• Red meat is a nutrient dense food providing important amounts of protein, essential amino acids, vitamins, and minerals that are the most common nutrient shortages in the world, including vitamin A, iron, and zinc.
  • Despite claims by the World Health Organization (WHO) that eating processed meat causes colon cancer and red meat probably causes cancer, the observational data used to support the claims are weak, confounded by multiple unmeasured factors, and not supported by other types of research needed for such a conclusion. Although intervention studies are designed to test the validity of associations found in observational studies, two interventions of low-fat, low-meat diets in volunteers that failed to find a benefit on cancer were not considered in the WHO decision.
  • It is likely that the association of red-meat consumption with colon cancer is explained either by an inability of epidemiology to detect such a small risk or by combinations of other factors such as greater overweight, less exercise, lower vegetable or dietary fiber intake, and perhaps other habits that differentiate those who eat the most meat from those who eat the least.

Full Paper - https://doi.org/10.1093/af/vfy009

  • xepMEnglish
    3·
    5 months ago

    I know that this is mentioned in videos from Low Carb Down Under by Dr Mason, among others, but for visitors just browsing the comments, I’d like to quote

    the section on relative risk of colon cancer when eating processed meat:

    Nevertheless, the IARC working group concluded that for every 50 grams of processed meat eaten, the relative risk of colon cancer was increased by 18% compared with those who ate the least processed meat. How does this compare with known carcinogens? The increased relative risk of lung cancer from smoking cigarettes is 1000–3000%. The increased relative risk of liver cancer from eating moldy grains contaminated with aflatoxin is about 600%. In fields outside nutrition, the usual threshold for confidence about relative risk is in the range of 200–400%. At the higher end of that range, one can be guardedly confident but “we can hardly ever be confident about estimates of less than 2.0, and when estimates are much below 2.0, we are simply out of business” (Shapiro, 2004); relative risk of 2.0 translates to an increase of 100%. So, an 18% increase equals a relative risk of 1.18, and this score falls substantially below the threshold that epidemiologists in other fields generally accept as worthy of further investigation.

    Another indicator of risk is the absolute risk, as opposed to the previously mentioned relative risk. The relative risk is a ratio of the disease rate in the group exposed to the highest amount divided by the rate in the group exposed to the lowest amount but this risk ratio does not reflect the absolute risk of a disease. The lifetime absolute risk of colon cancer in vegetarians is 4.5 out of 100; in people eating 50 grams of processed meat every day for a lifetime, the risk is 5.3 out of 100. These numbers are not statistically distinguishable in epidemiological studies.

    Emphasis mine.

    • psud@aussie.zoneMEnglish
      3·
      5 months ago

      Yep. The vegans, vegetarians, and 7th Day Adventist like to pretend meat is dangerous for our health and the environment and they muster bullshit, exaggeration, and low quality papers to pretend to prove their points

      Annoyingly too many of those are working in nutrition organisations both government and private, as well as in the World health organisation also the Heart Foundation

      • jet@hackertalks.comOPMEnglish
        3·
        5 months ago

        Annoyingly too many of those are working in nutrition organisations both government and private, as well as in the World health organisation also the Heart Foundation

        This is the power of those who are motivated by philosophy and not personal gain. It’s an amazing ability people have to put a goal above themselves, but those same fanatics are not going to be the most objective reviewers of science

        It’s Time to separate Church and Plate. !

        The Legacy of the Temperance Movement … in an attempt to stop us consuming alcohol and meat, have we allowed the processed food industry to create our food supply? Are we simply going to sit back and watch Vested Interests and Ideology (with the backing of the cereal industry and coca-cola) to dictate health policy and continue to shape our dietary and health guidelines?

        This is a great read if you haven’t seen it already, it might make your blood boil a little.