Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Nutritional myths masquerading as fact.
Options
Comments
-
Hanley wrote:The primary reason why nutrient dense foods are better than highly processed foods when it comes to weight loss is that the overconsumption of the former is REALLY hard, as outlined by someone already using carrots and broccoli as an example.
That's actually the point he and I were making.0 -
You've created a false dichotomy.
If it was just 250kcals extra each from carbohydrates and you controlled ALL other variables, you'd end up with the same outcome.
But in the real world, you'll struggle to JUST consume 250kcals of cola without there being a knock on effect from overconsumption (I'll just have another mouthful) or more unplanned calories (woah I've the taste of sweetness now, I'll have something else).
Only way this works is if you do it in a metabolic ward.
The primary reason why nutrient dense foods are better than highly processed foods when it comes to weight loss is that the overconsumption of the former is REALLY hard, as outlined by someone already using carrots and broccoli as an example.
It's great looking at the science behind it, and how it effects things in isolation, but we live in a complex environment where science meets behavioural psychology, and you simply cannot look at one and discount the other.
The "best" fat loss diet is the one that is easiest for someone to stick to. I don't give a **** if you figure out the perfect macro and micronutrient ratios, and optimal food sources for that. If you can't give it to a group of 100 people and a large proportion of them see success, it doesn't mean ****.
It was me who did the carrot/broccoli math earlier, but this is a different issue altogether, that was and illustration of how it's near impossible to over consume most vegetables, this is about the reality that even though in theory a calorie is a calorie, in reality the delivery mechanism is of massive importance.
If it's a controlled study, you (participants) wouldn't have the option to have "one more sip". You'll only be able to consume the calories you're given.
Regardless of the fact they we are both getting the extra 250 over our calorific requirements from simple sugars, the outcomes will be very different as the bio-availability of the two sources is vastly different.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »How about this.
We'll do a controlled study of two.
For 14 days we eat the same diet, tailored to our calorific needs but the same foods at the same times. But every day you consume 250 extra calories of just cola (little over half a litre per day) and I'll consume the extra 250 calories in whole fruits.
After the 2 weeks what do you think the outcomes will be?
As for studies, There's a massvie body of work from people like David S. Ludwig, Robert Lustig, Qi Sun and other experts in the area but I don't feel like logging into academic databases to search for them right now, maybe at work on monday if I remember, in the meantime here's Ludwig and Lustig's take on it in mainstream media.
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/making-the-case-for-eating-fruit/?_r=0
Though it's a cute idea, a sample size of two is probably the most unscientific idea I've heard in a while. What you or I 'think' will happen is irrelevant - I'm looking for what the literature has to say.
With regards to your article, the authors state the obvious as far as I can see. I don't disagree that fruits promote the slow release of the energy from glucose as opposed to spikes - a good thing for sure.
My dispute is with your claim that we can simply 'pass out' lots of calories in our waste because some of the sugar is 'trapped in the fibre' or something like that, correct me if I'm misinterpreting. The authors here mention nothing like that. The calories consumed are the calories consumed, and I haven't seen anything that supports this mechanism you are suggesting exists.
This is the specific part of your claim I'd like to see evidence for. Where did you read about it? Is it anecdotal? I've done a (brief) search, and I wouldn't even know where to begin (key words in Google Scholar, etc.). That's why I thought you might have some info. Doesn't matter, don't go out of your way if you don't want to!0 -
The term 'superfood'0
-
That's actually the point he and I were making.
The point of contention was not the practical side of eating different foods though, it was digestion mechanism. It was claimed earlier that if you eat the same amount of theoretical calories of some, let's say, broccoli, as calories of lucozade, the broccoli would actually end up meaning less weight gain because, apparently, there is a significant amount of energy lost via waste in 'fibrous' structures in plant based foods.
The idea that it's easier to eat more kilos of sugary foods than kilos of carrots was never disputed.0 -
Advertisement
-
malnurtured wrote: »The point of contention was not the practical side of eating different foods though, it was digestion mechanism. It was claimed earlier that if you eat the same amount of theoretical calories of some, let's say, broccoli, as calories of lucozade, the broccoli would actually end up meaning less weight gain because, apparently, there is a significant amount of energy lost via waste in 'fibrous' structures in plant based foods.
The idea that it's easier to eat more kilos of sugary foods than kilos of carrots was never disputed.
I encountered it when working on policy submissions on public health a few years ago for a large non-profit. We were contesting the departments plans to continue to use the food pyramid as the guideline for a "healthy" diet in their upcoming education programmes and also petitioning for programmes to educate young people on the dangers of overconsumption of refined sugars and other simple carbohydrates, using cost benefit arguments about the potential savings in healthcare over the coming 10 years by decreased instances of type 2 diabetes and so on to justify the spending on the programme itself.
During our research we talked to several researchers, endocrinologists, food scientists, etc to ask them for input for our argument. It was some of them who, often, spoke of the benefits of eating whole fruits because of the fact that the sugars were less bio-available as a result of the fibre structures them are contained in being indigestible.
One explained that when sugar in a drink hits the stomach it's very quickly absorbed into the blood stream and all consumed within the first two or threefeet of the digestive system (hence why professional cyclists often drink a can of coke mid-race to prevent "bonking"). With fruit some gets absorbed in the same initial few feet but the rest is gradually extracted over the course of the digestive tract, and some of is passed before the body can breakdown the food fully.
