All red meat is bad for you, new study says

• truefire wrote on 2012-04-10 02:40

  For instance, adding just one 3-ounce serving of unprocessed red meat — picture a piece of steak no bigger than a deck of cards — to one's daily diet was associated with a 13% greater chance of dying during the course of the study.
  

  
  
  Red flag against the validity of the article right here. I'm by no means big on red meat (love my poultry and seafood though), but I've had a fair share over the course of my life. This article seems to be suggesting, though, that I should never have made it past the age of 10 and that my life here and now is a miracle, and so are the lives of millions of other people, people who eat lots more red meat than me or anyone in my family.
  
  I know very well that red meat is far, far from the healthiest thing you can be eating, but this article hardly seems scientific and I didn't need this article to know red meat is bad for you, not that I'm convinced anything else mentioned in the article has any validity to it.
• Guyverunit4 wrote on 2012-04-10 02:58
  PFFFT
  
  What's more healthy then the food you love?
• RicochetOrange wrote on 2012-04-10 02:59
  A steak wrapped in bacon.
  
  Sounds so freaking good right now.
• TA wrote on 2012-04-10 03:12
  Junk science and fear mongering.
  
  If it were an accurate study, I would say it moreso showed this:
  

  I notice there is no mention of the difference between organic grass-fed beef and commercial corn-fed beef. . . I think this study is more of an indictment of industry practices than it is of red meat itself. Our food industry is killing us.

  
  
  We've already been shown the reason processed meats are dangerous, and it's industry practices. If it were organic meat, then it would be absolutely fine.
  
  Not to mention the chances that the people that don't eat meat likely have healthier more active lifestyles, because let's face it... people so concerned about their health that they don't eat meat for 20 years, they're obviously into their health enough that they're probably going to be a lot better off than someone that eats steak and bacon every day.
  
  I see no control groups.
• paladin wrote on 2012-04-10 03:23
  Too broad
  no link other facors such as exercise
  or control groups
  Its like saying vegetables have posion and you should not eat them
• whocares8128 wrote on 2012-04-10 17:41
  Why do so many of these studies make me want to facepalm myself to death?
  
  Correlation does not imply causation, as many of you non-scientists already seem to grasp.
  
  I don't see how they could have a control group, nor how they can make claims about substituting red meat with other things like poultry, nuts, or legumes. Did those people truly eat those things at the same rate others were eating red meat (everything else being equal)? Also, if a deck-of-cards-sized piece of steak everyday increased the risk of dying during the 20-year study by 13%, what was the risk of dying before eating any red meat? while eating nothing but vegetables? while not eating? (Okay, maybe eating red meat is better than nothing.)
  
  I liked this part:
  

  Carol Koprowski, a professor of preventive medicine at USC's Keck School of Medicine who wasn't involved in the research, cautioned that it can be hard to draw specific conclusions from a study like this because there can be a lot of error in the way diet information is recorded in food frequency questionnaires, which ask subjects to remember past meals in sometimes grueling detail.

  
  
  Also, eating habits may have helped some of the people to survive the duration of the study. However, in the grand scheme of things, your mortality risk is more or less 100% (barring the case where you become an immortal impervious to all instruments of death), and no amount of eating whole grains will change that. I believe what the article meant to say was mortality rate, which has a very different meaning.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-04-10 19:45
  It's not exactly thrilling news that there's superior substitutes to meat available.
  

  Quote from TA;835258:

  Junk science and fear mongering.
  
  If it were an accurate study, I would say it moreso showed this:
  
  
  We've already been shown the reason processed meats are dangerous, and it's industry practices. If it were organic meat, then it would be absolutely fine.
  
  Not to mention the chances that the people that don't eat meat likely have healthier more active lifestyles, because let's face it... people so concerned about their health that they don't eat meat for 20 years, they're obviously into their health enough that they're probably going to be a lot better off than someone that eats steak and bacon every day.
  
  I see no control groups.

  
  And this.