|
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote:Its a self-assessment questionnaire updated every 4 years. Do you not see ANY issue with that at all?
And if it wasn't known to you already, why is the correlation of eating bacon daily and increased mortality rate a surprise to you?
I'm not at all claiming to be smarter than the people who did this study, and yes I'm aware that they took those factors into account. Thanks for your smug post though. However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate.
This type of study gets misconstrued by the media into "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" which is completely and utterly false - that was my point.
No, you said: Show nested quote +The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading. which quite plainly shows you didn't read the article. Assuming they did statistical analysis correctly what they show is that two people of identical weight and exercise amount etc but differ in red meat consumption will have the person with higher red meat consumption have a marginally higher risk of mortality. Ex: a fat person who eats chicken and tuna is probably not as healthy as a skinny person who eats chicken and tuna but is at less risk of mortality than someone identical who just eats more red meat.
You're right, after re-reading my original post (which I didn't do at first before hitting reply - my thoughts in my head versus what I put in my reply were different, I just dumped all my thoughts out at the same time which got everything muddled up. I meant for "the study doesn't use common sense" to be separate from my point about people willing to eat a hotdog not being healthy. My reply definitely did not convey my thoughts properly - sorry for the confusion i'll admit fault here.
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:You're going to throw out the results of the study based on its dataset? You do realize that the datasets this study draws are some of the biggest resources out there for studying epidemiology and health and that there are a. Or are you one of those people who thinks that studies that use questionnaires are all bunk? Hell lets just discredit like 30% of research on humans.
Stop over-exaggerating my point. I don't think the study is worthless and I don't think the dataset is worthless, I just feel 4 year intervals could a little long for a study which ranges over a thirty year span. It isn't statistically perfect nor is it completely worthless I just thought it was a problem worth noting.
On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:Show nested quote +However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This isn't true either unless all food containing red meat is "unhealthy" to you. The study shows a monotonically increasing mortality risk with consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat so even eating twice a week vs once a week leads to an increase in mortality. You can argue that the media does a shitty job of representing the facts which I agree with. It does annoy me when they say "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" when in reality its more like eating bacon everyday vs once a month changes your mortality risk over 28 years from 1.13% to 1.45% or something.
The article specifically mentions hotdogs and bacon - when these are categorized as alike to red meat as a whole it DOES point in the direction of "red meat" being unhealthy. It is like categorizing eating Kentucky Fried Chicken as chicken and hence concluding that chicken results in higher mortality rate.
And your last paragraph sums up my entire point and the only real point I had an opinion on - this article is misrepresented by the media (and even this thread "Bacon = death" what a fucking joke).
|
I feel like there has to be more to this. I mean I have also read that bacon has some good properties that react postively with your brain (thus good breakfast food...) I mean...right?
RIGHT?!?!?!
20% over 20 year period is alot...wtf.
|
I heard life has a100% fatality rate guys. We should be seriously concerned.
|
On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat.
still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for processed red meat.
|
On March 14 2012 08:40 heroyi wrote:
I feel like there has to be more to this. I mean I have also read that bacon has some good properties that react postively with your brain (thus good breakfast food...) I mean...right?
RIGHT?!?!?!
20% over 20 year period is alot...wtf.
As others have said 20% is in relative risk terms. Say a healthy diet has a risk factor of 1 of death a 20% increase of eating bacon would be 1.2. It doesn't mean that if you eat bacon for 20 years you lose 20% of your life or your 20% more likely to die. It means your 20% more likely to die consuming A when compared to B
|
Frankly, they don't make the distinction between processed and non-processed meats in these studies.
Additionally, they don't make distinctions of the difference between grain and grass fed red meat which are much different in fatty acid composition.
What a waste of time.
|
On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
Show nested quote +After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat.
Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red).
|
My granda is 88. He has eaten bacon and eggs every morning for the last 40 years. Riddle me this.
|
On March 14 2012 08:40 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:On March 14 2012 07:51 Tektos wrote:Its a self-assessment questionnaire updated every 4 years. Do you not see ANY issue with that at all?
And if it wasn't known to you already, why is the correlation of eating bacon daily and increased mortality rate a surprise to you?
I'm not at all claiming to be smarter than the people who did this study, and yes I'm aware that they took those factors into account. Thanks for your smug post though. However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate.
This type of study gets misconstrued by the media into "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" which is completely and utterly false - that was my point.