Some used examples such as how you often see pieces of vegetables or seeds or grains such as corn stool because the body just can't break all of the fibre down fully while it passes through the digestive system. Most of the nutrients are absorbed but some of it passes through and is disposed of with the rest of the food waste.
If you eat a single banana or a handful of berries your body would easily break it down and digest almost everything before passing the waste, but if you eat a lot of whole fruits all at once, the body just won't have time to process it.
While it's not true that the digestive system is like a conveyor belt with a first in - first out process, it does have to move stuff along to make room for the next load of food.
I had about 5 studies outlining the processes but this was probably around 2010 so I can't remember for the life of me the names and I'm not looking for login details for academic databases to go hunting for them at half past midnight on a Friday night. I'll email an old colleague in the morning and see if (a) the submission was published/they have a copy and (b) for a list of sources and studies we cited in the submission. I can't really offer you more than that right now and I find that searching for academic journal articles with broad terms through Google is about as useful as trying to wash a window with a bucket of cow ****e.
Edit: I can remember that the department almost completely ignored our own and everyone else's submissions and continued to use the food pyramid in their literature and educational programmes. Le sigh.0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »I encountered it when working on policy submissions on public health a few years ago for a large non-profit. We were contesting the departments plans to continue to use the food pyramid as the guideline for a "healthy" diet in their upcoming education programmes and also petitioning for programmes to educate young people on the dangers of overconsumption of refined sugars and other simple carbohydrates, using cost benefit arguments about the potential savings in healthcare over the coming 10 years by decreased instances of type 2 diabetes and so on to justify the spending on the programme itself.
During our research we talked to several researchers, endocrinologists, food scientists, etc to ask them for input for our argument. It was some of them who, often, spoke of the benefits of eating whole fruits because of the fact that the sugars were less bio-available as a result of the fibre structures them are contained in being indigestible.
One explained that when sugar in a drink hits the stomach it's very quickly absorbed into the blood stream and all consumed within the first two or threefeet of the digestive system (hence why professional cyclists often drink a can of coke mid-race to prevent "bonking"). With fruit some gets absorbed in the same initial few feet but the rest is gradually extracted over the course of the digestive tract, and some of is passed before the body can breakdown the food fully.
Some used examples such as how you often see pieces of vegetables or seeds or grains such as corn stool because the body just can't break all of the fibre down fully while it passes through the digestive system. Most of the nutrients are absorbed but some of it passes through and is disposed of with the rest of the food waste.
If you eat a single banana or a handful of berries your body would easily break it down and digest almost everything before passing the waste, but if you eat a lot of whole fruits all at once, the body just won't have time to process it.
While it's not true that the digestive system is like a conveyor belt with a first in - first out process, it does have to move stuff along to make room for the next load of food.
I had about 5 studies outlining the processes but this was probably around 2010 so I can't remember for the life of me the names and I'm not looking for login details for academic databases to go hunting for them at half past midnight on a Friday night. I'll email an old colleague in the morning and see if (a) the submission was published/they have a copy and (b) for a list of sources and studies we cited in the submission. I can't really offer you more than that right now and I find that searching for academic journal articles with broad terms through Google is about as useful as trying to wash a window with a bucket of cow ****e.
Edit: I can remember that the department almost completely ignored our own and everyone else's submissions and continued to use the food pyramid in their literature and educational programmes. Le sigh.
Don't worry about it, whenever it suits you. Anyway, what was your objection against the conventional food pyramid? More plant based foods vs. carbs? No sugary foods as opposed to the 'in moderation' idea?0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Don't worry about it, whenever it suits you. Anyway, what was your objection against the conventional food pyramid? More plant based foods vs. carbs? No sugary foods as opposed to the 'in moderation' idea?
I think it's fairly well established and accepted in this day and age that the food pyramid is a steaming pile of crap that was developed for political reasons and has very little footing in reality.
I don't think "no sugary foods" is reasonable, I quite like a bit of chocolate or a glass of coke now and then, but it should be limited and infrequent, yes.
And yeah, basically we should get a lot less of out calorific needs from carbohydrates, especially simple carbs like breads and pastas, than the pyramid suggests and a lot more from veg, fruit and healthy fats.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mypyramid-problems/0 -
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »I think it's fairly well established and accepted in this day and age that the food pyramid is a steaming pile of crap that was developed for political reasons and has very little footing in reality.
I don't think "no sugary foods" is reasonable, I quite like a bit of chocolate or a glass of coke now and then, but it should be limited and infrequent, yes.
And yeah, basically we should get a lot less of out calorific needs from carbohydrates, especially simple carbs like breads and pastas, than the pyramid suggests and a lot more from veg, fruit and healthy fats.
This is an interesting read:
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/mypyramid-problems/
Have to agree that it has its problems, that link points out probably the biggest one - grouping so called 'good' oils/fats with meats which should be eaten in much smaller quantities. And yeah plant based is the way to go (according to the research, anyway).
Not too sure about the 'political' reasons behind this pyramid though. I'm assuming that it was first established across the Atlantic where the food industry has massive influence over policy with lobbying being legal and all, lol.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Not too sure about the 'political' reasons behind this pyramid though. I'm assuming that it was first established across the Atlantic where the food industry has massive influence over policy with lobbying being legal and all, lol.
Bingo, justification for subsidies for the grain industry which all dates back to the early 70's.
