Hello Friend,

If this is your first visit to SoSuave, I would advise you to START HERE.

It will be the most efficient use of your time.

And you will learn everything you need to know to become a huge success with women.

Thank you for visiting and have a great day!

New study slams "years of shoddy research" about Red Meat...finds it is not "bad for you" nor is it a health risk

BackInTheGame78

Moderator
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
12,932
Reaction score
13,879
Uh oh...another new study bashing the terrible studies that conclusions have been based on for years and years without much questioning..


“We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. Moreover, we found no evidence of an association between unprocessed red meat and ischemic stroke or hemorrhagic stroke,” they summarized.

“The evidence for a direct vascular or heath risk from eating meat regularly is very low, to the point that there is probably no risk,” commented Dr. Steven Novella, a Yale neurologist and president of the New England Skeptical Society. “There is, however, more evidence for a health risk from eating too few vegetables. That is really the risk of a high-meat diet, those meat calories are displacing vegetable calories.”

 

Millard Fillmore

Master Don Juan
Joined
Mar 9, 2023
Messages
730
Reaction score
668
I've learned over the years to tune out news about health/food studies.

It's not that they aren't useful cumulatively or if someone wants to do real research. Just that the media glom on to these stories, report them in simplest attention grabbing terms, and the masses turn the headline into conventional wisdom which later turns out to be b.s.

Remember when eggs were bad for you? Or red wine prevented cancer? Etc.

Better for me just to use common sense and stop demonizing or halo-izing foods.
 

image

Read for FREE!

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,572
Reaction score
8,612
Age
34
This is not accurate. Unprocessed red meat is indeed a health risk that is dose dependent. The critical mass appears to be 100g per day. If you eat less than 100g per day on average, there is no negative association. Above that mark, there is association with unprocessed red meat as an independent risk factor for CVD and cancer.

In short, eating unprocessed red meat once or twice a week is perfectly fine. Beyond that, it is a net negative
 
Last edited:

BackInTheGame78

Moderator
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
12,932
Reaction score
13,879
This is not accurate. Unprocessed red meat is indeed a health risk that is dose dependent. The critical mass appears to be 100g per day. If you eat less than 100g per day on average, there is no negative association. Above that mark, there is association with unprocessed red meat as an independent risk factor for CVD and cancer.

In short, eating unprocessed red meat once or twice a week is perfectly fine. Beyond that, it is a net negative
This has no basis according to what they found. Again. You seem unwilling to accept that information and how we view things change over time.
 

image

Read for FREE!

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,572
Reaction score
8,612
Age
34
That isn't what they are saying.
What they are saying is wrong. Red meat intake is independently associated with cancer and heart disease. As I said, it is dose dependent. The evidence on this is not even controversial. The occasional steak or burger is fine. If you want to eat it every day.. good luck.
 

image

Read for FREE!

Serenity

Moderator
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
4,761
Age
32
Location
Eye of the storm
I think one problem with cancer studies and reporting on it to the general public is the use of percentages. Most people are too stupid or lazy to understand what a 15% increase in cancer risk means.

In 2020 the global average for getting colorectal cancer was 19.5/100 000 or 0.0195%. Now this includes all causes, but let's pretend for the sake of argument it doesn't include eating red meat and doing so increases that statistic by 15%. Now it's 22,4/100 000 or 0.0224% or 2.9 more people per 100k who gets cancer because of eating red meat.

My point is that "15% higher risk" sounds like a lot more than an increase of 0.0029 percentage points.

The percentages presented in media doesn't give a useful sense of the true risk such as "if you eat a lot of red meat the chance you're getting this cancer this year is now 0.0224% instead of 0.0195%". Nobody would quit eating red meat over cancer concerns alone if this was the numbers presented to them.

Journalists generally suck at interpreting and putting studies into the right perspective, they don't understand much more of what they're reading than the average Joe.
 

AmsterdamAssassin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
2,906
Journalists generally suck at interpreting and putting studies into the right perspective, they don't understand much more of what they're reading than the average Joe.
Also, journalists / reporters are not into the whole 'red meat or not' camp, they merely looking for content that will make people buy/read magazines/newspapers in order to sell ad space. When there is no 'real' news, they come up with this shyte to just 'fill the empty space'.
 

