New Study: Processed Meats
Replies
-
All meat raises your risk for heart disease and cancer. Veganism, especially raw veganism, decreases that risk dramatically if cancer/heart disease isn't hereditary.
Please provide proof.0 -
Plagiarism. The unattributed quotes are not from BMC Medicine but from Shelley Wood and Roxanne Nelson's article at Medscape Medical News. http://bit.ly/Yff8Zb"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"
Science.
The actual report conclusion is this, and this is from BMC: "The results of our analysis support a moderate positive association between processed meat consumption and mortality, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases, but also to cancer."
As every scientist knows, association is not the same as causation. It reports there is an association, and it is a moderate one.
i've posted that link multiple times in the thread.0 -
I actually think you're a smart guy behind all the gifs.
Is there an issue with the study in your mind?
I don't do much "science" but this....Conclusions
The results of our analyses suggest that men and women with a high consumption of processed meat are at increased risk of early death, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases but also to cancer. In this population, reduction of processed meat consumption to less than 20 g/day would prevent more than 3% of all deaths. As processed meat consumption is a modifiable risk factor, health promotion activities should include specific advice on lowering processed meat consumption.
[/b]
.....seems to indicate that you're using the most inflammatory numbers you can find. I'm still searching for 73% higher and 43% higher. But I guess "possible link to a 3% increase in cancer" doesn't stop traffic, huh? I'm not saying 3% incident rate is nothing, but when you add in the variables of genetics, environment, and exercise, I'm more than willing to roll the dice to keep eating Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese.
I think according to the definitions of this study that Suns quoted, your Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (and my occasional McDouble with cheese) would not qualify as "processed meats." The list did not include ground beef. It did include mince meat, but that's a pickled meat product.0 -
TL;DR.
... *runs off to stuff face with delicious food that FITS MY MACROS!*0 -
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
Worth thinking about, yes. Enough data to post a thread about "my favorite study" and suggesting in the OP that eating a bunch of processed meat causes an increase in mortality that's highly significant?
No.
You way overstated the data contained in this study in your OP. Big time. Leave the analysis to others.0 -
I didn't even see an attempt to correct for BMI or energy intake, and they didn't even look at things like body fat.
Is it a surprise that fatter, more out of shape people tend to eat more red meat? I think this would be more damning if they were able to establish a link between mortality and processed meat consumption even after factoring in BMI.
The fact that they had access to BMI, physical activity levels, and calorie intake for these people and included no statistical analysis of the cohort looking at those factors as they relate to mortality says a lot to me.
In other words, my take away here is "yes, people who eat lots of processed meat tend to die faster, but not because they eat lots of processed meat. It's because people who eat lots of processed meat tend to be fat and out of shape."
Uh oh...Of 511,781 apparently healthy participants at baseline, we excluded individuals with a ratio for energy intake versus energy expenditure in the top or bottom 1% (n = 10,197) and those with self-reported cancer, stroke or myocardial infarction at baseline (n = 29,300). We further excluded participants with unknown smoking status at baseline (n = 23,716). The analytical cohort included 448,568 participants.
half a million people.
i think it was a fair cross-section.
Excluding the top and bottom 1% of such a large population is a common way to eliminate a bunch of outliers. It's absolutely not a statistical method to analyze the results in a way that corrects for different factors.
it's as good a study as any your side has ever shown me re: things like aspartame.
it's a good study.
you don't have to agree, but it's science, and it makes you no different from me when I disagree with your studies.
I didn't realize I was on a "side."
And yes, it's a good study. It clearly establishes a correlation between high processed meat consumption and mortality. It does not even remotely establish causality, nor does it even attempt to investigate confounding factors.
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
If by "thinking about" you don't mean necessarily changing my eating patterns because there's no clearly defined reason to, then I'd agree.
Please expand why you think it's significant. Significant in terms of indicating a need for more research? Sure. Significant in the sense we can draw useful conclusions from it as individuals? Not so much.0 -
I actually think you're a smart guy behind all the gifs. Is there an issue with the study in your mind?
I don't do much "science" but this....Conclusions
The results of our analyses suggest that men and women with a high consumption of processed meat are at increased risk of early death, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases but also to cancer. In this population, reduction of processed meat consumption to less than 20 g/day would prevent more than 3% of all deaths. As processed meat consumption is a modifiable risk factor, health promotion activities should include specific advice on lowering processed meat consumption.
[/b]
.....seems to indicate that you're using the most inflammatory numbers you can find. I'm still searching for 73% higher and 43% higher. But I guess "possible link to a 3% increase in cancer" doesn't stop traffic, huh? I'm not saying 3% incident rate is nothing, but when you add in the variables of genetics, environment, and exercise, I'm more than willing to roll the dice to keep eating Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese.
