Caveat: UK citizens all of them. Not the best country for an healthy diet.
Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
51–60 of 281 posts
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#52The title seems to muddle the conclusion. 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. I'm confused. What is a "substantial portion" of the increased risk?
You can see that in table 6ff in the "additional file 1" (it's a docx file). For example, before adjustement for the BMI, the increase of ischemic heart disease per 70g/daily red and processed meat consumption is 1.26 (model 2). With BMI adjustment (model 3) it's 1.15.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Do you actually use peanut butter as a substitute for butter?
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#54The 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…
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…
It's the ideologues referencing terrible observation studies, along with the health food industrial complex tapping into that arguably relatively irrational demand.
One problem is there isn't enough high quality meat available - high fat red meat in particular - however there are trends developing including ketogenic, carnivore diets, etc - as well as people buying half or full cows (much much cheaper) and then freezing it; plus then you can actually meat [freudian slip pun, I'm leaving it] the cow and see how it's cared for, etc - tying into the benefits, value of local.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#55Let's follow the money. Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site: "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority." Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
Can you link to the part of Wellcome being against meat consumption? They look like a charity about vaccination or such?
I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#56The 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…
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…
Don’t researchers generally try to control for such factors when making a study like this? I am at work so I’m a little too busy to pick through this one right now, but it sounds like you’re concerned about this, so it’s worth checking before drawing any conclusions
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#57Let's follow the money. Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site: "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority." Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
>This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].
And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.
edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#58Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are.
Results are different, often opposite, in countries that have a better relationship to meat, like the big Austrian food survey study from 2014: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917888/
> Moreover, our results showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life.
Other survey data across several countries often replicate the meatless = lower mental health claims, eg: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1...
(This should come as no surprise to people who have read about B12 and mental health, which is a relationship so extraordinary that I'm surprised its not more front-and-center.)
But again, food survey data is generally bad. Some are okay, when they are very focused, like the Swedish studies on dairy product consumption. But most of them are bad, and the more general, the worse they are.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…
Don’t researchers generally try to control for such factors when making a study like this? I am at work so I’m a little too busy to pick through this one right now, but it sounds like you’re concerned about this, so it’s worth checking before drawing any conclusions
It should but no, the opposite is true with most large observational studies - they don't refine the questions or give enough options to account for nuance.
Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
#60The 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…
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…
I wonder what is a good way to love sedentary obese smokers who eat poorly.