New Study: Processed Meats
Replies
-
thanks for confirming I made the right decision to start tomorrow cutting the processed foods and eat fruits,veggies and organic0
-
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 -
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.
This is why I pose my question about whether the link is nitrates and other additives. Most of the cured meats from Spain and Italy have far fewer additives than the deli meats we buy at the local grocery chains. If it is additives and not the meat itself, and if people can make informed decisions about purchasing certain types of cured meats over other more processed meats without the fear-mongering, then that should be clarified.0 -
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.
his cured ham and chorizo probably bears no resemblence to its american grocery store counterpart.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.0 -
you forgot the " " around study.0
-
Mortality rate of everyone is 100% sooner or later, mate.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.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/780553?nlid=29163_13410 -
Bumping for later reading0
-
you forgot the " " around study.
true, no reputable organizations involved here
1 Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention, Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Zurich, 8001 Zurich, Switzerland
2 Division of Cancer Epidemiology, Deutsches Krebsforschungszentrum, 69221 Heidelberg, Germany
3 Section of Epidemiology, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, 8000 Aarhus, Denmark
4 National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM), 3720 Bilthoven, The Netherlands
5 Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, University Medical Centre, 3508 Utrecht, The Netherlands
6 Danish Cancer Society Research Center, 2100 Copenhagen, Denmark
7 Inserm, Centre for Research in Epidemiology and Population Health, U1018, Institut Gustave Roussy, 94805 Villejuif, France
8 Paris South University, UMRS 1018, 94805 Villejuif, France
9 Nutritional Epidemiology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale Tumori, 20133 Milan, Italy
10 Molecular and Nutritional Epidemiology Unit, Cancer Research and Prevention Institute (ISPO), 50139 Florence, Italy
11 Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Federico II University, 80131 Naples, Italy
12 Cancer Registry and Histopathology Unit, "Civile - M.P.Arezzo" Hospital, 97100 Ragusa, Italy
13 HuGeF - Human Genetics Foundation - Torino, 10126 Torino, Italy
14 Department of Epidemiology, German Institute of Human Nutrition Potsdam-Rehbrücke, 14558 Nuthetal, Germany
15 Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge CB2 2QQ, UK
16 Medical Research Council (MRC) Epidemiology Unit, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, UK
17 Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LF, UK
18 WHO Collaborating Center for Food and Nutrition Policies, Department of Hygiene, Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, University of Athens Medical School, 11527 Athens, Greece
19 Hellenic Health Foundation, 11527 Athens, Greece
20 Department of Epidemiology, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston MA 02115, USA
21 Bureau of Epidemiologic Research, Academy of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
22 Julius Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, 3508 Utrecht, The Netherlands
23 School of Public Health, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ, UK
24 Department of Community Medicine, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway
25 Department of Biostatistics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Oslo, 0317 Oslo, Norway
26 Unit of Nutrition, Environment and Cancer, Cancer Epidemiology Research Program, Catalan Institute of Oncology (ICO), 08907 Barcelona, Spain
27 Andalusian School of Public Health, 18080 Granada, Spain
28 Consortium for Biomedical Research in Epidemiology and Public Health (CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública-CIBERESP), Spain
29 Department of Epidemiology, Murcia Regional Health Council, 30008 Murcia, Spain
30 Public Health Directorate Asturias, 33006 Oviedo, Spain
31 Navarre Public Health Institute, 31003 Pamplona, Spain
32 Public Health Division of Gipuzkoa, BIODonostia Research Institute, Department of Health of the Regional Government of the Basque Country, San Sebastian, Spain
33 Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, 20502 Malmö, Sweden
34 Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Nutrition Research, 90185 Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
35 Department of Odontology, Cariology, Umeå University, 90185 Umeå, Sweden
36 International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), 69008 Lyon, France
37 Institute of Epidemiology, Helmholtz Centre Munich, 85764 Neuherberg, Germany0 -
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
- 393.2K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 420 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions