Red Meat Consumption Linked to Increased Risk of Total, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2012-releases/red-meat-cardiovascular-cancer-mortality.html

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=5]Red Meat Consumption Linked to Increased Risk of Total, Cardiovascular, and Cancer Mortality[/font]

For immediate release: Monday, March 12, 2012

[font size=3]Boston, MA -- A new study from Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) researchers has found that red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality. The results also showed that substituting other healthy protein sources, such as fish, poultry, nuts, and legumes, was associated with a lower risk of mortality.

The study will be published online in Archives of Internal Medicine on March 12, 2012.

“Our study adds more evidence to the health risks of eating high amounts of red meat, which has been associated with type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, and certain cancers in other studies,” said lead author An Pan, research fellow in the Department of Nutrition at HSPH.

The researchers, including senior author Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology at HSPH, and colleagues, prospectively observed 37,698 men from the Health Professionals Follow-up Study for up to 22 years and 83,644 women in the Nurses’ Health Study for up to 28 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer at baseline. Diets were assessed through questionnaires every four years.

…[/font][/font]

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmend.2011.2287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archinternmed.2012.174

[cbayer]

1. What a huge study! This looks very real.

[KT2000]

2. what is red meat?

It is a generic term to cover products that vary greatly. Red meat products usually contain plenty of fats. Fats are where persistent chemicals (dioxinm PCBs, pesticides and herbicides) the animal was exposed to are stored. Those fats and chemicals are consumed by the human who eats it. Are they getting cancer and cardiovascular disease from the red meat? or from the fat and its contents?

My neighbor raises organic beef that is fed grass - not corn, newspaper or cement. The fat ratio (omega 3-6-9) is nearly identical to salmon.

"Red meat" is a term that needs to be defined more accurately for it to be meaningful in health studies.

[OKIsItJustMe]

5. Why do you assume it is poorly defined in this study?

http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/archinternmed.2011.2287

…

In 1980, a 61-item FFQ was administered to the NHS participants to collect information about their usual intake of foods and beverages in the previous year. In 1984, 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006, similar but expanded FFQs with 131 to 166 items were sent to these participants to update their diet. Using the expanded FFQ used in the NHS, dietary data were collected in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006 from the HPFS participants. In each FFQ, we asked the participants how often, on average, they consumed each food of a standard portion size. There were 9 possible responses, ranging from "never or less than once per month" to "6 or more times per day." Questionnaire items about unprocessed red meat consumption included "beef, pork, or lamb as main dish" (pork was queried separately beginning in 1990), "hamburger," and "beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish." The standard serving size was 85 g (3 oz) for unprocessed red meat. Processed red meat included "bacon" (2 slices, 13 g), "hot dogs" (one, 45 g), and "sausage, salami, bologna, and other processed red meats" (1 piece, 28 g). The reproducibility and validity of these FFQs have been described in detail elsewhere.9-10 The corrected correlation coefficients between the FFQ and multiple dietary records were 0.59 for unprocessed red meat and 0.52 for processed red meat in the HPFS,9 and similar correlations were found in the NHS.10

…

[MineralMan]

3. Again, Associated with.

Headline writer chose the word Linked, despite it not being used in the body of the article. Common bone-headed error.

Association is not causation. Never has been; never will be.

[OKIsItJustMe]

4. When is there ever absolute proof of causation?

Seriously, short of someone stepping up with a gun, and shooting someone?

… Editor Ernst Voges in Tobacco Encyclopedia, 1986, states that the allegations made against tobacco as being a cause of lung cancer and other diseases have not been proven. He says that "most of the allegations against smoking are based on 'statistical associations' found in epidemiological studies." And that it is agreed among scientists "that a statistical association does not establish causation" (p. 460).

[MineralMan]

6. Bringing up the example of the tobacco industry

won't wash, really. Associations do not demonstrate causation. It's just basic science. Showing a solid link to causation requires a much more rigorous research strategy than the statistical study done here. Perhaps that will be done in these cases. I don't know. But, it's still incorrect to stretch association to imply causation.

Does smoking cause lung cancer? Yes, apparently it does. What the tobacco people said about association in that connection has nothing to do with the fact that association does not demonstrate causation. Trying to say that there's a relationship between the tobacco people's claims and the article in this thread is a logical error.

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I'm not “Trying to say…

… that there's a relationship between the tobacco people's claims and the article in this thread”

I'm pointing out that while your statement that “association is not causation” is true, it does not mean that statistical association is somehow irrelevant.

[MineralMan]

8. It may or may not be relevant.

Only a more carefully controlled study can determine that. It's worthwhile noting the association, but it shouldn't be termed a "link" as was done in two headlines of articles you posted. "Link" is not a word used by science in these studies. It's a much-misunderstood word used by headline writers, and it distorts the significance of the study.

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. “Link” is not used in the studies it is used in press releases

I generally post press releases, which are written in “layman’s terms” and links to the actual research papers (when I can find them.)

In common usage, “link” is not an unreasonable translation for “association.”


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/association

association

…

something linked in memory or imagination with a thing or person

…