3 ms·
This is usually not considered reliable. They also don't look if there could be other foods causing the cancer markers, sugar for example. High protein+cheap ca
by aszantu 2y ago
This is usually not considered reliable. They also don't look if there could be other foods causing the cancer markers, sugar for example. High protein+cheap carbs are more likly to cause cancer afaik, So these ppl are probably also eating tons of white bread and drink energy drinks or whatever.
Dietary information in the participating cohorts was collected by self-reported
approaches: 26 cohorts used food frequency questionnaires, three used dietary history, and two used dietary records (appendix p 2).
Three primary exposure variables were determined by calculating total consumption levels of unprocessed red meat (eg, beef, pork, lamb, and veal), processed meat (eg, bacon, ham, sausage, and hot dog), and poultry (eg, chicken, turkey, duck, and goose).
Chicken and poultry aren't red meat, they're white meat?
AND: Consumption levels of other food groups were considered as covariates.
The CoVariates: We considered the following covariates as potential confounding factors (for cohort-specific details, see appendix p 8) according to published literature and biological plausibility: sociodemographic characteristics (age, sex, ethnicity, and education level), health and lifestyle behaviours (smoking, drinking alcohol, and physical activity), dietary information (consumption of fruits, vegetables, fish, dairy, legumes, soy, nuts and seeds, eggs, cereal products, whole grains, potatoes, fibre, sugar-sweetened beverages, coffee, tea, and cooking fat and total energy intake), BMI, comorbidities at baseline (hypertension, dyslipidaemia, myocardial infarction, stroke, or cancer), and family history of any type of diabetes. The three types of meat were mutually adjusted for each other.
At the end, they recommend to eat more poultry, and less red meat. That doesn't sit right with me. Industrially raised poultry is high in omega 6 which is inflamatory than just beef. To me it's pretty unfair to throw ham into the same category as beef-steak and then recomend to eat more chicken.
- DaoVeles 2y agoI am doing through the book 'How not to Diet' by Michael Greger. Yes, it has an agenda (plant based diets) but I do like how he goes into detail about how various studies try to isolate various effects. The need for either very thorough studies that capture multiple angles or compounding studies to try and isolate impacts on diet. Essentially, you cannot take a single study as proof but another POTENTIAL step towards some conclusion. That we have been studying this stuff in detail for well over a century says it all - this stuff is difficult to get a signal out of the noise.
- beardyw 2y ago> This is usually not considered reliable What isn't?
- aszantu 2y agoquestionaire based studies. Can't trust people with doing the questionaires on regulare basis, and they're filling in what they remember if they forgot a few days. Most people don't remember what they had for a snack after their lunch on a tuesday. Somebody took apart the WHO meta-study about how red meat causes cancer. It's like 98% of studies #inmice, and they don't eat steak, they eat high carb/high protein diets. And the placeholder for meat is a blood-sausage that you wouldn't eat on a daily basis let alone every meal. None of the mice actually got cancer because they're all killed beforehand to look at the consequences of their diets. And the few studies that showed relations between cancer and meat in humans were observational as in questionairs. https://bigthink.com/health/red-meat-cancer-not-health-risk/ https://bigthink.com/health/red-meat-cancer-not-health-risk/