New Study: Processed Meats

CoachReddy

Because we need another mega-thread today.

this is my new favorite study, just published a couple days ago: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

"One of the largest studies to address this question, published online March 7 in BMC Medicine, found a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality. This was particularly true for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but was also true for cancer."

"The risk for cancer death was 43% higher and the risk for cardiovascular death was 70% higher in people eating more than 160 g/day"

Now obviously, not many of us on these boards eat 160g of processed meat, but if that raises the risk by 43% and 70% for cardiovascular death and cancer, respectively, then it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk.

Science.

judydelo1

Because we need another mega-thread today.

this is my new favorite study, just published a couple days ago: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

"One of the largest studies to address this question, published online March 7 in BMC Medicine, found a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality. This was particularly true for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but was also true for cancer."

"The risk for cancer death was 43% higher and the risk for cardiovascular death was 70% higher in people eating more than 160 g/day"

Now obviously, not many of us on these boards eat 160g of processed meat, but if that raises the risk by 43% and 70% for cardiovascular death and cancer, respectively, then it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk.

Science.

You're just a fear mongering nut job trying to steal everyone's right to eat unhealthy processed meats. Stop it or I'm going to cry.

CoachReddy

Because we need another mega-thread today.

this is my new favorite study, just published a couple days ago: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

"One of the largest studies to address this question, published online March 7 in BMC Medicine, found a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality. This was particularly true for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but was also true for cancer."

"The risk for cancer death was 43% higher and the risk for cardiovascular death was 70% higher in people eating more than 160 g/day"

Now obviously, not many of us on these boards eat 160g of processed meat, but if that raises the risk by 43% and 70% for cardiovascular death and cancer, respectively, then it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk.

Science.

You're just a fear mongering nut job trying to steal everyone's right to eat unhealthy processed meats. Stop it or I'm going to cry.

:flowerforyou: :flowerforyou:

eric_sg61

Ok, I'll tell my Italian grandparents who are over 90 and cancer free to stop eating so much sausage, pepperoni and salami.

Genetics.

CoachReddy

Ok, I'll tell my Italian grandparents who are over 90 and cancer free to stop eating so much sausage, pepperoni and salami.

Genetics.

are part of the equation, but not everything.

Sarauk2sf

I have seen this study put into context in another thread. Did not pay much attention as I don't eat meat.

CoachReddy

I have seen this study put into context in another thread. Did not pay much attention as I don't eat meat.

fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that it goes to show that just because you can fit your macros doesn't mean you can eat "anything" you want? 160g of protein fits most guys' macros just fine.

Sarauk2sf

I have seen this study put into context in another thread. Did not pay much attention as I don't eat meat.

fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that it goes to show that just because you can fit your macros doesn't mean you can eat "anything" you want? 160g of protein fits most guys' macros just fine.

How about we do a deal - you actually read and learn what the philosophy behind IIFYM means, and then we can chat. You keep bringing up points that show you do not understand how it is applied. I think it would solve a lot of the mis-communication that happens.

Here is a good starting point: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym

Key point:

"When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake."

jayche

Here we go... First page

CoachReddy

I have seen this study put into context in another thread. Did not pay much attention as I don't eat meat.

fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that it goes to show that just because you can fit your macros doesn't mean you can eat "anything" you want? 160g of protein fits most guys' macros just fine.

How about we do a deal - you actually read and learn what the philosophy behind IIFYM means, and then we can chat. You keep bringing up points that show you do not understand how it is applied. I think it would solve a lot of the mis-communication that happens.

Here is a good starting point: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym

Key point:

"When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake."

I get that. I really do. And I'm totally behind that school of thought the way you just described it.

the problem is that many people use IIFYM to mean "I can eat anything I want all day as long as it fits my macros" and they DON'T eat many whole foods at all. just look at their diaries.

I know YOU understand it and YOU follow it correctly, but you don't agree that the above is actually the case quite often?

taso42

tagging. want to read the study later.

AllonsYtotheTardis

bump

Hendrix7

I do recall, especially in males, that the study also indicated increased alcohol and tobacco consumption in the processed meat eaters.

This type of data is so encompasing it's pretty hard to pick out red meat as the guilty party without taking into account other lifestyle factors.

This is far from conclusive, but usefull none the less.

I will stick to my "work my *kitten* of in the gym and eat in moderation" approach until we have something that shows a definitive link.

I agree with this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFv_5vF0vs0

mmddwechanged

Did you read the whole study?? Were a set number of people eating 160gms a day? I noticed in your quote that the study showed an "association". Obviously it would state that there is correlation not causation in this matter. What does "the largest" mean?!? Is it like the commercials where you can honest say "the best" without actually comparing? How large was the study?

No I have too many questions to agree with the OP

Sarauk2sf

I have seen this study put into context in another thread. Did not pay much attention as I don't eat meat.

fair enough, but wouldn't you agree that it goes to show that just because you can fit your macros doesn't mean you can eat "anything" you want? 160g of protein fits most guys' macros just fine.

How about we do a deal - you actually read and learn what the philosophy behind IIFYM means, and then we can chat. You keep bringing up points that show you do not understand how it is applied. I think it would solve a lot of the mis-communication that happens.

Here is a good starting point: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/817188-iifym

Key point:

"When practicing IIFYM, it is recommended that you choose mostly whole and nutrient dense foods to comprise the majority of your intake. Fresh vegetables, fruits, meats, fish, etc, and at the same time, leaving some room for a discretionary intake."

I get that. I really do. And I'm totally behind that school of thought the way you just described it.

the problem is that many people use IIFYM to mean "I can eat anything I want all day as long as it fits my macros" and they DON'T eat many whole foods at all. just look at their diaries.

