3 ms·

Red meat is classified as probably carcinogenic to humans by the WHO. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/ https://www.who.int/features/qa/cance

• chrisco255 7y ago
  "This recommendation was based on epidemiological studies suggesting that small increases in the risk of several cancers may be associated with high consumption of red meat or processed meat." Epidemiological studies are surveys. They are not scientific proof of anything. This is an incredulous position to be taken by the WHO and makes me seriously question their values. They state they are small increases of risk, but do not even go into confounding variables inherent in surveys. True science isolates a variable and proves that there is a causation. It does not do so by correlation.
  • jdietrich 7y ago
    You just cited an epidemiological study and an evidence review based mainly on epidemiological studies. What do you actually believe?
    • chrisco255 7y ago
      I believe that nutrition science is pretty dubious because it mainly relies on epidemiological studies. The extraordinary claims that are touted as fact are numerous. This is why we get many conflicting studies on cholesterol, fats, carbs, etc. It's very, very difficult to isolate one variable in nutrition epidemiological studies and attribute them to correlations in population outcomes. The one major success story for epidemiological studies was smoking and lung cancer. Of course, difference there is that smoking is binary: one either smokes or they don't. They may smoke more or less...but the variables are pretty low. Whereas dietary intake is diverse and no two people eat the same exact diet.