Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 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This discussion has been archived.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: 4, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:26PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @01:26PM (#901820)

    why not wait until they die naturally

    Define naturally?

    In nature, most animals (and plants) die of disease or predation. Ecosystems naturally fill up, and once full there is no place for the weak, infirm, or unlucky to "live out their days."

    The pardoned turkeys living in Gobblers Rest, VA, are artificially protected. Naturally, they'd be bobcat or coyote food.

    Humans are, by classification, animals, and before agrarian culture, we lived and died like the animals, naturally.

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Interesting=1, Informative=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 2) by acid andy on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:35PM (2 children)

    by acid andy (1683) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @06:35PM (#901977) Homepage Journal

    In nature, most animals (and plants) die of disease or predation. Ecosystems naturally fill up, and once full there is no place for the weak, infirm, or unlucky to "live out their days."

    True, but in the context of TFA we're typically talking about so-called "livestock" raised by the farming industry where humans usually choose the time and means of the animal's demise and unlike other predators, we much more fully understand the implications of these choices.

    --
    If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:46PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:46PM (#901995)

      so-called "livestock" raised by the farming industry

      Seems like they would be better named the "walking dead stock..."

      We "used" research animals sourced from an Oscar Meyer farm. Wax eloquent all you want about the rights of the poor little smart piglets, we took them out of the farm early, treated them well for one to 5 days, then gave them an injection that they (usually, and ideally) never woke up from. Still, the Friday piglet was usually pretty much of a basket case, having noticed his four friends leave one by one and never return.

      Temple Grandin tried (and to a degree succeeded) to bring a little "humanity" into the beef processing industry, more or less by putting the thought process into the perspective of the animals and designing the process to be as comfortable for them as practically possible. You know, basic empathy, something that centuries of "cow pokes" apparently lacked in abundance.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:54PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Wednesday October 02 2019, @07:54PM (#902000)

      As for:

      humans usually choose the time and means of the animal's demise and unlike other predators, we much more fully understand the implications of these choices.

      Other predators' behaviors have evolved to maximize their chances of procreation/survival, and this often includes a degree of restraint when hunting prey.

      Humans have mostly devolved into the pursuit of the holy dollar, utilizing their high school math educations to find the maximal profit point for harvest. Time is money, meat is money, grow the most meat in the shortest time to maximize your profit, simple enough that even Bubba gets it. Lately some college kids have been breeding for optimal performance in the hog and chicken sheds, selecting and refining the breeds, pumping the antibiotics and the steroids until the meat (particularly chicken and pork, but also beef) you buy in the market today grows insanely large and fast as compared to the ancestor farm animals of 60-70 years ago.

      I can't imagine a reality where change this rapid and radical can completely lack negative consequences.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]