Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said.

[Attjack]

This is a feel-good article if I've ever seen one.

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.

The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings "erode public trust," critics said.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/h...rt-cancer.html

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since the presence of the article linked above apparently did not make everyone "feel-good" here's the study it's referencing.

https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from

[klflowers]

That is pretty interesting. I especially liked this part:

The new studies were met with indignation by nutrition researchers who have long said that red meat and processed meats contribute to the risk of heart disease and cancer.

"Irresponsible and unethical," said Dr. Hu, of Harvard, in a commentary published online with his colleagues. Studies of red meat as a health hazard may have been problematic, he said, but the consistency of the conclusions over years gives them credibility.

Nutrition studies, he added, should not be held to the same rigid standards as studies of experimental drugs.

Consistent problematics? OK, I know problematics is not a word, but what? Don't hold to rigid standards? Then what should we hold them to?

[Steve R.]

So, it's fine if the studies are flawed as long as they all come to the same flawed conclusion? And cut them some slack because the science is inexact or they can't control enough variables? Got it.

[CaptainMike]

One of the biggest problems is that they tend to peer review each other and it turns into an echo chamber because they're all afraid of offending one another. I've seen it my line of work as well, and it's a pretty straight forward job.

[Murdy]

I think when a food study is at issue, the possibility of confounding variables is a lot higher. It's probably easier to isolate a drug and establish a control group. Just pondering here?

[ofelles]

NY times article means I can not read it. No subscription

[ofelles]

thanks for trying. I guess I can't blame NYTimes for wanting to make money. I just won't support them.

[Dewesq55]

I could barely survive without the NY Times and Washington Post. Different strokes. . .

[Willy]

I see what you did there.

[Willy]

OK, so I'm gonna stick my neck out and be "controversial" here. This article, and the (coming) reactions to it (on "both" sides) reflect the ignorance of the general population on how science works and how extremely complex and difficult nutrition science is, not to mention how foolish it is to assume the latest media report represents the end-all of discussions about technically difficult issues. Here's the deal folks: ONE scientific study, even a meta-study--doesn't really mean squat. Nutrition science is still in its infancy and has a long way to go to establish certainty. STOP gloating and mocking. Take the time to read and THINK. Read both "sides" of every issue. Read a lot. Really, read a lot! The newspaper, or your favorite TV channel, is NOT the place to get your science. Stop cherry-picking.

And one more thing that may really get me in trouble. What is wrong with a business making money?????????? Should they give the things away they've paid for to you for free? Why? Do you dislike capitalism?

As for me, I suspect--notice "suspect"--the assertions that too much, repeat "too much", red meat is probably not a good thing for MOST folks are probably generally true.

Signed: Disgusted--and a frequent consumer of red meat and BBQ, now and in the future.

[CaptainMike]

You Bastar......Wait, that was a pretty good response.

[ScottyC13]

You've made great points. Studies collect data and papers are published to solicit feedback to create more studies. The more data and studies, the better understanding we have. Science evolves as we gather more data.

We can't overreact to any conclusion, but most of us can do that at times. It is kind of human nature. I remember how the poor egg was demonized in the 50s/60s only to find out the study statistics were flawed.

Thanks for your comments.

[Willy]

Attjack It's copyrighted info. Don't copy it to here without permission.

[pkadare]

https://www.livescience.com/new-guidelines-say-red-meat-ok-to-eat.html

[radshop]

With all due deference to the gentleman from the High Desert of the Great Southwest, as an ignorant member of the general population I did manage to read the entire study. (Okay, actually I had the neighbor kids read it and explain it to me with sidewalk chalk illustrations.) And I'm going to have to differ slightly with the esteemed gentleman's admonishments.

The authors correctly criticize the extant recommendations (that is, to reduce or eliminate red/processed meats) as inappropriate given that the effects found in the studies were both low-certainty and low-magnitude. In other words, the consensus is significant recommendations based on insignificant evidence. The authors designed and applied an alternative method for evaluating deleterious health effects of red/processed meats, which also showed insignificant effects. Therefore, they appropriately recommend that individuals should NOT be encouraged to make a significant, non-preferred dietary change in the event of insignificant (low-certainty, low-magnitude) findings.

This is not a case of "you have your study, we have ours". This study is not refuting the findings of the previous studies. This study is critiquing the normative recommendations derived by the previous authors from their findings.

(Hey Willy - good clean fun. Not trying to start anything.)

OK, so I'm gonna stick my neck out and be "controversial" here. This article, and the (coming) reactions to it (on "both" sides) reflect the ignorance of the general population on how science works and how extremely complex and difficult nutrition science is, not to mention how foolish it is to assume the latest media report represents the end-all of discussions about technically difficult issues. Here's the deal folks: ONE scientific study, even a meta-study--doesn't really mean squat. Nutrition science is still in its infancy and has a long way to go to establish certainty. STOP gloating and mocking. Take the time to read and THINK. Read both "sides" of every issue. Read a lot. Really, read a lot! The newspaper, or your favorite TV channel, is NOT the place to get your science. Stop cherry-picking.

