5 ms·

Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. You have a rather naive definition of "fac

Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. You have a rather naive definition of "fact" my friend.

jonwachob91 10y ago
Cleveland Clinic seems to think that red meat diets lead to increased risk of heart disease [1]... And in a prior post someone else shared with you the Mayo Clinic article that also says red meats lead to increased risk of heart disease... If two of the top hospitals in the world for cardiac care say it I'm willing to bet it's fact. [1]https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-heart-disease-rethinking-butter-beef-and-bacon/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-hea...
- reflexive 10y ago
  Studies indicating fat contributes to heart disease have been discredited because the effect actually comes from excess sugar intake. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1819573 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...
- LifeQuestioner 10y ago
  sigh FACT does not mean that it is 100% true - you do not publish one piece of research and all of a sudden, it's FACT. In science, nothing is ever 100%.
DanBC 10y ago
We know that processed red meat causes cancer. The causal effect is weak. The quality of evidence for this is now very strong.
- LifeQuestioner 10y ago
  where? Last I checked speaking to scientists(few months back) the headlines were sensationalised. It showed correlation, not causation? I.e it could just be that people who eat red meat are generally more unhealthy. p.s not trying to advocate its bs aand we can eat all the meat we like, im a vegetarian.
  - DanBC 10y ago
    The headlines were terrible. They were linking cancer and red meat and smoking. Here's one example of terrible reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sa... > Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO > UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic This headline is mixing up 2 things: the quality of the evidence (which is now as good as the evidence we have that smoking etc cause cancer) and the strength of the effect (smoking is very much more harmful than eating red meat). It's frustrating that the news reporting was so bad, because it's caused people to reject the science: we know, with a high level of confidence, that processed red meat can cause cancer, although it probably doesn't cause very many cases of cancer.
    - reflexive 10y ago
      High confidence of a low correlation suggests other factors at work.. maybe variations in genetics, or in the particular type of processed meat. Not worth giving up bacon and sausage :-D

Meat eating diets(especially red meat) show increased risk of heart disease in so many studies it's a definite fact. You have a rather naive definition of "fact" my friend.

jonwachob91 10y ago

Cleveland Clinic seems to think that red meat diets lead to increased risk of heart disease [1]... And in a prior post someone else shared with you the Mayo Clinic article that also says red meats lead to increased risk of heart disease... If two of the top hospitals in the world for cardiac care say it I'm willing to bet it's fact. [1]https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-heart-disease-rethinking-butter-beef-and-bacon/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/2015/05/your-diet-and-hea...

reflexive 10y ago
Studies indicating fat contributes to heart disease have been discredited because the effect actually comes from excess sugar intake. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1819573 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullart...
LifeQuestioner 10y ago
sigh FACT does not mean that it is 100% true - you do not publish one piece of research and all of a sudden, it's FACT. In science, nothing is ever 100%.

DanBC 10y ago

We know that processed red meat causes cancer. The causal effect is weak. The quality of evidence for this is now very strong.

LifeQuestioner 10y ago
where? Last I checked speaking to scientists(few months back) the headlines were sensationalised. It showed correlation, not causation? I.e it could just be that people who eat red meat are generally more unhealthy. p.s not trying to advocate its bs aand we can eat all the meat we like, im a vegetarian.
- DanBC 10y ago
  The headlines were terrible. They were linking cancer and red meat and smoking. Here's one example of terrible reporting: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sausages-processed-meats-cancer-risk-smoking-says-who https://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/oct/26/bacon-ham-sa... > Processed meats rank alongside smoking as cancer causes – WHO > UN health body says bacon, sausages and ham among most carcinogenic substances along with cigarettes, alcohol, asbestos and arsenic This headline is mixing up 2 things: the quality of the evidence (which is now as good as the evidence we have that smoking etc cause cancer) and the strength of the effect (smoking is very much more harmful than eating red meat). It's frustrating that the news reporting was so bad, because it's caused people to reject the science: we know, with a high level of confidence, that processed red meat can cause cancer, although it probably doesn't cause very many cases of cancer.
  - reflexive 10y ago
    High confidence of a low correlation suggests other factors at work.. maybe variations in genetics, or in the particular type of processed meat. Not worth giving up bacon and sausage :-D