activity, as with red meat)
For years low salt recommendations were justified based on lessened harm "on a population level" even if individual gains were small. Now it seems that these recommendations were wrong, according to Cochrane reviews.
>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?
> Isn't this essentially nothing? Essentially nothing: for an individual? Yes. For a population? No. You or I may not care about a 0.62% increased CVD rate for ourselves over 30 years, but that does translate to 6,200 extra possibly-preventable cases of CVD per million people. That's about 76,000 diagnoses annually in the US alone.
I basically read this as "it's ok to eat meat/sausages/whatever".
>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.
FFQ are useless. I barely remember what I ate 2 days ago.
>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?
> Isn't this essentially nothing? Essentially nothing: for an individual? Yes. For a population? No. You or I may not care about a 0.62% increased CVD rate for ourselves over 30 years, but that does translate to 6,200 extra possibly-preventable cases of CVD per million people. That's about 76,000 diagnoses annually in the US alone.
So, yes, this tiny effect size means nothing.
Moreover, this tiny effect size could be much smaller than noises in the data.