There's nothing wrong with bread or pasta or white rice or whatever in my opinion I love both so very, very much. I just think we need emphasise unprocessed foods a lot more and encourage people to eat a LOT of whole fruits and vegetables and stop demonising fat. Fat is brilliant!0 -
Advertisement
-
Subcomandante Marcos wrote: »Bingo, justification for subsidies for the grain industry which all dates back to the early 70's.
There's nothing wrong with bread or pasta or white rice or whatever in my opinion I love both so very, very much. I just think we need emphasise unprocessed foods a lot more and encourage people to eat a LOT of whole fruits and vegetables and stop demonising fat. Fat is brilliant!
Fat is brilliant, but you have to admit that the research flying in the face of trans/saturated fats is damning. Have to be pretty careful with that stuff in fairness.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »Fat is brilliant, but you have to admit that the research flying in the face of trans/saturated fats is damning. Have to be pretty careful with that stuff in fairness.
What exactly do we have to be careful about in relation to meats? In suggesting so called healthy oils etc should be separated from meats, you yourself are perpetuating a horsesh1t nutritional myth from a bygone era.0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »What exactly do we have to be careful about in relation to meats? In suggesting so called healthy oils etc should be separated from meats, you yourself are perpetuating a horsesh1t nutritional myth from a bygone era.
No, I'm not. Meats are pretty well studied and there's a fairly unanimous consensus across the research about their health effects.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/61/6/1416S.short
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9828481&fileId=S1368980015002062
These are just two papers (unfortunately most are pay-walled, but I'll attempt to find free view papers in a while) across a considerable time period that are an example of the scientific community's stance on red/processed meat.
The WHO IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) panel's work is telling and this article is available free of charge; http://www.meatpoultry.com/~/media/Files/MP/IARC-summary.ashx
The IARC monograph (volume 114) should be coming soon giving a very detailed view of the science that goes behind these assertions, and it will have even more data to back up the claim that red/processed meats are human carcinogens.0 -
Fats are OK in the diet
But fatty fats are to be avoided
Unless you occupation rhymes with fat
Like if you are a diplomat, they can eat as much fat as they like
I'm an expert on nutrition0 -
malnurtured wrote: »No, I'm not. Meats are pretty well studied and there's a fairly unanimous consensus across the research about their health effects.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/61/6/1416S.short
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9828481&fileId=S1368980015002062
These are just two papers (unfortunately most are pay-walled, but I'll attempt to find free view papers in a while) across a considerable time period that are an example of the scientific community's stance on red/processed meat.
The WHO IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) panel's work is telling and this article is available free of charge; http://www.meatpoultry.com/~/media/Files/MP/IARC-summary.ashx
The IARC monograph (volume 114) should be coming soon giving a very detailed view of the science that goes behind these assertions, and it will have even more data to back up the claim that red/processed meats are human carcinogens.
The research you've cited is a crock of sh1t and is not at all in line what you are claiming about meat (which you've since localised to red meat). Let me pick it off, piece by piece:
The first study you've cited, which is now 21 years old(!), is very much outdated by current consensus. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and I can't believe you'd hang your hat on a single correlation study that merely speculated (does not prove or even try to prove) about potential mechanisms that have since been heavily questioned. All it says is that high red meat intake has been associated with coronary heart disease. It's probably associated with a million other things like increased happiness, greater propensity to go on country walks, higher likelihood of enjoying knitting and increased intake of junk foods. I'll let you figure out which of those may or may not share an actual causative relationship. In a sentence, the study means nothing.
The second study you cite is a meta analysis but don't even get me started on the problems with the conclusions that they can come to: on to the task at hand. By design, it shares the same problems as your 1995 effort in that intake of red meat cannot be disentangled from other factors that could cause heart disease or cancer. For example, if I eat 10 Big Macs a day, I will have consumed a lot of red meat. I will also have consumed lots of tomato ketchup (sugar), burger buns (pretty much sugar), processed cheese, lettuce, salt, that tangy sauce they use and maybe even some large fries and Coke if I fancied them. If I get heart disease or cancer, which was the offending food? All are positively correlated with my condition, even the lettuce! Your meta analysis is more focused on processed meats and says red meat wasn't even associated with negative outcomes in a European population.
If you're going to cite research, at least don't insult people's intelligence by claiming it concludes something that it doesn't and make it up to date. Lastly, the WHO say this about red meat:
"Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out".
Now with that in mind can you tell me what the actual mechanism is that drives the development of illness via red meat consumption. It may well be there, I actually don't know for sure but do not present any more links like those you have already provided (correlations not causations).0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »The research you've cited is a crock of sh1t and is not at all in line what you are claiming about meat (which you've since localised to red meat). Let me pick it off, piece by piece:
The first study you've cited, which is now 21 years old(!), is very much outdated by current consensus. A lot of water has passed under the bridge since then and I can't believe you'd hang your hat on a single correlation study that merely speculated (does not prove or even try to prove) about potential mechanisms that have since been heavily questioned. All it says is that high red meat intake has been associated with coronary heart disease. It's probably associated with a million other things like increased happiness, greater propensity to go on country walks, higher likelihood of enjoying knitting and increased intake of junk foods. I'll let you figure out which of those may or may not share an actual causative relationship. In a sentence, the study means nothing.
The second study you cite is a meta analysis but don't even get me started on the problems with the conclusions that they can come to: on to the task at hand. By design, it shares the same problems as your 1995 effort in that intake of red meat cannot be disentangled from other factors that could cause heart disease or cancer. For example, if I eat 10 Big Macs a day, I will have consumed a lot of red meat. I will also have consumed lots of tomato ketchup (sugar), burger buns (pretty much sugar), processed cheese, lettuce, salt, that tangy sauce they use and maybe even some large fries and Coke if I fancied them. If I get heart disease or cancer, which was the offending food? All are positively correlated with my condition, even the lettuce! Your meta analysis is more focused on processed meats and says red meat wasn't even associated with negative outcomes in a European population.
If you're going to cite research, at least don't insult people's intelligence by claiming it concludes something that it doesn't and make it up to date. Lastly, the WHO say this about red meat:
"Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out".
Now with that in mind can you tell me what the actual mechanism is that drives the development of illness via red meat consumption. It may well be there, I actually don't know for sure but do not present any more links like those you have already provided (correlations not causations).
The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
Exhibit 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380943
Meta-analysis, based on g of red meat/day consumption, statistically significant correlation, conclusion states that "results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat".
Exhibit 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842864
Meta-analysis, based on Japanese population this time, similar conclusion as before, "possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer or colon cancer among the Japanese population".
Exhibit 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886?journalCode=bfsn20
Study on the mechanism of cancer incidence caused by red/processed meat. Pay-walled but feel free to buy it or read it by... other means.
Exhibit 4: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.full
Very well respected study cited hundreds of times. Not pay-walled, great data with a large sample size.
Snippet from their conclusion:
"The results reported here are from one of the largest cohorts of men and women that has been developed specifically to examine the relationship between diet and cancer. We found a consistent positive association between high intake of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer".
Exhibit 5: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200150
From the same time period as the Norat et. al study, this study concludes that, "[Their] results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine".
That is just a fraction of the work done on specifically red/processed meats, and there has been a growing suspicion, now backed up with evidence in recent years that health problems (being narrowed down by every new study) can arise from the intake of red/processed meats.
As for your concerns with other variables not being accounted for, when you're talking about the sample sizes being studied here, those variables become irrelevant. Most people aren't getting most of their red meat from a single red meat type loaded with additives. The only constant here in a combined sample size (over all the studies) of hundreds of thousands of people is red meat consumption, which is having a statistically observable effect on the incidence of different cancers in humans.
You've got the consensus of epidemiological studies against you, and you've got work to do if you want to convince anyone who has looked at these studies that they're all coming to the same 'crock of sh1t' conclusion.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
Exhibit 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380943
Meta-analysis, based on g of red meat/day consumption, statistically significant correlation, conclusion states that "results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat".
Exhibit 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842864
Meta-analysis, based on Japanese population this time, similar conclusion as before, "possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer or colon cancer among the Japanese population".
Exhibit 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886?journalCode=bfsn20
Study on the mechanism of cancer incidence caused by red/processed meat. Pay-walled but feel free to buy it or read it by... other means.
Exhibit 4: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.full
Very well respected study cited hundreds of times. Not pay-walled, great data with a large sample size.
Snippet from their conclusion:
"The results reported here are from one of the largest cohorts of men and women that has been developed specifically to examine the relationship between diet and cancer. We found a consistent positive association between high intake of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer".
Exhibit 5: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200150
From the same time period as the Norat et. al study, this study concludes that, "[Their] results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine".
That is just a fraction of the work done on specifically red/processed meats, and there has been a growing suspicion, now backed up with evidence in recent years that health problems (being narrowed down by every new study) can arise from the intake of red/processed meats.
As for your concerns with other variables not being accounted for, when you're talking about the sample sizes being studied here, those variables become irrelevant. Most people aren't getting most of their red meat from a single red meat type loaded with additives. The only constant here in a combined sample size (over all the studies) of hundreds of thousands of people is red meat consumption, which is having a statistically observable effect on the incidence of different cancers in humans.
You've got the consensus of epidemiological studies against you, and you've got work to do if you want to convince anyone who has looked at these studies that they're all coming to the same 'crock of sh1t' conclusion.
I didn't read the studies but are you saying that red meat is as dangerous as processed meat?0 -
-
malnurtured wrote: »It's not me saying anything, it's the studies, and as far as I can tell, most studies find a higher correlation between processed meats and cancers than red meats and cancers.
You would admit epidemiological studies aren't exactly the gold standard? This are primarily self reporting studies/questionnaires etc?
It's be shown in plenty studies that meat eaters in general engage in behaviours such as smoking/ excess alcohol etc which are known to increase cancer risk. Which of your studies have controlled for this?
What is cancer risk for someone who eats meat with a high veg intake?
http://www.zoeharcombe...isation-meat-cancer/
Anthony Colpo has a good article about it to.0 -
You would admit epidemiological studies aren't exactly the gold standard? This are primarily self reporting studies/questionnaires etc?
It's be shown in plenty studies that meat eaters in general engage in behaviours such as smoking/ excess alcohol etc which are known to increase cancer risk. Which of your studies have controlled for this?
What is cancer risk for someone who eats meat with a high veg intake?
http://www.zoeharcombe...isation-meat-cancer/
Anthony Colpo has a good article about it to.
Epidemiological studies don't hold a candle to the real gold-standard, but it's impossible to do randomised double-blind tests when you're talking about long-term risk factors in populations. It's the best we have, and it's all about eliminating variables by design and by sheer sample size reducing the percentage error.
As for meat eaters being more likely to be subject to other carcinogens, could you cite one of these many studies? If you read the abstracts/a little further down, you will see that nearly all of the studies control for common sources of error such as smoking/alcohol intake via questionnaires etc.
The link you gave didn't work for me.0 -
Advertisement
-
You would admit epidemiological studies aren't exactly the gold standard? This are primarily self reporting studies/questionnaires etc?
It's be shown in plenty studies that meat eaters in general engage in behaviours such as smoking/ excess alcohol etc which are known to increase cancer risk. Which of your studies have controlled for this?
What is cancer risk for someone who eats meat with a high veg intake?
Anthony Colpo has a good article about it to.
From reading the China Study it appears that the more meat you eat the higher the risk of cancer, even in China where cancer was much lower than the western societies the highest risk of cancer was with the people that eat the most meat.Even eating a small amount of meat increased the cancer risk by a small amount , there seemed to be no safe limit.But if you must eat meat ,then get 10% of calories from unprocessed meat and the rest of your calories from whole plant food ,this worked well for the people featured in another book called the Blue zones but reducing meat even further may be helpful particularly if you have damaged your body by eating badly for years and now you wish to attempt to reverse the damage already done to your body.
If you are not familiar with the China study the book is loosely based on the China-Cornell-Oxford Project, a 20-year study – described by The New York Times as "the Grand Prix of epidemiology" – conducted by the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, Cornell University and the University of Oxford. T. Colin Campbell was one of the study's directors. It looked at mortality rates from cancer and other chronic diseases from 1973–75 in 65 counties in China; the data was correlated with 1983–84 dietary surveys and blood work from 100 people in each county. The research was conducted in those counties because they had genetically similar populations that tended, over generations, to live and eat in the same way in the same place. The study concluded that counties with a high consumption of animal-based foods in 1983–84 were more likely to have had higher death rates from "Western" diseases as of 1973–75, while the opposite was true for counties that ate more plant foods.
If you have not heard of the blue zones here is some background info
The term, "Blue Zones" first appeared in an article by Drs. Gianni Pes and Michel Poulain in an issue of the Journal of Experimental Gerontology . Dan Buettner reported his Blue Zones findings in his cover story for National Geographic Magazine's November 2005 edition, "Secrets of Long Life." The issue became the third best-selling issue in the magazine’s history.
In 2006, under aegis of National Geographic, Buettner collaborated with Poulain and Costa Rican demographer Dr. Luis Rosero-Bixby to identify a fourth longevity hotspot in the Nicoya Peninsula. In 2008, again working with Poulain, he found a fifth longevity hotspot on the Greek Island of Ikaria.
In April 2008, Buettner released a book on his findings, The Blue Zones: Lessons for Living Longer From the People Who've Lived the Longest,through National Geographic Books. It became a New York Times Best Seller and resulted in interviews for Buettner on Oprah, The Dr. Oz Show, and Anderson Cooper 360, among other national media.
In September 2009, Buettner gave a TED talk on the topic, titled "How to live to be 100+". which now has over 2 million views.
In October 2010, he released the book Thrive: Finding Happiness the Blue Zones Way, largely based on his research of which identified took a data-based approach to identify the statistically happiest regions of the happiest countries in earth. He argues the creating lasting happiness is only achievable through optimizing social and physical environment.
Buettner’s New York Times Magazine article "The Island Where People Forget to Die" was one of the most viewed articles of 2012.
Its not easy to give up processed or mass produced food ,big Industry spends a lot of money to keep you hooked on it ,scientifically designing studies that give the result that they want and not publishing studies that give results that are unexpectedly negative, adding ingredients to make the food more additive even knowing that the food is much more unhealthy for you,every single aspect of the food, the smell, the colour ,the taste,the feel ,the packaging,the shelf life,where it is positioned in the store, the advertisements etc are researched to maximise the sales.
There is less money to be made in selling healthy food compared to processed food as you would end up buying most of the healthy food in the farmers market bypassing the big businesses.0 -
What makes the Blue Zone thinking even more radical is the persistent assertion that it is NOT only all about what you put in your mouth.
Yes, food is important, and it is one of the easiest things to control: you have choices, you feel strong!
But over and over, they found that if you are going to live to be 100 in good shape, you will also have friends: a sense of purpose: a spiritual practice: a supportive family: connections with the natural world: plenty of outdoor exercise: and -yes - a natural mainly-plants diet.
So that's another nutritional myth to be wary of: that food alone will ensure good health. It won't: the authors of the Okinawa study found that loneliness is a bigger predictor of death than smoking. Think about that!
https://www.bluezones.com/2014/04/power-9/0 -
malnurtured wrote: »The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
Exhibit 1: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23380943
Meta-analysis, based on g of red meat/day consumption, statistically significant correlation, conclusion states that "results indicate an elevated risk of colorectal adenomas with intake of red and processed meat".
Exhibit 2: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24842864
Meta-analysis, based on Japanese population this time, similar conclusion as before, "possibly increases risk of colorectal cancer or colon cancer among the Japanese population".
Exhibit 3: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10408398.2013.873886?journalCode=bfsn20
Study on the mechanism of cancer incidence caused by red/processed meat. Pay-walled but feel free to buy it or read it by... other means.
Exhibit 4: http://jnci.oxfordjournals.org/content/97/12/906.full
Very well respected study cited hundreds of times. Not pay-walled, great data with a large sample size.