I think according to the definitions of this study that Suns quoted, your Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (and my occasional McDouble with cheese) would not qualify as "processed meats." The list did not include ground beef. It did include mince meat, but that's a pickled meat product.
up for interpretation, but this is the quote: "(all meat products, including ham, bacon, sausages; small part of minced meat that has been bought as a ready-to-eat product)"
does that include burgers? i think so... but i won't guarantee it.0 -
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
Worth thinking about, yes. Enough data to post a thread about "my favorite study" and suggesting in the OP that eating a bunch of processed meat causes an increase in mortality that's highly significant?
No.
You way overstated the data contained in this study in your OP. Big time. Leave the analysis to others.
I quoted articles and the study. i didn't do analysis other than to say it's possible it could affect us in smaller than 160g amounts.0 -
You didn't include it in the original post, unless you went back and edited it. That's the one I read. As a writer, I notice things like that.[I've posted that link multiple times in the thread.
My point stands: Its own conclusion, as opposed to the opinion of the authors who wrote about the study, is that it shows only a moderate association. Not something around which I'm going to arrange my dietary guidelines.0 -
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
Worth thinking about, yes. Enough data to post a thread about "my favorite study" and suggesting in the OP that eating a bunch of processed meat causes an increase in mortality that's highly significant?
No.
You way overstated the data contained in this study in your OP. Big time. Leave the analysis to others.
I quoted articles and the study. i didn't do analysis other than to say it's possible it could affect us in smaller than 160g amounts.
Your words:
"if [eating 160g of processed meat a day] 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. "
You imply that the study has established a dose-response relationship, which is one of the Hill criteria to establish causation. The study did not do that. You are concluding that large amounts of processed meat cause cardiovascular disease and cancer, and conclude that even small amounts of processed meat raise your risk.
This is absolutely wrong. None of the data in this study does any of that in any way whatsoever. I'd say you have a lot to learn about research before you even attempt to make such a statement.0 -
I actually think you're a smart guy behind all the gifs. Is there an issue with the study in your mind?
I don't do much "science" but this....Conclusions
The results of our analyses suggest that men and women with a high consumption of processed meat are at increased risk of early death, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases but also to cancer. In this population, reduction of processed meat consumption to less than 20 g/day would prevent more than 3% of all deaths. As processed meat consumption is a modifiable risk factor, health promotion activities should include specific advice on lowering processed meat consumption.
[/b]
.....seems to indicate that you're using the most inflammatory numbers you can find. I'm still searching for 73% higher and 43% higher. But I guess "possible link to a 3% increase in cancer" doesn't stop traffic, huh? I'm not saying 3% incident rate is nothing, but when you add in the variables of genetics, environment, and exercise, I'm more than willing to roll the dice to keep eating Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese.
I think according to the definitions of this study that Suns quoted, your Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (and my occasional McDouble with cheese) would not qualify as "processed meats." The list did not include ground beef. It did include mince meat, but that's a pickled meat product.
up for interpretation, but this is the quote: "(all meat products, including ham, bacon, sausages; small part of minced meat that has been bought as a ready-to-eat product)"
does that include burgers? i think so... but i won't guarantee it.
Let's go through it. Hamburger is not ham, bacon, sausages or minced meat. One could argue that it is a "meat product" but then you'd be hard pressed to distinguish it from any other cut of beef. I also seriously doubt that the mere act of grinding the beef would lead to a health issue considering we pretty much do that when we chew our food. Perhaps if they add additives similar to that added to bacon and sausage, say nitrates?
Of course, we still have the issue of correlation vs. causation here as has already been mentioned.0 -
Just to be on the safe side, I'm going vegan.0
-
aw damn, you mean eating a 5 pound log of salami isn't good for me? Who'd of thunk it? Eating products made of leftover tidbits and squished into some round shape isn't healthy? Carp!
bunch of regular GD geniuses up in here.0 -
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
Worth thinking about, yes. Enough data to post a thread about "my favorite study" and suggesting in the OP that eating a bunch of processed meat causes an increase in mortality that's highly significant?
No.
You way overstated the data contained in this study in your OP. Big time. Leave the analysis to others.
I quoted articles and the study. i didn't do analysis other than to say it's possible it could affect us in smaller than 160g amounts.
Your words:
"if [eating 160g of processed meat a day] 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. "
You imply that the study has established a dose-response relationship, which is one of the Hill criteria to establish causation. The study did not do that. You are concluding that large amounts of processed meat cause cardiovascular disease and cancer, and conclude that even small amounts of processed meat raise your risk.
This is absolutely wrong. None of the data in this study does any of that in any way whatsoever. I'd say you have a lot to learn about research before you even attempt to make such a statement.
the first part was me repeating the quote, and the second was me hypothesizing, not concluding ANYTHING. I said "it's possible" not "it's a sure thing"
that's why i feel further study would be interesting and is probably necessary.0 -
I actually think you're a smart guy behind all the gifs. Is there an issue with the study in your mind?
I don't do much "science" but this....Conclusions
The results of our analyses suggest that men and women with a high consumption of processed meat are at increased risk of early death, in particular due to cardiovascular diseases but also to cancer. In this population, reduction of processed meat consumption to less than 20 g/day would prevent more than 3% of all deaths. As processed meat consumption is a modifiable risk factor, health promotion activities should include specific advice on lowering processed meat consumption.
[/b]
.....seems to indicate that you're using the most inflammatory numbers you can find. I'm still searching for 73% higher and 43% higher. But I guess "possible link to a 3% increase in cancer" doesn't stop traffic, huh? I'm not saying 3% incident rate is nothing, but when you add in the variables of genetics, environment, and exercise, I'm more than willing to roll the dice to keep eating Double Quarter Pounders with Cheese.
I think according to the definitions of this study that Suns quoted, your Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese (and my occasional McDouble with cheese) would not qualify as "processed meats." The list did not include ground beef. It did include mince meat, but that's a pickled meat product.
up for interpretation, but this is the quote: "(all meat products, including ham, bacon, sausages; small part of minced meat that has been bought as a ready-to-eat product)"
does that include burgers? i think so... but i won't guarantee it.
Mince meat isn't a common food in the US. Here's what it looks like. It's kind of like ground pickled sausage made of beef.
0 -
strip down your boxers and fight it out. who ever is left standing is right by default.0
-
Just to be on the safe side, I'm going vegan.
I can help you with this... should I come over with a big order of collards and mashed potatoes and some tofurky???? I make some mean collards. And i'll make a special mushroom gravy for your tofurky so it isn't too dry!
...It has good macros....
and I'll hook you up with some vegan pomengranate chocolate chip ice cream! YUMMIES!0 -
Just to be on the safe side, I'm going vegan. I can help you with this... should I come over with a big order of collards and mashed potatoes and some tofurky???? I make some mean collards. And i'll make a special mushroom gravy for your tofurky so it isn't too dry!
...It has good macros....
and I'll hook you up with some vegan pomengranate chocolate chip ice cream! YUMMIES!
I don't feel comfortable allowing tofurky into my home. :laugh:0 -
Of course, we still have the issue of correlation vs. causation here as has already been mentioned.
nutritional science (and most science in general) can't PROVE causation. it's simply a number of extremely high correlative studies that allows for something to be considered "proven"0 -
aw damn, you mean eating a 5 pound log of salami isn't good for me? Who'd of thunk it? Eating products made of leftover tidbits and squished into some round shape isn't healthy? Carp!
bunch of regular GD geniuses up in here.
this is what happens when someone suffers from a rare ailment called "Common Sense."
Unfortunately, it isnt' very contagious.0 -
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
Worth thinking about, yes. Enough data to post a thread about "my favorite study" and suggesting in the OP that eating a bunch of processed meat causes an increase in mortality that's highly significant?
No.
You way overstated the data contained in this study in your OP. Big time. Leave the analysis to others.
I quoted articles and the study. i didn't do analysis other than to say it's possible it could affect us in smaller than 160g amounts.
Your words:
"if [eating 160g of processed meat a day] 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. "
You imply that the study has established a dose-response relationship, which is one of the Hill criteria to establish causation. The study did not do that. You are concluding that large amounts of processed meat cause cardiovascular disease and cancer, and conclude that even small amounts of processed meat raise your risk.
This is absolutely wrong. None of the data in this study does any of that in any way whatsoever. I'd say you have a lot to learn about research before you even attempt to make such a statement.
the first part was me repeating the quote, and the second was me hypothesizing, not concluding ANYTHING. I said "it's possible" not "it's a sure thing"
that's why i feel further study would be interesting and is probably necessary.
You assumed causation when you postulated the existence of a dose-response relationship.