I know YOU understand it and YOU follow it correctly, but you don't agree that the above is actually the case quite often?

Not with the people I see follow it to be honest. I only know of a couple of people who do not watch their micros, but they do watch their fiber. BTW - when I say 'watch' I do not mean track them, as there are far too many, but I mean make sure they get a generally balanced diet.

babydiego87

how is this news?

/snobby vegetarian post

DavPul

Because we need another mega-thread today.

this is my new favorite study, just published a couple days ago: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

"One of the largest studies to address this question, published online March 7 in BMC Medicine, found a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality. This was particularly true for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but was also true for cancer."

"The risk for cancer death was 43% higher and the risk for cardiovascular death was 70% higher in people eating more than 160 g/day"

Now obviously, not many of us on these boards eat 160g of processed meat, but if that raises the risk by 43% and 70% for cardiovascular death and cancer, respectively, then it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk.

Science.

CoachReddy

I do recall, especially in males, that the study also indicated increased alcohol and tobacco consumption in the processed meat eaters.

This type of data is so encompasing it's pretty hard to pick out red meat as the guilty party without taking into account other lifestyle factors.

This is far from conclusive, but usefull none the less.

I will stick to my "work my *kitten* of in the gym and eat in moderation" approach until we have something that shows a definitive link.

I agree with this guy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFv_5vF0vs0

Check it. From the study:

A set of core questions posed at recruitment that was similar in all participating centers ensured comparability of non-dietary questions and assessed information on education, medical history (including history of stroke, myocardial infarction, and cancer), alcohol consumption, physical activity, lifetime history of consumption of tobacco products including smoking status (current, past, or never smoker), type of tobacco (cigarettes, cigars, or pipe), number of cigarettes currently smoked, and age when participants started and, if applicable, quit smoking [18]. Height and weight were measured in all EPIC centers except for France, Norway, and Oxford, for which self-reported height and weight was recorded. In Oxford, self-reports were improved by using prediction equations [19].

CoachReddy

how is this news?

/snobby vegetarian post

I eat meat.

Sarauk2sf

how is this news?

/snobby vegetarian post

How is this a vegetarian post? - it's about processed meat.

DontStopB_Leakin

Tagging to read later.

CoachReddy

Because we need another mega-thread today.

this is my new favorite study, just published a couple days ago: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1741-7015/11/63

"One of the largest studies to address this question, published online March 7 in BMC Medicine, found a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality. This was particularly true for cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), but was also true for cancer."

"The risk for cancer death was 43% higher and the risk for cardiovascular death was 70% higher in people eating more than 160 g/day"

Now obviously, not many of us on these boards eat 160g of processed meat, but if that raises the risk by 43% and 70% for cardiovascular death and cancer, respectively, then it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk.

Science.

I actually think you're a smart guy behind all the gifs. Is there an issue with the study in your mind?

vashnic

Study also said (smokers beware, nonsmokers don't worry?):

There was also a statistically significant interaction between smoking and processed meat consumption (P-interaction 0.01), with mortality being significantly increased among former (HR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.29 to 2.18) and current smokers (HR = 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.83), but there was *no association* among never smokers (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.72).

Though I think if you are/have been smoking, eating processed meat is not so high on your 'likely to kill you' list.

Quite large prospective cohort study, very nice, but as with all dietary studies using questionnaires/recall as basis of data, bit dodgy in terms of rigor. 'In a series of validation studies, correlation coefficients for meat intake between 12 24-hour recalls and food questionnaires ranged between 0.4 and 0.7' <--not so great correlations, but that works for studies saying the processed meat has no effect as well.

babydiego87

how is this news?

/snobby vegetarian post

I eat meat.

im the snobby vegetarian. i thought your OP was common knowledge...?

CoachReddy

Did you read the whole study?? Were a set number of people eating 160gms a day? I noticed in your quote that the study showed an "association". Obviously it would state that there is correlation not causation in this matter. What does "the largest" mean?!? Is it like the commercials where you can honest say "the best" without actually comparing? How large was the study?

No I have too many questions to agree with the OP

then please read the study. you just might get your questions answered.

CoachReddy

how is this news?

/snobby vegetarian post

I eat meat.

im the snobby vegetarian. i thought your OP was common knowledge...?

not on this board unfortunately...

Capt_Apollo

Ok, I'll tell my Italian grandparents who are over 90 and cancer free to stop eating so much sausage, pepperoni and salami.

Genetics.

seriously. my 86 year old grandfather that lives in spain, that eats cured ham, chorizo, and all that good stuff, who looks younger then his oldest son, my dad.... you get the idea.

babydiego87

how is this news?

/snobby vegetarian post

I eat meat.

im the snobby vegetarian. i thought your OP was common knowledge...?

not on this board unfortunately...

then it's rather unfortunate that people do not know what they put into their own bodies.

NikoM5

Science.

...says Capt. Cleanse.

Anyhow, to the folks with processed meat obsessed grandparents.. are you really trying to use your one or two examples of someone you know as rebuttal against a proper scientific study? My great grandmother smoked her whole life and lived to 105. Ergo, smoking must be safe. Makes good sense, right?

BeachGingerOnTheRocks

Might need to read later. Is there any indication as to what the study considers a "processed meat?" There are several types, and nitrate content may play a role. Some dried meats require minimal processing (proscuitto, e.g.), while some other meats require much more processing, such as sausages/frankfurters and the like.

I eat a decent amount of bacon, maybe a strip or two a day. Not that big most types of processed meats, and don't eat American-style deli meats except in desperation, but it's probably worth a look-see.

bbbgamer

so is there an aount thats just right?