There Is No Safe Amount of Processed Meat To Eat, According to New Research (cnn.com) 186
A new study analyzing data from more than 60 previous research projects has found evidence that there is "no safe amount" of processed meat consumption -- so much so that even small daily portions are being linked to increased disease risk.
The research, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, examined connections between processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids and the risk of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and ischemic heart disease. People who ate as little as one hot dog daily showed an 11% greater risk of type 2 diabetes and 7% increased risk of colorectal cancer compared to those who consumed none. Drinking approximately one 12-ounce soda per day was associated with an 8% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and 2% increased risk of ischemic heart disease.
The research, published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine, examined connections between processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids and the risk of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and ischemic heart disease. People who ate as little as one hot dog daily showed an 11% greater risk of type 2 diabetes and 7% increased risk of colorectal cancer compared to those who consumed none. Drinking approximately one 12-ounce soda per day was associated with an 8% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and 2% increased risk of ischemic heart disease.
What about not eating it daily? (Score:3)
Wouldn't the occasional gagger not kill you in your sleep?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's people that are convinced they need to eat meat three times a day at every meal.
So - 9 times a day? That does seem a bit excessive.
Re: (Score:2)
A New Jersey Italian hogie gets you 3 or 4 meats in one bite
Re: (Score:2)
There's people that are convinced they need to eat meat three times a day at every meal.
Looking back through the pre-Round-Up food era of eating meat before CAFOs started infecting that process, along with the FAR more active lifestyle back then, dare we look at which humans were healthier?
It’s amazing how much we forget just how bad we have poisoned the food supply. On purpose. For profit.
Go ahead. Audit a CAFO. I dare you to try and then wonder why you failed.
Immigration Reform [Re: What about not eating...] (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, the immigration system needs reform in the US. There had been unified parties in Washington for both Democrats and Republicans to fix it and they haven't.
There was a bipartisan immigration reform bill hammered out between Republican and Democratic Senators in 2024 and brought to the Senate for approval, the "Border Act of 2024."
After it was brought to the floor, it was opposed by Donald Trump (who at the time held no political office), because he didn't want immigration reform because he wanted to make it an issue in his campaign.
Re: Immigration Reform [Re: What about not eating. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm confused. Why would Trump have been against this? If he supported this his could have come in as a major saviour and shown the world the evil democrats were incompetent. Is he completely stupid or (more likely) are you talking out of your arse? I would normally accuse of you lying but that would imply you're knowingly saying something false rather than just parroting some bullshit you believe your side fed you.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump was against it because it would have codified lax enforcement of border security, you dipshit. He wants strong enforcement, not a norm of ignoring it until illegal crossings reach emergency levels.
Re: What about not eating it daily? (Score:4, Insightful)
Illegal immagration is abused for cheap labor, and is likely below minimum wage. It is a form of slave labor intentionally leveraging sometimes lack of status. It takes advantage of desperate people.
Creation of new classes of people that have reduced rights, reduced ability to petition, and most importantly no legal authority to form a union; all part of standard practice here in America for well over a hundred years.
The exploitation of labor is not precisely equivalent to slavery. The hyperbole is useful for attention grabbing rhetoric, but falls apart when people start picking at the definition(s) of slavery.
Ultimately an illegal immigrant has more choices than a slave. They can walk away and go back to their home country. They could illegally immigrate to a different country (Canada?). I totally agree that people are being exploited here. But let's not throw the terminology of slavery around so much that it loses all meaning.
Re: (Score:2)
The Inuit got lucky, they were able to adapt to that diet because it just happened to have complete nutrition. If whale blubber didn't provide vitamin C (for example) they would have died out along with every other ancient tribe that tried to adapt to a weird diet and just couldn't.
Re:What about not eating it daily? (Score:5, Informative)
"Processed" usually means smoked, cured, or other means of preservation. Cured meats commonly have nitrates or nitrites (carcinogenic) and tons of sodium. Smoked meats have carcinogenic PAHs and HCAs.
Re:What about not eating it daily? (Score:4, Informative)
That was my question too. Who eats a hot dog every day? Certainly not me, maybe one every week or two, at most. "No safe amount" seems a little over the top.
Note study is only about *processed* meat (Score:2)
That's not to say a side of beef or pork can't be improved. Cattle and pigs can be raised and fed much better. But these sides and the steaks and ground beef produced from them locally are
Re:Note study is only about *processed* meat (Score:4, Insightful)
Yeah "processed" is pretty vague, in general. Technically, processing is anything you do when you follow a recipe. But the specific foods covered by this study, were hamburgers and hot dogs. Of course, there are grades of processed meat, even grades of hot dogs. This study claims that the grade of processed meat didn't matter much.
Personally, I suspect that the type of processing, and the specific ingredients used, is more important than "processing" per se. For example, Wonder bread is nowhere near as healthy as homemade sourdough, though both are highly processed foods.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually there are some somewhat agreed upon meanings of terms like "highly processed". You can see the definitions here: https://nutritionsource.hsph.h... [harvard.edu]
For example, minimally processed food has flavorings added, is cut, cooked, etc. Ultraprocessed food is 2-3 levels higher, with shelf life, texture, emulsification, and various other types of changes.
I suspect that the type of processing, and the specific ingredients used, is more important than "processing" per se.
Maybe in some cases. But blending fruit turns it into candy. The ingredients in a soda (especially the new ones with added fiber) are substantially the same
Re: (Score:2)
I was mistaken: minimally processed food does not have salt added. I think this is a bit of a silly distinction, as you will add salt when you eat savory foods and still have an ideal amount of dietary sodium.
Re:Note study is only about *processed* meat (Score:5, Informative)
Harvard's definitions provide one scale, but it's not authoritative. There are other groups with other definitions. All of them are arbitrary, and obscure the nuance that shouldn't be obscured.
Cooking, for example, generally improves the nutritional value and safety of food, even though in the Harvard scale, it raises the level of processing. And not all cooking is the same. Boiling isn't the same, nutritionally, as baking or grilling or smoking. https://www.healthline.com/nut... [healthline.com]
Blending fruit does *not* destroy its nutritional value. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.or... [hopkinsmedicine.org] Juicing it does remove fiber and some nutrients, because some of the good stuff gets filtered out. But either method is far better than "candy." And the new sodas you reference, are about 80% water, 18% refined sugar (cane sugar or corn syrup), and 2% or less of actual fruit and fiber. Those drinks are nothing like drinking a fruit smoothie or juice.
Re: (Score:3)
Blending fruit does *not* destroy its nutritional value. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.or... [hopkinsmedicine.org]
Hmm. I've heard/read a lot of times that fiber can be damaged, and that it really serves its purpose if you eat it as a whole food. (Cooking certainly damages the fiber in grains but that's another discussion.) I was trying to find a rebuttal, but instead I stumbled upon this paper which found insulin/glucose were lower after eating blended fruit than whole fruit. This is so unexpected that I'm updating my opinion to "confused" rather than any specific position. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/a... [nih.gov]
And the new sodas you reference, are about 80% water, 18% refined sugar (cane sugar or corn syrup), and 2% or less of actual fruit and fiber. Those drinks are nothing like drinking a fruit smoothie or juice.
Refined sug
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah "processed" is pretty vague, in general. Technically, processing is anything you do when you follow a recipe. But the specific foods covered by this study, were hamburgers and hot dogs.
Really??? Where did you get all that from?
The linked Nature article is about a meta-study, and does not seem to define the terms. So I clicked through to one of the original studies.
For unprocessed red meat consumption, the FFQ included questions on “beef or lamb as main dish,” “pork as main dish,” “hamburger,” and “beef, pork, or lamb as a sandwich or mixed dish.” For processed red meat, there were questions on “bacon,” “beef or pork hot dogs,” “salami, bologna, or other processed meat sandwiches,” and “other processed red meats such as sausage, kielbasa, etc.”
So you can clearly see hamburger is an example of unprocessed meat, while hotdog is processed.
https://journals.plos.org/plos... [plos.org]
Re: (Score:2)
sites classify hamburger as ultra-processed. https://educhange.com/wp-conte... [educhange.com]
Did you mis-read that? The only mention of hamburger was hamburger buns as ultra-processed. A true hamburger itself should be just ground fresh beef and a little salt, which is "minimally processed". Compare to bacon, "processed", and hot dog frankfurter as "ultra processed" .
An American fast-food hamburger sandwich would count as ultra-processed due to the bun (not bread), yellow slices (not cheese) and sauce. Not because of the beef. https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/e... [mcdonalds.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Precisely. None of this should be taken too seriously. It takes time, lots of studies and follow-up studies, to get to the truth.
In my lifetime, eggs have been unhealthy, and healthy, several times. Coffee has been unhealthy, then healthy, multiple times. Wine likewise.
Moderation is the key.
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW, we raised cows and pigs in college days. Had them locally butchered. Best meats ever. If you get the opportunity to live in an agricultural area, give it a try.
Back when my in-laws were still alive (and still actively farming), we'd routinely go halves with them - splitting a cow and a pig. Not only was the meat so much better-tasting than most store-bought meat, it also ended up being significantly cheaper per pound.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be their diet. Everyone where I live eats local pork and I've never heard anyone say it tastes better than supermarket pork.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be their diet. Everyone where I live eats local pork and I've never heard anyone say it tastes better than supermarket pork.
The two we raised in college days, not at the same time, got good feed from a local feed store. Some table scraps. A sizable outdoor pen. It was sort of an old time farm lifestyle. Did you locals have sort of old fashioned upbringing or was it a more factory farm like? Maybe the upbringing matters?
Re: (Score:2)
Note study is only about *processed* meat..FWIW, we raised cows and pigs in college days. Had them locally butchered. Best meats ever. If you get the opportunity to live in an agricultural area, give it a try.
