5 ms·

About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and ma

About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...

randomsearch 8y ago
“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-of-bowel-cancer/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-...
- SilasX 8y ago
  So how much did they weight the utility of eating red meat in order to conclude that severely restricting it would be worth the .074% decrease in death risk? Because that doesn't seem like a significant risk. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/incidence https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
  - totalBeginner 8y ago
    Genuinely curious, where did you see the "0.074% decrease in death risk?" From the page you linked to: "13% of bowel cancer cases in the UK are caused by eating processed meat. Bowel cancer risk is 17-30% higher per 100-120g/day of red meat intake, meta-analyses have shown. Bowel cancer risk is 9-50% higher per 25-50g/day of processed meat intake, meta-analyses have shown; however bowel cancer risk was not associated with processed meat intake in a pooled analysis of UK case-control studies. Colon cancer risk is 12% higher per 1mg/day of haem iron intake, a meta-analysis showed; though bowel cancer risk was not associated with dietary iron intake in a pooled analysis of UK cohort studies. Serrated bowel polyp risk is 23% higher in people with the highest versus lowest levels of red meat intake, a meta-analysis showed." https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
    - zaphod4prez 8y ago
      Ok let's run this scenario (please check my math here, I'm not positive I'm doing the probability right). Let's assume we're talking about a man, bc men are more likely to be affected. Your lifetime risk of developing bowel cancer is 7% for males [1]. Bowel cancer risk is 17-30% higher if you eat a quarter pound of red meat per day [2]. But let's go ahead and assume someone does eat that much meat and use 30%. If you get bowel cancer, you have a 25% chance of dying [3]. That means... lifetime_risk_no_meat = 0.07 lifetime_risk_yes_meat = 0.07 + (0.07*.3) risk_of_death_given_cancer = 0.25 (lifetime_risk_yes_meat - lifetime_risk_no_meat) /risk_of_death_given_cancer ==> 0.084 So an 0.084% increase in risk of death if we use the most risky scenario available. [1]: Lifetime risk of bowel cancer https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Zero https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... [2]: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... [3]: Persons-> Crude rate -> UK https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/mortality#heading-Zero https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
      - gbear605 8y ago
        I believe that your math is wrong because some of your numbers are percents and some are not, and because you divided instead of multiplying. If you are interested in the chance of death, you take the chance of cancer and multiply it by the chance of death given cancer. lifetime_risk_no_meat = 7% lifetime_risk_yes_meat = 7% + (7%30%) = 9.1% risk_of_death_given_cancer = 25% (lifetime_risk_yes_meat - lifetime_risk_no_meat) risk_of_death_given_cancer = 2.1%*25% = 0.00525 = 0.525% So by this math, eating a quarter pound of red meat a day causes men in this worse case scenario to die 0.525% more often, which is a sixteen times higher rate than your calculated value. Of course, that’s not how to actually do the relevant calculations, since (assuming no significant technology changes), everyone will eventually die. Thus you instead need to do calculations based on life expectancy, or better yet on QALY (quality adjusted life years), which adjusts for the quality of life that people live in addition to their age.
- DenisM 8y ago
  From your link: >This is because there is probably a link between eating a lot of red and processed meat, and bowel (colorectal) cancer. Probably? Link? "Link" as in "co-occurring but not necessarily causally related"? No references to the studies or methods? This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels.
  - sykhotic 8y ago
    This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels. It’s a bit ironic you are questioning the study with regards to causality and then mention obesity exploding to record levels with an unsubstantiated, implied connection to the promotion of eating less fat. Your coment would have been perfect without the obesity comment since your comment is decrying linking things without sufficient causal evidence.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      The person you're responding to is not saying that avoiding fat led to obesity. They're simply saying that the obesity epidemic is evidence against the hypothesis that consuming fats leads to becoming fat. Disconfirming a hypothesis is not the same thing as as proving a competing hypothesis.
      - sykhotic 8y ago
        Without further evidence/study one can’t conclude much. We have two facts: 1. There was a campaign against eating fats. 2. There was an obesity epidemic that started shortly after the campaign against eating fats. Fact 2 is seductive because it’s natural to assume that 1) is the cause. But without further analysis and study one can’t conclude this. In a post decrying causal links without proper statistical evidence it’s ironic to fall victim to this seduction without proper statistical evidence.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  The problem is the anti-egg science was convincing at the time as well.
  - beagle3 8y ago
    It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.
    - rossdavidh 8y ago
      Which would make it wrong, but at the time, a non-expert who was looking for advice from people like doctors or their government would hear that they should be cutting back on eating eggs. Which would count as legitimately "convincing", if you're not a researcher in the field. Just wrong.
    - oh_sigh 8y ago
      So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?
      - toasterlovin 8y ago
        Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.
        oh_sigh 8y ago
        It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement
- jimmy1 8y ago
  Studies of communities that have longitivtiy confirm this. For example, the "Ikaria" study, a university of Athen's study of the island of Ikaria, where males reach the age of 90 2.5 times more frequently than Americans, their diet consisted of hardly any red meat at all (and also hardly any sugar), but rather beans, legumes, wild local greens with lemon juice and olive oil, fish, honey, and red wine.
  - bennylope 8y ago
    I think you could do worse than that diet, but this is a multivariate comparison. From the study abstract[0] > Conclusion. Modifiable risk factors, such as physical activity, diet, smoking cessation and mid-day naps, might depict the “secrets” of the long-livers; these findings suggest that the interaction of environmental, behavioral together with clinical characteristics may determine longevity. This concept must be further explored in order to understand how these factors relate and which are the most important in shaping prolonged life. It could be that the quantity red meat is solely responsible for their longevity, or has nothing to do with it, or plays some role with the many other confounding variables. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051199/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051199/
  - floatingatoll 8y ago
    Was the study of this island controlled for climate, compared to a nearby island with different diets, or compared to a distant island with similar diets? One of the points made by Ioannidis is that we’re far too easily swayed to believe what sounds plausible when no one has yet asked “Could this be for some other reason altogether that we aren’t testing for?” and then tests for those reasons. That flaw applies here: studying just one community automatically implies that the results are invalid, simply because there’s no evaluation of other communities that share various attributes that could be hidden factors for the benefit. EDIT: Per one article, that study “would try to cut through the stories and establish the facts about Ikaria’s longevity”. It has succeeded in establishing that, factually, Ikaria’s longevity is a thing relative to other populations. It has not established which of the properties of Ikaria are responsible. (For example, perhaps the island is slightly radioactive, and old people thrive in a slightly higher radioactivity.) Extrapolating that their diet is responsible is an instance of the A/X error described in the above-linked article.
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Every single one of those recommendations as of 2007 was the result of correlational epidemiological studies. It cannot be emphasized enough that correlation is not capable of proving causation. Period. All that correlation (or the lack thereof) is capable of doing is disconfirming hypotheses, not confirming them. When it comes to confirming a hypothesis it's randomized, controlled trials or GTFO.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” The previous recommendations (that got retracted) had "convincing" evidence at their time too.
peteretep 8y ago
> This is I like to think the object of this sentence is the Daily Mail[0]. [0] https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/

About time. This is the type of crap that gave us "eggs are the equivalent of smoking cigarettes", "red meat causes cancer", "Coconut oil is pure poison" and many more...

randomsearch 8y ago

“The World Cancer Research Fund report Food, Nutrition, Physical Activity and the Prevention of Cancer provided advice on red and processed meat in 2007. The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-of-bowel-cancer/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/red-meat-and-the-risk-...

SilasX 8y ago
So how much did they weight the utility of eating red meat in order to conclude that severely restricting it would be worth the .074% decrease in death risk? Because that doesn't seem like a significant risk. https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/incidence https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
- totalBeginner 8y ago
  Genuinely curious, where did you see the "0.074% decrease in death risk?" From the page you linked to: "13% of bowel cancer cases in the UK are caused by eating processed meat. Bowel cancer risk is 17-30% higher per 100-120g/day of red meat intake, meta-analyses have shown. Bowel cancer risk is 9-50% higher per 25-50g/day of processed meat intake, meta-analyses have shown; however bowel cancer risk was not associated with processed meat intake in a pooled analysis of UK case-control studies. Colon cancer risk is 12% higher per 1mg/day of haem iron intake, a meta-analysis showed; though bowel cancer risk was not associated with dietary iron intake in a pooled analysis of UK cohort studies. Serrated bowel polyp risk is 23% higher in people with the highest versus lowest levels of red meat intake, a meta-analysis showed." https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
  - zaphod4prez 8y ago
    Ok let's run this scenario (please check my math here, I'm not positive I'm doing the probability right). Let's assume we're talking about a man, bc men are more likely to be affected. Your lifetime risk of developing bowel cancer is 7% for males [1]. Bowel cancer risk is 17-30% higher if you eat a quarter pound of red meat per day [2]. But let's go ahead and assume someone does eat that much meat and use 30%. If you get bowel cancer, you have a 25% chance of dying [3]. That means... lifetime_risk_no_meat = 0.07 lifetime_risk_yes_meat = 0.07 + (0.07*.3) risk_of_death_given_cancer = 0.25 (lifetime_risk_yes_meat - lifetime_risk_no_meat) /risk_of_death_given_cancer ==> 0.084 So an 0.084% increase in risk of death if we use the most risky scenario available. [1]: Lifetime risk of bowel cancer https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Zero https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... [2]: https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/risk-factors#heading-Two https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-... [3]: Persons-> Crude rate -> UK https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/bowel-cancer/mortality#heading-Zero https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-...
    - gbear605 8y ago
      I believe that your math is wrong because some of your numbers are percents and some are not, and because you divided instead of multiplying. If you are interested in the chance of death, you take the chance of cancer and multiply it by the chance of death given cancer. lifetime_risk_no_meat = 7% lifetime_risk_yes_meat = 7% + (7%30%) = 9.1% risk_of_death_given_cancer = 25% (lifetime_risk_yes_meat - lifetime_risk_no_meat) risk_of_death_given_cancer = 2.1%*25% = 0.00525 = 0.525% So by this math, eating a quarter pound of red meat a day causes men in this worse case scenario to die 0.525% more often, which is a sixteen times higher rate than your calculated value. Of course, that’s not how to actually do the relevant calculations, since (assuming no significant technology changes), everyone will eventually die. Thus you instead need to do calculations based on life expectancy, or better yet on QALY (quality adjusted life years), which adjusts for the quality of life that people live in addition to their age.
DenisM 8y ago
From your link: >This is because there is probably a link between eating a lot of red and processed meat, and bowel (colorectal) cancer. Probably? Link? "Link" as in "co-occurring but not necessarily causally related"? No references to the studies or methods? This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels.
- sykhotic 8y ago
  This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels. It’s a bit ironic you are questioning the study with regards to causality and then mention obesity exploding to record levels with an unsubstantiated, implied connection to the promotion of eating less fat. Your coment would have been perfect without the obesity comment since your comment is decrying linking things without sufficient causal evidence.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - toasterlovin 8y ago
    The person you're responding to is not saying that avoiding fat led to obesity. They're simply saying that the obesity epidemic is evidence against the hypothesis that consuming fats leads to becoming fat. Disconfirming a hypothesis is not the same thing as as proving a competing hypothesis.
    - sykhotic 8y ago
      Without further evidence/study one can’t conclude much. We have two facts: 1. There was a campaign against eating fats. 2. There was an obesity epidemic that started shortly after the campaign against eating fats. Fact 2 is seductive because it’s natural to assume that 1) is the cause. But without further analysis and study one can’t conclude this. In a post decrying causal links without proper statistical evidence it’s ironic to fall victim to this seduction without proper statistical evidence.
oh_sigh 8y ago
The problem is the anti-egg science was convincing at the time as well.
- beagle3 8y ago
  It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.
  - rossdavidh 8y ago
    Which would make it wrong, but at the time, a non-expert who was looking for advice from people like doctors or their government would hear that they should be cutting back on eating eggs. Which would count as legitimately "convincing", if you're not a researcher in the field. Just wrong.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?
    - toasterlovin 8y ago
      Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.
      - oh_sigh 8y ago
        It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement
jimmy1 8y ago
Studies of communities that have longitivtiy confirm this. For example, the "Ikaria" study, a university of Athen's study of the island of Ikaria, where males reach the age of 90 2.5 times more frequently than Americans, their diet consisted of hardly any red meat at all (and also hardly any sugar), but rather beans, legumes, wild local greens with lemon juice and olive oil, fish, honey, and red wine.
- bennylope 8y ago
  I think you could do worse than that diet, but this is a multivariate comparison. From the study abstract[0] > Conclusion. Modifiable risk factors, such as physical activity, diet, smoking cessation and mid-day naps, might depict the “secrets” of the long-livers; these findings suggest that the interaction of environmental, behavioral together with clinical characteristics may determine longevity. This concept must be further explored in order to understand how these factors relate and which are the most important in shaping prolonged life. It could be that the quantity red meat is solely responsible for their longevity, or has nothing to do with it, or plays some role with the many other confounding variables. [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051199/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3051199/
- floatingatoll 8y ago
  Was the study of this island controlled for climate, compared to a nearby island with different diets, or compared to a distant island with similar diets? One of the points made by Ioannidis is that we’re far too easily swayed to believe what sounds plausible when no one has yet asked “Could this be for some other reason altogether that we aren’t testing for?” and then tests for those reasons. That flaw applies here: studying just one community automatically implies that the results are invalid, simply because there’s no evaluation of other communities that share various attributes that could be hidden factors for the benefit. EDIT: Per one article, that study “would try to cut through the stories and establish the facts about Ikaria’s longevity”. It has succeeded in establishing that, factually, Ikaria’s longevity is a thing relative to other populations. It has not established which of the properties of Ikaria are responsible. (For example, perhaps the island is slightly radioactive, and old people thrive in a slightly higher radioactivity.) Extrapolating that their diet is responsible is an instance of the A/X error described in the above-linked article.
toasterlovin 8y ago
Every single one of those recommendations as of 2007 was the result of correlational epidemiological studies. It cannot be emphasized enough that correlation is not capable of proving causation. Period. All that correlation (or the lack thereof) is capable of doing is disconfirming hypotheses, not confirming them. When it comes to confirming a hypothesis it's randomized, controlled trials or GTFO.
coldtea 8y ago
>The organisation said the evidence that red and processed meats are causes of bowel cancer is convincing. It advises that people eat no more than 500g of red meat a week (around 70g a day) and avoid processed meats.” The previous recommendations (that got retracted) had "convincing" evidence at their time too.

peteretep 8y ago

> This is I like to think the object of this sentence is the Daily Mail[0]. [0] https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/ https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com/