Red meat increases cancer and heart risk!

[Sid Bonkers]

The researchers suggested that saturated fat from red meat may be behind the increased heart risk...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17345967

 

[al_leister]

CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION

"Correlation does not imply causation" (related to "ignoring a common cause" and questionable cause) is a phrase used in science and statistics to emphasize that correlation between two variables does not automatically imply that one causes the other (though correlation is necessary for linear causation in the absence of any third and countervailing causative variable, and can indicate possible causes or areas for further investigation; in other words, correlation is a hint).[1][2]

The opposite belief, correlation proves causation, is a logical fallacy by which two events that occur together are claimed to have a cause-and-effect relationship. The fallacy is also known as cum hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin for "with this, therefore because of this") and false cause. By contrast, the fallacy post hoc ergo propter hoc requires that one event occur before the other and so may be considered a type of cum hoc fallacy.

In a widely-studied example, numerous epidemiological studies showed that women who were taking combined hormone replacement therapy (HRT) also had a lower-than-average incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD), leading doctors to propose that HRT was protective against CHD. But randomized controlled trials showed that HRT caused a small but statistically significant increase in risk of CHD. Re-analysis of the data from the epidemiological studies showed that women undertaking HRT were more likely to be from higher socio-economic groups (ABC1), with better than average diet and exercise regimens. The use of HRT and decreased incidence of coronary heart disease were coincident effects of a common cause (i.e. the benefits associated with a higher socioeconomic status), rather than cause and effect as had been supposed.[3]

:think:

 

[carty]

Does that mean chuck the steak and just eat the chips followed by the jam rolly polly followed by the cheese and lots of crackers and an after 8 mint or 2 :? Or not :?
CAROL

 

[andrewk]

I think we all need to be conscious of the difference between correlation (association) and causality.

It is entirely possible that it is the consumption of something else that is correlated with consumption of red meat that causes an increase in cancer and heart problems. For example, folks who visit McDonalds a lot and eat lots of burgers have a high level of red meat consumption. They almost certainly also eat many more chips (fries if you are a Yank), drink a lot more Coca Cola than those who don't visit McDonalds a lot and ingest many more calories in total too.

I'm sure the media will be full of stories about how red meat causes cancer and heart disease - but do we really know that red meat isn't just an innocent bystander in this story - and that the real cause isn't chips (carbs) or Coca Cola (carbs)??

Andrew

 

[lucylocket61]

This is an American study and refers to American processed red meats like ham and bacon and sausages. Not UK lamb and beef. Or Italian prosciutto and dry cured organic bacon.

I strongly suspect the culprit (if there is one) is more to do with the way the animals were raised eg. growth promoters and other artificial additives, and the way the food is then processed.

another scare story with very little to back it up.

I sometimes wonder if this country wants us to eat proper unadulterated basic food. it is certainly hard to come by. Barry Groves was right that 90% of the supermarket is not real food.

 

[xyzzy]

Yes I heard the story on the radio this a.m and immediately thought, American study, MacDonalds, highly processed foods etc. In any event as the nutritionist on the program said something gonna kill you and all the increased risk is saying is that you are raising your risk by such and such percent that processed red meat will be the thing that gets you before anything else. She said try to restrict the weight of COOKED processed red meat intake to less than 500g (1lb) a week. Another one at lunchtime said a couple of slices of bacon a couple of times a week was fine. It would appear to be another story that says if you stuff your faces with Big Macs and similar you will increase your risks... So what's new?

 

[Dillinger]

My wife told me off about eating sausages last night because she heard this on the news this morning.

My problems with it are;

1. It's an observational study; so there are no controls. Note that they say "We found that a higher intake of red meat was associated with a significantly elevated risk of total, cardiovascular disease, and cancer mortality". That's a very different thing from saying 'causes'. They also say (reported elsewhere) "people who eat a diet high in red meat were also likely to be generally unhealthier because they were more likely to smoke, be overweight and not exercise." In other words that's saying lots of other things are going on that we have no idea about so will add them to the mix to support our assumptions.

2. Because it is not a controlled study and the results come from asking the study group general questions about their diet how on earth can such precise figures be given to the 'danger' level for red meat consumption? They say (again reported elsewhere) "It was found that for every serving of red meat - equivalent to 3 ounces (85 grams) - eaten each day there was an 18 per cent increased risk of dying from heart disease and a 10 per cent increased risk of dying from cancer." So, 85 grams will do it, based on what people report they ate and taking a generic 'serving size' as the basis for that - and then directly linking that to their cancer/heart disease outcomes without any other evidence at all.

