Veggies vs Meat
Replies
-
All I said about meat was that it helps me to reach my fitness goals. It does this in 2 ways:
-Helps me meet my daily protein requirements.
-Keeps me full for a longer period of time, making it easier to control calories.
Could I get 225g of protein a day without meat? Yeah, I could, but it would be too expensive and a pain in the *kitten*.
All I said was that there are other ways, some of which do not involve colon cancer
That's a correctional study, which is incapable of showing a cause-effect relationship. Secondly, it's talking about processed meats, which I eat maybe 1-2x per week.
You mean a correlational study? We just had a superb statistician on who explained causality in correlational studies. I don't want to go through what she said again, because no one, except me, seemed to be interested in statistics. Check it out on the old board,.
I simply don't see a moral problem with killing something else in order to eat. Other animals do it all the time. Plants also alive before people eat them. Pesticides kill bugs. Mechanized farming kills small rodents. Something has to die for you to eat, it's just a matter of where you chose to draw the line.
I think the moral issue really comes in when you kill when you do not have to.
So is it impossible for a vegan to get blocked arteries or hear disease?
Vegans aren't immortal, but if you refer to the German study I cited on the old board, you can see proof that they sure live a Hell of a lot longer and healthier on average.
I didn't agree with your interpretation of what she said regarding correlation. The fact is RexEatsHisVeggies, that no amount of rearranging statistical terms will make correlation=causation. She said you generally can't have causation without correlation, which is absolutely true. You can have correlation without causation, all the time, we see it everyday.
I'm still too busy to respond to the other points, crazy things going on, looking forward to throwing a few counter arguments into the forum in a couple of days.
Also, I had no idea that the vegan ethic extended all the way to insects but I guess that make senses if you're a vegan. Does it apply to micro organisms too? I'm not being a Smart A, just curious. Doesn't the broom kill insects?0 -
Oh, could you repost that German study showing vegans live longer? Be good to have it here.
And yep, I am wondering how they determined that. As the other poster said, confounding variables can really make a mess of conclusions drawn from studies. This happened with the Nurses Health Study btw...0 -
I didn't agree with your interpretation of what she said regarding correlation. The fact is RexEatsHisVeggies, that no amount of rearranging statistical terms will make correlation=causation. She said you generally can't have causation without correlation, which is absolutely true. You can have correlation without causation, all the time, we see it everyday.
No, actually she said just the opposite. She said, 'whenever I see correlation I expect there to be causation." Of course that does not mean there is always causation. But this is beating a dead horse. You cannot ignore an ecological study where thousands of people were followed for years, and then turn around and claim that the anecdotal studies you seem to follow are superior. There are not only numerous studies showing the same thing over and over, some of which are controlled and some of which are ecological, but there are NO STUDIES that contradict these findings. And this has been true for decades.
I'm still too busy to respond to the other points, crazy things going on, looking forward to throwing a few counter arguments into the forum in a couple of days.
Also, I had no idea that the vegan ethic extended all the way to insects but I guess that make senses if you're a vegan.
Some vegans do have great concern for insects,some don't
Does it apply to micro organisms too? I'm not being a Smart A, just curious. Doesn't the broom kill insects?
I don't know about the broom. I can only speak for myself and my concern only extends to sentient beings.
[/quote]0 -
Oh, could you repost that German study showing vegans live longer? Be good to have it here.
http://www.healingcancernaturally.com/vegetarians-live-longer.html
And yep, I am wondering how they determined that. As the other poster said, confounding variables can really make a mess of conclusions drawn from studies. This happened with the Nurses Health Study btw...
You have to descend from your relativistic cloud at some point, if you ever want to make a decision in life. You have yet to demonstrate that your research has any better basis than the studies I am quoting. And, note again, the studies all line up pointing in the same direction.
You are right about the Nurses study. There is not much difference between low fat milk and whole milk, and the diets involved were not significantly different from normal diets.0 -
All I said was that there are other ways, some of which do not involve colon cancer
If you want me to believe that meat causes colon cancer, you're going to need more than correlational studies as evidence.You mean a correlational study? We just had a superb statistician on who explained causality in correlational studies. I don't want to go through what she said again, because no one, except me, seemed to be interested in statistics. Check it out on the old board,.
I understand full well how correlational studies work. Until you have some randomized control studies, you've got little more than some interesting food for thought. You certainly don't have the basis to make proclamations like "meat causes colon cancer."
