4 ms·

Just keep in mind that epidemiology is fundamentally not able to tell you anything about positive causation. In this case, individuals who eat more that 5 serv

Just keep in mind that epidemiology is fundamentally not able to tell you anything about positive causation. In this case, individuals who eat more that 5 servings of fruits and vegetables probably also exhibit a whole host of behaviors that contribute to this outcome. Essentially, they are not a representative sample of the population at large, but rather a sub-group who is "healthful" in a whole bunch of ways.

gregable 9y ago
I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this. Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show similar results: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299 - Systolic blood pressure decreased from 144 (SE +/- 1.1) to 134 mm Hg (SE +/- 2, P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure decreased from 87.4 (SE +/- 1.2) to 83.4 mm Hg (SE +/- 1.2, P < .05) from tomato extract. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470 - In the subgroup of hypertensives, quercetin (onion skin extract) decreased 24 h systolic BP by -3·6 mmHg (P=0·022) when compared with placebo (mean treatment difference, -3·9 mmHg; P=0·049). Many of the epidemiological studies also adjust for many of the features that you might look for. For example https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054 https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054 adjusts for "age, randomized treatment, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, history of high cholesterol, and use of multivitamins" and comes to the same conclusion.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  > Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge. The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate! Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this[0], red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets. [0]: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/ https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st...
  - windexh8er 9y ago
    Using a defensive position from the "white" meat interest is likely inaccurate. Red meat consumption is on the rise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-meaty-new-year-americans-will-eat-record-amount-in-2018 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-me...
    - WillPostForFood 9y ago
      The article you linked is showing data for red meat + poultry, so it doesn’t support the statement that red meat consumption is on the rise.
      - windexh8er 9y ago
        If you assume red meat declined and white meat made up the difference, sure - but you'd be wrong. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/livestock-meat-domestic-data/#Red%20meat%20and%20poultry%20production https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domest... Scroll down to the Beef pivot table. Increases year over year. Yes, red meat consumption is on the rise, along with others.
        WillPostForFood 9y ago
        Ok, so your first link was bad because it included poultry, your second link is worse because it is total production, not per capita consumption (and some production is exported). You might be right, but still don’t have any data to support your claim.
        windexh8er 9y ago
        Domestic disappearance is a measure of how much beef is used on the domestic market. So unless the meat is being used for not consumption, then yes.
        toasterlovin 9y ago
- darkerside 9y ago
  Changing and tracking diet long-term is nigh impossible. Has there been any work that you know of using economic incentives as a proxy? i.e. test group is granted coupons good for fruits and vegetables, while control group is granted fully discretionary coupons Obviously it's an imperfect experiment, but it seems like a pragmatic compromise.
windexh8er 9y ago
This is likely the best reference we have to date given the size and timeframe of the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1134845 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... There are many other short term studies that support this fully. You may not want to believe red meat consumption is indicative of negative health indicators, but most notable cardiologists in the field fully support the position.
- toasterlovin 9y ago
  Hate to break it to you, but even cardiologists can’t summon causation from correlation.
  - windexh8er 9y ago
    So your claim is you have better scientific basis than industry experts? I'll gladly challenge you to a 6-12 month comparison of you eating meats and me eating a primary plant based diet and pay for WellnessFX panels. If you lose you repay me. Edit: vegetable --> plant, and if I win (we can agree on some defined objective comparisons and scoring offline) I'll even donate the money you'd have repaid back to the charity of my choosing. I'd be glad to make our miminal findings public as well.
    - toasterlovin 9y ago
      No, what I’m saying is that correlational studies are fundamentally incapable of proving causation[0]. Furthermore, despite 50 years of nutritional advice in line with the study you linked to, and despite reductions in red meat consumption[1], health outcomes have gotten catastrophically worse, not better. So maybe the conclusions that people are drawing from these studies are wrong. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes if you want to do a deep dive on how so many people can be so wrong about something for so long. It will completely undermine your faith in experts along the way. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t... [1]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us-per-capita-availability-of-red-meat-poultry-and-fish-lowest-since-1983/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us...

gregable 9y ago

I fully concede this (and jacobolus's) point. I'm not a health researcher either, so don't take my word for any of this. Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. Some clinical studies do exist, but they are usually looking over shorter terms and at heart disease risk factors rather than mortality. These show similar results: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16368299 - Systolic blood pressure decreased from 144 (SE +/- 1.1) to 134 mm Hg (SE +/- 2, P < .001), and diastolic blood pressure decreased from 87.4 (SE +/- 1.2) to 83.4 mm Hg (SE +/- 1.2, P < .05) from tomato extract. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26328470 - In the subgroup of hypertensives, quercetin (onion skin extract) decreased 24 h systolic BP by -3·6 mmHg (P=0·022) when compared with placebo (mean treatment difference, -3·9 mmHg; P=0·049). Many of the epidemiological studies also adjust for many of the features that you might look for. For example https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054 https://academic.oup.com/ije/article/30/1/130/619054 adjusts for "age, randomized treatment, body mass index (BMI), smoking, alcohol intake, physical activity, history of diabetes, history of hypertension, history of high cholesterol, and use of multivitamins" and comes to the same conclusion.

toasterlovin 9y ago
> Building a double-blind clinical trial regarding changing people's diets over their lifetime and observing cardiovascular mortality is very hard. But it is the only diet research that can actually generate knowledge. The studies you cite are nice and all, but the first two are for studies that measured outcomes after 6-8 weeks. If you assume an average lifespan of 70 years, the longest study represented ~1/450th of a human lifespan. And, as you mention, they only measure what we think are valid indicators, not actual outcomes! And the third study may control for all of the things you mention, but it doesn't control for the other foods the study participants ate! Really the only piece of information that you need to know regarding red meat is that public health messaging for the last 50 years has been that people should limit red meat intake. And it was successful. According to this[0], red meat consumption has decreased from 133lbs per person in 1965 to 107lbs per person in 2016. But it is during this exact same time period that the obesity epidemic came into existence. So, perhaps red meat is marginally bad for you, but it is almost certainly not cause of all of the various afflictions that we think are caused in some way by our diets. [0]: https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/statistics/per-capita-consumption-of-poultry-and-livestock-1965-to-estimated-2012-in-pounds/ https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/about-the-industry/st...
- windexh8er 9y ago
  Using a defensive position from the "white" meat interest is likely inaccurate. Red meat consumption is on the rise: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-meaty-new-year-americans-will-eat-record-amount-in-2018 https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-01-02/have-a-me...
  - WillPostForFood 9y ago
    The article you linked is showing data for red meat + poultry, so it doesn’t support the statement that red meat consumption is on the rise.
    - windexh8er 9y ago
      If you assume red meat declined and white meat made up the difference, sure - but you'd be wrong. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data/livestock-meat-domestic-data/#Red%20meat%20and%20poultry%20production https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-meat-domest... Scroll down to the Beef pivot table. Increases year over year. Yes, red meat consumption is on the rise, along with others.
      - WillPostForFood 9y ago
        Ok, so your first link was bad because it included poultry, your second link is worse because it is total production, not per capita consumption (and some production is exported). You might be right, but still don’t have any data to support your claim.
        windexh8er 9y ago
        Domestic disappearance is a measure of how much beef is used on the domestic market. So unless the meat is being used for not consumption, then yes.
      - toasterlovin 9y ago
darkerside 9y ago
Changing and tracking diet long-term is nigh impossible. Has there been any work that you know of using economic incentives as a proxy? i.e. test group is granted coupons good for fruits and vegetables, while control group is granted fully discretionary coupons Obviously it's an imperfect experiment, but it seems like a pragmatic compromise.

windexh8er 9y ago

This is likely the best reference we have to date given the size and timeframe of the study: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1134845 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullar... There are many other short term studies that support this fully. You may not want to believe red meat consumption is indicative of negative health indicators, but most notable cardiologists in the field fully support the position.

toasterlovin 9y ago
Hate to break it to you, but even cardiologists can’t summon causation from correlation.
- windexh8er 9y ago
  So your claim is you have better scientific basis than industry experts? I'll gladly challenge you to a 6-12 month comparison of you eating meats and me eating a primary plant based diet and pay for WellnessFX panels. If you lose you repay me. Edit: vegetable --> plant, and if I win (we can agree on some defined objective comparisons and scoring offline) I'll even donate the money you'd have repaid back to the charity of my choosing. I'd be glad to make our miminal findings public as well.
  - toasterlovin 9y ago
    No, what I’m saying is that correlational studies are fundamentally incapable of proving causation[0]. Furthermore, despite 50 years of nutritional advice in line with the study you linked to, and despite reductions in red meat consumption[1], health outcomes have gotten catastrophically worse, not better. So maybe the conclusions that people are drawing from these studies are wrong. Read Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes if you want to do a deep dive on how so many people can be so wrong about something for so long. It will completely undermine your faith in experts along the way. [0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t... [1]: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us-per-capita-availability-of-red-meat-poultry-and-fish-lowest-since-1983/ https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2017/januaryfebruary/us...