It might not seem like a big deal to you, but you don't seem all that well-versed on the actual scientific process. It is a big deal. If the actual study authors had written "it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk" then the article would have been rejected because it's a fundamental violation of the format of the study. This is a cohort study. It's examining correlations and temporal relationships.
tl;dr: You implied a dose-response relationship based on absolutely nothing whatsoever besides your preexisting bias and, in doing so, so overstepped the bounds of the study that you basically insulted the scientific process itself.0 -
Also mentions that people eating more processed meats were more likely to smoke and eat less vegetables and fruit. I think that's probably where the correlation lies, rather than in the meat itself.0
-
Just to be on the safe side, I'm going vegan. I can help you with this... should I come over with a big order of collards and mashed potatoes and some tofurky???? I make some mean collards. And i'll make a special mushroom gravy for your tofurky so it isn't too dry!
...It has good macros....
and I'll hook you up with some vegan pomengranate chocolate chip ice cream! YUMMIES!
I don't feel comfortable allowing tofurky into my home. :laugh:
I'll remember this
How about a bouquet of edible roses? I just learned how to make these:
You only get the roses if you PROMISE to eat my collards though, because those collards are sooooooooooo yummy!0 -
Mmmmmm bacon!0
-
Of course, we still have the issue of correlation vs. causation here as has already been mentioned.
nutritional science (and most science in general) can't PROVE causation. it's simply a number of extremely high correlative studies that allows for something to be considered "proven"
Please, please stop talking on behalf of science. You're not doing it any favors.0 -
Just to be on the safe side, I'm going vegan. I can help you with this... should I come over with a big order of collards and mashed potatoes and some tofurky???? I make some mean collards. And i'll make a special mushroom gravy for your tofurky so it isn't too dry!
...It has good macros....
and I'll hook you up with some vegan pomengranate chocolate chip ice cream! YUMMIES!
I don't feel comfortable allowing tofurky into my home. :laugh:
I'll remember this
How about a bouquet of edible roses? I just learned how to make these:
You only get the roses if you PROMISE to eat my collards though, because those collards are sooooooooooo yummy!
Nothin goes better with collards or other dark leafy greens than some bacon and bacon grease. YUMMY0 -
yep, further study is suggested, but it's good data and significant, and worth thinking about.
Worth thinking about, yes. Enough data to post a thread about "my favorite study" and suggesting in the OP that eating a bunch of processed meat causes an increase in mortality that's highly significant?
No.
You way overstated the data contained in this study in your OP. Big time. Leave the analysis to others.
I quoted articles and the study. i didn't do analysis other than to say it's possible it could affect us in smaller than 160g amounts.
Your words:
"if [eating 160g of processed meat a day] 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. "
You imply that the study has established a dose-response relationship, which is one of the Hill criteria to establish causation. The study did not do that. You are concluding that large amounts of processed meat cause cardiovascular disease and cancer, and conclude that even small amounts of processed meat raise your risk.
This is absolutely wrong. None of the data in this study does any of that in any way whatsoever. I'd say you have a lot to learn about research before you even attempt to make such a statement.
the first part was me repeating the quote, and the second was me hypothesizing, not concluding ANYTHING. I said "it's possible" not "it's a sure thing"
that's why i feel further study would be interesting and is probably necessary.
You assumed causation when you postulated the existence of a dose-response relationship.
It might not seem like a big deal to you, but you don't seem all that well-versed on the actual scientific process. It is a big deal. If the actual study authors had written "it's possible that lower amounts can still raise your risk" then the article would have been rejected because it's a fundamental violation of the format of the study. This is a cohort study. It's examining correlations and temporal relationships.
tl;dr: You implied a dose-response relationship based on absolutely nothing whatsoever besides your preexisting bias and, in doing so, so overstepped the bounds of the study that you basically insulted the scientific process itself.
i'm not a scientist, and i'm not a researcher. chill.0 -
Of course, we still have the issue of correlation vs. causation here as has already been mentioned.
nutritional science (and most science in general) can't PROVE causation. it's simply a number of extremely high correlative studies that allows for something to be considered "proven"
Please, please stop talking on behalf of science. You're not doing it any favors.
show me you can prove causation and i'll change my opinion.0 -
i'm not a scientist, and i'm not a researcher. chill.
I know you're not. That's why I'm telling you that you need to stick to the conclusions drawn by the researchers, or other people who are actually versed in the principles of science. Don't draw your own, like you did in the OP, because they will more likely than not be invalid.0 -
Of course, we still have the issue of correlation vs. causation here as has already been mentioned.
nutritional science (and most science in general) can't PROVE causation. it's simply a number of extremely high correlative studies that allows for something to be considered "proven"
Please, please stop talking on behalf of science. You're not doing it any favors.
show me you can prove causation and i'll change my opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Case-control_study
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial
Enjoy.
And if you want to really learn something:
http://www.amazon.com/Designing-Clinical-Research-Stephen-Hulley/dp/0781782104/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1363047010&sr=8-3&keywords=clinical+research0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions