Red Meat Causes Studies. (More Bacon, Please. Extra-Crispy.)
There's been yet another "red scare."
From the WSJ: "Red Meats Linked to Cancer, Global Health Group Says"
Here's the comment I left on the article:
This is a cohort study -- a leap to conclusions after the fact. Questions that should be asked: These people who got cancer, what did they do besides eating red meat? Did they smoke? Eat a pile of fries with that meat?
There are those below who repeat the myth that nitrates are the problem. As Chris Kresser notes on his blog on a post debunking this notion, there are more nitrates in lettuce than there are in a hot dog.
On the bright side, while the credulous throw over bacon for tofurkey, there will be more bacon for me. (It's the only way I wake up at 5 a.m. every day to write -- through the joy of having those three greasy strips of bacon.)
P.S. Dietary researcher Dr. Jeff Volek advises eating a good deal of fat -- but very low-carb. If you eat this way, as I have since 2009, influenced by the work and thinking of Gary Taubes back then, you will likely be effortlessly thin, as I am. It's starchy carbs that make you unhealthy -- and cause the insulin secretion that puts on fat.
Also, in a very good and comprehensive blog post, Zoe Harcombe brings up two important points (among many):
5) Relative vs. absolute riskThe press release headlines with "each 50 gram portion of processed meat eaten daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer by 18%." Crikey. 18%! Put that bacon sarnie down now (see - don't blame the bacon for what the white bread & ketchup did!) This, however, is the game that all of these observational study research press releases play and it's disgraceful scare-mongering.
Shall we look at the absolute risk?
Cancer Research UK has terrific statistics on all types of cancer. I've just looked at the UK. They do have data for other countries if you want to do your own rummage. The incident rate for all people in the UK, age-standardised (you pretty much won't see bowel cancer before the age of 50 - look at the age data), in 2011 was 47 per 100,000 people.
47 per 100,000 people.
You would need to know 2,128 people, including enough older people, to know 1 person who developed bowel cancer in the UK in 2011.
Now - let's do that relative vs. absolute risk thing.
Assuming that everything the WHO did had been perfect and that there really was an 18% relative difference between those having 50g of processed meat a day and those not (and assuming that nothing else was impacting this), the absolute risk would be 51 people per 100,000 vs. 43 people per 100,000.
Now where's the bacon and egg before my CrossFit session?!
The likely harm of this report:
The Lancet article does at least have the decency to mention the nutritional value of red meat: "Red meat contains high biological value proteins and important micronutrients such as B vitamins, iron (both free iron and haem iron), and zinc." That's still a bit of an understatement. Try both essential fats; complete protein; and the vitamins and minerals needed for life and health.
What will be the consequences of this report scaring people away from real meat? It takes approximately 250g of sirloin steak to get the daily 10mg of zinc; over a kilo of the same steak to get the recommended daily iron requirement - and in the right form for the body. How about over 20 eggs to get the same iron intake? Still in a useful form to the body. Or 4.5 kilos of brown rice to get iron in the wrong form for the body?
What do I take from this report? There is a heck of a lot of bad science coming out the World Health Organisation, an organisation that should know better...
The report hasn't even been published. WHO issued a press release and a summary.
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/2015/oct/26/red-processed-meat-cancer-who/
Bradley J. Fikes at October 27, 2015 10:23 PM
Most people don't understand basic math and can't be bothered to look up facts. Even if the report were 100% true, your lifetime risk of cancer after eating 2 strips of bacon every single day increases from 5% to 6%.
Matt at October 28, 2015 12:36 AM
BTW: when I first heard about this, I figured it was some sort of bullshit. I just gave the best case scenario for them to show how pathethtic they really are.
Matt at October 28, 2015 1:08 AM
One of the consequences of government funded science is government politicized science.
Ben at October 28, 2015 6:48 AM
Why are we even listening to what Roger Daltry and Pete Townshend have to say about cancer? Stick to your shitty classic rock. We won't be fooled again!
Shtetl G at October 28, 2015 7:28 AM
When many atheists scream "Trust science, not faith," they seem to leave out those times that science can be questioned.
Fayd at October 28, 2015 7:59 AM
"When many atheists scream "Trust science, not faith," they seem to leave out those times that science can be questioned."
What do we call this post? Anecdotal? Unsubstantiated? Data-free? Off-topic?
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 28, 2015 8:13 AM
Red meat also linked to early death in cattle.
Wut? that's just as reliable as any of the other bullcrap we've been fed.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 28, 2015 8:26 AM
What do we call this post? Anecdotal? Unsubstantiated? Data-free? Off-topic?
Global warming...errr...global climate change. That's the one where the whole Trust the Science crowd does a 180 and demands you follow their faith in science.
You know, like the low fat/high carb diet thing that produced a generation of obese diabetics. To get it back on topic of food mythology being peddled as science.
I R A Darth Aggie at October 28, 2015 8:31 AM
No one eats brown rice to get their daily iron requirement. You eat brown rice to get your daily arsenic. Come on.
Jim at October 28, 2015 9:08 AM
This once again goes to show the utter uselessness of the UN. We need to get out of it -- not to raise any kind of arch-conservative flag, but simply because there is no point in staying in. The cost is not trivial and we gain nothing from it. The people who rejected League of Nations membership after WWI knew what they were doing.
"One of the consequences of government funded science is government politicized science."
It's even worse than that, because the tendency towards positive findings is a natural consequence of organizational behavior. Consider: you're a scientist and you're doing an epistimological study to determine if bad puns cause cancer. You analyze your data and there's some variation in there that's maybe right around the noise boundary. What do you do? Well, if you finding is negative, that's it. Now you've got to go find a job. But if your finding is positive, or even kinda-sorta-positive, now you're set up for grants for follow-on studies. If you play your cards right, you can milk this for years.
This is one reason that I contend that epistomological cancer studies should be eliminated. We're long past the point where they were telling us anything useful; now we're just measuring noise, and most of the results are not reproducable. They give partisans in government and media the opportunity to pick and choose what story they want reported, because they can always find some study somewhere that backs whatever their preconceived notion is. Plus, there are a lot of opportunities for outright fraud in statistical studies, particularly when the author refuses to release their raw data, which unforutunately has become common in recent years.
Cousin Dave at October 28, 2015 9:12 AM
This is just like the smoking-cancer warnings that cigarettes cause cancer. Now, there is a strong correlation between cigarettes and cancer. But do they cause it or simply make smokers vulnerable to something else that causes it?
The strong correlation between smoking and cancer means if you want to avoid cancer, avoid smoking. That won't guarantee you don't get cancer, but will greatly help in the overall effort.
Granted, people are stupid and tend to dismiss your argument when you say "strong correlation" and listen to it when you say "cause." But say "cause" enough and people will tune you out - especially when they read stories about the world's oldest people regularly doing all the things that are supposed to kill you or cause cancer. Like this one:
http://www.someecards.com/life/health/susannah-mushatt-jones-oldest-person-bacon/
Conan the Grammarian at October 28, 2015 9:27 AM
NASA on global warming vs. climate change.
Those damned NASA "trust science" atheists!
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at October 28, 2015 10:00 AM
Interesting that the press release stated that while the WHO had not studied the effects of eating red meet, it probably led to a higher risk of cancer.
Using their method of extrapolation I can say that being a WHO researcher probably leads to a higher risk of being an ideological moron.
Jay at October 28, 2015 4:41 PM
Leave a comment