I think the moral issue really comes in when you kill when you do not have to.
Again, vegetarians and vegans also kill to eat, it's simply a question of degree.So is it impossible for a vegan to get blocked arteries or hear disease?
Vegans aren't immortal, but if you refer to the German study I cited on the old board, you can see proof that they sure live a Hell of a lot longer and healthier on average.
You avoided my question.
And if vegans live longer, it's because they are, on average, more health conscious than the average meat-eater. But that doesn't mean that it's impossible to include meat in a healthy diet.
That could be right, Rocky. However, if you look at all the studies that have been done, and all the conclusions people have come to over the years, I doubt you could ignore the vegan factor.0 -
"If you want me to believe that meat causes colon cancer, you're going to need more than correlational studies as evidence. "
Here is something from Harvard Medical School:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml0 -
"If you want me to believe that meat causes colon cancer, you're going to need more than correlational studies as evidence. "
Here is something from Harvard Medical School:
http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/Red-meat-and-colon-cancer.shtml
from your link:The study from England showed that large amounts of red meat can produce genetic damage to colon cells in just a few weeks, but it does not prove that red meat causes cancer. None of the cells were malignant, and the body has a series of mechanisms to repair damaged DNA.
Still, the research fits with earlier epidemiologic data raising a red flag about red meat. Instead of counting on your body to repair your damaged DNA, do everything you can to prevent damage in the first place.
So Havard admits that there is no causal link between colon cancer and red meat.
Also, let's not confuse the issues. Even if I agreed with you that red meat was unhealthy, that's still a long, long way from being a vegan.0 -
As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
Can you provide evidence of us getting heart disease in the wild? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a link. Thanks!0 -
Can anyone explain to me how you would go about carrying out a study that could prove causation that would be in the slightest bit morally tenable?
You can't force feed people meat and control their diet and then record the rates of cancer in a measurable situation. I believe on this kind of long term lifestyle study, correlation is as good as you are going to get.
No point studying it in mice, as we are talking about a species specific trait.0 -
So Havard admits that there is no causal link between colon cancer and red meat.
Also, let's not confuse the issues. Even if I agreed with you that red meat was unhealthy, that's still a long, long way from being a vegan.
No, but the studies quoted in the Harvard report indicated that cancer causing chemicals WERE produced in the intestinal track by eating meat. They said eating meat could be safe if you ate no more than two 4 ounce portions per week. As an ethical vegetarian, I could certainly live with that. The typical American diet has more than 4 ounces PER DAY. I suspect that following the advice in these studies would reduce the demand for meat by 90%.
What these and other studies are finding, in my opinion, is proof that the diet we ate while evolving is probably the most beneficial: i.e., mostly plants, occasional meat in the form of worms, insects, slugs and scavenged meat. (Scavenged meat today would be in the form of roadkill.) The meat would be important to our diet because of certain necessary things like B12 which doesn't occur naturally in plants. Having said that, the meat portion of the evolutionary diet is no longer necessary because we can take supplements to provide those necessities.0 -
As I said before, we truly can eat everything, just as a mouse can eat meat, but a true carnivore like a lion will never get occluded arteries or heart disease in the wild. The mouse and us will.
Can you provide evidence of us getting heart disease in the wild? I'm not doubting you, but I would like to see a link. Thanks!
Okay, I think either you misunderstood what I was saying, or I didn't say it very well. As far as I know, humans "in the wild" have a healthier existence than humans in modern industrial societies. I don't know if there are any studies on that population with respect to heart disease, but I suspect if there were, it would show little or no heart disease. Probably the closest you will ever get to that is the China study, where people spend a huge portion of their time just getting enough food to subsist. In the China study, heart disease was virtually non-existent. That population as stated earlier, is well over 90% vegetarian.
I know there have been studies of tribal societies in Borneo and New Guinea ( I don't have any in front of me at the moment) and these studies show that as tribal cultures adopt Western ways their health deteriorates signficantly. They start succumbing to diseases, such as colon cancer and heart disease that were never a problem in their society previously.
There also have been controlled studies done on mice and other animals which were force-fed cholesterol. The animals in that experiment which were normally vegetarian developed the diseases you would expect. The carnivores in that experiment did not develop heart disease even when they were fed HUNDREDS of times more cholesterol than they would normally get.0 -
Can anyone explain to me how you would go about carrying out a study that could prove causation that would be in the slightest bit morally tenable?
You can't force feed people meat and control their diet and then record the rates of cancer in a measurable situation. I believe on this kind of long term lifestyle study, correlation is as good as you are going to get.
No point studying it in mice, as we are talking about a species specific trait.
You are absolutely correct. And for those people who seem to reject every study that shows what they do not want to hear, i.e., that meat eating almost certainly causes colon cancer and heart disease, I would like them to produce any studies showing evidence for the contrary. No study exists that eating meat prevents any disease, except possibly B-12 deficiency, which can be easily prevented by taking B-12 supplements.0 -
What these and other studies are finding, in my opinion, is proof that the diet we ate while evolving is probably the most beneficial: i.e., mostly plants, occasional meat in the form of worms, insects, slugs and scavenged meat. (Scavenged meat today would be in the form of roadkill.) The meat would be important to our diet because of certain necessary things like B12 which doesn't occur naturally in plants. Having said that, the meat portion of the evolutionary diet is no longer necessary because we can take supplements to provide those necessities.
-What time frame of our evolution are you talking about, and what makes that time frame more relevant than any other?
-How do you chose what location to focus on?
-What evidence do you have that people during that time frame were healthier than they are now?
-If they were healthier, what evidence do you have that it was the lack of meat that made them healthier?
-How can you advocate a diet that we ate "during our evolution" on one hand, and recommend dietary supplements on the other?0 -
Can anyone explain to me how you would go about carrying out a study that could prove causation that would be in the slightest bit morally tenable?
You can't force feed people meat and control their diet and then record the rates of cancer in a measurable situation. I believe on this kind of long term lifestyle study, correlation is as good as you are going to get.
No point studying it in mice, as we are talking about a species specific trait.
You are absolutely correct. And for those people who seem to reject every study that shows what they do not want to hear, i.e., that meat eating almost certainly causes colon cancer and heart disease, I would like them to produce any studies showing evidence for the contrary. No study exists that eating meat prevents any disease, except possibly B-12 deficiency, which can be easily prevented by taking B-12 supplements.
Exactly right. I read breaking nutritional news from Science Daily. I've yet to see a single study reporting on the amazing health benefits of meat. There's plenty of research on plant foods--fruits, veggies, beans, grains, nuts--having health advantages to humans. These studies tend to look at a single food at a time, but taken all together, it seems to point in the direction of 'Plants rule!!'0 -
To balance out, there are studies showing that beef (but only beef) contains something which helps prevent the degeneration of DNA over time, but it seems to be cancelled out by the greater illness risk from meat. They still conclude at the end of that study that although beef can help slow the ageing process, overall that doesn't outweigh the risks, and vegetarian and vegan do on average live 2-7 years longer.0
-
Can anyone explain to me how you would go about carrying out a study that could prove causation that would be in the slightest bit morally tenable?
You can't force feed people meat and control their diet and then record the rates of cancer in a measurable situation. I believe on this kind of long term lifestyle study, correlation is as good as you are going to get.
No point studying it in mice, as we are talking about a species specific trait.
It would be very difficult to do so, because of the amount of time the study would take.
If the all of the observational study showed a link between meat and colon cancer, I would probably pay some attention to it. But the data is mixed.0 -
-What time frame of our evolution are you talking about, and what makes that time frame more relevant than any other?
-How do you chose what location to focus on?
-What evidence do you have that people during that time frame were healthier than they are now?
-If they were healthier, what evidence do you have that it was the lack of meat that made them healthier?
-How can you advocate a diet that we ate "during our evolution" on one hand, and recommend dietary supplements on the other?
All good questions
I would not focus on any particular time frame. I would consider the entire time since the beginning of our Australopithecine ancestors. I would look at the totality of the evolutionary history down to the present. I would then consider all we know about this time frame, and the anatomical evidence, which, as I have pointed out previously is overwhelmingly saying that we are a vegetarian species. Obviously, I have NO evidence of the health of more than a few individuals during this time frame, particularly the early part. But except for the Neanderthals, the evolutionary experiment was a success, and we survived.
My evidence that lack of meat made them healthier is primarily anatomical evidence and our present experience with the chronic diseases of meat eating. Anatomically we are not carnivores.
There are alternatives to dietary supplements, not that I find that hypocritical. Why do you work out on the bench press as opposed to picking up large stones? Eating "dirty" vegetables, i.e., veggies with minute traces of the soil they were growing in, I have heard, is a natural way to get B-12 while being a vegetarian. I chose not to do that. There are probably more palatable other ways to get B-12 other than from meat, but since I take supplements, I have not explored that.0 -
If the all of the observational study showed a link between meat and colon cancer, I would probably pay some attention to it. But the data is mixed.
I hate to tell you Rocky, but it does. I know of not a single study that shows any advantage to meat eating. If you think the data is mixed, please show me a single study that contradicts anything I have said. You have dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies all pretty much saying the same thing. You have zero studies showing the opposite. If you are a rational person, what are you going to believe?0 -
I would not focus on any particular time frame. I would consider the entire time since the beginning of our Australopithecine ancestors. I would look at the totality of the evolutionary history down to the present. I would then consider all we know about this time frame, and the anatomical evidence, which, as I have pointed out previously is overwhelmingly saying that we are a vegetarian species. Obviously, I have NO evidence of the health of more than a few individuals during this time frame, particularly the early part. But except for the Neanderthals, the evolutionary experiment was a success, and we survived.
My evidence that lack of meat made them healthier is primarily anatomical evidence and our present experience with the chronic diseases of meat eating. Anatomically we are not carnivores.
You attribute current chronic disease to meat eating, but again, there is nothing other than observational studies to back up your claim, no solid evidence. There is nothing to prove that a healthy diet cannot include meat.
You talk a lot about societies that limit meat consumption that have lower incidences of of chronic diseases, but I could point to societies that eat almost ALL MEAT that are every bit as healthy. The Inuits being one: http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
Is meat-eating negatively affecting people's health in modern society. There's a small chance it could be, but even if it were, it's a very small piece of the overall puzzle. The largest peace of the puzzle is that we eat to much and we've become a sedentary society. Even if meat consumption were a negative, I would be that the negative effects are reduced to nil when you do the other things you're supposed to be doing: eating an overall healthy diet including lost of fruit and veggies, exercising, and not getting fat. Thus, focusing on meat specifically misses the forest for the trees.I hate to tell you Rocky, but it does. I know of not a single study that shows any advantage to meat eating. If you think the data is mixed, please show me a single study that contradicts anything I have said. You have dozens, perhaps hundreds of studies all pretty much saying the same thing. You have zero studies showing the opposite. If you are a rational person, what are you going to believe?
Sorry, you're wrong. As I said, the data is mixed. A 2008 meta-analysis of the data showed no link between meat and colon cancer, a 2011 meta-analysis showed that there was. If you personally chose to believe one study over the other, that's your choice, but my statement that the data is mixed is accurate.
The 2008 study: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/04/ajcn.2008.26838.abstract
The 2011 study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/216740080 -
As I said, there are hundreds of studies all saying about the same thing. Here is one that might be of some interest (from the New England Journal of Medicine):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM1990121332324040 -
As I said, there are hundreds of studies all saying about the same thing. Here is one that might be of some interest (from the New England Journal of Medicine):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199012133232404
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?0 -
As I said, there are hundreds of studies all saying about the same thing. Here is one that might be of some interest (from the New England Journal of Medicine):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199012133232404
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?
I will if you show me an example. I know of absolutely no study which shows that eating meat prevents colon cancer or heart disease. If you have such a study, please show it to me. Thanks.0 -
As I said, there are hundreds of studies all saying about the same thing. Here is one that might be of some interest (from the New England Journal of Medicine):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199012133232404
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?
I will if you show me an example. I know of absolutely no study which shows that eating meat prevents colon cancer or heart disease. If you have such a study, please show it to me. Thanks.
I never said that there were studies that showed that meat consumption PREVENTS colon cancer, and I didn't say anything about heart disease. I said that the data on meat causing colon cancer was mixed, you said that there were "hundreds of studies" showing a link between meat and colon cancer and "zero studies showing the opposite."
I already showed you an example of a study that shows no link between meat consumption and colon cancer, and I'll post it again: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/04/ajcn.2008.26838.abstract
Now, will you admit that you were wrong and that the data is mixed?0 -
As I said, there are hundreds of studies all saying about the same thing. Here is one that might be of some interest (from the New England Journal of Medicine):
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199012133232404
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?
I will if you show me an example. I know of absolutely no study which shows that eating meat prevents colon cancer or heart disease. If you have such a study, please show it to me. Thanks.
I never said that there were studies that showed that meat consumption PREVENTS colon cancer, and I didn't say anything about heart disease. I said that the data on meat causing colon cancer was mixed, you said that there were "hundreds of studies" showing a link between meat and colon cancer and "zero studies showing the opposite."
I already showed you an example of a study that shows no link between meat consumption and colon cancer, and I'll post it again: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/04/ajcn.2008.26838.abstract
Now, will you admit that you were wrong and that the data is mixed?
'Mixed' research results may cause some people to walk away, and continue doing what they are doing. I tend to listen to it. It may be our best evidence to inform our daily behavior.
For instance: there's some research suggesting that vegans are at greater risk for hemorrhagic stroke. This is thought to be due to clean arteries, which may be more prone to aneurysm. Not good at all, but nothing comes for free. Clean arteries mean less chance of dealing up-close-and-personal with the #1 killer in this country: heart disease. But there may be a price to pay for this: having to eat less sodium and taking care of your blood pressure.
My response based on a single study which merely suggests this nasty relationship: a very low sodium diet, and naturally low blood pressure. Will it absolutely guarantee that I never experience a brain hemorrhage in the future? No. But, I'm hedging my bets and trying to use what is known to shape my daily habits. And...PS:
I love salt as much as the next person, and could just ignore the one study because it knocks out one of my favorite flavors, but I don't do that.0 -
'Mixed' research results may cause some people to walk away, and continue doing what they are doing. I tend to listen to it. It may be our best evidence to inform our daily behavior.
For instance: there's some research suggesting that vegans are at greater risk for hemorrhagic stroke. This is thought to be due to clean arteries, which may be more prone to aneurysm. Not good at all, but nothing comes for free. Clean arteries mean less chance of dealing up-close-and-personal with the #1 killer in this country: heart disease. But there may be a price to pay for this: having to eat less sodium and taking care of your blood pressure.
My response based on a single study which merely suggests this nasty relationship: a very low sodium diet, and naturally low blood pressure. Will it absolutely guarantee that I never experience a brain hemorrhage in the future? No. But, I'm hedging my bets and trying to use what is known to shape my daily habits. And...PS:
I love salt as much as the next person, and could just ignore the one study because it knocks out one of my favorite flavors, but I don't do that.
I never said that you should throw your hands up and do nothing in the face of conflicting data. There will always be conflicting data, a lot of objective truth is there if you look hard enough. I am simply making the point that in regards to red and processed meat causing colon cancer, there simply is not enough evidence to declare that red meat causes colon cancer.0 -
'Mixed' research results may cause some people to walk away, and continue doing what they are doing. I tend to listen to it. It may be our best evidence to inform our daily behavior.
For instance: there's some research suggesting that vegans are at greater risk for hemorrhagic stroke. This is thought to be due to clean arteries, which may be more prone to aneurysm. Not good at all, but nothing comes for free. Clean arteries mean less chance of dealing up-close-and-personal with the #1 killer in this country: heart disease. But there may be a price to pay for this: having to eat less sodium and taking care of your blood pressure.
My response based on a single study which merely suggests this nasty relationship: a very low sodium diet, and naturally low blood pressure. Will it absolutely guarantee that I never experience a brain hemorrhage in the future? No. But, I'm hedging my bets and trying to use what is known to shape my daily habits. And...PS:
I love salt as much as the next person, and could just ignore the one study because it knocks out one of my favorite flavors, but I don't do that.
I never said that you should throw your hands up and do nothing in the face of conflicting data. There will always be conflicting data, a lot of objective truth is there if you look hard enough. I am simply making the point that in regards to red and processed meat causing colon cancer, there simply is not enough evidence to declare that red meat causes colon cancer.
I goofed by prematurely posting this. I hope my repair works.
My little personal litany was meant to point out that people have different thresholds for what compels them into action. For me, mixed evidence is worth listening to, since nothing can be proven as fact, anyway. So, each of us is given the task to make the best sense of this messy research, which seems to refute itself every day. I take the 'where there's smoke there's fire' approach.
This is not saying you are wrong and I am right. It's merely a nod to differences in opinion.0 -
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?
I never said that there were studies that showed that meat consumption PREVENTS colon cancer, and I didn't say anything about heart disease. I said that the data on meat causing colon cancer was mixed, you said that there were "hundreds of studies" showing a link between meat and colon cancer and "zero studies showing the opposite."
I already showed you an example of a study that shows no link between meat consumption and colon cancer, and I'll post it again: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/04/ajcn.2008.26838.abstract
Now, will you admit that you were wrong and that the data is mixed?
First, there are several things wrong with this "study."
1. It is not a study, it is a "meta-analysis." A meta analysis takes studies that have been done and examines them trying to reach an overall conclusion. It contributes no new data, and relies upon taking studies which were done at different times and different places with different premesis and perports to summarize all the data. In other words this is nothing more than the glorified opinion of the authors as to what previous studies were relevant for this meta analysis, and which were not, and for that matter that these studies were even susceptable of being compared.
2. I only read the abstract but the author did not set out his criteria for selecting studies, or even name the studies that were analyzed, or the methods used for analysis.
3. The organization that produced this meta-analysis is located in Houston Texas, the center of the meat industry. Unlike most such works on a controversial subject such as this, funders and connections with industry was not disclosed. I strongly suspect this is an analysis by the meat industry, paid for by the meat industry.
4. This paper has only been cited three times since 2009. I only managed to pull up one citation, and it was a citatiion not in any way relevent to the main topic. Three citations on a paper that purports to show that hundreds of studies as well as conventional wisdom, and the advice of most Western Countries Health organizations are all wrong would have been cited hundreds of times by now if it were worth anything.
Since this is NOT a study, important information is NOT disclosed, and the paper has been pretty much ignored by scientists working in the field of cancer, I would say this meta-analysis proves nothing.0 -
Sorry, mea culpa, I was wrong about one thing I said. I said that the organizations that paid for this meta analysis were not disclosed. They were:
"Supported in part by the Cattlemen's Beef Board, through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the National Pork Board."
No wonder it was ignored. This analysis is worthless.0 -
I said the data was mixed, you also said that there are "zero studies showing the opposite."
Will you admit that you were wrong, and that the data is mixed?
I never said that there were studies that showed that meat consumption PREVENTS colon cancer, and I didn't say anything about heart disease. I said that the data on meat causing colon cancer was mixed, you said that there were "hundreds of studies" showing a link between meat and colon cancer and "zero studies showing the opposite."
I already showed you an example of a study that shows no link between meat consumption and colon cancer, and I'll post it again: http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2009/03/04/ajcn.2008.26838.abstract
Now, will you admit that you were wrong and that the data is mixed?
First, there are several things wrong with this "study."
1. It is not a study, it is a "meta-analysis." A meta analysis takes studies that have been done and examines them trying to reach an overall conclusion. It contributes no new data, and relies upon taking studies which were done at different times and different places with different premesis and perports to summarize all the data. In other words this is nothing more than the glorified opinion of the authors as to what previous studies were relevant for this meta analysis, and which were not, and for that matter that these studies were even susceptable of being compared.
2. I only read the abstract but the author did not set out his criteria for selecting studies, or even name the studies that were analyzed, or the methods used for analysis.
3. The organization that produced this meta-analysis is located in Houston Texas, the center of the meat industry. Unlike most such works on a controversial subject such as this, funders and connections with industry was not disclosed. I strongly suspect this is an analysis by the meat industry, paid for by the meat industry.
4. This paper has only been cited three times since 2009. I only managed to pull up one citation, and it was a citatiion not in any way relevent to the main topic. Three citations on a paper that purports to show that hundreds of studies as well as conventional wisdom, and the advice of most Western Countries Health organizations are all wrong would have been cited hundreds of times by now if it were worth anything.
Since this is NOT a study, important information is NOT disclosed, and the paper has been pretty much ignored by scientists working in the field of cancer, I would say this meta-analysis proves nothing.
If you have gripes with the study, that's fine. I never said that it proved anything, other than that the data was mixed. Will you admit that you were wrong and that the data is mixed?0 -
Sorry, mea culpa, I was wrong about one thing I said. I said that the organizations that paid for this meta analysis were not disclosed. They were:
"Supported in part by the Cattlemen's Beef Board, through the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, and the National Pork Board."
No wonder it was ignored. This analysis is worthless.
Are studies that show negative health consequences of meat free of bias?0
This discussion has been closed.