• Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    The issue with many of these studies is that they compare people who eat red meat to those who either avoid it specifically or don’t eat meat at all. The problem is, red meat isn’t the only variable at play. Vegans and vegetarians, in particular, are likely to have much healthier lifestyles overall than someone who eats red meat - which is more or less synonymous with the “average person.”

    What I’d really like to know is the difference between red meat eaters with healthy lifestyles, compared to both the average person and those who don’t eat meat at all.

    • markstos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      18 hours ago

      Did you read how any of the referenced studies were structured to confirm this assumption?

    • RBWells@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      14 hours ago

      If there was a study, I would volunteer. I’m an omnivore now for 20 years, after being vegetarian for about the same amount of time, never vegan. I live a reasonably healthy lifestyle but office job and do like to drink about thrice a week, only one drink (so moderate, I think) . I’m sure there are lifestyle matched vegetarians and vegans.

      Personally I’m healthier but heavier (was underweight, now middle of healthy BMI which feels fat to me but I do literally feel good) with some meat in the diet but don’t eat it every day. Cholesterol was high when I was vegetarian, still is. Only thing that drops that is regular fasting, which unfortunately was a reliable migraine trigger for me.

    • Soulcreator@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Would you be able to give examples of healthier behaviors that vegans and vegetarians perform that the general population does not?

      If one made their choice to abstain from meat for ethical reasons and not health reasons I’m not sure their lifestyle would be drastically different from their counterparts, then again I’m not sure what particular behavior patterns you are referring to which could throw off studies.

      • tocopherol@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        20 hours ago

        I abstain from meat for ethical reasons, a similar ethical reason encourages me to use public transit and bike instead of driving, to reduce my impact on life and the environment. This is anecdotal but most vegans/vegetarians I’ve known are concerned with their impact in general, it’s rare that they only obstain from eating meat but do everything else as an average US meat-eated would.

      • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        22 hours ago

        On average, there are far more people among vegetarians and vegans who generally pay more attention to what they eat and don’t eat, exercise more, and likely smoke and drink alcohol less as well. Obviously, there are exceptions - but I’m talking about averages here.

      • NSRXN@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        23 hours ago

        since vegan fare is pretty limited, i think the first thing is that vegans don’t eat nearly as much fast food. they probably eat out less overall. which is going to require a lifestyle that carves out time at home to cook or meal prep.

        • markstos@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          18 hours ago

          Maybe the restaurants you go to have fewer options, but vegans go to restaurants that have things they can eat, and practically every restaurant has options now. French fries, for example, are a fast food item that’s usually vegan.

        • StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          21 hours ago

          You do realize you’re not obligated to respond to comments, right? If you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re allowed, encouraged even, to not respond.

    • JeremyHuntQW12@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      Most of the studies include processed meat like salami, which has known carcinogens and conflates the result to all red meat.

      • exasperation@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        18 hours ago

        This particular linked study, that is the basis for this thread, limited itself to only unprocessed red meat.

      • jet@hackertalks.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Every study conflates high sugar consumption with meat consumption. If a pizza is considered a serving of meat, in all fairness it should also be considered a serving of plant based foods. Carbohydrates make up the bulk of pizza. And those come exclusively from plants

        We know sugar is bad for health. These observational studies are useless unless they can control for sugar and carbohydrate intake as a factor.

      • Xatolos@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Except that salami is typically made of pork, which isn’t a red meat. Most cured meats and sausages are pork based.

    • jet@hackertalks.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      Not to mention most of the antimeat studies are observational food surveys with weak hazard ratio outcomes.

      Most annoyingly the classification of “meat” is infuriating and biased. In some of the studies any sandwich, any pizza, any sugar covered possible meat containing item counts as meat. It’s well established that sugar is very detrimental for health.

      The only people avoiding sugar at large care about their health, so there is tremendous healthy user bias, and the advice for the last 50 years or so has been to avoid meat if you want to be healthy… Reinforcing the healthy user bias.

      A high quality disciplined study to show the effect of meat on health would include metabolic markers like ketones, track sugar independently, and not use a once every 4 year food questionnaire.

      The key to knowing if the study is serious, or sensational, is if they use relative risk or absolute risk in their findings. Nobody publishes absolute risk with respect to meat consumption…

      https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat#potential-harm

    • kapulsa@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      That may be a problem, but it wouldn’t explain the differences in results due to sponsorships.

      • Opinionhaver@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 day ago

        Well, it would - in the sense that an unbiased study might still find that a meat-eater (i.e. the average person) is less healthy than someone who doesn’t eat meat, and then falsely conclude that meat is the reason, rather than accounting for all the other lifestyle differences. Meanwhile, a study funded by Big Meat would obviously find that meat is good for you - which, let’s not forget, could also be true.

        • jet@hackertalks.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 day ago

          The left/blue side of the graph are outcomes that show meat decreased all cause mortality, the right/red side of the graph are outcomes that show meat increases all cause mortality. If you were a hungry researcher, you could publish unending papers indicating either way from this same observational data pool! - Hence the constant news cycle driven by dietary agendas - not based on hard science RCTs.

          The problem with open-ended observational studies, is you can’t prove causation, and you can find tons of associations for or against whatever you like.

          Grilling the data: application of specification curve analysis to red meat and all-cause mortality

          when investigators analyze data from observational studies, there are often hundreds of equally justifiable ways of analyzing the data, each of which may produce results that vary in direction, magnitude, and statistical significance

          Evidence shows that investigators’ prior beliefs and expectations influence their results [5]. In the presence of strong opinions, investigators’ beliefs and expectations may shape the literature to the detriment of empirical evidence

          Then somebody will come along and do a metanalysis of the studies that were just basically association farming. And claim to find some universal truth… at a certain point we have to look at these observational studies as not science, hell it’s not even academics, it’s advertising, propaganda, and agenda pushing. These are hypothesis generating, they should be the beginning of science, they are not the conclusion of science. And they should never be used for policies, or even marketed to lay people.