IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Improved science exonerates red meat.
A rigorous GRADE type study, published in Annals of Internal Medicine, finds no connection between red meat and diseases. GRADE: Grading of Recommendations Assessments Development and Evaluation.

14 members of the True Health Initiative, which strongly recommends a plant based diet, demanded the report be retracted before publication, which was not done.

No connection was found between the paper's originators and the meat industry, however, several members of the True Health Initiative are heavily funded by the walnut and peanut industries.

Where did the condemnation of red meat originate? From the American Heart Association, of course, the group that has been wrong, sometimes deadly wrong, in practically all its recommendations. To keep their record up, the AHA is currently promoting a maximum salt intake which salt metabolism experts say is dangerously low. The AHA consistently bases their recommendations on studies known to be seriously flawed, but which lend themselves the sensational promotions.

From article in Los Angeles Times 9 October 2019, page A10.
Expand Edited by Andrew Grygus Oct. 9, 2019, 11:47:22 AM EDT
New Similar article in NY Times.
Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said. Now Some Believe That Was Bad Advice.
The evidence is too weak to justify telling individuals to eat less beef and pork, according to new research. The findings “erode public trust,” critics said.

Public health officials for years have urged Americans to limit consumption of red meat and processed meats because of concerns that these foods are linked to heart disease, cancer and other ills.

But on Monday, in a remarkable turnabout, an international collaboration of researchers produced a series of analyses concluding that the advice, a bedrock of almost all dietary guidelines, is not backed by good scientific evidence.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

-- Isaac Asimov
New Depends on the analysis.

The new guidelines were released in Annals of Internal Medicine, a prestigious medical journal published by the American College of Physicians. Robert McLean, the ACP’s president and a rheumatologist at Yale, told me that they were the result of an editorial decision by the journal, not the ACP, but he nevertheless defended the analyses. “They did not say that eating red meat is safe,” he said. “They said that the data suggesting it’s as harmful as we once thought is inconclusive. They’re not saying to go out and eat all the red meat you want.”

Note that "international" appears to mean "US and Canada".


The news alerts came down to the sixth article, which was the set of “clinical guidelines.” In it, the researchers concluded that because of the “low quality evidence,” adults should continue eating meat as they do. To arrive at this conclusion, the authors used a technique known as GRADE, which subjectively evaluates different types of evidence. For example, a drug would not simply be recommended because it is effective; the amount of effect would be considered alongside things such as reliability, side effects, and other costs. Based on its analysis, the group decided that the evidence of meat’s harms to health was not strong enough to recommend that people stop eating meat altogether. And because it deemed this evidence weak, it chose to recommend that people do not attempt to change their habits.

What the articles said was that reducing meat consumption was better, but because people like to eat meat it's not worth telling them to stop completely.

Typically, a medical journal publishes its findings and then gives some analysis of what those findings might mean, but it is unusual for authors to extrapolate findings into recommendations. It is especially rare when the directives bear on heart disease, the No. 1 killer of humans. And incorporating patient preferences into the guidelines themselves is controversial. History would likely be different if findings in the 1960s that cigarettes cause lung cancer had been translated into clinical guidelines where harms were negated by people’s enjoyment of cigarettes.

In an open letter to the editors of the journal, Katz and other researchers—including one of the authors of the new analyses, John Sievenpiper—objected to the guidelines as “highly irresponsible.” In a public statement, Sievenpiper said, “Unfortunately, the leadership of the paper chose to play up the low certainty of evidence by GRADE.” He suggested that even though evidence is not certain, it is not meaningless; a lack of definitive evidence that something is harmful is not itself reason to recommend that people do that thing. Other signatories of the letter included Harvard’s chair of nutrition, Frank Hu; the former surgeon general Richard Carmona; the former American College of Cardiology president Kim Williams; and the dean of Tufts University’s School of Nutrition, Dariush Mozaffarian.

Lots of other interesting stuff in that article.
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Also also

Apparently there were ties between the food industry and the lead researcher. And the tool that was used, GRADE, was designed for use with clinical drug trials, not health studies.
Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
New Ties with food industry.
It was mentioned that the lead researcher had some past involvement with the sugar industry, with no evidence of any involvement with the meat industry.

On the other other hand, some of the harshest critics get considerable financial support from the walnut and peanut industries, major players in the vegetable protein movement.
New Are you saying that we have to be wary of...
...Big Nuts?
New Especially in California.
Any major industry needs to be carefully watched. Any major industry will apply political pressure to get what they want, and what they want may not be good for citizens.

California produces 1/3 of the entire world's supply of Walnuts, and 82% of the entire world's supply of Almonds. Clearly, these are major industries that need to be watched.

The US produces only 6% of the world's supply of Peanuts, but that industry has certainly had it's share of scandals, especially regarding aflatoxins and salmonella. 44% of the world's peanut production is in China and 25% in India. Food industries in those countries certainly need to be watched carefully.

Trivia: Walnuts are nuts. Almonds are peach pits, and peanuts are beans. The almond flavor of almonds comes from their cyanide content.
New Boffo-while-true.. that last :-)
New Nah, no need to invoke conspiracy theories; he's just generally saying...
...they're nuts!

   Christian R. Conrad
The Man Who (used to think he) Knows Fucking Everything

Mail: Same username as at the top left of this post, at iki.fi
New depends on the meat as well
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts" – Richard Feynman
New Null hypotheses anyone?
"Just because there's no solid evidence of risk doesn't mean you should do it."

No, that kind of *is* what it means.

     Improved science exonerates red meat. - (Andrew Grygus) - (10)
         Similar article in NY Times. - (a6l6e6x) - (9)
             Depends on the analysis. - (malraux) - (8)
                 Also also - (malraux) - (5)
                     Ties with food industry. - (Andrew Grygus) - (4)
                         Are you saying that we have to be wary of... - (pwhysall) - (3)
                             Especially in California. - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Boffo-while-true.. that last :-) -NT - (Ashton)
                             Nah, no need to invoke conspiracy theories; he's just generally saying... - (CRConrad)
                 depends on the meat as well -NT - (boxley)
                 Null hypotheses anyone? - (drook)

Ichi, ni, san, shi.
51 ms