Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

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This discussion has been archived.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: 5, Insightful) by qzm on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:04AM (4 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:04AM (#901757)

    It's not causation.

    As much as people keep trying to spin it as..

    I would be shocked if there was not a correlation there as vegetarians generally do tend to be more prevalent amongst younger people, also smokers tend not to be vegetarian.

    Actually I'm surprised it was only 10%.. which could indicate the red meat was actually beneficial.. (half joking.. But it is possible)

    Correlation by itself is almost meaningless.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:16AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @10:16AM (#901771)

    Are you trolling for lulz? In the context of correlative studies, finding a correlation with power 10% of incidence means they cannot claim "is not associated with cancer likelihood."

    OTOH consider: because they're correlation studies, NOTHING can be cause-effect proven, but... surely that doesn't mean that there are no cause-effect relations between diet and health.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:03PM (#901807)

      When they look at cenetarians and ask them how they lived so long they say it makes no sense because they smoked and drank and did whatever the fuck they wanted their whole lives.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:33PM (1 child)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:33PM (#901822)

    Even though evolution is constantly at work and can show dramatic changes in a surprisingly small number of generations, humans have basically evolved as omnivores for millions of years. We're designed, by natural selection, to eat that same diet our ancestors ate thousands of generations before us. Humans that didn't do as well on that diet, didn't produce as many offspring. That can include cancer, heart disease, etc.

    Now, we're all concerned with life after childbearing these days, which was a very real distinction for the XX chromosome carriers, not as much for the XYs... still, the diet that was good for the pre-humans, is generally good for us.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @03:23PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 02 2019, @03:23PM (#901884)

      And almost all cancers has very little to do with evolution. There is a reason why old people get cancer, not young people.

      And please, if you talk about child cancers then you must already care even more about meat since this study shows it is clearly associated with even more cancers. So, no child cancers.