Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 110

Thread: Huge study shows red meat boosts risk of dying young page 10

  1. #91
    Sigi's Avatar
    Sigi is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    837
    Quote Originally Posted by ChocoTaco369 View Post
    Recently, I got boneless ribeye for $4.99/lb from Australia, and a grassfed beef tenderloin for $3.99/lb.
    How the F@&#! do you lot in the US get to buy Australian rib-eye at that price when I, LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, have to pay from $35 to $45 per kilo for the stuff!

    <stomps off, furious>
    I have the simplest tastes. I am always satisfied with the best.

    Oscar Wilde

  2. #92
    RitaRose's Avatar
    RitaRose is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    3,952
    Quote Originally Posted by SkinnyMinnie View Post
    I believe the problem is the body can't handle all that excess iron.
    This tends to only be a problem for women that no longer have periods or for men. And actually, the remedy for this is pretty simple. Just donate blood, your iron levels are fixed and it's good for everyone.
    My sorely neglected blog - http://ThatWriterBroad.com

  3. #93
    Bron's Avatar
    Bron is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    417
    Quote Originally Posted by Sigi View Post
    How the F@&#! do you lot in the US get to buy Australian rib-eye at that price when I, LIVING IN AUSTRALIA, have to pay from $35 to $45 per kilo for the stuff!

    <stomps off, furious>
    LOL, it's cos you live in a capital city! Move to the country

  4. #94
    dixonge's Avatar
    dixonge is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    DFW, TX
    Posts
    13
    Interesting take here from the U.K. - red meat causes cancer, but only in the U.S. !

    Support for "Trick and Treat": How 'healthy eating' is making us ill: Study finds red meat may not be edible - but only in the US

  5. #95
    jammies's Avatar
    jammies is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,518
    Quote Originally Posted by Owly View Post
    I have a friend who has problems with too much iron, but it's very rare. Worryingly, it can look like anemia, so some people with it end up being given iron supplements and end up very ill. It's a rare condition, but it is real, so the poster above may have a similar issue.

    As for confounding factors, I don't see any discussion of sugar intake, which I would want to see considering the growing body of evidence that sugar consumption is linked to a number of health conditions. If the red meat group represents people who are less health conscious overall, then there is a reasonable possibility that their sugar intake is also higher. Since that was not controlled for, it's hard to say whether that might also be playing a role.

    Additionally, as I noted above, there's an overall difference in caloric intake between the quintile groups, which I don't see discussed as a confounding variable. Since we know that caloric restriction also plays a role in longevity, I'm surprised that difference isn't addressed anywhere in the discussion.

    They appear to have considered pork to be red meat--they quite clearly consider ham, hot dogs, and bacon to be processed red meat. Their categories seem to be broken out based on mammal/non-mammal as the distinction between red meat and other meats since they specifically refer to poultry and fish as the substitution for red meat.
    I think they did control for the change in caloric intake (They list the following factors that were controlled for :age (continuous); body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) , alcohol consumption, physical activity level , smoking status, race (white or nonwhite); menopausal status and hormone use in women, family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; history of
    diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia; and intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, all in quintiles)

    However, as you mentioned they did not control for sugar intake. Also, a previous poster mentioned the same question that I have - was any additive effect considered for these things. For example if you had an increased in total calories AND smoked AND had less exercise were you just docked for the individual things or was it taken in to account that there could be an additive negative effect from these behaviors.
    Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )

    http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

  6. #96
    EdBrown's Avatar
    EdBrown is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2
    Quote Originally Posted by captaineight View Post
    I strongly believe in science, and that includes contemporary medical science. It's a lot more reliable than gym-junkie pseudo-science.
    I believe in science too, and I have a few bones to pick with the study

    1. Their choice of data is suspect as Food Frequency Questionaries are just not very effective at eliciting what/how much people actually eat. The authors made several statistical "adjustments" to the food data to make it work better.