No, you said: The study doesn't use common sense. If someone eats hot dogs on a frequent basis they're probably not the most active and healthy people in other aspects of their life. Labelling the study as "red meat is bad for you" is very misleading. which quite plainly shows you didn't read the article. Assuming they did statistical analysis correctly what they show is that two people of identical weight and exercise amount etc but differ in red meat consumption will have the person with higher red meat consumption have a marginally higher risk of mortality. Ex: a fat person who eats chicken and tuna is probably not as healthy as a skinny person who eats chicken and tuna but is at less risk of mortality than someone identical who just eats more red meat. Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:18 ZeaL. wrote:However, all they have proven is a correlation between eating unhealthy food and mortality rate. This isn't true either unless all food containing red meat is "unhealthy" to you. The study shows a monotonically increasing mortality risk with consumption of both processed and unprocessed red meat so even eating twice a week vs once a week leads to an increase in mortality. You can argue that the media does a shitty job of representing the facts which I agree with. It does annoy me when they say "RED MEAT WILL KILL YOU" when in reality its more like eating bacon everyday vs once a month changes your mortality risk over 28 years from 1.13% to 1.45% or something. The article specifically mentions hotdogs and bacon - when these are categorized as alike to red meat as a whole it DOES point in the direction of "red meat" being unhealthy. It is like categorizing eating Kentucky Fried Chicken as chicken and hence concluding that chicken results in higher mortality rate. And your last paragraph sums up my entire point and the only real point I had an opinion on - this article is misrepresented by the media (and even this thread "Bacon = death" what a fucking joke).
Well they did separate processed from unprocessed into two groups:
Questionnaire items about unprocessed red meat consumption included "beef, pork, or lamb as main dish" (pork was queried separately beginning in 1990), "hamburger," and "beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish." The standard serving size was 85 g (3 oz) for unprocessed red meat. Processed red meat included "bacon" (2 slices, 13 g), "hot dogs" (one, 45 g), and "sausage, salami, bologna, and other processed red meats" (1 piece, 28 g).
It's possible that some people might have selected having consumed unprocessed red meat when in reality they meant to select processed but I would have to read the survey question to really know. The results do show that both processed and unprocessed red meats cause an increase in mortality risk though higher for processed.
And yeah.. these sensationalist headlines don't help the message. They just make people annoyed because they know BACON != death and then disregard anything that comes from the scientific community.
|
On March 14 2012 08:45 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:40 heroyi wrote:
I feel like there has to be more to this. I mean I have also read that bacon has some good properties that react postively with your brain (thus good breakfast food...) I mean...right?
RIGHT?!?!?!
20% over 20 year period is alot...wtf. As others have said 20% is in relative risk terms. Say a healthy diet has a risk factor of 1 of death a 20% increase of eating bacon would be 1.2. It doesn't mean that if you eat bacon for 20 years you lose 20% of your life or your 20% more likely to die. It means your 20% more likely to die consuming A when compared to B
for comparison, non-smoker vs smoker (less than 10 cigs a day) is 1.3 (30% increase), non-smoker vs smoker (more than 10 cigs a day) is 1.8 (80% increase).
"Adjusted hazard ratios for all-causes death in smokers compared with never smokers were 1.3 (95% confidence interval, 1.2-1.4) for smokers of less than 10 cigarettes per day and 1.8 (95% confidence interval, 1.7-1.9) for smokers of 10 cigarettes per day or more."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10218754
|
On March 14 2012 08:53 fire_brand wrote:
My granda is 88. He has eaten bacon and eggs every morning for the last 40 years. Riddle me this.
good science n=1
not that I agree that bacon or eggs are bad
|
On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red).
so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested.
|
On March 14 2012 08:53 fire_brand wrote:
My granda is 88. He has eaten bacon and eggs every morning for the last 40 years. Riddle me this.
Whats a confidence interval?
|
On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested.
It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal.
|
The trouble with Bacon in particular is not just the red meat or the fats but also the nitrates which have been linked to colon cancer, which is the most rapidly increasing cancer in the developing world. in addition to this, there is also the risk of heart disease and e morbidity of obesity.
To all the petiole who say its alright ill eat mybacon I'm not worried about dying a few days earlier consider this: most people survive heart attacks and undergo its complications, forever being breathless needing pacemakers etc. nitrates have been associated with colon cancer which means bowel resection with a stoma bag which is something really unpleasant.
in other words increased mortality also probably means that all these diseases come earlier and you suffer for longer.
in this respect, I think the study should have evaluated morbidity instead of mortality. in terms of statistical power this study is huge. I haven't read the full text but there is potential for recall bias, especially with all the current ads about the negative effects of red meat.
|
'processed meats bad for you' if people seriously need to be told that from an established research reinstitute then people really are getting dumber.
simple measure, the farther away from the natural product you are, the worse it is for you. kthnx
|
On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal.
survey is obviously not the best research method, but it doesn't mean their conclusions are illegitimate. they used a huge sample size, which tends to validate even survey methods.
whats the other option? asking for volunteers to sit in cells for 20 years and have dieticians monitor their meat intake everyday? i'm sure people would be lining up for that study.
edit:
lol. i just read this article that you posted (http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/#axzz1p2fDIrR5)., which had this conclusion:
The real take home message from this study is this: Don’t be obese, do exercise, don’t smoke, eat plenty of vegetables and fruit, take supplements, avoid processed meats, avoid overcooked meats, eat from a variety of animal foods.
where the hell do you think we got the information on mortality rates for cigarettes from? surveys.... they didnt force people to smoke and then see what happens. although there were animal studies, for the most part researchers focus on the human surveys.
|
On March 14 2012 04:05 OPL3SA2 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:01 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 03:59 OPL3SA2 wrote:
"Choosing poultry over red meat was linked with a 14% lower risk of dying."
