Red Meat Not Bad After All? A Study to Check Out For The Health And Non-Health Conscious People

[The alchemist]

New Methodology to control for study outcome heterogeneity and comparative risk assessment for increased quality and expert subject deliberation transparency

A study that tries to quantify the mean factor between risk exposure and disease. It claims that red meat is not as bad as previously posited by studies due to either weakness in constraints of the study methodology and various confounding elements or just unfounded (non-replicable) baseless outcomes altogether.

These researchers devised a new systemized way to assess the relationship between risk and outcome, tightening the bias gap from the uncertainty range shown in previous papers that had wide-ranging results (too many design problems).

“Our meta-analytic approach uses splines to estimate the shape of the risk function without imposing a functional form such as log-linearity, and can be widely applied to other risk–outcome pairs not included in this analysis. This flexibility is an important strength of our approach because many risk–outcome pairs do not have a log-linear relationship. When there are strong threshold effects, log-linear risk functions can exaggerate risk at higher exposure levels and obfuscate important detail at lower exposure levels. This more flexible approach helps identify the true shape of the risk function.”

The star rating system is a comparative risk assessment tool:

Conservative estimates say there is a low risk (to stars) between ischemic heart disease and red meat consumption.

"Unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease (two stars). We identified 43 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies on unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease (Fig. 4)28. At an exposure of 50 grams per day, the mean relative risk is 1.09 (0.99–1.18) compared to 0 grams per day, and at 100 grams per day, it is 1.12 (0.99–1.25) (Fig. 4b and Supplementary Table 4). In the analysis of bias covariates, we found that none had a significant effect. Trimming removed five observations that reported extreme values across the range of red meat consumption. There is no visual evidence or finding of potential publication or reporting bias (Fig. 4c). For unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease, the exposure-averaged BPRF is 0.01, essentially on the null threshold (Fig. 4a), equating to an ROS of 0.01, with a corresponding increase in risk of 1.04%. These findings led this risk–outcome pair to be classified as a (nominal) two stars, on the threshold between weak evidence and no evidence of association for the risk–outcome pair."

"For example, due to very high heterogeneity between studies, a conservative interpretation of the available evidence suggests that there is weak to no evidence of an association between red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease. There is, therefore, a critical need for more large-scale, high-quality studies on red meat consumption so policy-makers can make better-informed decisions about how to prioritize policies that address this potential risk."

A varied and healthy diet, with good amounts of veggies, is likely in the good range. Keep away from overconsumption of processed meat because that stuff is proven to cause diseases. That's my advice.

The study lists limitations, showcasing it is potentially a better system but not perfect.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01973-2

@Shimbiris @Sophisticate This is something you guys want to chew on.

 

[Sophisticate]

New Methodology to control for study outcome heterogeneity and comparative risk assessment for increased quality and expert subject deliberation transparency

A study that tries to quantify the mean factor between risk exposure and disease. It claims that red meat is not as bad as previously posited by studies due to either weakness in constraints of the study methodology and various confounding elements or just unfounded (non-replicable) baseless outcomes altogether.

These researchers devised a new systemized way to assess the relationship between risk and outcome, tightening the bias gap from the uncertainty range shown in previous papers that had wide-ranging results (too many design problems).

“Our meta-analytic approach uses splines to estimate the shape of the risk function without imposing a functional form such as log-linearity, and can be widely applied to other risk–outcome pairs not included in this analysis. This flexibility is an important strength of our approach because many risk–outcome pairs do not have a log-linear relationship. When there are strong threshold effects, log-linear risk functions can exaggerate risk at higher exposure levels and obfuscate important detail at lower exposure levels. This more flexible approach helps identify the true shape of the risk function.”

The star rating system is a comparative risk assessment tool:

Conservative estimates say there is a low risk (to stars) between ischemic heart disease and red meat consumption.

"Unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease (two stars). We identified 43 observations from 11 prospective cohort studies on unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease (Fig. 4)28. At an exposure of 50 grams per day, the mean relative risk is 1.09 (0.99–1.18) compared to 0 grams per day, and at 100 grams per day, it is 1.12 (0.99–1.25) (Fig. 4b and Supplementary Table 4). In the analysis of bias covariates, we found that none had a significant effect. Trimming removed five observations that reported extreme values across the range of red meat consumption. There is no visual evidence or finding of potential publication or reporting bias (Fig. 4c). For unprocessed red meat and ischemic heart disease, the exposure-averaged BPRF is 0.01, essentially on the null threshold (Fig. 4a), equating to an ROS of 0.01, with a corresponding increase in risk of 1.04%. These findings led this risk–outcome pair to be classified as a (nominal) two stars, on the threshold between weak evidence and no evidence of association for the risk–outcome pair."

