Saginaw Bay Area - Michigan | hlstark - 12/21/2024 21:08
The links to the studies are embedded in the articles much like this one, but it really doesn’t matter since you won’t believe it anyway.
https://aacrjournals.org/cebp/article-abstract/33/3/400/734666/Genom...
When the article summarizes the increased risk with each additional portion of red meat, how can you fail to find the correlation that a carnivore diet would include multiple servings of red meat thus leading to a greater risk.
The linked study makes the statement that "meat consumption are established colorectal cancer risk factors".
The study did not determine this, it was the premise that study was based on. The study is not supporting that statement, they are starting with the idea of it as fact. The linked study then tries to find a genome that would be common amongst those for an identifier of higher risk. Again, this only applies to the assumption of fact that red meat consumption is bad.
If you jump over to look at any of the studies they base their data set off of, you'll not find much of anything supporting the meat=bad premise, other than repeating the statement of meat is bad.
So here's a big authoritative source on the subject and the hits on their associated/published studies that have much of anything to do with "meat".
https://coloncfr.org/publications/
You'll find lots of studies that sum it up:
"We found that high red meat intake was associated with increased risk of colorectal cancer only from retrospective case-control studies" (so no good studies to base the premise on)
" We found no evidence of an association between total nonprocessed red meat or total processed meat and CRC risk." (no evidence found)
"In this large consortium of CRC patient cohorts, intake of red and processed meat before a diagnosis of CRC was not associated with shorter survival time after diagnosis" (meat didn't kill them faster)
"a potential explanation for the observed association between diets high in red meat and CRC. " (we still don't know, maybe this is tied in somehow)
Taken together, you'll find lots of studies that start with the premise that red meat = cancer.
You will not find a good study showing that meat = cancer. "Good" meaning a randomized control trial that has controlled diets that also takes into account all of the other factors that play into the actual outcomes.
So yes, there are lots of studies saying eating meat is bad. No studies proving eating meat is bad. Most of the studies on the meat is bad are based on the premise that meat is bad and they then try to prove why but fail to do so.
Most of these are based on the International Agency for Research on Cancer (WHO) statement in 2015 that meat was "probably" carcinogenic. No RCT studies to back this up, but accepted as fact and then parroted enough that the "consensus" is that it is fact. Original press release: https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E.pdf
"After thoroughly reviewing the accumulated scientific literature, a Working Group of 22 experts from 10
countries convened by the IARC Monographs Programme classified the consumption of red meat as
probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A), based on limited evidence that the consumption of red meat
causes cancer in humans"
I think this 2022 publication in Nature sums things up reasonably well: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z
"We found weak evidence of association between unprocessed red meat consumption and colorectal cancer, breast cancer, type 2 diabetes and ischemic heart disease. " (no study proves meat is bad)
"More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease." (we need more good studies)
"several studies have found no significant relationship between red meat consumption and risk of death, which has led to further questioning of the strength of evidence in these risk pair associations. To resolve conflicting data and recommendations, a quantitative and objective strategy for assessing the strength of the evidence relating red meat consumption to health outcomes is needed." (we need more good studies to prove this either way)
"Evidence on the health effects of red meat consumption comes primarily from prospective observational cohort studies in which individuals are grouped into categories based on their level of red meat consumption" (the studies people use to justify their meat is bad position are junk)
"the current evidence for an association between unprocessed red meat and risk of these health outcomes is weak there is a critical need for better data from large-scale, high-quality studies in locations around the world. More evidence either in support of or against an association will allow policy makers to make better-informed decisions on diet recommendations." (the data is so poor we really really need a good study to justify the currently accepted mantra that meat is bad)
|
"Please Do Not Try to Survive on an All-Meat Diet"
