2

votes

New study: Red meat linked to cancer and heart disease

Answered on September 12, 2014
Created March 13, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Possible Duplicate:
Recent Longitudinal Study: Red Meat and Higher Mortality

Has anyone read the full article at New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/13/health/research/red-meat-linked-to-cancer-and-heart-disease.html?_r=2&ref=health

They cite a new Harvard study to which I don't have access to.

Does anybody have access to the full versions? Has this study been discussed extensively by some reliable sources? Any informed opinions?

Any links and input is highly appreciated.

964af21f36fe10d5230d867e6c1c45ba

(30)

on March 13, 2012
at 02:08 PM

Apologies! Lawrence Kushi was not actually involved in this study. I noticed his name because he commented on it at the end of an L.A.Times article that The Daily Beast linked to: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story

B3d2fe57ada4561e36326402b0308bd4

(55)

on March 13, 2012
at 01:49 PM

Actually, the study says they were updated every **FOUR years!!!** Even worse.

76d70438d2442d21206b8e5528d23d23

(1098)

on March 13, 2012
at 12:34 PM

Duplicate: that study is also being discussed here: http://paleohacks.com/questions/104557/recent-longitudinal-study-red-meat-and-higher-mortality They link to the full study, which is available online.

  • D7b01bbfd0b91a12c4aea43fb20adf15

    asked by

    (574)
  • Views
    1.4K
  • Last Activity
    1410D AGO
Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

3 Answers

6
51acbea34cdfbe9b94f4847b8b24bfb9

on March 13, 2012
at 01:09 PM

The study is not a new study in the sense that they actually did anything to gather new data. They used two other already published studies and interpreted the data they gathered.

The data of the original studies was collected by participants completing lifestyle questionnaires every TWO years (!) If that fact alone does not make the whole thing a joke I'm not sure what does!

For news channels to report as fact that red meat is linked to mortality and disease is irresponsible.

I once did a study of people that breathed. They all died eventually. Save yourself and stop breathing!

B3d2fe57ada4561e36326402b0308bd4

(55)

on March 13, 2012
at 01:49 PM

Actually, the study says they were updated every **FOUR years!!!** Even worse.

5
B3d2fe57ada4561e36326402b0308bd4

on March 13, 2012
at 12:47 PM

Hi,

I have read this as well and was looking to comment on here. You can look at the full study here: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287

I also saw this comment from an English doctor: "This US study looked at associations between high intakes of red meat and risk of mortality, finding a positive association between the two. However, the study was observational, not controlled, and so cannot be used to determine cause and effect.

"The authors' conclusion that swapping a portion of red meat for poultry or fish each week may lower mortality risk was based only on a theoretical model. This conflicts with evidence from controlled trials."

Dr Ruxton pointed out that meat and meat products were significant sources of essential nutrients such as iron, zinc, selenium, B vitamins and vitamin D.

In the UK, red meat was "critically important" to zinc intake, contributing 32% of the total for men and 27% for women. Red meat also contributed around 17% of total dietary iron intake in the UK.

Dr Ruxton added: "In summary, this paper should not be used to dissuade people from reducing their current intake of red meat when it provides essential nutrients that are required as part of a healthy balanced diet."

Looking through the report, the scientists do point out a very big determining: "Men and women with higher intake of red meat were less likely to be physically active and were more likely to be current smokers, to drink alcohol, and to have a higher body mass index (Table 1). In addition, a higher red meat intake was associated with a higher intake of total energy but lower intakes of whole grains, fruits, and vegetables." The trouble is they almost try to hide that fact although it is probably the largest determining factor in this study, the actual lifestyles of those involved.

0
964af21f36fe10d5230d867e6c1c45ba

on March 13, 2012
at 01:34 PM

For what it's worth, researcher Lawrence Kushi seems to be the son of the late Michio Kushi, a leading promoter of the Macrobiotic diet in the U.S. I studied a bit at the Kushi Institute in the 70's, and have to give the Macrobiotic diet some credit for my aversion to industrially processed foods, anyway!

I just read the reactions to this study at The Daily Beast, and there seemed to be a large collective "So what?" going on there as well.

964af21f36fe10d5230d867e6c1c45ba

(30)

on March 13, 2012
at 02:08 PM

Apologies! Lawrence Kushi was not actually involved in this study. I noticed his name because he commented on it at the end of an L.A.Times article that The Daily Beast linked to: http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!