New Study: Processed Meats
Options
Replies
-
who are you talking about?
then it's rather unfortunate that people do not know what they put into their own bodies.
not on this board unfortunately...
im the snobby vegetarian. i thought your OP was common knowledge...?how is this news?
/snobby vegetarian post
I eat meat.
It is a darn shame, innit? You'd think that most of these these people who work so hard to eat a superior diet wouldn't be perpetually struggling to lose weight.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."0 -
"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"
where did you quote that from because it's not in the full text?0 -
"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"
where did you quote that from because it's not in the full text?
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/780553?nlid=29163_13410 -
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
this.0 -
I'm definitely using this article as fuel for my "why husband needs to buy me a sausage attachment for the kitchenaid" argument.
Anyone have any articles about how store-bought pasta is deadly? Could be useful.....=P0 -
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.0 -
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
this.
please see my reply to that point. they DID take into account other lifestyle factors.0 -
I only skimmed it so far but the authors define "processed meat" as "all meat products, including ham, bacon, sausages; small part of minced meat that has been bought as a ready-to-eat product." In any event, they suggest that 20 grams or less of processed meat is the threshold for their conclusions, so at least I can eat a few ounces of bacon on the weekend, even assuming that this study definitely concludes processed meats are "bad." I am curious though about the reasoning behind lumping nitrate-free bacon into the "processed" category and whether removing it would have any effect on the conclusions. I suppose that in the end, we have a 3% increase in mortality and more studies will be necessary. Certainly nothing to panic about.
Of course, the most interesting part to me was the author's conclusions about red meat. "After correction for measurement error, higher all-cause mortality remained significant only for processed meat." Not that I was planning to give up steak.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.0 -
I only skimmed it so far but the authors define "processed meat" as "all meat products, including ham, bacon, sausages; small part of minced meat that has been bought as a ready-to-eat product." In any event, they suggest that 20 grams or less of processed meat is the threshold for their conclusions, so at least I can eat a few ounces of bacon on the weekend, even assuming that this study definitely concludes processed meats are "bad." I am curious though about the reasoning behind lumping nitrate-free bacon into the "processed" category and whether removing it would have any effect on the conclusions. I suppose that in the end, we have a 3% increase in mortality and more studies will be necessary. Certainly nothing to panic about.
Of course, the most interesting part to me was the author's conclusions about red meat. "After correction for measurement error, higher all-cause mortality remained significant only for processed meat." Not that I was planning to give up steak.
i was glad to see that too, not that i eat that much of it. also interested about the nitrate issue.0 -
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.0
-
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.0 -
no?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.0 -
It is a darn shame, innit? You'd think that most of these these people who work so hard to eat a superior diet wouldn't be perpetually struggling to lose weight.
Zinger!0 -
Near as I can tell, study only shows increased risk due to processed meat in people who've smoked (very common effect modifier), btw....there was no association among never smokers (HR = 1.24, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.72)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.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.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions