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This discussion has been archived.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: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:13AM (3 children)

    by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 02 2019, @09:13AM (#901762)

    Well death comes to all living organisms eventually, so why not wait until they die naturally before consuming them? If you're worried about an infectious disease being the cause of death, an autopsy could be performed, or you could consider that there's no guarantee the animal is disease free when it's brought to a premature end.

    There's no guarantee of anything beyond death and taxes. There is, however, a lot you can do, or not do, to make certain outcomes less likely (which is, after all, what this article was about). In some cases there are very good reasons, based on sound science and statistics, for excluding older animals from the human food chain. In fact in most cases if an animal has died before we kill it, it cannot legally go for meat, period.

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

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by FatPhil on Wednesday October 02 2019, @11:49AM

    by FatPhil (863) <{pc-soylent} {at} {asdf.fi}> on Wednesday October 02 2019, @11:49AM (#901786) Homepage
    > died before we kill it

    That's the name of my Goth band.
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:42PM (1 child)

    by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:42PM (#901982) Homepage Journal

    In fact in most cases if an animal has died before we kill it, it cannot legally go for meat, period.

    More's the pity. One technique that circumvents the disease worry is that of living on roadkill. I approve of the humans adopting that philosophy. Also on that subject I have to say that many instances of roadkill could and indeed should have been avoided to begin with.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday October 03 2019, @09:12AM

      by choose another one (515) Subscriber Badge on Thursday October 03 2019, @09:12AM (#902209)

      Trauma deaths are one of the exceptions - practically if not legally.

      Trouble with road kill is usually the damage and low quality as a result, but adopting it as a philosophy has other issues, the main one being there wouldn't be enough to go round (as well as the one about if we get better at avoiding it and thereby saving animals, we wouldn't have any to eat).