|
ive been eating bacon everyday for 2 years. and im still alive, and healthy! explain that harvard!
|
On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote: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: Show nested quote +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.
Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables.
|
I read this and was thinking "Man, that kinda sucks, I love steak." I suppose this isn't really new news, though - we've been hearing stuff along these lines for a long time.
About 10 min after reading the SO comes home and says (and I quote), "You feel like ribs tonight?"
Yes.
My poor innards. My poor, poor innards.
|
....worth it. The amount of bacon I consume will not be changed. Pretty interesting stuff though.
|
On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote: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. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables.
please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies.
|
i don't buy it.
bacon, red meat, eggs, etc.
that stuff is good for you.
|
On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote: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. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables.
You seem to be confused about significant results and effect size. With enough people even insignificant (as in extremely small effect size) relationships can be statistically significant. But in this study the effect isn't extremely small.
|
|
|
If bacon = death, then death = bacon. Therefore, do not fear death.
|
On March 14 2012 09:43 hmmBacon wrote:
For Sure !!!
nice name. i checked to see if you made it for this thread. nope. ;-)
|
If I knew bacon would kill me in 30 minutes, I'd still give serious consideration to eating it.
|
So, it has come to this.
+ Show Spoiler ++1 internet if you know where this is from.
The ultimate choice... I choose death!
To be honest the title should be related to red meat, not bacon in particular. Still, we all die eventually. And honestly, who eats bacon on a daily basis?
|
On March 14 2012 09:54 Kurr wrote:So, it has come to this. + Show Spoiler ++1 internet if you know where this is from. The ultimate choice... I choose death! To be honest the title should be related to red meat, not bacon in particular. Still, we all die eventually. And honestly, who eats bacon on a daily basis?
I do. never been healthier.
|
If bacon = death, then I don't want life
|
On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote: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. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies.
Studies on smoking are different than studies done on diets. Either you smoke, or you don't. Some people smoke more than others, but it's only one thing: Smoking. But diets are multifaceted and contain a great deal more variables than smoking. It's not as simple as "either you eat red meat or you don't" because there are different kinds of red meat, and these red meats are often improperly put into a singular category. Hamburgers in the same category as pork? You bet. Grass fed and grain fed beef put in the same category? You bet.
Now if this was just a study of hot dogs, it'd be a lot simpler. Either you eat hot dogs or you don't, let's measure if there is a correlation. And of course, account for other variables that would damage our study (people who do not eat hot dogs will likely be more health conscious, not smoke, exercise, etc). But add in all these other types of food and categorize them as "red meat" and it is difficult to discern whether it's "red meat" or just particular subcategories of "red meat" causing the correlation.
Anyways, in my opinion we should never, ever use observational studies to draw conclusions in any case. I recall there was one study done where it was observed that women who took estrogen had reduced rates of cancer. As it turns out these women were more likely to exercise and were more health conscious. When a clinical study was done, taking estrogen supplements increased cancer rates by 30%! Observational studies can be used to say whatever you want. And, yes, I am saying that using observational studies to link cancer and smoking would not be sufficient evidence of causation. A clinical study would. Which we have done, and the evidence is there.
|
On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote: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. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? - red herring because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies - ad hominem .
Asides from the obvious flaws to your arguement (can't beleive anyone would argue smoking doesn't cause cancer they have proven it in more ways than one) here is my counter.
When trying to prove causation these are important considerations
Strength of the association. How large is the effect?
The consistency of the association. Has the same association been observed by others, in different populations, using a different method?
Specificity. Does altering only the cause alter the effect?
Temporal relationship. Does the cause precede the effect?
Biological gradient. Is there a dose response?
Biological plausibility. Does it make sense?
Coherence. Does the evidence fit with what is known regarding the natural history and biology of the outcome?
Experimental evidence. Are there any clinical studies supporting the association?
Reasoning by analogy. Is the observed association supported by similar associations?
Whilst this study certainly ticks some of the boxes (even with what is in my opinion flawed methodology) a few points come to mind.
1. What is the biological mechanism in which red meat causes cancer? (I have suggested numerous charring of meat, poor quality meat, additives - none of which actually are relevant to the colour of the meat)
2. In my opinion asking someone what they ate for the last 4 years is not a very accurate way to assess diet at best is a very blunt observation - used to draw a very sharp conclusion
3. The assumption that all red meats are equal and cooking methods, organic vs non organic, addiditves are all the same.
If you wanted to draw the conclusion along the lines of
"People who report to eat more processed red meat and red meat have an statistical increase increase risk of mortality. This study did not investigate the effect of additives, organic vs. non-organic or the cooking methods of these meats which could signficantly impact the findings given the growing knowledge of the biophysiological effects of these variables. Given that a resounding majority of the study likely consumed non-organic, additive rich food and that red meat is regularly charred (as per what is supplied at food retailers) as a general rule we would exercise caution whilst consuming excessive red meat. Further studies are needed to see if delineation exists with a 3rd sub group (i.e processed vs non processed vs organic, additive free, non charred red meat)."
then I could get on board with that. As far as bacon=death or that red meat as a whole is bad for you I think these are bad messages to be sending people where in my opinion red meat is extremely important part of everyone's diet but in this day an age even concerted efforts to eat well can be marred by hidden dangers (additives, non-organic etc.) There's just so much more going on with diets that are way worse than eating good quality red meat. Really we should be discouraging this fast food style production of meat and encouraging consumption.
