Just heard that report that red meat wasn’t harmful has been de-bunked. Turns out authors are related to food industry and their “science” had no peer review. Oh well...
Recent Report on Red Meat : Just heard... - Advanced Prostate...
Recent Report on Red Meat
Written by
6357axbz
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
21 Replies
•
I suspected it . Why? Because cigarette industry was publishing "fake research" in its last years.
Meat industry is dying because the secret is out that meat causes cancer. Demand for meat is declining in USA and many Asian nations. In next 20 years, KFC and Mc Donalds will be history or they will be selling organic , plant based healthy food.
Your information is incorrect. Nothing they wrote has been debunked. It's always a good idea to check original sorces, rather than repeating hearsay you pick up up from random sites on the internet.
Here is the study, as published in the peer-reviewed Annals of Internal Medicine, which is a publication of the American College of Physicians.
annals.org/aim/fullarticle/...
Methods:
The recommendations were developed by using the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS) guideline development process, which includes rigorous systematic review methodology, and GRADE methods to rate the certainty of evidence for each outcome and to move from evidence to recommendations. A panel of 14 members, including 3 community members, from 7 countries voted on the final recommendations. Strict criteria limited the conflicts of interest among panel members. Considerations of environmental impact or animal welfare did not bear on the recommendations. Four systematic reviews addressed the health effects associated with red meat and processed meat consumption, and 1 systematic review addressed people's health-related values and preferences regarding meat consumption.
The authors' disclosures are as follows:
"Disclosures: Dr. de Souza reports personal fees and nonfinancial support from the World Health Organization; personal fees from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research/Health Canada and McMaster Children's Hospital; grants from the Canadian Foundation for Dietetic Research, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation, and Hamilton Health Sciences Corporation/Population Health Research Institute outside of the submitted work. He also reports other support from the College of Family Physicians of Canada, Royal College (speaking at a recent conference), and he has served on the Board of Directors of the Helderleigh Foundation. Dr. Patel reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, Sanofi, and the National Science Foundation; personal fees from XY.health, Inc, doc.ai, Janssen, and the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and nonfinancial support from Microsoft, Inc, and Amazon, Inc, during the conduct of the study and equity in XY.health, Inc, outside the submitted work. A summary of disclosures is provided in the Appendix Table. Authors not named here have disclosed no conflicts of interest. "
I don't see the connections to the food industry, do you?
cnn.com/2019/09/30/health/r...
After the study published, the New York Times reported that Johnston (the driving force behind the cluster of studies) received funding from an industry-backed group, the International Life Sciences Institute, for a sugar study published in 2016. That's something researchers say should have been disclosed on the current study, as they are required to report any conflicts of interest in the past three years.
Your link doesn't work.
What has sugar to do with red meat?
The 14-member panel looked at the studies on red meat and evaluated the quality of the evidence, finding it of low quality. I don't really understand why you find that so controversial. Most dietary research is low quality.
Nothing other than perhaps a propensity to work for the food industry. The sugar industry in particular has been pretty ruthless in protecting their own interests over health and environmental concerns.
Sorry bout the clumsy link but if you cut and paste to google this works, at least for me.
cnn.com/2019/09/30/health/r...
How can a “scientific” publication been properly peer reviewed when it’s publication took many of the major scientific bodies, i.e., heart, cancer etc. by complete surprise?
I think the real peer review, in this case, occurs after publication
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not anti-beef. This new report precipitated my purchase today of two 3.75 pound bone out, grass-fed, grass finished, organic sirloin roasts. I just don’t think its credible in the light of the tidal wave of criticism from an important and large part of the scientific community whose primary purpose for existing is to protect our health.
It has not been criticized by an "important and large part of the scientific community." Actual scientists would have no problem with it (and I suspect neither would you if you actually read it). The methodology is strictly kosher by all professional standards. Only mainstream media that like to create controversy where there is none write articles like that. Read the report- not what CNN says to get viewership up.
I have not been collecting the responses, but there has been a whole lotta objections to these guidelines. That doesn't mean they're right, and some of these other sources have invested considerable professional capital in the positions they now hold. But these guidelines have been enormously controversial. I'm sure you will find objections from "actual scientists" if you look. I'm not getting into an argument with you--it is what it is.
There is an obvious parallel to the USPSTF recommendation giving a "D" recommendation to PC screening in 2012 (to be revised later).
None of these recommendations are set in stone.
This is the best critique I’ve seen to date. See specifically the section titled. “Why these guidelines are wrong” (apologies about the cut-n-paste link, I can’t seen to past a live hyperlink on this site.)
health.usnews.com/health-ne...
It falls into the same traps as many others--particularly when it compares U.S./western European typical diets to people "around the globe" who live longer--there are just too many potential confounders. The problem to me is more basic--can you make dietary recommendations about such broad dietary parameters? I prefer more narrowly-focused studies, for example those that associate a high saturated fat diet with lots of red meat with colorectal cancer. In that case you at least have a CHANCE to draw some valid conclusions.
In any case based on my reading of the literature, it is NOT settled that a low-fat diet ALONE will add years to your life. And some of the supporting data for most of the dietary prescriptions are pretty weak. So while I'm inclined to disagree with the findings of this latest metastudy, I am sympathetic to its claim that making draconian dietary changes are probably not warranted for many people.
BTW, I have lately been reading a blog by Anthony Pearson, "The Skeptical Cardiologist"--who is quite up front with his claim that eggs and whole dairy should not be demonized. I haven't read enough to know if he advocates kielbasa. Entertaining and (I think) valuable for its unorthodox perspective.
Did you read the source? How do you know if it "is the best critique" if you didn't read what it is critiquing?
TA, I read the source report that was posted in a different string in this blog. I wasn’t able to find it so I started this one. I don’t have the expertise of any of these folks, neither the ones who published the new report nor the ones critiquing it so I rely on those with expertise I don’t possess. I read the various opinions and develop my own opinion based on what makes sense to me. BTW I didn’t say the US News critique was the best, I said it was the best I’ve seen, i.e., it made the most sense to me. When the new report came out I was very skeptical as it flew in the face of a lot of history on the subject so I began to look at what others who do have expertise in the field have to say.
Here is the report. What you are doing is like reading a movie review and thinking you know the movie.
Again, read their report. I don't think what they are actually saying is so controversial. I think the misinterpretations one reads are the problem.
What they are not saying:
You should eat red meat.
What they are saying:
The evidence is weak that eating red meat, processed or unprocessed, has deleterious consequences. In fact, the evidence does not even come up to a level of certainty required to make a recommendation that people change their red meat consumption.
Furthermore, they found evidence that many people are very attached to meat consumption (for personal or cultural reasons). They considered evidence that any benefit that exists is so small that it will never convince people to reduce meat consumption.
In other words, it is a critique of the available evidence, and not a recommendation to eat red meat, as the media misinterpret it. The only Level 1 evidence available (The Women's Health Study) showed no effect, but even that one study was of low quality. The effect of diet on health is extremely hard to study, and high quality data are few and far between. So their analysis is unsurprising, at least to me.
They also found that there is more evidence for the health effect of total dietary patterns than for consumption of red meat alone. Again, I don't think anyone will find it controversial that the healthiness of the whole diet has more effect than any single component. They did not find evidence of a dose-response (which would occur if more red meat led to worse outcomes).
The only similarity with the original USPSTF recommendation on PSA screening is that they both used the GRADE system to evaluate evidence (as most professional medical organizations do). Now, one could argue the effect of mass cattle ranching on the environment or inhumane treatment of cattle should be considered. In fact, the authors mention that but bracket it as beyond the scope of their analysis.
"The evidence is weak that eating red meat, processed or unprocessed, has deleterious consequences. In fact, the evidence does not even come up to a level of certainty required to make a recommendation that people change their red meat consumption. "
Exactly. Just saw this critique by Anthony Pearson from last week:
I don't get my info from CNN articles - especially when the full text source material is readily available. Did you actually read the study? Or are you so convinced that it can't possibly be true that you aren't willing to assess the study for yourself?
"Propensity"? Really? What is the actual conflict? Or do you judge the authors as guilty by second hand association? He was paid on a completely different study by a company you don't like, so all his work is garbage to you?
You don't seem to understand what "peer review" is. Peer review means that acknowledged experts (not CNN) are shown drafts of the study. They may request more data, and may examine the data, the process, the statistics, and the conclusions drawn. They are free to comment anonymously, and the comments are given to the study authors. The authors make changes based on the review. The peer reviewers may also recommend rejection to the publication editors. On top of that, the publication editors may suggest changes and may reject the article if it doesn't meet their standards. This is a pretty prestigious journal - which is why so many mainstream media picked it up.
Thanks for persisting as a voice of reason, here. Too many rush to embrace notions which tend to confirm their biases etc, without doing due diligence to prove/disprove their "hypotheses." Much fertile ground for quackery.
Despite the (undisclosed) conflict of Johnstone, the problem is not the metastudy (as Tall_Allen says, most dietary studies are of poor quality), but in the reporting. What was taken was that evidence for limiting meat was poor, and promoted as "never mind, meat is fine".
In my field, I had to spend a lot of time a year or so ago dealing with patients after a study saying evidence for a benefit for flossing preventing periodontal disease was weak, was picked up by the wire services as "flossing doesn't help, and may hurt".
Please remember that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
My understanding is that there is a detailed analysis in the works by leading experts in the field. This paper will tackle the methodology in detail and will include a list the “gold standard” studies that have been omitted (the methodological issues go beyond omitting studies — the articles below give the general flavor.
pcrm.org/news/blog/journal-...
They say red meat will kill you.
I'm sure green meat will kill you a lot faster.
Good Luck, Good Health and Good Humor
j-o-h-n Saturday 10/12/2019 7:00 PM DST
Interesting AARP article about the controversial “red meat report”
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
More on epidemiology regarding meat
worldwide study show results contradicting old less well constructed diets
Post Surgery Report :(
Well, I posted a couple ago a little stressed that I had not received my post robotic surgery...
Post RALP path report
Just got my pathology report back. Don't think my Urologist has even see it. Seems mixed in the...
Foundation One partial report
EMBARK trial results reported
Deciphering my Pathology report
Testosterone reported < 20
Declining red blood cells.