    2. "Associated with" vs "causes". Observational epidemiology of this sort can NEVER determine causation. It can highlight correlations, but as we all know bee stings are correlated with ice cream cone consumption, but that doesn't mean bees cause people to eat ice cream cones. The study's conclusion reads, "Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk."

    3. They did some co-variate analysis. The glaring exception (to my mind) is that they didn't adjust for sugar consumption. They adjust for glycemic index of foods, but for a number of reasons I think this fails to take into account sugar's full potential effect.

    The actual study can be found at - Arch Intern Med -- Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies, March 12, 2012, Pan et al. 0 (2012): archinternmed.2011.2287v1

    Obviously my bias is to eat meat without chagrin. AND I don't think we can draw conclusions from this study.

  7. #97
    Owly's Avatar
    Owly is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    3,823
    Quote Originally Posted by jammies View Post
    I think they did control for the change in caloric intake (They list the following factors that were controlled for :age (continuous); body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared) , alcohol consumption, physical activity level , smoking status, race (white or nonwhite); menopausal status and hormone use in women, family history of diabetes mellitus, myocardial infarction, or cancer; history of
    diabetes mellitus, hypertension, or hypercholesterolemia; and intakes of total energy, whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, all in quintiles)

    However, as you mentioned they did not control for sugar intake. Also, a previous poster mentioned the same question that I have - was any additive effect considered for these things. For example if you had an increased in total calories AND smoked AND had less exercise were you just docked for the individual things or was it taken in to account that there could be an additive negative effect from these behaviors.
    You're right; my bad, I missed that. As someone who reads research regularly, I should know better (although I'm in the social sciences, so it's not quite the same).
    “If I didn't define myself for myself, I would be crunched into other people's fantasies for me and eaten alive.” --Audre Lorde

    Owly's Journal

  8. #98
    tfarny's Avatar
    tfarny is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    3,478
    Not only that, but someone mentioned "additive effects" - a bit more technically termed "interaction effects" - so that a combo of inactivity, high red meat, and say,smoking, may be more deadly than all the individual bits added together. That is very hard to model and I don't see them attempting it here. Humans are complicated creatures and very often don't lend themselves well to the assumptions of the General Linear Model.
    If you are new to the PB - please ignore ALL of this stuff, until you've read the book, or at least http://www.marksdailyapple.com/primal-blueprint-101/ and this (personal fave): http://www.archevore.com/get-started/

  9. #99
    jammies's Avatar
    jammies is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    4,518
    Quote Originally Posted by tfarny View Post
    Not only that, but someone mentioned "additive effects" - a bit more technically termed "interaction effects" - so that a combo of inactivity, high red meat, and say,smoking, may be more deadly than all the individual bits added together. That is very hard to model and I don't see them attempting it here. Humans are complicated creatures and very often don't lend themselves well to the assumptions of the General Linear Model.
    I really suspect that this is the reason for these results. I wish I was statistically inclined enough to tackle the data myself, but it is way beyond my skill set. I suspect it would be very challenging to control for, but you could exclude people who had any of those confounding factors from the analysis and the see if your data held up.
    Using low lectin/nightshade free primal to control autoimmune arthritis. (And lost 50 lbs along the way )

    http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

  10. #100
    Danpuel's Avatar
    Danpuel is offline Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Stoke-on-Trent, UK
    Posts
    7
    Primal Blueprint Expert Certification
    I know the study says it controlled variables but without testing people who have been eating primal for a long time this study is pretty irrelevant to us (although clearly it's not junk science or anything like that).

    No matter how careful they were to ensure the people they surveyed were healthy, eating good diets etc, surely the fact that most -- if not all -- of those surveyed will have been eating red meat in conjunction with sugary foods, vegetable oils, grains and what not means only that red meat, when eaten along with these things, may cumulatively create a greater risk of heart disease and other such illnesses.

    The fact that they still have no idea what it is in red meat or saturated fat that could cause these problems -- and the fact that studies specifically focused on these things have failed to show that, on their own, they are dangerous -- further suggests that it isn't unprocessed red meat that's the problem.

    Just a thought. What do y'all think?

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 891011 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •