New Study: Processed Meats

mmddwechanged

I read the study quickly. ( EPIC, a project from the WHO.) It does appear to show an association between many dietary factors besides and including processed meat and red meat and chicken abd mortality.. The findings show an association between high consumption of processed meat and increased cancer risk and mortality. One recommendation from the discussion is: " deaths could be prevented if all participants had a processed meat consumption of less than 20 g a day". ( what I got from this is that findings from the study suggest cutting back, not eliminating processed meat from your diet)

I am a vegetarian, so I actually read lots about health advantages of this diet. I have yet to be convinced that there are scientifically proven health benefits of merely excluding meat! . In fact, what seems more likely to me is that consumption of some meat ( but perhaps less than the sverage morth american consumes) is the healthiest. In rhe case of this study, there was a weak correlation between red meat consumption and mortality and no correlation between poultry and mortality. there is also discussion about consumption of fruits and veggies not having an effect if i read that correctly.. Because it is impossible to fabricate an independant variable when we study the diets of large populations like this one did it is helpful to have such reports that one day we can draw conclusions from analysis of past studies that can be cross referenced etc.

I would not tell anyone that they "should" or "shouldn't" eat what I believe to be the healthiest. I would be ticked off if someone criticized my snickers bar and diet coke snacks. (I wonder what the "safe" measures are for this snack). I also have a hunch that different people have different tastes and preferences. What I have learned from my readings and my daughter's anthropology studies is how amazingly adaptive human beings are and have been over the ages. This is why it's ok and probably quite healthy to choose what we eat.

CoachReddy

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+research

please click and scroll down to "Determining Causation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"David Hume argued that causality is based on experience, and experience similarly based on the assumption that the future models the past, which in turn can only be based on experience – leading to circular logic. In conclusion, he asserted that causality is not based on actual reasoning: only correlation can actually be perceived.[14]"

"Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.[15]"

"From the significance of the difference of the effect of the treatment vs. the placebo, one can conclude the likeliness of the treatment having a causal effect on the disease."

"Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together."

etc...

jonnythan

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+research

please click and scroll down to "Determining Causation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"David Hume argued that causality is based on experience, and experience similarly based on the assumption that the future models the past, which in turn can only be based on experience – leading to circular logic. In conclusion, he asserted that causality is not based on actual reasoning: only correlation can actually be perceived.[14]"

"Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.[15]"

"From the significance of the difference of the effect of the treatment vs. the placebo, one can conclude the likeliness of the treatment having a causal effect on the disease."

"Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together."

etc...

What does any of that have to do with what you asked?

You wanted to know how to establish causation. Case control and randomized control studies do that.

This particular study does not imply causation in any way, shape, or form, and yet you went right from correlation to dose-response.

Look, you messed up and misinterpreted the study. You admitted you're not a scientist, and you're clearly not well-versed in research methods. Just say "my bad" and move on instead of trying to confuse the issue with a bunch of unrelated information.

CoachReddy

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+research

please click and scroll down to "Determining Causation" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

"David Hume argued that causality is based on experience, and experience similarly based on the assumption that the future models the past, which in turn can only be based on experience – leading to circular logic. In conclusion, he asserted that causality is not based on actual reasoning: only correlation can actually be perceived.[14]"

"Because one cannot rewind history and replay events after making small controlled changes, causation can only be inferred, never exactly known. This is referred to as the Fundamental Problem of Causal Inference – it is impossible to directly observe causal effects.[15]"

"From the significance of the difference of the effect of the treatment vs. the placebo, one can conclude the likeliness of the treatment having a causal effect on the disease."

"Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together."

etc...

What does any of that have to do with what you asked?

You wanted to know how to establish causation. Case control and randomized control studies do that.

This particular study does not imply causation in any way, shape, or form, and yet you went right from correlation to dose-response.

Look, you messed up and misinterpreted the study. You admitted you're not a scientist, and you're clearly not well-versed in research methods. Just say "my bad" and move on instead of trying to confuse the issue with a bunch of unrelated information.

my point was that you can't prove causation, you can only collect a bunch of correlative data which makes it highly likely there's causation.

(this tangent needs to stop though)

jonnythan

my point was that you can't prove causation, you can only collect a bunch of correlative data which makes it highly likely there's causation.

Oh. I see.

Well, your point is wrong. After all.... you're "not a scientist."

LiftAllThePizzas

If I had wheels I'd be a wagon.

sunsnstatheart

And a thread that could have included an interesting discussion about one study comes completely off the rails because the OP reads too much into that study and refuses to back down. I still like the part of the study that excludes hamburgers as "processed meats." Meh, I'll re-read the study later and discuss it privately.

CoachReddy

my point was that you can't prove causation, you can only collect a bunch of correlative data which makes it highly likely there's causation.

Oh. I see.

Well, your point is wrong. After all.... you're "not a scientist."

I'm pretty sure David Hume is well respected though? EDIT: (and yes I know he was a philosopher. lol)

anyway, my editorial was meant as a hypothesis, i'm sorry if you took it as a conclusion. let's move on.

Tom_Jones74

Anyone have any articles about how store-bought pasta is deadly? Could be useful.....=P

No, but I could definitely find some Italians that will express how bland and dry it is.

ApexLeader

i won't stop eating bacon for anyone

CoachReddy

my point was that you can't prove causation, you can only collect a bunch of correlative data which makes it highly likely there's causation.

Oh. I see.

Well, your point is wrong. After all.... you're "not a scientist."

I'm pretty sure David Hume is well respected though? EDIT: (and yes I know he was a philosopher. lol)

anyway, my editorial was meant as a hypothesis, i'm sorry if you took it as a conclusion. let's move on.

I hypothesize that increased amounts of processed meat make your penis bigger based on this study.

pucenavel

Hot dogs are bad for you?

I suppose next you're going to tell me that cigarettes and heavy drinking are too?

SanteMulberry

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

Genetics.

Yes, genetics is part of the equation, but we have a great deal of ability to influence the expression of those genes---that is about which the whole field of epigenetics is concerned.

jenilla1

Didn't read the study cuz I don't eat that crap anyway. Processed meats like hot dogs and sausages, etc. taste like *kitten* to me and don't sit well with my digestive tract. But more power to the people who love them. I make my own sausage using leaner cuts of meat and poultry like turkey, along with fresh herbs and spices. Much tastier and without all the less-than-choice animal bits, sickening chemicals, bizarre additives and overload of saturated fats. I highly recommend "processing" your own meat.

jonnythan

I highly recommend "processing" your own meat.

It's much more fun when someone else does that for you AMIRITE??

LiftAllThePizzas

And a thread that could have included an interesting discussion about one study comes completely off the rails because the OP reads too much into that study and refuses to back down. I still like the part of the study that excludes hamburgers as "processed meats." Meh, I'll re-read the study later and discuss it privately.

That never happens.