3. The increased mortality/cancer risks are presented, typically, as raw percentages; what they don't say is that those are actually relative risk figures not absolute. In other words if one's risk of cancer of the colon is 0.5% say i.e. 1 person in 200 can be expected to get it the finding would mean that when the risk increases by 10% (on a relative basis) then your risk becomes 0.55% i.e 1.1 people in 200 can be expected to get it which is the same as 11 people in 2,000 (1.1 x 10 and 200 x 10) instead of er, 10 people in a 2,000 (1 x 10 and 200 x 10). Will that worry you enough to put down the bacon? I hope not.

For diabetics don't worry about these small non proven risk increases; worry about the foods that you can eat which do not affect your blood sugars, because the risks of having uncontrolled blood sugars are by an order of magnitude higher than the purported risk of a few sausages.

Eat what you will, but don't be put off eating a diabetic sensible diet on the basis of this stuff.

Best

Dillinger

 

[phoenix]

Full study
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 2011.2287v
Haven't read it yet. Do find it slightly ironic that it's lead author is Frank Hu. He also was the author of the meta-analysis on Sat fats last year, http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract.
You know, the one that some people use to suggest eating sat fat is OK.... yet exactly the same sort of evidence.

 

[noblehead]

It's certainly hitting the headlines today being on the national news and in newspapers. I don't consider myself a big red-meat eater and much prefer poultry & fish and try to avoid most processed meats, the cancer/heart risks have been known for some time and that in part as lead to my reduction of these products, having said that I do enjoy a roast beef Sunday dinner :twisted:

 

[Anonymous]

It was on the news here in Sweden last night as well. They did make a distinction between red meats and processed meats: red meats 13% increased risk, processed meats 20%. They also said that sticking to 0,5kg/week or less didn't increase risk at all.
So roast beef on Sundays should be ok :wink:
What impressed me most was the 30 years perspective - long term studies are hard to come by!

 

[Sid Bonkers]

What impressed me most was the 30 years perspective - long term studies are hard to come by!

Yes I would agree with you fenix, I'm therefore surprised that so many people seem to be brushing this study off as though it is meaningless when in fact it studied over 120,000 people over periods of 20 to 28 years and all of the subjects were fit and healthy to begin with. Such long term studies are very few and far between.

Also interesting is phoenix's comment that "Haven't read it yet. Do find it slightly ironic that it's lead author is Frank Hu. He also was the author of the meta-analysis on Sat fats last year.
You know, the one that some people use to suggest eating sat fat is OK.... yet exactly the same sort of evidence." I always admire your ability to track down these facts about who does what in research :thumbup:

It wont change my eating habits though as I only eat red meat a couple of times a week max and do not eat much saturated fat as I have never liked fat on meat and cheese tends to make me put on weight so I only eat it sparingly.

 

[borofergie]

Here is everyone's favourite Science Writer Gary Taubes' take on this story, which is as ever thought provoking:
http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-p ... -and-meat/

As an added bonus, it also explains why "Girl Scouts" who blindly follow their Doctor's advice, tend to be healthier than those of us that don't.

Excuse me now, I need to get some bacon on the frying pan.

 

[borofergie]

Full study
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 2011.2287v
Haven't read it yet. Do find it slightly ironic that it's lead author is Frank Hu. He also was the author of the meta-analysis on Sat fats last year, http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract.
You know, the one that some people use to suggest eating sat fat is OK.... yet exactly the same sort of evidence.

Is it ironic, or does it show that he's a "proper" scientist, drawing conclusions from the data instead pursuing an agenda that says "all fat is good" or "all fat is bad"?

 

[noblehead]

Here is everyone's favourite Science Writer Gary Taube's

I love your imagination Stephen! :lol:

 

[Sid Bonkers]

Here is everyone's favourite Science Writer Gary Taube's

I love your imagination Stephen! :lol:

I'm staying out of this one :lol:

 

[librarising]

As an added bonus, it also explains why "Girl Scouts" who blindly follow their Doctor's advice, tend to be healthier than those of us that don't.

Not quite sure I can agree with 'blindly.' Pro-actively might be a better way of putting it.
The point being made is that the 'Girl Scouts' take studies seriously, and probably do other things at the same time advised by received medical wisdom.
So vegetarians can appear to be on a healthy path, since they tend to espouse other dietary restrictions on their diet.
Meat eaters, including those acknowledged to have these additional factors on this study, can tend to be overweight, exercise less, smoke and drink more, and have their increased mortality risk put down to their meat intake ! Scientific logic at its best - or worst.

As a fully paid-up meat-eater I knew these headlines were rubbish. Part of Taubes' article is based on

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red- ... d-science/

As a Gary fanboy I realise he's easy to dislike. Zoe seems harder to. Perhaps that's my soft spot for the female gender ; )

And of course, most diabetics on this forum couldn't agree that blindly following their doctors' advice would tend to make them healthier : ~ (

The 'Girl Scouts' among diabetics are those who educate themselves, and pro-actively seek to be in control of their condition.

So let's hear it for Scouts :

Go scouts, go scouts.

Be well
Geoff

 

[phoenix]

Full study
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 2011.2287v
Haven't read it yet. Do find it slightly ironic that it's lead author is Frank Hu. He also was the author of the meta-analysis on Sat fats last year, http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract.
You know, the one that some people use to suggest eating sat fat is OK.... yet exactly the same sort of evidence.

Is it ironic, or does it show that he's a "proper" scientist, drawing conclusions from the data instead pursuing an agenda that says "all fat is good" or "all fat is bad"?

Frank Hu is a most definitely a scientist, http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/frank-hu/, and as say should report what was found in the study at question . It is the people who cry 'rubbish science' at this report who are the same people who applauded the sat fat meta analysis that make me laugh. Have a look at some of the low carb forums or some of the more ploemic blogs and look at what the same people say about the 2 studies. Personally, I find a lot of problems with this type of study, particularly with the issue of dietary recall,

By all means discuss what the study actually says. What I find reprehensible are the false arguments and that are often advanced. Zoe Harcombe (and I don't know if she discussed the SAt fat paper) discusses the stats. No problem with that but I'd also like to see her consider what the study authors say in the discussion section of the paper . These aren't novice statisticians and as they should do, they look at the strengths and weaknesses of the design in their discussion . They also set the findings in the context of other research and discuss possible reasons for red meat being associated with increased risk in this cohort
Why does she have to mention that one of the authors is a vegetarian... so what, so was she for a long time. She says that Frank Hu, 'is also quoted in today’s paper saying that one soft drink a day raises the risk of heart attacks.' Well I can't find it in her link, that statements authored by a Daily Mail headline writer. In the body of the text Hu is quoted as saying

‘This study adds to the growing evidence that sugary beverages are detrimental to cardiovascular health.‘Certainly, it provides strong justification for reducing sugary beverage consumption among patients and, more importantly, in the general population.

Not the same thing at all.

 

[Patch]

As an added bonus, it also explains why "Girl Scouts" who blindly follow their Doctor's advice, tend to be healthier than those of us that don't.

Oh - how I laughed!

 

[pianoman]

Full study
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/conten ... 2011.2287v
Haven't read it yet. Do find it slightly ironic that it's lead author is Frank Hu. He also was the author of the meta-analysis on Sat fats last year, http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/ ... 5.abstract.
You know, the one that some people use to suggest eating sat fat is OK.... yet exactly the same sort of evidence.

The difference comes in that this recent study used data collected from four yearly food frequency questionnaires(FFQs)* where the two studies included were not designed to test the hypothesis "red meat increases health risks" -- in effect making this a retrospective cohort study... on the other hand the Sat Fat meta-analysis selection criteria** states...

Studies were eligible if 1) data related to dietary consumption of saturated fat were available; 2) the endpoints were nonfatal or fatal CVD events, but not CVD risk factors; 3) the association of saturated fat with CVD was specifically evaluated; 4) the study design was a prospective cohort study; and 5) study participants were generally healthy adults at study baseline.

...in other words: it only included studies that were designed to test the hypothesis in question.

Neither method is good for much more than showing an association -- the lack of which is all that they concluded in the Sat Fat analysis*** -- and neither can be used to predict precise percentages of cause and effect as has been shouted by these headlines... that would require further testing of specific hypotheses (RCTs for example).

As the various reviewers have been quick to point out: this same Nurses Health Study was used to predict a significant percentage of protection for women taking Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) which later proved to be fatally wrong when tested in controlled trials -- IIRC the controlled trials turned an estimated 44% protection from CVD around to a 29% increase in CVD for those on HRT... how many deaths later... how much "wronger" can you get?!?

Particularly questionable are the FFQs which have those in the group self-reporting the least red met consumption, averaging just 1,200 calories per day -- bearing in mind that these are hard-working nurses, on their feet for 12 hour shifts.

On the plus side these same data can be used to show that those with the highest [reported] red meat consumption had the lowest cholesterol levels! :crazy:

Denise Minger (perhaps not as popular as GT but definitely cuter) has done a bang-up job of reviewing this red meat study as guest poster at Mark's daily Apple... http://www.marksdailyapple.com/will-eating-red-meat-kill-you/#axzz1pHG04hRv


*http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/questionnaires/pdfs/NHSI/2002.PDF

**http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.full.pdf+html

***

A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

 

[Sid Bonkers]

So Frank Hu has just been wasting his time for the last 28 years then pianoman.