I think you may want to check your numbers there "eating as little as two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day upped their mortality rate by 20% over a 20-year period." I was referring to the fact that everyone dies. Also, I don't know anyone who eats meat every single day of their lives. I'm not even sure if it's possible to eat a hot dog every day for 20 years, because you'd be dead in about 4 years from a bowel infarction or something
I eat meat everyday of my life. It's the main staple to my diet. I grew up on a cattle farm and we ate meat everyday from hamburgers to sausage to cow tongue to steak. Then when it was time to slaughter rabbits we had rabbit meat. NONE of my family is fat, has heart disease, mental illness or the etc. My grandpa is 91 and running around the farm still healthy. I think the main thing that people need to focus on is EXERCISE. I ate only fast food while wrestling in college and still got super fit.
+ Show Spoiler +I think this study has a bias approach or has been spoiled but I'm going to read over the actual data and how they got there before I say that for sure.
|
On March 14 2012 03:57 cellblock wrote:Yeh, it is. I love bacon!
But... Anything that taste good cannot be good for you. Die happy with salted food or die from boredom?
|
On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 08:56 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:50 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 08:43 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 08:35 spacemonkeyy wrote:
Really this study shows what everyone deep down knows- Eat Real Food. Don't eat that processed garbage, it will literally kill you slowly. Of course processed any meat/food is bad and this study shows that the unprocessed red meat was fine. So really the issues is with the processing- although the big food companies don't want to hear that so somehow that gets lost in this all.
After multivariate adjustment for major lifestyle and dietary risk factors, the pooled hazard ratio (HR) (95% CI) of total mortality for a 1-serving-per-day increase was 1.13 (1.07-1.20) for unprocessed red meat and 1.20 (1.15-1.24) for processed red meat. still a 13% increase in mortality for unprocessed red meat; 20% for unprocessed red meat. Doesn't account for orgainic vs non-organic or for what else they have in the diet plus the red meat or even how they cook the red meat. If you think of a real overweight person who is sick all the time and eats a crap diet and never moves around would you imagine his flesh is good to eat? Mass farming operations basically bring animals up in a really unnatural and sickly sort of way so that someting that would normally be rich in omega 3's (very very good for you) has barely any and is rich in omega 6 (bad). The problem is on average diet and lifestyle and the food sources are so poor in general that you need to be cautious in identifying what is actually bad about the red meat (i.e not the fact it is red). so, unless they test and account for everything possible, their study is worthless? thats not how research works. they try to limit the factors as much as possible, and consequently limit their findings to only what was tested. It's one but many flaws in the study the major one being its a survey (done at every 4 years? wheres the validity in that?). Have you read the links I posted back on page 9 or 10? The evidence is all there for your perusal.
Of course 4-year follows up are fine. It's a huge study of a large part of the population. While I would also assume that people aren't very accurate in self-reports of how much meat they eat, it doesn't really matter if they are completely accurate as long as they aren't completely wrong either. It's a clear dose response effect with a huge sample. Also people will be inaccurate in a systematic manner and it would take another variable to explain why prone-to-death-people for some reason lied in a systematic way (which would be needed to invalidate results). You probably aren't doubting the same data when it also will clearly show that for instance drinkers will die to a higher extent and all the other relationships like less sausage <-> more vitamins pretty much always found in studies of this magnitude.
It's just not possible to follow a population over time and ask them something every week(or day, hour, second..) even if that would be better.
If I wanted to debunk it (which you didn't do instead talk about nitrated and processed foods which isn't really the big find here), I would be worried about the cohorts and how they were created. I would also worry about the statistical analysis because while I don't fully understand them, I do know that there are several different variations to go about making these types of analysis of longitudinal data and that results between different statistical methods can differ quite a lot. Not very simple to analyse it due to 2 different cohorts (treated as 1 population..) and the sampling is done at different intervals and who knows if the members of the cohorts even started at the same time. Also attrition apart from death like how many stopped responding and who can be relevant.
With that said I still think the study seems quite solid and that the most likely explanation for their results is that red meat causes an increased chance of dying. This did make me curious to read more about the cohorts though but overall it seems very thought through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
