Good study! Results aren't terribly surprising, but verification needs doing too!I for one applaud it!
Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
21–30 of 281 posts
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#22So... don't eat processed meat. Doesn't this just correlate with what we already knew?
I'm not sure what the conclusion of this study is, but I'd like to point out that it is not the role of science to be controversial or surprising. It's really a pity that researchers who get non-exciting results feel like they've failed.
It's the role of science to be as accurate and precise as possible, and the vast majority - perhaps even all of them - fail to take into account enough variables to make it actually relevant; e.g. observational studies that target red meat being eaten don't usually differentiate from a healthy diet with red meat, high fat vs. low fat meat consumptions, nor account for what else a person is eating - e.g. ketogenic diet, if no sugars/carbs, etc.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#23So... don't eat processed meat. Doesn't this just correlate with what we already knew?
Do you even find unprocessed meat these days?
Here in Czech republic / Slovakia it's enough to read the label - if it says fresh meat, it's unprocessed meat. If it's processed, the label cannot say fresh meat anymore, it has to say meat product.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#24The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…
And even with the confounding factors the increase in risk is 7% to 44% (with means for various diagnoses varying from 15% to 31%). But the study summary doesn't indicate what the rate of those diseases in the study sample population is; i.e. for example an increase in the rate of diagnosis from 0.1% to 0.12% probably isn't going to bother most people.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#25I see that Bill Gates has moved on from forcing elderly people with Coronavirus into nursing homes and is now fixated on telling us what we can eat.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#26The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…
No, that is not what it says. > In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI) So after correcting for BMI, meat consumption is still bad.
No, that is not what it said.
The summary says "higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations"
That means that a substantial proportion of the increased risk is explained by a higher BMI. Unfortunately the summary doesn't say how much "substantial" is.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#27The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…
Meatless is the new “low fat” boogieman. Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc. All of the “problems” with meat are market issues. Animal welfare issues are due to industrial farming practices, which will get worse if the industry declines. Land use and environmental issues…
Wait till you find out how the peanut butter industry has fooled you for years! How dare they call it butter?
Or hamburgers, which contain no ham?! Surely at least coconut milk is real milk right?
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you even find unprocessed meat these days?
I take processed meat to mean deli meats, bacon, and cured ham. Additives are one of the things that make them damaging. Is a filet mignon, ground beef, or chick thighs processed? Sure. But i don't think that is what we're talking about here.
Fresh meat can be processed by injecting it with water + various salts to bulk up the weight/volume by up to 15%. Depending on the legislature, it could be legally still considered fresh meat in some countries. See plumping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumping
It's not just chickens, I've seen ground meat, and pork tenderloins in supermarkets with the same processed treatment.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#29Wish there was a better way to represent these stats.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#30The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…
No, that is not what it says. > In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI) So after correcting for BMI, meat consumption is still bad.
After correcting for BMI, but BMI is an imperfect proxy for adiposity: "...residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations"