Red meat can kill!!!!

SilentRenegade

My attitude is that something is going to kill me eventually, whether it be getting into a fatal car accident on my way to work, getting shot walking to my car, smoking, or eating steaks.

If I live my life in fear, there's no reason to even leave my house, because something could kill me.

I had bacon today and it was delicious.

elenathegreat

Red meat can kill...as can being run over by a bus :grumble:

or being run over by an angry cow...

jojo52610

I believe the only way red meat will kill me is if it's still breathing, and angry.

you, sir, are correct...

No not really I had to go to the emergency room cause I was eating a steak and it got stuck in my throat and I couldn't breathe.
See Red meat can kill!

elenathegreat

Life is pretty much a game of dodgeball; something's going to slam you sooner or later and it could be cancer or it could be your cat (80,000 a year die by tripping over their cats....and that's only the start of the feline killing spree!)
[/quote]

OMG...now I wonder if I should get my cat before she gets me...

elenathegreat

I believe the only way red meat will kill me is if it's still breathing, and angry.

you, sir, are correct...

No not really I had to go to the emergency room cause I was eating a steak and it got stuck in my throat and I couldn't breathe.
See Red meat can kill!

Anything that you are not going to bother chewing before attempting to swallow can kill you...slow down!

AmyRhubarb

More evidence of how red meat can (attempt) to kill you:



And yes, the cyclist is ok, she was interviewed the other night, just scraped & bruised.

Mcctin65

******Breaking News******

Scientists have discovered that the leading cause of death is being born. Based on the observation that 100% of persons born in the 19th century have since died it has been determined that there is a direct correlation between being born and dying.

HAHAHAHAHAH!! Love this!

amyhollar

This thread hurts my brain. Just because you don't like the implication of the study does not mean it was poorly conducted. stupid, irrelevant or otherwise. Scientists are generally quite careful about what they do - just because their findings offend you personally doesn't mean their work is cr*p - generally it means the study has been reported in the press sensationally.

For example:

it was NOT a controlled experiment, merely an observational one based on crunching data from general health questionnaires used by other organisations. Also an association is not a cause.....and nowhere in the study does it say what *else* those people were eating.

Longitudinal diet studies are almost never manipulative (i.e., two groups are assigned to each eat one type of diet), they are almost always based on observation and post-hoc number crunching. That doesn't mean it wasn't 'controlled' - accounting for covariates and confounds are most of what the number crunching is. And, just to clear this perennial accusation up, scientists are very much aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

How is this inflammation caused in the first place? Just interesting


Viral/bacterial infection, typically.

The inflammation related to dietary and other 'sterile' factors is not generally associated with infection. Inflammation occurs as a natural process that is far more widely utilised by the body than as a pathogen-fighting response.

And applying logic ... who died of it so far? Just 'cos someone's test tube uncontrolled badly managed study says so, doesn't mean its true or actually in real life is even a factor in conjunction with everything else that goes off...

Again, just because the findings are not to your liking, does not mean the study was poorly conducted or controlled. There is enough anti-science sentiment in the western world already. We're actually not out to screw you over with bad science.

I bet this study had an agenda. I bet the researchers are vegans, lol.

Unlikely - such a long-term study is followed, analysed and conducted by many different scientists over its course. The probability of them being 1. vegans and also 2. vegans with an agenda to publish biased science, is very unlikely.

Did they run an ANOVA on all the variables? I would be interested to see the correlations.

They almost certainly would have analysed the covariate structure, which is probably not carefully reported in the press. ANOVA and correlation are quite different, however.

re: Forks over Knives:

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

Hallelujah! If you're looking for bias, agenda and improperly analysed data, look no further. The probability that this study is suffering from any of those flaws is far, far smaller than the probability that a propaganda piece such as this doco is.

Seriously, can we ever have a thread about a published study that doesn't automatically devolve into science bashing? It's disheartening. I work hard at my job trying to publish work that is of use to society. Most of us do the same every day, and do a very careful job of it. Can we get a little respect here???

Seriously. THIS. I don't think I could have said it better myself.

One thing- some of you have been accusing the scientists in the study of "going into it with a specific outcome in mind already". Let me give you a refresher on the Scientific Method- Observe, hypothesize, test. All experiments/studies begin with a hypothesis, which you aim to prove or disprove with your planned research. That's how it works. So I'm not sure why you're complaining that they had a hypothesis going into the study. As Robyn stated many times- just because you are uncomfortable with/don't like/feel threatened by the findings of a study does not give you license to make unfounded science-bashing claims against the validity of it. Studies like this that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are very carefully scrutinized from all angles before they are published. So you can relax and stop worrying about that.

shakybabe

I was watching QI once and they said eating nothing but rabbit can kill you but if you eat peas and carrots with it you'll be fine.. lol!... so eat ya veggies and you'll be ok! :happy:

Isolt

The Daily Mail (a daily paper in the UK) is famous for finding things that cause cancer.

The Daily Mail Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8GOry52xo


Royals on the front page
Swine flu and road rage
Find Maddie
Foreign Baddie
Put him in a big cage
Beaurocratic red tape
Facebook gang rape
Gordon out, Dave in before the country caves in
Ian Huntley gets his own jacuzzi and a gym in jail

It's absolutely true because I read it in The Daily Mail

Ban this gay smut
I'm not racist but...
Car crime; knife crime
Hang the cheating wife time
Pop stars take drugs
Teen boys wear hoods
Sports stars have sex
Bears **** in woods
Brussels politicians want to stop us drinking English ale

It's absolutely true because I read it in The Daily Mail

Poles pay for kids' blood
Immigration 'like a flood'
Soft touch British Isles
Cancer from your mobiles
Cancer from your laptop
Cancer from your root crop
Cancer from your shoes
...from your dog
...from your pen top
Immigrants arriving on an unprecedented scale

It's absolutely true because I read it in The Daily Mail

Chood5

Here's the questionnaire the study participants filled out

http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/questionnaires/pdfs/NHSI/2002.PDF

Notice that one of the foods listed under “unprocessed red meat”—and likely a major contributor to that category—is hamburger, the stuff fast-food dreams are made of. Although this study tracked whole grain intake, it didn’t track refined grain intake, so we know right away we can’t totally account for the white-flour buns wrapped around those burgers (or many of the other barely-qualifying-as-food components of a McDonald’s meal). And unless these cohorts were chock full of folks who deliberately sought out decent organic meat, it’s also worth noting that the unprocessed ground beef they were eating probably contained that delightful ammonia-treated pink slime that’s had conventional meat consumers in an uproar lately.

Read more:

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#ixzz1p75PIQBE

JennW130

Love stuff like this - I honestly believe that if you were to collect all the food scare stories together and follow them, you would actually not be able to eat anything at all.

hehe....i know right!

callmeBAM

What we’ve got here is a garden-variety observational study, not an actual experiment where people change something specific they’re doing and thus make it possible to determine cause and effect. Trying to find “proof” in an observational study is like trying to make a penguin lactate. It just ain’t happening… ever.

callmeBAM

In case you’re skeptical that observational studies can run disturbingly contrary to reality, look no further than the hormone replacement therapy craze that peaked a few decades ago.

By 1991, 30 observational studies - including this one based on none other than the Nurses’ Health data (the same that did this beef scare study) - collectively showed that women taking estrogen seemed to have a 44% reduction in heart disease risk compared to their non-hormone-replacing counterparts.

This led literally millions of women to jump on the estrogen bandwagon in pursuit of better health and longer lives. A very unfortunate oopsie-daisy sprouted up later when some randomized, controlled trials finally emerged and revealed that rather than being protective, hormone replacement therapy actually increased heart disease risk by 29%!

MaraDiaz

So maybe this is the problem, not the beef itself?

Levels of dioxin in different foods, originally courtesy of the EPA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dioxin_chart.gif

PaleoPath4Lyfe

Apparently it's bad for the endocrine system... Just read a really interesting article written by a heart surgeon who said that the anti-cholesterol/anti-fat focus of the 80s and 90s was a)wrong - inflammation causes heart disease, not fats or cholesterol, and b) has created the obesity and diabetes surges we are now seeing. Science is based on theory, and often gets it wrong.

That wouldn't be the article by the same heart surgeon who was stripped of his license to practice in 2008 would it?

Science is based on observations that either support or disprove a hypothesis, observations that can be replicated and yes, science changes over time as we learn new things. Pseudoscience is based on unproven hypothesis and even in the light of overwhelming evidence "true believers" rarely will change their acceptance of the myth as fact.

Not sure about the Doc's licensing status - didn't check, as it came from a fairly reputable source, but as inflammation is now widely held to be the cause of heart disease among the senior medical fraternity (even if that message hasn't filtered through to the Health boards, GPs etc) licensed or not, he was on the right track. You put my point about science rather better than I did - the folly of being succinct on these boards is that one doesn't always say exactly what one means in great detail :blushing:

How is this inflammation caused in the first place? Just interesting

The inflammation is caused from eating refined and processed carbs. Not fat and not cholesterol. It has been proven time and time again by many doctors and other researchers.

PaleoPath4Lyfe

So maybe this is the problem, not the beef itself?

Levels of dioxin in different foods, originally courtesy of the EPA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dioxin_chart.gif

This chart provided by the EPA is most likely based on people that buy CAFO (factory farmed meats). And I beleive the study listed by the OP is also based on people that are eating CAFO meat.

jcpmoore

Love stuff like this - I honestly believe that if you were to collect all the food scare stories together and follow them, you would actually not be able to eat anything at all.

^^^^
This!

I remember somewhere about seven years ago hearing a study about french fries being good for you. That's when I decided to just ignore it all and use common sense.

MaraDiaz

So maybe this is the problem, not the beef itself?

Levels of dioxin in different foods, originally courtesy of the EPA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Dioxin_chart.gif

This chart provided by the EPA is most likely based on people that buy CAFO (factory farmed meats). And I beleive the study listed by the OP is also based on people that are eating CAFO meat.

Pretty sure at this point people have to go out of their way to get any other kind, but I was wondering if a study out there showed different levels of dioxins and other contaminants in organic meat. I very much doubt one does exist, though, and our meat-industry loving government in the US would certainly never sponsor one.

Dawn3218

I've been reading about the bad effects of overeating, drinking, dieting, smoking and sex. I decided to give up reading.

Kristine

LOL