And one more thing that may really get me in trouble. What is wrong with a business making money?????????? Should they give the things away they've paid for to you for free? Why? Do you dislike capitalism?

As for me, I suspect--notice "suspect"--the assertions that too much, repeat "too much", red meat is probably not a good thing for MOST folks are probably generally true.

Signed: Disgusted--and a frequent consumer of red meat and BBQ, now and in the future.

[Steve R.]

Nailed it.

[radshop]

What can I say - those kids and their sidewalk chalk. Who knew?

[CaptainMike]

Yup.

[Huskee]

I eats me some red meats no matter what them there science folk wanna say, I don't believe in aliens no matter what them there science folk wanna claim, and I don't have no computer driving my car for me no matter what them there science folk wanna build.

[Spinaker]

Thats the great thing about science. It does not matter if you believe it or not. 😎

[Attjack]

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-49877237

[Histrix]

Here's an additional link for those that can't read the NYTimes piece(s). - https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/healt..._medium=social

The thrust of the articles are that the folks (NutriRECS) behind this new study feel that there is insufficient information of high enough quality to really make a scientific determination that eating a little less meat really has any significant health benefit for most folks. It also doesn't say that eating a lot of meat is necessarily a safe and healthy thing to do.

In the back and forth between the various camps I think this paragraph seems of interest:

"NutriRECS's own data show that a moderate reduction in red and processed meat consumption within a healthy eating pattern can reduce total mortality by 13%, heart disease mortality by 14%, cancer mortality by 11% and type 2 diabetes risk by 24%," said Hu.

****

Those don't seem like insignificant numbers to me but we all judge risk differently.

I got a kick out of these paragraphs:

"Recent nutrition research has also grown more sophisticated by looking at real-life scenarios instead of a simple eat or avoid red meat study design. The new approach discovers what people eat instead of red meat when they cut back. Is it really the whole grains, fresh fruit and veggies that nutritionists recommend?

"What we've seen is that Americans seem to be committed to eating horribly in a number of fascinatingly different ways," Gardner said. "You're not eating meat. Great! What did you have for dinner instead? Oh, a highly processed cheese pizza -- no wonder your health hasn't improved."

****

Since there will continue to be disagreements as to the best diet for humans I guess we can't totally discount the possibility that Woody Allen got it right in his classic movie "Sleeper" - maybe the key to living a long healthy life is to eat a lot of steak and smoke a lot of cigarettes.

[klflowers]

I really enjoy these food discussions. I don't understand much of it, but I enjoy it anyway.

My working theory is that I am going to die of something...

[klflowers]

HawkerXP, you are killing me. So maybe it will be from you lol.

[HawkerXP]

Hey! I didn't say P_C!

[Richard Chrz]

All the healthy people are going to feel pretty stupid when they are in the hospital dying from nothing. LOL ( i read that somewhere, always makes me laugh).

[Huskee]

Studies and "facts" change like music and fashion. I think we do well to not put too much stock into the latest studies and opinions. Use common sense, and then based on that common sense, enjoy life while you have it.

[ScottyC13]

The Beatles are still the best no matter what people say.

[Bkhuna]

Don't forget, eggs are bad for you, except when they're not.

[Willy]

radshop I appreciate your comments. Let me, bluntly, reiterate my point: It is folly to accept any one study as definitive, especially when the study is in a field as complex and difficult as nutrition and especially when that study seems to overturn the established opinion. This study does not represent a sea change in nutritional thought. It is just one new study. It may turn out that these researchers are correct. It may turn out that they are wrong. I'll likely be long dead before a definitive answer is found. Hell's bells, there may never be a definitive answer found in this particular case.

Sadly, what often happens in these cases is that people don't understand the above, instead they start mocking science in general. For those who have access to the NYT article, simply read the accompanying comments; there are now over 1,300 of them.

Edit add-on: For some insight into the difficulties associated with nutrition research, read Michael Pollan's "In Defense of Food". Another good read is his "The Omnivore's Dilemma".

[Histrix]

Pollan offered probably the best, yet simple, dietary advice ever when he said "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

Anyone not familiar with how Pollan defines "food" should read his books.

[Spinaker]

"Sadly, what often happens in these cases is that people don't understand the above, instead they start mocking science in general. "

I am with you, Like I said above, The great thing about science is that it does not matter if you believe it or not.

[Richard Chrz]

Pollan's books are fantastic. and to go on record. Spinaker, could not agree more. Math and science, they are absolute. just not always interpreted that way. I prefer that people say, our current best understanding.... it is at least believable.

[pkadare]

Fat is bad, sugar is good. No wait, sugar is bad, fat is good. Eggs raise your cholesterol. No wait, eggs do not have a negative impact on your cholesterol.
My take on the whole meat thing is this; "If <insert your favourite deity here> didn't want us to eat animals, why did he/she/they/it make them out of meat?"

- A proud, lifelong member of PETA. (People Eating Tasty Animals). I also belong to Earth First (We'll mine the rest of the planets later).

[pkadare]

radshop
Sadly, what often happens in these cases is that people don't understand the above, instead they start mocking science in general.