Snippet from their conclusion:
"The results reported here are from one of the largest cohorts of men and women that has been developed specifically to examine the relationship between diet and cancer. We found a consistent positive association between high intake of red and processed meat and colorectal cancer".
Exhibit 5: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=200150
From the same time period as the Norat et. al study, this study concludes that, "[Their] results demonstrate the potential value of examining long-term meat consumption in assessing cancer risk and strengthen the evidence that prolonged high consumption of red and processed meat may increase the risk of cancer in the distal portion of the large intestine".
That is just a fraction of the work done on specifically red/processed meats, and there has been a growing suspicion, now backed up with evidence in recent years that health problems (being narrowed down by every new study) can arise from the intake of red/processed meats.
As for your concerns with other variables not being accounted for, when you're talking about the sample sizes being studied here, those variables become irrelevant. Most people aren't getting most of their red meat from a single red meat type loaded with additives. The only constant here in a combined sample size (over all the studies) of hundreds of thousands of people is red meat consumption, which is having a statistically observable effect on the incidence of different cancers in humans.
You've got the consensus of epidemiological studies against you, and you've got work to do if you want to convince anyone who has looked at these studies that they're all coming to the same 'crock of sh1t' conclusion.
Against you is that you clearly have no idea how to interpret research and when I criticised you for providing correlation studies and meta analyses, you produce more of the same. I'm not going to get into why meta analyses don't always come to robust conclusions but if you educate yourself on the concept of within and between study heterogeneity, it may help you to make better conclusions. You have also disregarded the fact that any sample size large enough will show significant results. The only thing that would ever prove you correct is a controlled study done in a vacuum with large effect sizes for the impact of red meat consumption on cancer or cardiovascular disease. Oh yeah, and stop lumping red meat in with processed meat. They aren't one and the same and don't necessarily have the same effects in the body.0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »Against you is that you clearly have no idea how to interpret research and when I criticised you for providing correlation studies and meta analyses, you produce more of the same. I'm not going to get into why meta analyses don't always come to robust conclusions but if you educate yourself on the concept of within and between study heterogeneity, it may help you to make better conclusions. You have also disregarded the fact that any sample size large enough will show significant results. The only thing that would ever prove you correct is a controlled study done in a vacuum with large effect sizes for the impact of red meat consumption on cancer or cardiovascular disease. Oh yeah, and stop lumping red meat in with processed meat. They aren't one and the same and don't necessarily have the same effects in the body.
I'm disappointed. I expected a refutation of the data in the studies I listed. You can't seriously believe that all these independent studies across different populations, races and geographic areas at different times are all coming to the same wrong conclusion shown by the data time and time again?
I don't see the problem with meta-analyses, and even if there is one, all they're doing is examining data that's already been collected in individual studies. Just because they are meta-analyses does not mean that they instantly lose credibility, and I have no idea why you seem to think they do. I'll try and read up on the subject, but honestly, if they're so useless, they wouldn't be published in the most respected journals all the time.
Anyway, I cited more than meta-analyses. I gave you a paper discussing mechanisms and two papers with primary data.
That's 3/5 papers which were not meta-analyses, which means you can just dismiss their conclusions? I really have no idea where you're coming from. Even if we exclude meta-analysis, there is a massive one-sidedness in the scientific consensus on the issue. Click any related link on NCBI and you will find study after study showing the same data trends.
"You have also disregarded the fact that any sample size large enough will show significant results."
No, it won't. Not to this degree. This is the equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and wailing in the face of data (from many different sample sizes, may I add) in the hope that maybe the trends will go away.
"The only thing that would ever prove you correct is a controlled study done in a vacuum with large effect sizes for the impact of red meat consumption on cancer or cardiovascular disease."
You really don't seem to have the slightest clue how statistical analysis works, do you? We're supposed to have a perfect study controlling for all factors, or else there is NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to support the conclusion.
By that logic, all the studies showing the correlation between smoking and lung cancer are lies, damned lies, because they haven't controlled for the fact that people eat food. How vapid a suggestion is that?
This is not a hypothesis based on the theoretical nature of an aspect of the Universe. The field of epidemiology cannot control for everything and place people in a vacuum, because they'd f*cking die. Apparently, all data is irrelevant until they start doing that.
EDIT: I'm not lumping in processed meats with red meats. The studies specifically separate the risk factors for each, as far as I can remember. Both are associated with a higher incidence of cancer(s).0 -
You are focusing too much on my criticism of meta analyses. That was only a part of my argument and they aren't valueless but if you take 20 correlation studies and pile them altogether what do you get? Conclusions of researchers who highlight mere associations between variables which are, in turn, picked up by people like you who interpret them as causative. Quite literally putting two and two together and getting five.
You say I have no idea of stats but point to an issue of disagreement on hypothetical study design? I'd get off the horse now before your credibility is further damaged.
For the record, I don't recall refuting any of your opinions. My own feeling is that they are incorrect but I can't prove or disprove that. What I can stand by is that the way you interpret the findings of some studies is incorrect. So you keep asking people for peer reviewed evidence and I think you yourself should make a better attempt to understand any evidence that comes your way.
And just one last thing. When we put any number of foods in our bodies it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which one, if any, is causing a health issue. Now I'm not familiar with the research in smoking but do you think it's plausible to suggest that if I am a smoker and I get lung cancer and I'm coughing up feckin tar that it could be any other environmental factor?0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »You are focusing too much on my criticism of meta analyses. That was only a part of my argument and they aren't valueless but if you take 20 correlation studies and pile them altogether what do you get? Conclusions of researchers who highlight mere associations between variables which are, in turn, picked up by people like you who interpret them as causative. Quite literally putting two and two together and getting five.
You say I have no idea of stats but point to an issue of disagreement on hypothetical study design? I'd get off the horse now before your credibility is further damaged.
For the record, I don't recall refuting any of your opinions. My own feeling is that they are incorrect but I can't prove or disprove that. What I can stand by is that the way you interpret the findings of some studies is incorrect. So you keep asking people for peer reviewed evidence and I think you yourself should make a better attempt to understand any evidence that comes your way.
And just one last thing. When we put any number of foods in our bodies it is extremely difficult to pinpoint which one, if any, is causing a health issue. Now I'm not familiar with the research in smoking but do you think it's plausible to suggest that if I am a smoker and I get lung cancer and I'm coughing up feckin tar that it could be any other environmental factor?
So wait, your whole problem with meta-analyses is that the conclusions are too ambitious? That's all? You're not disputing the results, just the interpretation? So the data stands? Then how exactly do you intend to explain away the many positive correlations that support my position?
There is a point, after so many independent studies show the same correlation over a long period of time, that causation becomes a real threat. Personally, I think we've crossed that boundary a long time ago, given that there are also solid mechanisms hypothesised for why it might be the case that processed/red meats caused colorectal cancer, for instance. What are your conditions for demonstrating causation (because they seem to be pretty lofty if the hundreds of independent papers coming to the same conclusion is not enough for you)?
Please, elaborate on why my disagreement with your hypothetical study design means that I am clueless about statistical analysis. I've already said that you're 'ideal' study is impossible, and that we shouldn't ignore data indicative of a causation mechanism just because the study isn't done in a vacuum.
As for your smoker comment, well, I think you've really shown your ignorance. The reason anyone found out that smoking caused cancer in the first place was because of epidemiological work, not because people were 'coughing up tar'. The first notable study showing the link between smoking and health problems is usually attributed to this man;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll
This was, of course, played down and suppressed by the tobacco industry, just as the meat industry do today if it ever becomes an issue. The response to the WHO IARC panel's announcement was typical of this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no veggie, I ate a pepperoni passion pizza last night for God's sake, I just hate to see people defending the things they like because they don't want to believe they cause health problems. AT least own up to it, eat the stuff anyway, and know the risks (which are admittedly not horrific, and I consider them a worthwhile gamble). This beating around the bush and trying to weasel out of the obvious conclusion the many data sets bring is just futile and it doesn't help anyone.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »So wait, your whole problem with meta-analyses is that the conclusions are too ambitious? That's all? You're not disputing the results, just the interpretation? So the data stands? Then how exactly do you intend to explain away the many positive correlations that support my position?
There is a point, after so many independent studies show the same correlation over a long period of time, that causation becomes a real threat. Personally, I think we've crossed that boundary a long time ago, given that there are also solid mechanisms hypothesised for why it might be the case that processed/red meats caused colorectal cancer, for instance. What are your conditions for demonstrating causation (because they seem to be pretty lofty if the hundreds of independent papers coming to the same conclusion is not enough for you)?
Please, elaborate on why my disagreement with your hypothetical study design means that I am clueless about statistical analysis. I've already said that you're 'ideal' study is impossible, and that we shouldn't ignore data indicative of a causation mechanism just because the study isn't done in a vacuum.
As for your smoker comment, well, I think you've really shown your ignorance. The reason anyone found out that smoking caused cancer in the first place was because of epidemiological work, not because people were 'coughing up tar'. The first notable study showing the link between smoking and health problems is usually attributed to this man;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Doll
This was, of course, played down and suppressed by the tobacco industry, just as the meat industry do today if it ever becomes an issue. The response to the WHO IARC panel's announcement was typical of this.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no veggie, I ate a pepperoni passion pizza last night for God's sake, I just hate to see people defending the things they like because they don't want to believe they cause health problems. AT least own up to it, eat the stuff anyway, and know the risks (which are admittedly not horrific, and I consider them a worthwhile gamble). This beating around the bush and trying to weasel out of the obvious conclusion the many data sets bring is just futile and it doesn't help anyone.
The only person not helping anyone is you and your dogma. I've an open mind on the situation. The fact remains that you've no idea how to interpret research and your latest post demonstrated that yet again.
Where did I talk about meta analyses being "ambitious" as you say? Don't put words in my mouth. Like I said, educate yourself on study heterogeneity and you'll have yourself a lightbulb moment. God knows you need one.
You just are not getting this. If confounding factors (those are the things that are undermining your stance FYI) have, and always will be, a factor in epidemiological studies AND all we have is correlation based evidence, a proliferation of these inadequate studies over and over and over does not lend any weight to your argument. You can give me 5 million positive correlations. If you can't distinguish confounding factors (remember the Big Mac?) you can't conclude there is a causative relationship AS YOU ARE DOING! You can highlight the relationship, you can say there could be a link, you, for all I care, can avoid red meat for the rest of your life. What you CANNOT do is make unequivocal claims as to the effect that red meat has on the incidence of disease. You can argue against that all you want but you just reinforce the idea hat you are a dogmatic and close minded interpreter of research.
You've totally misunderstood my example on smoking too and to be honest, I see a pattern in how you process information in general. I know I can't convince you otherwise (because unlike you I realise there is no conclusive proof) so at that I'll leave it. Read up on how research should be interpreted.0 -
Darkest Horse wrote: »The only person not helping anyone is you and your dogma. I've an open mind on the situation. The fact remains that you've no idea how to interpret research and your latest post demonstrated that yet again.
Where did I talk about meta analyses being "ambitious" as you say? Don't put words in my mouth. Like I said, educate yourself on study heterogeneity and you'll have yourself a lightbulb moment. God knows you need one.
You just are not getting this. If confounding factors (those are the things that are undermining your stance FYI) have, and always will be, a factor in epidemiological studies AND all we have is correlation based evidence, a proliferation of these inadequate studies over and over and over does not lend any weight to your argument. You can give me 5 million positive correlations. If you can't distinguish confounding factors (remember the Big Mac?) you can't conclude there is a causative relationship AS YOU ARE DOING! You can highlight the relationship, you can say there could be a link, you, for all I care, can avoid red meat for the rest of your life. What you CANNOT do is make unequivocal claims as to the effect that red meat has on the incidence of disease. You can argue against that all you want but you just reinforce the idea hat you are a dogmatic and close minded interpreter of research.
You've totally misunderstood my example on smoking too and to be honest, I see a pattern in how you process information in general. I know I can't convince you otherwise (because unlike you I realise there is no conclusive proof) so at that I'll leave it. Read up on how research should be interpreted.
It's clear that you're hung up on the heterogeneity of the meta-analyses I cited (or these types of studies in general). So, since you're obviously much more accomplished than myself when discussing these matters, please point out to me where the sources of heterogeneity are in each meta-analysis I linked to previously. It's not enough to simply disregard them because SOME meta-analyses may fall into this trap, you have to show me where the ones I showed you did so.
Anyway, as for confounding factors, it seems obvious to me that as you keep a constant factor, red meat consumption, and allow for the fact that there will be confounding factors that influence your data, that you must then leap to the conclusion that these confounding factors must all be causing the same type of cancers. We've got loads of studies across populations, geographic locations, etc. where the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that all participants are consuming red meats (bearing in mind that many of the studies, and indeed all of the studies in a good meta-analysis have already controlled for known factors).
When you have a massive sample size, the proportion of the confounding factors and their effect on the data will not necessarily diminish, but since they are different factors then they cannot all be causing the same ailment. You're taking a leap of faith there, assuming that despite the fact that the effect and nature of the confounding factors is changing from study to study, we see that the incidence of the same ailment is relatively constant. But whatever, it's clear that you don't value any research done because it's not in a vacuum, and that the real cancer risk (i.e. one of the confounding factors) is lurking somewhere in all these red meat sources, or that red meat eaters are coincidentally exposed this carcinogen more, causing colorectal cancer en masse in the developed world.
Fine with me.0 -
malnurtured wrote: »It's clear that you're hung up on the heterogeneity of the meta-analyses I cited (or these types of studies in general). So, since you're obviously much more accomplished than myself when discussing these matters, please point out to me where the sources of heterogeneity are in each meta-analysis I linked to previously. It's not enough to simply disregard them because SOME meta-analyses may fall into this trap, you have to show me where the ones I showed you did so.
Anyway, as for confounding factors, it seems obvious to me that as you keep a constant factor, red meat consumption, and allow for the fact that there will be confounding factors that influence your data, that you must then leap to the conclusion that these confounding factors must all be causing the same type of cancers. We've got loads of studies across populations, geographic locations, etc. where the only thing that doesn't change is the fact that all participants are consuming red meats (bearing in mind that many of the studies, and indeed all of the studies in a good meta-analysis have already controlled for known factors).
When you have a massive sample size, the proportion of the confounding factors and their effect on the data will not necessarily diminish, but since they are different factors then they cannot all be causing the same ailment. You're taking a leap of faith there, assuming that despite the fact that the effect and nature of the confounding factors is changing from study to study, we see that the incidence of the same ailment is relatively constant. But whatever, it's clear that you don't value any research done because it's not in a vacuum, and that the real cancer risk (i.e. one of the confounding factors) is lurking somewhere in all these red meat sources, or that red meat eaters are coincidentally exposed this carcinogen more, causing colorectal cancer en masse in the developed world.
Fine with me.
At least you are making an effort to see it another way. In any case, it's become obvious by now that we are arguing two completely different things. You think red meat is carcinogenic, I, regardless of my actual opinion on the matter, think you are making incorrect conclusions on the available evidence. I think we can be sure of just one thing: I have an open mind on the issue and you've made up your mind. I'm done with this anyway. It's ok to differ and the other half has just served up a beef curry that can't wait until tomorrow.0 -
Advertisement
-
malnurtured wrote: »The objective I had in mind while citing an old paper (apart from it showing up as one of the first links from Google Scholar) was to show that the scientific community has been researching this for a long time. I admit that it's probably better to cite more recent studies, so I'll stick to that from now on.
.
I think it may be a mistake to ignore old studies as big business has learned from its mistakes in the past and is now designing the latest studies to give the results they want.I remember reading about a study the beef industry designed a to show that a diet containing beef was able to lower cholesterol they did this by cutting out enough poultry, pork, fish, and cheese to halve one’s total saturated fat intake.
Many of the older studies were less influenced by big business so dont be so quick to ignore them.
Otherwise I agree with most of what you are saying.0
Advertisement