4 ms·

Yep. You don't have to go that far. A decade back it was thought that red meat causes cancer, specifically intestinal cancer. Lots of health guidelines reflecte

by N1H1L 5y ago

Yep. You don't have to go that far. A decade back it was thought that red meat causes cancer, specifically intestinal cancer. Lots of health guidelines reflected that. It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years.

ChrisLomont 5y ago
Have some place to read this? Everywhere credible I look seems to still say it. For example, https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat
- N1H1L 5y ago
  https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-can... Good overview of the controversy.
  - netizen-936824 5y ago
    Media reporting is the literal worst way to learn about scientific reporting and studies
    - ubercow13 5y ago
      What's a good way? Certainly not reading individual scientific studies yourself.
      - netizen-936824 5y ago
        Textbooks, meta-analyses, asking researchers personally (multiples of them), and individual studies (also multiple, never rely on a single one)
  - ChrisLomont 5y ago
    You started with this >It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years. as if the scientific community has demonstrated it - it has not, and your articles do not support that claim. Your articles from 2-3 years ago are about one report, and even your articles call into question that report. So no, it has most definitely not "all fallen apart." Interestingly, days after your NYT article, they published this one https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-di... Go figure, right? He also has papers claiming the opposite of well established sugar research, which, you guessed it, was paid for by a industry trade group that tries to undermine health guidelines to make people believe doctors less and eat bad stuff.... When there are decades of papers and different groups with a similar claim, and one group publishes one counter claim, it makes news. It does not mean the counterclaim will stand further scrutiny. In this case, as looking over google scholar at research following the 2019 claim, it has not withstood more scrutiny. Here is the paper you posted [1]. Here [2] is but one followup paper claiming your paper is basically crap. I can find none supporting the conclusions in [1]. All papers since then I can find still claim meat increases the risk of intestinal and other cancers. Please don't believe or spread outlier results from news stories. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 [2] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red...

by N1H1L 5y ago

ChrisLomont 5y ago

Have some place to read this? Everywhere credible I look seems to still say it. For example, https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat https://progressreport.cancer.gov/prevention/red_meat

N1H1L 5y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-meat-poses-no-health-risk https://www.theguardian.com/food/2019/sep/30/research-red-me... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-can... Good overview of the controversy.
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  Media reporting is the literal worst way to learn about scientific reporting and studies
  - ubercow13 5y ago
    What's a good way? Certainly not reading individual scientific studies yourself.
    - netizen-936824 5y ago
      Textbooks, meta-analyses, asking researchers personally (multiples of them), and individual studies (also multiple, never rely on a single one)
- ChrisLomont 5y ago
  You started with this >It has all fallen apart in the last 2-3 years. as if the scientific community has demonstrated it - it has not, and your articles do not support that claim. Your articles from 2-3 years ago are about one report, and even your articles call into question that report. So no, it has most definitely not "all fallen apart." Interestingly, days after your NYT article, they published this one https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-discredited-meat-guidelines-didnt-report-past-food-industry-ties.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/well/eat/scientist-who-di... Go figure, right? He also has papers claiming the opposite of well established sugar research, which, you guessed it, was paid for by a industry trade group that tries to undermine health guidelines to make people believe doctors less and eat bad stuff.... When there are decades of papers and different groups with a similar claim, and one group publishes one counter claim, it makes news. It does not mean the counterclaim will stand further scrutiny. In this case, as looking over google scholar at research following the 2019 claim, it has not withstood more scrutiny. Here is the paper you posted [1]. Here [2] is but one followup paper claiming your paper is basically crap. I can find none supporting the conclusions in [1]. All papers since then I can find still claim meat increases the risk of intestinal and other cancers. Please don't believe or spread outlier results from news stories. [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M19-1621 [2] https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red-and-Processed-Meats-and-Health-Risks-How https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/2/265/36125/Red...