Red meat can kill!!!!

everything in moderation!

including moderation

As the famously immoderate Greeks said!

moderaters are likely moderating this moderatory moderation.

Watch a movie called Forks Over Knives on Netflix.

I quit all meet except chicken some time ago. It took quite some time for the transformation to happen, but I eat mostly a plant based diet.

Forks Over Knives. I watched it and something felt weird. I did my own research and came to the conclusion that it's a big propaganda piece that cherry picks studies and scientists to supports it's cause. It is not objective by any means and I feel it was very misleading.

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

Well that's the latest health scare in the news today anyway.

Can i just start banging my head against a wall now, in readiness for the next one. Every week, something is really bad for you, and the next it's good.

I can't keep up!!

I'll carry on down the "everything in moderation" route I think :-)

Precisely! I mean, I have to have red meat to keep my iron count up. Everything else...ie. beans etc has blockers in it that can potentially keep your body from absorbing iron.

This thread hurts my brain. Just because you don't like the implication of the study does not mean it was poorly conducted. stupid, irrelevant or otherwise. Scientists are generally quite careful about what they do - just because their findings offend you personally doesn't mean their work is cr*p - generally it means the study has been reported in the press sensationally.

For example:

it was NOT a controlled experiment, merely an observational one based on crunching data from general health questionnaires used by other organisations. Also an association is not a cause.....and nowhere in the study does it say what *else* those people were eating.

Longitudinal diet studies are almost never manipulative (i.e., two groups are assigned to each eat one type of diet), they are almost always based on observation and post-hoc number crunching. That doesn't mean it wasn't 'controlled' - accounting for covariates and confounds are most of what the number crunching is. And, just to clear this perennial accusation up, scientists are very much aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

How is this inflammation caused in the first place? Just interesting


Viral/bacterial infection, typically.

The inflammation related to dietary and other 'sterile' factors is not generally associated with infection. Inflammation occurs as a natural process that is far more widely utilised by the body than as a pathogen-fighting response.

And applying logic ... who died of it so far? Just 'cos someone's test tube uncontrolled badly managed study says so, doesn't mean its true or actually in real life is even a factor in conjunction with everything else that goes off...

Again, just because the findings are not to your liking, does not mean the study was poorly conducted or controlled. There is enough anti-science sentiment in the western world already. We're actually not out to screw you over with bad science.

I bet this study had an agenda. I bet the researchers are vegans, lol.

Unlikely - such a long-term study is followed, analysed and conducted by many different scientists over its course. The probability of them being 1. vegans and also 2. vegans with an agenda to publish biased science, is very unlikely.

Did they run an ANOVA on all the variables? I would be interested to see the correlations.

They almost certainly would have analysed the covariate structure, which is probably not carefully reported in the press. ANOVA and correlation are quite different, however.

re: Forks over Knives:

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

Hallelujah! If you're looking for bias, agenda and improperly analysed data, look no further. The probability that this study is suffering from any of those flaws is far, far smaller than the probability that a propaganda piece such as this doco is.

Seriously, can we ever have a thread about a published study that doesn't automatically devolve into science bashing? It's disheartening. I work hard at my job trying to publish work that is of use to society. Most of us do the same every day, and do a very careful job of it. Can we get a little respect here???

pretty much anything can kill you in certain circumstances,(note the probability of these outcomes are of a low union , so the risks are worth taking in these cases.)

Carries on eating bacon.

Yes and here is another just posted today..
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/523792-124-ways-sugar-ruin-your-health

@ RobynC79

I don't think anyone is "science bashing". There are so many "studies". Each one designed to produce a previously suspected outcome. And, there is no way a person can tell who, or how qualified or the intent of a group of researchers would be. Are they promoting a specific lifestyle or product? Are they attempting to make quality of life better? It depends on who they work for and what their employer's ultimate purpose is all about.

Look at this supposed list of facts going on right now in our message boards:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/523792-124-ways-sugar-ruin-your-health

Does that look like a set of researched facts to you?

I think you are being a little sensitive to the opinions posted here. You are probably a very intelligent and trustworthy person and you shouldn't take the opinions here as a personal attacks.

@ RobynC79

I don't think anyone is "science bashing". There are so many "studies". Each one designed to produce a previously suspected outcome. And, there is no way a person can tell who, or how qualified or the intent of a group of researchers would be. Are they promoting a specific lifestyle or product? Are they attempting to make quality of life better? It depends on who they work for and what their employer's ultimate purpose is all about.

Look at this supposed list of facts going on right now in our message boards:
http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/523792-124-ways-sugar-ruin-your-health

Does that look like a set of researched facts to you?

I think you are being a little sensitive to the opinions posted here. You are probably a very intelligent and trustworthy person and you shouldn't take the opinions here as a personal attacks.

Yeah, I'm not taking it bitterly personally, I'm just exasperated at how frequently (as you mention!) these sorts of threads come up, with the same old, same old responses about how scientists are all actually idiots who don't know anything because the poster's grandmother's best friend's child once had an experience TOTALLY DIFFERENT from what the study said (I'm sure you know the type!!

