This is more that a flawed study, but a serious failing of comprehension. The assertion in more detail is that IGF-1 in meat causes illness at a predictable rate, but exercise causes large spikes in IGF-1 while being associated with a drop in cancer risk. Clearly the correlation between IGF-1 is not as simple as this study asserts.
'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
91–100 of 227 posts
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#92Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."
Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.
Going vegan and eating different types of eat are not the only options, many people these days choose to eat less meat for health reasons.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#93more diet silliness. look, this is the ultimate diet: - Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Mostly unprocessed. Nutrition science has come up with so many contradictory conclusions in the past decades.
No post body was provided.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#94This is more that a flawed study, but a serious failing of comprehension. The assertion in more detail is that IGF-1 in meat causes illness at a predictable rate, but exercise causes large spikes in IGF-1 while being associated with a drop in cancer risk. Clearly the correlation between IGF-1 is not as simple as this study asserts.
IGF-1 is generally bad for longevity. Exercise is beneficial in spite of spiking IGF-1, not because of
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.
Going vegan and eating different types of eat are not the only options, many people these days choose to eat less meat for health reasons.
That's an option, but like switching to fish/vegetables/whatever, it's not something that most people actually do. This chart[1] shows that beef consumption has been falling since the 70s, but it's being more than made up for by the increase in chicken consumption.
[1] https://sentientmedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/food-av...
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.
Going vegan and eating different types of eat are not the only options, many people these days choose to eat less meat for health reasons.
What are the health impacts of meat?
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#97Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."
To me this suggests there is some motivation to do research on the subject, compared to someone who has no interest in the topic. At least disclosure of potential bias was acknowledged up front.
> To me this suggests there is some motivation to do research on the subject, compared to someone who has no interest in the topic.
Research isn't done by people who have no interest in a topic.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Individual studies shouldn't be the primary focus. It shouldn't fall to every individual researcher to be fully accurate and honest. This is just not possible because people are imperfect, and have all the wrong incentives in many cases. What we need is a system designed to deal with this better. My suggestion would be greater incentives to the publication of negative results, and incentives to reproduce research. Cr…
> It shouldn't fall to every individual researcher to be fully... honest. Really? I don't know, "Don't be a fraud" might be a good Rule No. 1
Fraud is only a small part of the problem. No open data, poorly described methodology so reproductions sometimes aren't even possible, too little funding for reproductions, p-hacking, no incentives to publish negative results, journals incentivized to publish sensational results to increase their impact factor even though sensational results are likely false thus perpetuating misinformation. These are the main drivers.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.
You'd be surprised to know that there are some other stuff holding proteins that's not meat. Like fish or chickpeas, or lentils, or beans, or seeds, or buts, or broccoli...
Protein is not all you get from meat. If you want to replace meat, fine. But dont act like its just a protein swap. For instance you're not getting creatine and all the amino acids from beans amongst other nutrition.
I also dont really understand the full appeal as mono-cropping has devastated forests and animal species. And those harvesting machines kill many animals in the fields.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally this is one of the reasons I chose to go into software instead of statistics when I was a young math major. The idea that you could make a small mistake that invalidates all your work and you might not even know it until much later or even never always made me uncomfortable. With software I can write tests till my neuroticism has been placated
If all the programmers who write tests go into industry and none of them go into academia, then the state of software in academia will be... oh, I see, the status quo.
No, they do write tests, just
1. Include the ones that passed and discard those that failed. 2. Run the tests several times and report only the best result. 3. Keep some of the details secret (data, some weird parameters, or maybe the whole repository), tweak something, run again, get some nice figures and publish a new paper.