Serenity

Moderator
Joined
Aug 19, 2013
Messages
4,941
Reaction score
4,761
Age
32
Location
Eye of the storm
Also, journalists / reporters are not into the whole 'red meat or not' camp, they merely looking for content that will make people buy/read magazines/newspapers in order to sell ad space. When there is no 'real' news, they come up with this shyte to just 'fill the empty space'.
Most of them, yeah, but some probably are just biased as well. It's easy to abuse statistics to push an agenda by interpreting the numbers in incorrect ways, I'm sure that's done deliberately rather than through sheer ignorance at least in some articles.
 

image

Read for FREE!

AmsterdamAssassin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Aug 4, 2023
Messages
3,532
Reaction score
2,906
Most of them, yeah, but some probably are just biased as well. It's easy to abuse statistics to push an agenda by interpreting the numbers in incorrect ways, I'm sure that's done deliberately rather than through sheer ignorance at least in some articles.
I compared news stories in different newspapers and yes, there are some more 'sensational' publications that will skew the facts towards the negative to make the readers fearful. It's a known strategy especially in American media to keep easily frightened people indoors where they can be more easily manipulated to buy more consumer shyte instead of going out and enjoying the sunshine.
 

Reincarnated

Don Juan
Joined
Jan 2, 2023
Messages
140
Reaction score
130
Look, this article or any other article isn't going to sway me to eat or not to eat more/less red meat (I eat a good amount of it), but nutrition & food related studies are notorious for "straw man" conclusions. You can literally find at least 2-3 articles that support almost any food related claim, such as "a glass of wine a day is good for you" or "why eating chocolate is good for your health". Proceed with caution I'd all I'm saying.
 

obelisk

Senior Don Juan
Joined
Sep 4, 2023
Messages
286
Reaction score
282
I'm pure carnivore (primarily beef). Believe the straw man arguments and flawed science of these studies if you like. Best I've felt in years.

BigFarm, BigFood and BigPharma...the three Fs are NOT your friend.
 

image

Read for FREE!

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,572
Reaction score
8,612
Age
34
I'm pure carnivore (primarily beef). Believe the straw man arguments and flawed science of these studies if you like. Best I've felt in years.
That “flawed science” is medical consensus from decades of epidemiological research. “Feeling great” on carnivore has more to do with removal of certain foods than beef being some superfood.
 

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
5,607
Age
47
Location
midwestern cow field 40

EyeBRollin

Master Don Juan
Joined
Oct 18, 2015
Messages
10,572
Reaction score
8,612
Age
34
This study claims red meat causes diabetes, which is a new one, I think.

I have seen a few articles linking a correlation between red meat and diabetes but nothing about it being causal so far. Cancer and heart disease are the big concerns with high red meat consumption.
 

image

Read for FREE!

Bible_Belt

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jul 27, 2005
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
5,607
Age
47
Location
midwestern cow field 40
I have seen a few articles linking a correlation between red meat and diabetes but nothing about it being causal so far. Cancer and heart disease are the big concerns with high red meat consumption.
They'll never say anything causes anything else. I was just surprised by this one. I had associated diabetes with sugar and processed carbs making glucose levels spike up and down. But meat doesn't do that.
 

Scaramouche

Master Don Juan
Joined
Jan 27, 2008
Messages
3,763
Reaction score
938
Age
79
Location
Australia
Hi BackInTheGame,
Terrific article.....But at the risk of being a tedious Old Guy,Marinate your meat guys and chuck the marinade,tastiest part though it may be,down the sink,never burn or smoke your meat...Having worked on a Chicken Farm and seen conditions in which Hogs live,I eat those meats sparingly...My choice is Wild Kill or Lambs that never see a feed lot nor are they injected....I favour the food of our primitive ancestors,they spent their long cold nights under the wondrous beauty of the Stars,sitting around the fire trading lies and cracking the bones for marrow...They took on board a lot of Gelatin,natures salve and lubricant for worn bones and Cartelidge,maybe also got incidental cinders and Silicon.
 
Top