SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Consuming red meat in amounts above what is typically recommended does not affect short-term cardiovascular disease risk factors, such as blood pressure and blood cholesterol, according to a new review of clinical trials from Purdue University.
"During the last 20 years, there have been recommendations to eat less red meat as part of a healthier diet, but our research supports that red meat can be incorporated into a healthier diet," said Wayne Campbell, professor of nutrition science. "Red meat is a nutrient-rich food, not only as a source for protein but also bioavailable iron."
The recommendations to limit red meat from the diet come mainly from studies that relate peoples' eating habits to whether they have cardiovascular disease. While these studies suggest that red meat consumption is associated with a higher risk of cardiovascular disease, they are not designed to show that red meat is causing cardiovascular disease. So Campbell, doctoral student Lauren O'Connor, and postdoctoral researcher Jung Eun Kim, conducted a review and analysis of past clinical trials, which are able to detect cause and effect between eating habits and health risks. They screened hundreds of related research articles, focusing on studies that met specific criteria including the amount of red meat consumed, evaluation of cardiovascular disease risk factors and study design. An analysis of the 24 studies that met the criteria is published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Total red meat intake of >=0.5 servings/d does not negatively influence cardiovascular disease risk factors: a systemically searched meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.116.142521
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday January 03 2017, @11:37PM
What? Ya mean the science isn't settled? Folks, we see these every week or so now. And it is a heck of a lot easier to study whether eating fat makes you fat, or eating red meat will actually kill you than some of the more outrageous claims we hear from "settled science."
It is all corrupted at this point. Any science without direct application should at least be suspect at this point. Materials science, the kind where if the new flash drive based on the weird new material is wrong you get a brick, can still be trusted, a few other disciplines with similar direct confirmation; with the rest it is time for skepticism first and trust only after serious efforts at verification.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 03 2017, @11:46PM
Who needs science when we've got the Quran?
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:49AM
Holy fuck me anyway. The health impacts of anything have always been clouded by the fact there are WAY too many variables, for example exercise, genetics etc etc etc etc...exercise especially I'd say is a bigger factor than anything else. When the fuck has anyone said that "It's settled: red meat will kill you."? I'm not talking about the manner in which the media reports science, but the actual science itself (don't get me started with the whole "sitting down will kill you" BS that no study ever actually stated).
But yea, this story proves that science is totally corrupt and full shit and there's no such thing as climate change right? Are you really that big of a fucking asshole (don't answer...it's a rhetorical question...that one at least is settled).
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 04 2017, @04:34AM
Why yes, yes he is. This guy's got an axe to grind, and he grinds it so much I'm amazed it hasn't been reduced to a small knife by now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by jelizondo on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:20AM
I think you need to clarify your point. My take is that a lot of stuff is called ‘science’ because it has a dignified, trustworthy aura. In Law School (which I attended) they call law a ‘science’ but I, being an engineer first, had to suppress laughter. There is no ‘science’ in law, at least as I understand it. (In one class they actually tried to use formal logic to prove some point or another, I just shook my head. I did study logic and the presentation was terrible; clearly done by a lawyer who had come into contact with Logic but had no understanding of it.)
In my mind, Science, with a capital S, is Mathematics first, Physics second and maybe Chemistry third. As someone said, everything else is stamp collecting.
Most other endeavors are the study of their subject matter, like Sociology, History , Law and Economics. They might attempt to use the scientific method but until one can derive general laws (like Newton’s, Maxwell’s or Shannon’s) from such studies, one need to be careful, as you point out.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:11AM
If you study the philosophy of science, you'll get a slightly broader view.
For starters (depending on where you draw lines) there are three different kinds of science:
a) Analytical sciences, where deductive proofs are actually possible. Mathematics is the poster child here.
b) Empirical sciences, where proofs are really inductive, or evidence-based, but where the measurements can be independently verified, duplicated and analysed. Physics, we're looking at you.
c) Human sciences, where human measurements and reports are integrally involved. Necessarily, analyses have to be statistical, and either deductive or inductive proofs are not really viable. Psychology, economics and so on fit in here.
There's a lot of snobbery about the so-called hardness of sciences, but what a lot of people also forget is that Mathematics itself is just an applied science; an application of formal logic (i.e. a branch of philosophy) to axiomatic systems (notably set theory). It's really a matter of perspective. (Yes, XKCD's diagram on that point was incomplete.)
This isn't to say that people in the human sciences can get their perspective on things radically wrong - obviously they do - but that doesn't make those fields of study invalid or unimportant.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:40AM
but that doesn't make those fields of study invalid or unimportant.
They're not invalid or unimportant, but until they improve in rigor and objectivity by a significant amount, they are extremely suspect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:20PM
You mean things like buildings that are designed to take advantage of the greenhouse effect? /jmorris trolling
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:34PM
I don't disagree in general but its fascinating how food science WRT agribusiness counting beans (literally) when raising mammal livestock is genuinely scientific, vs food science for humans where its all propaganda bullshit based almost entirely on payment and politics.
Its funny when you research how farmers feed mammals to max out their fat percentage and its basically the food pyramid. Gosh you'd almost think the food pyramid makes fat americans or something, LOL. And if you look at the effects of a low carb diet or a paleo diet on livestock, the farmers make fun of it being the best way known to make skinny scrawny your farm gonna go out of business if you slop your hogs that kind of stuff.
You sell corn to humans to fatten them up and you're the bad guy unless you buy a lot of advertising in which case corn syrup is teh greatest. You sell corn to farmers to fatten hogs and its like duh what you think grains do to mammals, the whole point is fattening them up. In hog feed corn is great, in human feed like Doritos its pretty evil.