Re: Red meat increases risk of death?

[Guest guest]

Hello,

I read it and felt like they came to the wrong conclusion, and I also

found some blog posts critical of it. Here are some:

http://robbwolf.com/?p=460

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/03/more-stupid-nonsense.html

I hope that helps,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM, chriskjezp <chriskresser@...> wrote:

> et al.,

>

> My dad emailed me about the study published yesterday in the Archives of

> Internal Medicine (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/562).

> Apparently they followed 500,000 people and found that red meat consumption

> increases mortality.

>

> I haven't had the chance to read or analyze the study yet, but I'm wondering

> if anyone here has.

>

>

[Guest guest]

I was wondering about it also. And if there were any other

considerations... Ie carbs /organic range fed, etc..

On 3/26/09 7:44 AM, " chriskjezp " <chriskresser@...> wrote:

>

>

>

> et al.,

>

> My dad emailed me about the study published yesterday in the Archives of

> Internal Medicine (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/562).

> Apparently they followed 500,000 people and found that red meat consumption

> increases mortality.

>

> I haven't had the chance to read or analyze the study yet, but I'm wondering

> if anyone here has.

>

>

-Anne

[Guest guest]

I read the study through with my husband 2 days ago. He is a bio-statistician -

he participates in high-profile medical and psychological studies all over the

world, so I trust what he has to say.

What the media is reporting and what the study actually says are 2 different

things:

The actually study said:

" Red and processed meat intakes, as well as a high-risk meat diet, were

associated with a modest increase in risk of total mortality, cancer, and CVD

mortality in both men and women. In contrast, high white meat intake and a

low-risk meat diet was associated with a small decrease in total and cancer

mortality. "

The actually words used were " ASSOCIATED WITH " . They cannot possibly say that

red meat was the CAUSE or that it WILL LEAD to anything.

In the same way, you could say that cold temperatures and snow are associated

with each other, but you could NOT say that cold temperatures WOULD always cause

snow - there are so many other factors necessary for snow to be produced besides

just cold temperatures.

We also know:

- the data was not separated out for each grouping, so it doesn't give an

accurate picture (the study should have been designed differently)

- they formulated their data on the MEMORY of the participants (which can be

inaccurate).

Neither of these 2 factors lends themselves to a rigorous study.

And here's the worse part. If you read the actual study, you will see that it

says:

" Red meat intake was calculated using the frequency of consumption and portion

size information of all types of beef and pork and included bacon, beef, cold

cuts, ham, hamburger, hotdogs, liver, pork, sausage, steak, and meats in foods

such as pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew " .

In other words, even those people who ate things like hot dogs and hamburgers

(with buns made of refined white flour), and who ate pizza (on refined white

flour crusts) were included in the 'red meat' group. Also, those who ate

processed or cured meats, such as ham, bacon, sausage, hot dogs, or cold cuts

(with possible nitrates) were included in the 'red meat' group. And those who

ate prepared food (with unknown additives and preservatives) such as pizza,

chili, lasagna, and stew were also included in the 'red meat' group.

It doesn't seem like the *quality* or type of the meat is taken into account at

all in this study. Adulterated red meat, processed prepared foods,

factory-farmed meat, and organic pastured red meat are all lumped into the same

category (and we don't really know if any of the meat in question was even

organic pastured red meat).

Finally, there are many other factors that may have been measured (and not

reported) or that were not measured at all. These things reduce the credibility

of their findings:

We do NOT know if the people in the study who died could afford *better* health

care and hence, were exposed to more drugs, vaccines, antibiotics, and medical

procedures, increasing their risk of mortality.

We do NOT know if they lived in primarily one or two geographic locations which

could have exposed them to more pollutants. For example, did those who died live

in urban areas with more smog? Or did those who died live in areas with more

toxic water?

We do NOT know if these people who ate more red meat ALSO ate more processed

foods, or more sugar, or more convenience foods containing preservatives and

additives (which deplete health and lead to other conditions). We do NOT know if

they ate more polyunsaturated fats, which we know are not healthy.

We do NOT know if these people were under various stresses in their lives. We do

NOT know if they were employed, and if they enjoyed their jobs (or found them to

be tedious). We do not know if they were retired, still felt useful and

purposeful in life, or had financial stresses. We know nothing about their

emotional lives.

We do NOT know if they were exposed to greater levels of radiation. Did they

have more electromagnetic items in their homes (i.e. microwaves, computer

screens, more televisions, electric blankets, cell phones, fluorescent lighting,

etc.)?