"For example, due to very high heterogeneity between studies, a conservative interpretation of the available evidence suggests that there is weak to no evidence of an association between red meat consumption and ischemic heart disease. There is, therefore, a critical need for more large-scale, high-quality studies on red meat consumption so policy-makers can make better-informed decisions about how to prioritize policies that address this potential risk."

A varied and healthy diet, with good amounts of veggies, is likely in the good range. Keep away from overconsumption of processed meat because that stuff is proven to cause diseases. That's my advice.

The study lists limitations, showcasing it is potentially a better system but not perfect.

Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01973-2

@Shimbiris @Sophisticate This is something you guys want to chew on.

Once you open the can of worms found in Nutritional Epidemiology and Clinical Nutrition, you may be led down the rabbit hole where you start questioning health research that you should not because the "science is settled." Then you realize that scientists are far from free agents but beholden to a commercial enterprise that limits their freedom of investigation or even censures them if evidence does not conform to a prevailing paradigm.

Nutritional Science has its fair share of ideologues. It is not uncommon to see the elevation of pro-plant and anti-meat messaging that encourage the global elimination of animal foods from the human diet. In addition, meat products are erroneously deemed carcinogenic and threaten environmental sustainability even when there is no concrete evidence to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, the pro-plant agenda is associated with novel partnerships that are often corporations that produce fertilizers and pesticides, processed foods, and formulate food flavourings and additives. When I think of names, Dupont, Syngenta, Unilever, PepsiCo, Cargill, Kellogg's, IFF, Symrise and DSM come to mind.

Sadly, public health policymakers, nutritionists and epidemiologists jump to conclusions based on studies which are not rigorous and well-powered and are mostly prospective observational cohort studies in design. I used to administer dietary questionnaires inquiring about diet and recall that bias was a problem. It is based on the guesswork of the part of the research participant. These guesses form the data to make projected associations about specific foods and diseases. These associations are not real and, when tested in clinical trials, fail most of the time.

As you once noted in another thread, the peer-reviewed process has its fair share of issues. For started Peer reviewers volunteer, are burdened with performing this duty on top of their regular work, are rushed so as not to delay a paper's publication and do not do an impeccable job at detecting errors with papers rarely containing full details about the data and their calculations hence making it difficult to verify quality and accuracy.

It would be best to ask what a healthy diet is compared to and what its constituents are, and it is impossible to map out every conceivable variable. For example, I have not seen any studies comparing different permutations of plant-based and animal-based diets that controlled for multiple lifestyle variables such as smoking, drinking, exercise, and stress management. Rather most animal diet research participants still consumed carbohydrates, particularly refined ones. So how can you even tell if a diet is health-promoting? Or Why?

There is much confusion and fear-mongering in Nutritional Sciences. Animal protein has more bioavailable vitamins and minerals than plant protein. How are fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) found in animal products good for teeth, brain development, bones, and joints but simultaneously problematic? We must face that epidemiological data on associations between red meat is inconsistent and unclear.

Speaking anecdotally and disclosing my personal biases, which are the consequences of lived experience, I have benefited more from an animal diet (heavier on animal protein and fat) similar to preagricultural humans. This reminds me of an older post where I discussed the possible dietary habits of Somalis (see below).

 

[Sophisticate]

Don't go vegetarian for an indefinite period. Consider what your ancestors ate. This was the advice that one of my university professors gave me. I think vegetarianism is fine for a period but not forever.

I recall reading that the Massai went through a dietary transition and started to have increased chronic health conditions (heart disease, cardiovascular disease) from eating a diet high in carbs and low in saturated fats. Check out this article (below). Bear in mind I know Somalis do not drink blood and it's against our faith (though it was practiced by the North Cushitic Beja at some point). However, one should keep in mind that old-school Somalis had more limited grain consumption than they do today, and likely didn't eat wheat, favouring other grains and subsisting on dairy and animal products. I'm referring to what I believe was their non-urbanized diet. In fact, it is believed that the Somali diet consisted exclusively of meat and milk before the introduction of grain. It's indicative of older Somali phrases such as:

Waa taan cad iyo caano waaye
Let ‘the unknown” deny me meat and milk [Not a direct translation]

This phrase was often uttered in place of the now overused term - wallahi. It essentially means my word is my bond.

View attachment 229488

View attachment 229493
View attachment 229494

Dietary Transitions and Health Outcomes in Four Populations – Systematic Review

ImportanceNon-communicable chronic diseases (NCDs) such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and cancer were rare among non-western populations with traditional diets and lifestyles. As populations transitioned toward industrialized diets and lifestyles, NCDs developed.ObjectiveWe...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[The alchemist]

Once you open the can of worms found in Nutritional Epidemiology and Clinical Nutrition, you may be led down the rabbit hole where you start questioning health research that you should not because the "science is settled." Then you realize that scientists are far from free agents but beholden to a commercial enterprise that limits their freedom of investigation or even censures them if evidence does not conform to a prevailing paradigm.

Nutritional Science has its fair share of ideologues. It is not uncommon to see the elevation of pro-plant and anti-meat messaging that encourage the global elimination of animal foods from the human diet. In addition, meat products are erroneously deemed carcinogenic and threaten environmental sustainability even when there is no concrete evidence to substantiate these claims. Furthermore, the pro-plant agenda is associated with novel partnerships that are often corporations that produce fertilizers and pesticides, processed foods, and formulate food flavourings and additives. When I think of names, Dupont, Syngenta, Unilever, PepsiCo, Cargill, Kellogg's, IFF, Symrise and DSM come to mind.

Sadly, public health policymakers, nutritionists and epidemiologists jump to conclusions based on studies which are not rigorous and well-powered and are mostly prospective observational cohort studies in design. I used to administer dietary questionnaires inquiring about diet and recall that bias was a problem. It is based on the guesswork of the part of the research participant. These guesses form the data to make projected associations about specific foods and diseases. These associations are not real and, when tested in clinical trials, fail most of the time.

As you once noted in another thread, the peer-reviewed process has its fair share of issues. For started Peer reviewers volunteer, are burdened with performing this duty on top of their regular work, are rushed so as not to delay a paper's publication and do not do an impeccable job at detecting errors with papers rarely containing full details about the data and their calculations hence making it difficult to verify quality and accuracy.

It would be best to ask what a healthy diet is compared to and what its constituents are, and it is impossible to map out every conceivable variable. For example, I have not seen any studies comparing different permutations of plant-based and animal-based diets that controlled for multiple lifestyle variables such as smoking, drinking, exercise, and stress management. Rather most animal diet research participants still consumed carbohydrates, particularly refined ones. So how can you even tell if a diet is health-promoting? Or Why?

There is much confusion and fear-mongering in Nutritional Sciences. Animal protein has more bioavailable vitamins and minerals than plant protein. How are fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) found in animal products good for teeth, brain development, bones, and joints but simultaneously problematic? We must face that epidemiological data on associations between red meat is inconsistent and unclear.

Speaking anecdotally and disclosing my personal biases, which are the consequences of lived experience, I have benefited more from an animal diet (heavier on animal protein and fat) similar to preagricultural humans. This reminds me of an older post where I discussed the possible dietary habits of Somalis (see below).

I've known for a while what you wrote about nutritional science and agree with most of the writing in the first post, except this:

"Animal protein has more bioavailable vitamins and minerals than plant protein. How are fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) found in animal products good for teeth, brain development, bones, and joints but simultaneously problematic? We must face that epidemiological data on associations between red meat is inconsistent and unclear."

..which I can't confirm or deny because of a lack of knowledge. I'm not a vegan guy or promote that lifestyle. A balanced diet is good for two reasons; probabilistically, it is in the middle ground. If one thing turns out to cause harmful effects, at least you don't eat only that, right? Secondly, humans are omnivores, so our consumption capabilities support a wide-spectrum diet to cover all the vitamin and mineral edges, i.e., plant and meat. You have to eat good food at the end of the day, eating meat is very important for us.

We should not extrapolate the Somali constitution from the Masaai without doing a study on us. As I have mentioned in a previous post, the Masai developed a unique profile to consume heavy cholesterol (the bad ones) levels without having negative consequences, with other populations seeing problems from that. Moreover, it is false to assume our ancestors did not eat wheat for several reasons, one or two of whom I will indirectly address in a thread, hopefully not long from now. Lifestyle and activity, going from high mobility to more sedentary, and consumerism participation are the causative majority of problems stem from. Similar things were observed with Siberians.

You are correct about Beja consuming milk and blood (at least, a section in the past). I remember reading a 19th-century book where hired expedition helpers argued. In the argument, the Beja tried to defend against the insults while stating that they did, indeed, drink milk with blood. With the Beja, they have admixture. They have the highest diversity of alleles (developed from separate populations) than anyone in the world regarding lactose persistence genes.