15 Responses to “Meat consumption and mortality”

Would you like to make a comment?

Then please do so openly and politely and no hiding behind some pseudonym. As for spam, well that's just another word for junk and it will end up in the bin, where it belongs.

Read below or add a comment...

  1. avatar Robin Willcourt says:

    Great evisceration. Can one “see” that the vegetarian respondents were not happy with your conclusions?

    Well done on getting to the guts of this hoax. In my medical practice, I take a very detailed history including diet, and the heavy meat eaters and the vegetarians who are the healthiest have similar exercise and dietary eating patterns (as in IF e.g.), and while I cannot say that this results in their excellent blood profiles and overall “healthiness” it makes one think that these might be the most important factors, because I cannot find any other, save good genetics.

    The perfect storm of Ancel Keys “findings” in 1955 and the concurrent emergence of aggressive food and pharmaceutical industries has led us into a chaotic web of lies and hoaxes from which disentanglement is nigh on impossible.

  2. avatar David de Neufville says:

    Zoe, At the beginning of each article, it would be helpful if you would give a brief summary of your conclusions. There is much to wade through with a dubious payoff. “Plain speaking for clear understanding.” Thanks.

  3. avatar George Henderson says:

    Oh no Mary, please go on.
    But you don’t have other points do you.
    If the authors found a J shaped curve they should have mentioned it.
    “eating some meat, even processed meat, was better than eating none”.
    Of course it’s not really a J – if it was drawn to scale it would look, to human eyes, exactly like a straight line.

  4. avatar Mary says:

    Talk about not understanding statistics at all!! How could you reset the HRs without access to the original data? Why have you assumed that the relationship is linear and that the lowest intake should have the lowest risk? The researchers obviously found a J shaped curve and that’s why the set the base at the 2nd lowest intake. I won’t go on – your whole article is nonsense.

  5. avatar Chloe says:

    First time to your site too – great stuff…It’s amazing how wrong hings in the media can be!!!

  6. avatar Mark says:

    Thanks for the analysis, I enjoyed my first time to your site.

    I will say I looked at this study and I came away with a few different points.

    First off I was surprised at how much they discussed the studies limitations, although not detailed enough, much more detailed than many.

    I was also surprised at the comments regarding vegetarianism, the vegetarian group isn’t going to like this study but I feel sure nobody reported that portion.

    What I wasn’t surprised by is the comment about red meat in the abstract that was completely the opposite of their conclusion of no correlation to mortality due to red meat in the discussion and conclusion portion of their paper.

  7. avatar Klemens says:

    Hi Zoe, see “Eat eggs and exercise to live longer!” (Understanding scientific studies: http://www.eufic.org/article/en/expid/Understanding-scientific-studies/) – your remarks are completly correct.

    Klemens, Germany

  8. avatar Helen South says:

    nice work as always, Zoe. I read a vaguely related experimental study about meat consumption and I think it was some type of cancer – and tucked away somewhere in the text was a handful of words mentioning, in passing, that the diet wasn’t just ‘high meat’ but also ‘low fibre’. You’d miss it if you blinked. Of course I didn’t save it to a citation manager and can’t find it again. Pity, as it was such a classic example of shoddy science.

  9. avatar youarewrong says:

    Correlation does not imply causation

  10. Nice analysis on this waste of electrons. I also wrote about the study, but I really kinda wish I had the time that I wasted reading that miserable excuse for a “study” back.

    I really should have known better. Usually, I quit reading as soon as I see that a “study” is “observational.” Not sure why I didn’t this time. Maybe it’s because it made the blogosphere light up like an over-voltaged incandescent bulb.

    I threw up a little in my throat when I read “24-hour standardized dietary recall.” It’s only been about 3 or 4 decades since dietary recall was conclusively proven to be worse than useless. *I* have no idea what or how much I ate yesterday — other than the fact that it contained no sugar or wheat products. I *think* I ate some red meat, but that’s because I usually (but not always) do.

    BTW, you did a much better job of delivering a well-deserved evisceration of this fraudulent “study” than I did.

  11. avatar PrimeNumbers says:

    Thanks Zoe for this excellent article. I’d spotted the base-line shift in the data, which also hides the lack of dose-response effect for the processed meat. It was good of you to re-do the figures at the correct baseline to uncover the results of their statistical manipulations.

    It’s also good how you link to the survey questionnaire, which is so rough and general, and asks you to remember over such a long timescale as to be practically worthless. Although I must admit it would be excellent to get the raw data and crunch for hazard ratios on wheat consumption…..

  12. avatar Andy Tindall says:

    Thanks Zoe. I’ve seen study – it seems the researchers “forgot” to take into account the subjects’ intake of sugar and/or refined carbs. Oops!!

  13. avatar Steve Marshall says:

    A brilliant piece of analysis. Well done.

If you'd like to leave a comment, please do so openly and politely and no hiding behind some pseudonym. As for spam, well that's just another word for junk and it will end up in the bin, where it belongs.

8 − = 7