Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said.

[Troutman]

Wow, now I feel really dumb. Can I go back to eating my steak now?

[pkadare]

As long as it isn't charred because science has proven that charred meat contains carcinogens.

[Troutman]

I especially go for the charred fat

[ILikePigButts]

I couldn't care less, I just like steak and ribs.

[Murdy]

"That is not to say that those links don’t exist. But they are mostly in studies that observe groups of people, a weak form of evidence."

This seems directly contrary to everything I ever learned about the scientific method. Large studies are typically regarded as more reliable than small ones. A hypothesis that has more confirming instances is entitled to more weight.

[Donw]

We will just have to wait and see what future papers say. Always the question of causation versus correlation.

[Porkies]

Trans-Fats, non-grazing cattle, hormones, steroids, antibiotics... etc...
There are yet 'scientists' who are not devoid of morality. How many have given into greed? Who knows.

[Huskee]

We shouldn't shun trans fats, we should be accepting of all fats. Fats don't choose what type they are.

[ILikePigButts]

Huskee some trans fats may identify as monounsaturated fats and we should respect that.

[Porkies]

Attjack I agree 100% with you and I'm not turning my back on science. The items I pointed out in my post are just examples of science, and/or people doing the studies, which are just wrong and they failed the scientific method. Also, when I look at what DuPont did (still doing?) and the influence they had (have).... it's downright frightening.

[Willy]

Murdy It may sound non-intuitive, but "observational" studies are weak forms of evidence, independent of the size of the groups. Controlled studies are much better; they try (emphasis on "try") to eliminate confounding variables and double blinded controlled studies are the gold standard. And, here, the size of the sample being studies is relevant. A study of ten people won't yield anything significant, a study of tens of thousands will be much more meaningful

To make a totally fictional example, look at an observational study contrasting the effects of the Japanese diet vs that of the American diet. The raw data is readily available. Simplistically, it would be the total amount of foods purchased in each country. Alas, there is no control here. Here a few easy confounders: 1) how much more or less of the purchased food is actually consumed by each country's citizens. Is some thrown away? 2) Do the Japanese exercise more? 3) Are there any genetic factors? Let's say the Japanese are, in general, found to be healthier. Why? Consumption of soy? Rice? More raw seafood?

OTOH, a really good study would involve at least thousands of people and their diets would be rigidly--key word being "rigidly"--controlled for years, maybe even decades. Extraneous variables like exercise, smoking, total caloric intake, or total sleep would also be controlled. And, it would be double blinded, which is not possible. People know what they ate; it can't be blinded. Clearly, controlled studies are virtually impossible in nutrition science; they simply can't be done. This is why nutritional "facts" are so difficult to pin down with any certainty. As a result, it's easy to take pot shots at nutritionists.

As to other difficulties faced by nutritionists, take cholesterol. Some decades ago, cholesterol was discovered to have negative cardiac effects. Learning this, the recommendation went out to avoid foods containing high levels of cholesterol. That was good advice based on our then-current knowledge. Later, it was found that dietary cholesterol content wasn't so important, so the guidelines changed to reflect that. (I did this from memory. I think it's true, but please let me know if I'm wrong.)

Anyway, then we who are ignorant of nutrition science (and I am one), take media reports and the latest study as gospel and eventually just become disgusted and, sadly, learn not to trust any science.

[Murdy]

Willy -- Thank you for the thoughtful response, I certainly agree with what you say about the weaknesses of observational studies. On reviewing my original post, I see I cut off a piece of what I intended to quote, in fact, the key piece that was causing my consternation (in italics):

"That is not to say that those links don’t exist. But they are mostly in studies that observe groups of people, a weak form of evidence. Even then, the health effects of red meat consumption are detectable only in the largest groups, the team concluded, and an individual cannot conclude that he or she will be better off not eating red meat."

It seemed that the author was implying that the fact that a large group was involved made the study less relevant. This sentiment is present elsewhere in the article as well. This is what I was objecting to.

[Dewesq55]

I think the point is not that it is less relevant in general, but it has less relevance to any individual's choices and their consequences. Where you see relatively small effects and only across extremely large sample sizes, the implication is that for any one individual, those effects are just as likely to be negligible or non-existent as compared to the entire cohort. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I read it.

[Murdy]

Maybe so, but then they should just quantify it. A 1% risk confirmed by a study of 10,000 is a more reliable piece of data that a 1% risk confirmed by a study of 100. What they are doing is not the way data is usually presented or evaluated, probably in an attempt to minimize the apparent risk.

[Spinaker]

There are plenty of other things that will kill me before my consumption of red meat does. And if I die young because I eat red meat. So be it. At least I will have enjoyed my time here.

I' rather die eating red meat than grazing at a salad bar.

[Dewesq55]

I've never been to a Fogo de Chão, but Churrascaria Plataforma in Manhattan has a pretty awesome salad bar as well.

[Spinaker]

They are amazing. But really they are there to get you to fill up on the greens so you don't eat as much meat! Well played. Dewesq55

[Dewesq55]

Spinaker - I know they are there for that. Hence, I rarely partake of them, despite them being amazing.