Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 15 submissions in the queue.
posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the medium-rare-please dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

No need to cut down red and processed meat, study says

Most people can continue to eat red and processed meat as they do now. A major study led by researchers at McMaster and Dalhousie universities has found cutting back has little impact on health.

A panel of international scientists systematically reviewed the evidence and have recommended that most adults should continue to eat their current levels of red and processed meat.

The researchers performed four systematic reviews focused on randomized controlled trials and observational studies looking at the impact of red meat and processed meat consumption on cardiometabolic and cancer outcomes.

In one review of 12 trials with 54,000 people, the researchers did not find statistically significant or an important association between meat consumption and the risk of heart disease, diabetes or cancer.

In three systematic reviews of cohort studies following millions of people, a very small reduction in risk among those who had three fewer servings of red or processed meat a week, but the association was uncertain.

The authors also did a fifth systematic review looking at people's attitudes and health-related values around eating red and processed meats. They found people eat meat because they see it as healthy, they like the taste and they are reluctant to change their diet.

The five systematic reviews, a recommendation and an editorial on the topic were published in the Annals of Internal Medicine today.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:11AM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:11AM (#901744)

    Here's The Real Truth About That Confusing Red Meat Study [sciencealert.com]

    Same old story. Coffee is good|bad for you. Eggs are good|bad for you. Red meat is good|bad for you.

    If you are old enough to worry about this stuff, you are already DEAD MEAT.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Informative=1, Touché=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Touché' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:40AM (2 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @08:40AM (#901752) Homepage Journal

    The published findings quite often depend upon who funded the study. Who funded this one? McMaster, is that the university funded by McD*nalds FFS?*
    *Apparently not.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:55PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @12:55PM (#901805)

      According to Mcdonalds university, eating fast food is great. According to big pharma, getting fascinated is great (and if you get hurt, the taxpayers will pay for it, not them). Who is more evil?

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:28PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:28PM (#901821)

      BEEF, it's what's for dinner.

      Brought to you by the Cattle Ranchers of America.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @11:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @11:18AM (#901781)