Also, if you want to check the qualifications, affiliations or potential conflicts of interest for any of scientists listed as authors, a quick google will usually get you that info right away - it's required with every published study and usually listed on their academic websites too.

so can the sun, driving, walking down the street, sex, having kids...

carry on .....

Now I just want a burger.

Red meat can kill...as can being run over by a bus :grumble:

or being run over by an angry cow...

Life is pretty much a game of dodgeball; something's going to slam you sooner or later and it could be cancer or it could be your cat (80,000 a year die by tripping over their cats....and that's only the start of the feline killing spree!)
[/quote]

OMG...now I wonder if I should get my cat before she gets me...

More evidence of how red meat can (attempt) to kill you:



And yes, the cyclist is ok, she was interviewed the other night, just scraped & bruised.

This thread hurts my brain. Just because you don't like the implication of the study does not mean it was poorly conducted. stupid, irrelevant or otherwise. Scientists are generally quite careful about what they do - just because their findings offend you personally doesn't mean their work is cr*p - generally it means the study has been reported in the press sensationally.

For example:

it was NOT a controlled experiment, merely an observational one based on crunching data from general health questionnaires used by other organisations. Also an association is not a cause.....and nowhere in the study does it say what *else* those people were eating.

Longitudinal diet studies are almost never manipulative (i.e., two groups are assigned to each eat one type of diet), they are almost always based on observation and post-hoc number crunching. That doesn't mean it wasn't 'controlled' - accounting for covariates and confounds are most of what the number crunching is. And, just to clear this perennial accusation up, scientists are very much aware of the difference between correlation and causation.

How is this inflammation caused in the first place? Just interesting


Viral/bacterial infection, typically.

The inflammation related to dietary and other 'sterile' factors is not generally associated with infection. Inflammation occurs as a natural process that is far more widely utilised by the body than as a pathogen-fighting response.

And applying logic ... who died of it so far? Just 'cos someone's test tube uncontrolled badly managed study says so, doesn't mean its true or actually in real life is even a factor in conjunction with everything else that goes off...

Again, just because the findings are not to your liking, does not mean the study was poorly conducted or controlled. There is enough anti-science sentiment in the western world already. We're actually not out to screw you over with bad science.

I bet this study had an agenda. I bet the researchers are vegans, lol.

Unlikely - such a long-term study is followed, analysed and conducted by many different scientists over its course. The probability of them being 1. vegans and also 2. vegans with an agenda to publish biased science, is very unlikely.

Did they run an ANOVA on all the variables? I would be interested to see the correlations.

They almost certainly would have analysed the covariate structure, which is probably not carefully reported in the press. ANOVA and correlation are quite different, however.

re: Forks over Knives:

That is true of most documentaries. People need to really stop taking them as the hard truth every time they see one. Use them as a starting point and then do your own research. Otherwise, just use them as the entertainment they are.

Hallelujah! If you're looking for bias, agenda and improperly analysed data, look no further. The probability that this study is suffering from any of those flaws is far, far smaller than the probability that a propaganda piece such as this doco is.

Seriously, can we ever have a thread about a published study that doesn't automatically devolve into science bashing? It's disheartening. I work hard at my job trying to publish work that is of use to society. Most of us do the same every day, and do a very careful job of it. Can we get a little respect here???

Seriously. THIS. I don't think I could have said it better myself.

One thing- some of you have been accusing the scientists in the study of "going into it with a specific outcome in mind already". Let me give you a refresher on the Scientific Method- Observe, hypothesize, test. All experiments/studies begin with a hypothesis, which you aim to prove or disprove with your planned research. That's how it works. So I'm not sure why you're complaining that they had a hypothesis going into the study. As Robyn stated many times- just because you are uncomfortable with/don't like/feel threatened by the findings of a study does not give you license to make unfounded science-bashing claims against the validity of it. Studies like this that are published in peer-reviewed scientific journals are very carefully scrutinized from all angles before they are published. So you can relax and stop worrying about that.

The Daily Mail (a daily paper in the UK) is famous for finding things that cause cancer.

The Daily Mail Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue8GOry52xo


Royals on the front page
Swine flu and road rage
Find Maddie
Foreign Baddie
Put him in a big cage
Beaurocratic red tape
Facebook gang rape
Gordon out, Dave in before the country caves in
Ian Huntley gets his own jacuzzi and a gym in jail

It's absolutely true because I read it in The Daily Mail

Ban this gay smut
I'm not racist but...
Car crime; knife crime
Hang the cheating wife time
Pop stars take drugs
Teen boys wear hoods
Sports stars have sex
Bears **** in woods
Brussels politicians want to stop us drinking English ale

It's absolutely true because I read it in The Daily Mail

Poles pay for kids' blood
Immigration 'like a flood'
Soft touch British Isles
Cancer from your mobiles
Cancer from your laptop
Cancer from your root crop
Cancer from your shoes
...from your dog
...from your pen top
Immigrants arriving on an unprecedented scale

It's absolutely true because I read it in The Daily Mail