So my main issue is not that eating red meat as it is done on average is bad for you my issue is the message it sends. All these people thinking its bad to eat meat- guess what happens when we demonized fats- 6-11 serves of cereals a day. We can't afford to treat these things in such a reductionistic point of view or in black and white terms. Some fats are really bad for you- some fats are extremely good (i.e have as much as you want- as long as you stay within your metabolisms limits). Some red meats are really bad for you- some are extremely good for you. Some carbs are good for you (i.e fruit and veges given the added extra nutrients) some are really bad for you (i.e bread, corn, rice, potatoes, sugars). The human body is designed with some wiggle room you just gotta make sure you try to find the balance (which in most people is way off).
|
people who dont eat bacon have a 100% mortality rate
two pieces of bacon or one hot dog a day increases mortality rate by 20%
i like percentages
|
On March 14 2012 04:07 Grovbolle wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 04:00 Denis Lachance wrote:
So as I understand it, eating nuts provides you with a -6% chance of mortality, ergo, immortality? (with increasing life mind you)
Better start eating more nuts. Understanding logistic regression and Quantitative analysis will get you further 
Further than Bacon?
|
On March 14 2012 10:27 shinosai wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2012 09:38 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:32 spacemonkeyy wrote:On March 14 2012 09:03 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 14 2012 09:00 spacemonkeyy wrote: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. Increasing sample size actually in a lot of cases makes the study worse. If the effect is known and major i.e consuming a bottle of methylated spirits kills you all you would need would be a 1 control and a 1 variable to demonstrate the effect (obviously you would want to have a few more people to be sure of your conclusions the general accepted minimum is 50 or so). If the methodology is flawed then it doesn't matter how many people you conduct it on it is going to draw flawed conclusions- testing flawed methodology on more people doesn't undo the flaws. If your sample is too small your confidence intervals are too big to draw conclusions but if your sample is too big your confidence interval may be too small to be realistic with the accuracy of the study (i.e giving a millimeter measurement when all you can measure in is meters). Something that is not statistically significant with a small population may all of a sudden become statistically significant if you get those confidence intervals low enough with a large population. In the end you can end up picking up some extremely small effect sizes and with something as variable as diet your measuring tool (a survey every 4 years) is not accurate enough to draw conclusions of that small of a nature. For example say 1 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product A, and 2 in a million people have x outcome from consuming product B thats a 200% increase in risk. Whilst this is true statistically is it a useful or valid statement if outcome x can occur from 1000's of different confounding variables. please explain to me why it was legitimate for them to use these types of survey methodologies to establish the link between cancer and smoking, but it is not proper here? because your hero is telling you not to smoke, but is poo-pooing the results of red meat studies. Studies on smoking are different than studies done on diets. Either you smoke, or you don't. Some people smoke more than others, but it's only one thing: Smoking. But diets are multifaceted and contain a great deal more variables than smoking. It's not as simple as "either you eat red meat or you don't" because there are different kinds of red meat, and these red meats are often improperly put into a singular category. Hamburgers in the same category as pork? You bet. Grass fed and grain fed beef put in the same category? You bet. Now if this was just a study of hot dogs, it'd be a lot simpler. Either you eat hot dogs or you don't, let's measure if there is a correlation. And of course, account for other variables that would damage our study (people who do not eat hot dogs will likely be more health conscious, not smoke, exercise, etc). But add in all these other types of food and categorize them as "red meat" and it is difficult to discern whether it's "red meat" or just particular subcategories of "red meat" causing the correlation. Anyways, in my opinion we should never, ever use observational studies to draw conclusions in any case. I recall there was one study done where it was observed that women who took estrogen had reduced rates of cancer. As it turns out these women were more likely to exercise and were more health conscious. When a clinical study was done, taking estrogen supplements increased cancer rates by 30%! Observational studies can be used to say whatever you want. And, yes, I am saying that using observational studies to link cancer and smoking would not be sufficient evidence of causation. A clinical study would. Which we have done, and the evidence is there.
you are criticizing the questionnaire itself, not the use of questionnaires generally (and i think your criticisms are legitimate). the methodology is always something to consider when understanding these studies.
use of "observational studies" are always important to identify issues, and where possible they should be followed up with more conclusive studies. people shouldn't just dismiss them though. the first study linking smoking with cancer was obviously an "observational study." what is this clinical study for smoking?
|
If I had a dollar for every person in this thread who completely misunderstands statistics and what "increased chance of mortality" means, I'd be very pleased right now.
Edit: Just to clarify, I'm talking about posts that sound like this:
How can you increase mortality by 20%? Everyone is going to die. Does this mean if I don't eat red meat I'm immortal?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
