
Red meat and processed food 'not back on the menu' according to new review - open-source-ux
https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/red-meat-and-processed-food-not-back-on-the-menu-according-to-new-review/
======
allovernow
I swear if it weren't for the many institutional problems plaguing academia
including publish or perish in particular, shoddy bullshit studies like this
would never see the light of day.

Even bending over backwards they were barely able to show a tiny _correlation_
from _surveys_. Meat consumption was the evolutionary step that enabled
primates to develop and maintain biologically expensive brains that made them
human. There unquestionably had to have been a strong evolutionary pressure to
adapt completely to meat eating.

This is just data dredging in pursuit of justification for some kind of weird
anti-meat sentiment which has been growing for decades, when the real culprit
is already known - it's the sugars that have most likely been killing all of
us, although to be honest if the same "gold standard" methods were applied to
sugar related studies I'd question those as well. The way the media continues
to sensationalize these correlative, broken studies is shameful.

~~~
medsiri
Perhaps there could be a strong evolutionary pressure to adapt to meat eating
AND it could cause a slight increase in certain illnesses if consumed
regularly by certain populations? If we look at blue zones where people live
the longest, one commonality is 95% of their diets are vegetables, grains, and
legumes, with limited meat consumption. At the end of the day it comes down to
goals and priorities. If performance is a priority, I think meat consumption
can be a good thing. If longevity is a priority, limiting meat consumption is
probably a good thing. We have to take a nuanced approach. Nutrition science
is difficult, and different populations naturally respond in different ways to
a variety of diets. Some will naturally thrive on meat heavy diets while
others will not.

~~~
allovernow
>If longevity is a priority, limiting meat consumption is probably a good
thing

But 90% of people don't seem to understand that literally _all_ studies on
meat are of this quality and there's zero reliable evidence that red meat is
actually harmful.

However there is reason for bias considering meat gets a bad rap for being
environmentally unfriendly and cruel, although both of those things can be
solved with modern technology. But neither are valid reasons to dig for dirt
with an agenda. That's bad science and studies like these are potentially the
results. Not to accuse the authors specifically, but the bias is very likely
influencing the direction of research in the field.

------
jmkd
This is great. A calm, accessible analysis of a complex, emotive and
apparently volatile topic. Well done NHS.

Of interest here's a Freedom of Information request about the consultants
Bazian who produced this for the NHS:
[https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bazian_services_to_th...](https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bazian_services_to_the_nhs_and_r)

~~~
eeh
I used to read this blog, until I realised every article was:

"This study is limited and warrants further research. This alone does not
warrant a change to dietary advice. We encourage people eat per the Eat Well
plate, as we've done for 15+ years."

At which point I stopped reading newspaper articles on diet, nor their
critiques, and spent that time on following their advice.

~~~
jmkd
No sensible health authority would change dietary advice based on a single
study. Consider research like this as discrete steps in one direction or
another, with a much longer continuous waveform representing national and
population-led understanding.

------
orange_soda
>red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years

Isn't this essentially nothing? Am I misinterpreting these results?

~~~
zamfi
> Isn't this essentially nothing?

Essentially nothing: for an individual? Yes. For a population? No.

You or I may not care about a 0.62% increased CVD rate for ourselves over 30
years, but that does translate to 6,200 extra possibly-preventable cases of
CVD per million people. That's about 76,000 diagnoses annually in the US
alone.

~~~
datashow
This way of interpreting the data is misleading. For population, it still
could mean nothing. People are not living in an isolated environment just
eating red meat or processed food and do nothing else. At the population level
there are way more factors need to be considered. You can't even imagine how
many things in the society will be impacted if people stop eating red meat or
the processed food. CVD will be the least of concern at the population level.

So, yes, this tiny effect size means nothing.

Moreover, this tiny effect size could be much smaller than noises in the data.

~~~
zamfi
It _could_ mean nothing, or it could not. But a small effect size alone
doesn’t tell you this, and you are correct that there are many factors — that
is exactly the point of this study, to tease apart which other factors are
causative.

Of course, this study says nothing about what happens if you try to change
behavior, that seems like an entirely unrelated point.

Taken together, I’m not sure how you can be so confident that a small effect
size therefore means nothing.

------
prvc
Just as bad to lump both red meat and processed food into the same category.
The additives in the latter have been shown definitively to do harm, whereas
there is less evidence about the former.

~~~
eeh
Did you read the article?

The analysis and results treats then separately:

"processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02%
over 20 years and 1.74% over 30 years red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41%
over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years"

> The additives in the latter have been shown definitively to do harm, whereas
> there is less evidence about the former.

The article _is_ evidence of their relative risk, and it does sound consistent
with your prior.

~~~
GordonS
I haven't read the article yet, but going from the headline, I certainly
assumed they were claiming the same/similar risk for both red and processed
meat.

From the summary you gave, it certainly does seem like a click-baity headline.
Personally I would have hoped for better from the NHS (even if I wouldn't have
expected it).

~~~
simonh
I’m sorry, but that’s simply an unwarranted assumption.

~~~
GordonS
Eh? The figures given are clear (and yes, I've read the article by now) - the
risk associated with processed meat is _much_ greater than that with red meat.

~~~
simonh
The assumption I’m referring to is just the thing you said, in your post, that
you assumed.

~~~
GordonS
Ah, sorry, I see what you mean now. It was the part where you said
"unwarranted" that confused me, as the thing I said was warranted by the
headline, the very thing I said was the basis for the assumption.

------
ricardobeat
Interesting how the numbers are pumped up for the headline.

The risk is increased by 7% for eating _processed_ meat, not red meat. And the
actual numbers are:

    
    
        processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02% over 20 years and 1.74% over 30 years
        red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years
        poultry: 0.20% over 10 years, 0.54% over 20 years and 1.03% over 30 years

~~~
OnlineGladiator
I'm mostly surprised poultry is worse than red meat. I realize the supermarket
chickens most people eat are a far cry from their ancestors (ridiculously
overfed, grain diets, selectively bred to grow faster and fatter), but cattle
have many similar issues.

~~~
ricardobeat
It is mentioned that the results are barely statistically significant for
unprocessed meat; it also states that _" poultry could mean plain meat or
deep-fried"_ which makes a huge difference.

------
redka
Could someone explain to me how could researchers come to these conclusions if
there are different factors at play that surely impact the results? The
article states that:

> Participants consumed a weekly average of 1.5 servings of processed meat, 3
> for unprocessed, 2 for poultry and 1.6 servings of fish. People with higher
> intake were generally more likely to be smokers, drink more alcohol, have a
> higher body mass index (BMI) and a lower overall diet quality.

If that's the case then how is it possible for a cohort study to properly
control for all of these? Isn't 7% increase in risk basically telling nothing
then? The other thing is the methodology. The article says that they used
"standard food frequency questionnaire" which I think means Food Frequency
Questionnaire. This alone seems like it would have great effects on the
efficacy of the research making the results even more questionable.

~~~
superpermutat0r
They use statistical methods to eliminate the confounding variables. But given
that they do not understand the fallibility of doing that on extremely noisy
data, the conclusions are telling us nothing.

They cannot control anything and it's all just questionnaires.

It's fine too look at these things but they seem to get blown out of
proportion every single time, even when industry funded studies come out
saying eggs or bacon is fine.

And yes, 7% increased risk is practically nothing. That's baseline risk
multiplied by 1.07. It's noise all the way.

~~~
stefd
> They use statistical methods to eliminate the confounding variables.

Some of those anyway. You can only account for confounders that you know about
a priori.

And given they used Food Frequency Questionnaires, it's mostly wasted efforts
imho.

------
john_moscow
I would love to see the BMI as another dimension in the study. Given that a
portion of meat would have _10-20x_ more calories than an equal amount of
vegetables, you need to try hard to get overweight on a mostly vegetarian
diet.

Of course, stating that _red meat causes CVD_ is much more sensationalist than
merely confirming that extra weight does it, since it implies that ~90% of the
population [0] are making an unhealthy choice.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism_by_country)

~~~
pkaye
However if the vegetarian diet consists of mostly starches and grains it is
pretty easy to put on weight.

~~~
john_moscow
That's exactly I would love to see BMI as another dimension in the study, as
it would fully eliminate this speculation.

------
bitwize
The thing about processed food is that it came about in the 50s, at a time
when many Americans still remembered the dust bowl. Processed food could be
shipped long distances and stored for long times without spoiling and was
available at any time of year. It was, among other things, a hedge against
starvation.

It's not high quality food, and you should, by all means, prefer fresh food
when it is available and you can afford it. But the jihad against processed
food may have unpleasant consequences the next time famine conditions arise.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
Define “processed food” - I understand it often includes decidedly un-modern
steps, such as salting and curing; even doing your own pickling.

~~~
WilliamEdward
[https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-processed-
foo...](https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/what-are-processed-foods/)

According to the NHS who also did this study, this is the definition of
'processed food'...

I think it's dangerous to use the term processed when it's clearly just the
fat, sugars, or other added chemicals and usually not the process that is
unhealthy. 'Freezing and baking' is not unhealthy and yet they are what the
NHS considers 'processed'.

------
clSTophEjUdRanu
I'm looking forward to the keto rebuttal.

~~~
Mikeb85
What rebuttal?

> red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years

0.62% increase over 30 years is next to nothing, especially when you consider
that many people have shit diet habits anyway.

~~~
mudsnail
Those numbers are assuming 2 servings per week. How many meat eater limits
themselves to that few of servings?

~~~
ricardobeat
The numbers in the study are something like 2 servings meat, 3 chicken, 1.6
fish weekly.

~~~
mudsnail
Haven't looked at the original study, but from the article

>>>In terms of the actual difference eating 2 servings a week would make to an
individual's baseline risk of CVD, the researchers calculated:

processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02% over
20 years and 1.74% over 30 years

red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years

poultry: 0.20% over 10 years, 0.54% over 20 years and 1.03% over 30 years

------
Axsuul
Note that this wasn't actually a study, they just looked at 6 other studies
and based a consensus on that.

~~~
medsiri
That is what we call a meta analysis. It is probably the best thing to look at
if you are going to derive conclusions from science.

------
Pmop
Definitive conclusions shouldn't be derived from observational studies only.
Also, the methodology used is very questionable.

We should be more critical about matters concerning our diet, as studies like
the former will be used by the media and professionals to back potentially
life-changing advices.