We do NOT know if the people in the study were using lotions, toiletries,

deodorants, toothpastes, or even cleaning products and detergents that contained

more toxins.

We do NOT know if they consumed more fast food.

Any of the above could have been the *real* root of cancer or heart disease, or

have increased their risk.

Hence, I wouldn't worry about this study at all. If they ever do a study with

*clean* data, record detailed information about actual food consumption, factor

in other lifestyle and environmental influences, and limit their scope to the

consumption of quality meat, then we can pay more attention to their results.

Lis

>

> My dad emailed me about the study published yesterday in the Archives of

Internal Medicine (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/562).

Apparently they followed 500,000 people and found that red meat consumption

increases mortality.

[Guest guest]

Is there a food that eliminates the risk of death?

Kathy

---- chriskjezp <chriskresser@...> wrote:

=============

et al.,

My dad emailed me about the study published yesterday in the Archives of

Internal Medicine (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/562).

Apparently they followed 500,000 people and found that red meat consumption

increases mortality.

I haven't had the chance to read or analyze the study yet, but I'm wondering if

anyone here has.

[Guest guest]

ROFL now THERE is perspective for you.. LOL

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 9:37 AM, Kathy Dickson <kathy.dickson@...>wrote:

> Is there a food that eliminates the risk of death?

>

> Kathy

>

>

--

-Anne

[Guest guest]

When you cook red meat the creatine content gets denatured to creatinine. Maybe

that is bad for the body?

Yours Truly,

Dan Holt

On Mar 26, 2009, at 8:00 AM, <stacylm@...> wrote:

Hello,

I read it and felt like they came to the wrong conclusion, and I also

found some blog posts critical of it. Here are some:

http://robbwolf.com/?p=460

http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/03/more-stupid-nonsense.html

I hope that helps,

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 10:44 AM, chriskjezp <chriskresser@...> wrote:

> et al.,

>

> My dad emailed me about the study published yesterday in the Archives of

> Internal Medicine (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/169/6/562).

> Apparently they followed 500,000 people and found that red meat consumption

> increases mortality.

>

> I haven't had the chance to read or analyze the study yet, but I'm wondering

> if anyone here has.

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> I read the study through with my husband 2 days ago. He is a >bio-statistician

- he participates in high-profile medical and >psychological studies all over

the world, so I trust what he has to >say.

Thanks for sharing this, Lis. M. said he's going to be writing the very

first WAPF blog post on this in the next couple of weeks. WAPF is also planning

to send it out as a message to members.

[Guest guest]

On 3/26/09, chriskjezp <chriskresser@...> wrote:

> Thanks for sharing this, Lis. M. said he's going to be writing the

> very first WAPF blog post on this in the next couple of weeks. WAPF is also

> planning to send it out as a message to members.

The plan is now to write my own blog tonight or tomorrow, send the

message out, and write the first wapf blog on another topic, although

the possibility of greatly expanding this topic to something beyond

what I post on my blog soon is not ruled out.

Chris

[Guest guest]

On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 8:00 AM, <stacylm@...> wrote:

> Hello,

>

> I read it and felt like they came to the wrong conclusion, and I also

> found some blog posts critical of it. Here are some:

>

> http://robbwolf.com/?p=460

> http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/03/more-stupid-nonsense.html

Wilton Alston over at the lewrockwell blog comments on it as well:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025995.html#more

excerpt:

" A respondent writes, via e-mail:

Not only is the study a poor design as you point out, it is also

meaningless as its basis of measurement is a " detailed

questionnaire " ...questionnaires about one's diet are always error

prone as remarkably few people remember accurately what they eat on

any given day, let alone over a period of years. Furthermore, most

people lie about what they actually eat, especially now that proper

diet has been given a quasi-religious significance and eating poorly

is equated with being morally inferior. "

--

" Forget about reading Austrian Economics. In fact, forget about

reading in general. I finally realize what is the fastest, surest way

to learn real economics: it's listening to NPR (National Public

Radio). All you have to do is realize that EVERY SINGLE THING their

radio hosts and guests say about economics is 100% FALSE--then you'll

automatically learn what are real economic truths. "

Kramer

[Guest guest]

> > Hello,

> >

> > I read it and felt like they came to the wrong conclusion, and I also

> > found some blog posts critical of it. Here are some:

> >

> > http://robbwolf.com/?p=460

> > http://www.freetheanimal.com/root/2009/03/more-stupid-nonsense.html

>

> Wilton Alston over at the lewrockwell blog comments on it as well:

>

> http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/025995.html#more

Here are two more:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/meat-and-mortality/

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/