I’m glad you got to experience what actual food processing looks like and tastes like. But unfortunately the overwhelming amount of meat sold in America likely comes from a CAFO. Where the “process” of growing and butchering of meat is so fucked you’re not allowed to even see how they do that entire process. The videos leaked from these facilities tell the true story as loudly as any funeral home can.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really clear to me what "processed meat" means. (Well, perhaps the article explains, but I'm not that interested.) It clearly means hot dogs (all varieties?), and probably all lunch meats. (It seems to be looking at "sugar added" meat-food products.) So it likely includes bacon. It's not clear to what extent they were looking at nitrite-added processed meat, like ham. But I wouldn't think that hamburger purchased raw would be included.
Re: (Score:2)
I focused on hotdogs too when it came to processed. Scraps and heavy with additives. Adulterations galore for shelf life is a safe bet.
Re:What about not eating it daily? (Score:4, Informative)
"No safe amount" has a specific, technical meaning. It means your risk increases monotonically with the amount you eat. Eating a tiny amount only increases your risk by a tiny bit, but it still increases it.
Contrast that with things where your risk doesn't increase at all until you pass a threshold amount. We say the threshold is the safe amount, that is, the amount you can eat without any increased risk at all.
Re: (Score:3)
The lower bound of their study was one a day. They didn't test amounts less than one a day. So the study doesn't show that there is no safe amount, for example, it's possible that one a week doesn't correlate to health problems. Maybe it does, but the study didn't test that, so they can't claim "no" safe amount. The can claim no safe amount given one hot dog a day or more.
Re: (Score:2)
My guess was that the effect was small enough that at one a day it was hard to disentangle from noise, so they didn't even look at any smaller amount.
OTOH, the headline is clearly not supported by the study. They only tested some kinds of processed meat. If their causal theory is correct, they may not have needed to test a wider range, but it might be wrong.
Food science is complex and difficult. You should always be skeptical of popularizations of it. They always oversimplify. (Actually, that doesn't j
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, agree on all points.
Because of the complexities, my philosophy is to pursue balance. Eat plenty of fruits and vegetables and grains, but don't abstain from meat or treats. Unfortunately, many people do eat only junk food, which no one would suggest is in a debatable category.
Re: (Score:2)
Who eats a hot dog every day?
Probably the sort of person who eats lots of junk food, little fruit & veg or fibre, maybe smokes, is obese, and doesn't wear a seat-belt.
Even if the hotdog itself was safe, it is "linked to" poor health in this type of observational study.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Though I'd agree that the study focused, perhaps inappropriately, on two specific junk foods, the correlation is likely valid. Those who eat more junk foods, do tend to eat all the junk foods.
Re: What about not eating it daily? (Score:2)
Had to find that. Lol!
https://youtu.be/vaAF_GAc3Mk [youtu.be]
Totally relate if I eat junk at all I overeat it.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree on taste. But every "scale of how processed it is" is arbitrary and glosses over important details.
For example, a fruit smoothie can be in the same category as an orange soda, but their nutritional value isn't even close to the same. Also, Wonder bread and homemade sourdough from whole wheat, are both in the same "processed foods" category, but their nutritional value is very different. A pot of slow-cooked stew is in the same category as many frozen prepackaged meals, but the nutritional value is n
Re: (Score:3)
Wouldn't the occasional gagger not kill you in your sleep?
There's some usable truth in this article. However, "no safe amount" is not accurate because very few people eat these types of food daily. Also, talking about "processed food" is not useful because the term is not obvious. They call out sugar-sweetened drinks, so that's clear. However, what is processed meat? Smoked meats? Is cutting or cooking meat considered processing? Sausage, like all sausage, including fresh ground and stuffed? Cold cuts, like all cold cuts? Jerky? Spam?
The actual paper says: [Re:What about not eati...] (Score:5, Informative)
There's some usable truth in this article.
Some. But the summary ignores this sentence from the actual paper [nature.com]'s abstract (which is a meta study, not new data):
"These associations each received two-star ratings reflecting weak relationships or inconsistent input evidence, highlighting both the need for further research and—given the high burden of these chronic diseases—the merit of continuing to recommend limiting consumption of these foods."
To its credit, the actual paper also makes a point that this is a correlation, not showing causation.
Re: The actual paper says: [Re:What about not eati (Score:2)
TFS reminds me of militant vegans who still insist that eggs are unhealthy based on poor research done in the 60s. The fools are still married to the long disproven idea that dietary cholesterol leads to cholesterolemia, and were pissed off after the FDA removed the cholesterol RDI.
Re: (Score:3)
It's even worse than that. They are talking about risk chances. It's literally clickbait, and I'm not convinced the journalists these days even understand how they are fucking up and misleading. It may actually be stupidity and not malice...
So say it IS an 11 percent risk increase for X. Eating that occasional hot dog then makes your original risk for X increase BY 11% not an 11% risk.
Say for the heart attack: at your age group lets just say your baseline risk is 0.35% of you having a heart attack and kick
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure a delicious belly burner every once in a while is worth a whole lot more than the 0.03% higher chance of you blowing a heart valve at 60.
* Glances over at America in all her Super-sized glory *
Pretty sure “every once in a while” has turned into “days ending in y”.
Also pretty sure that even if the statistic was an actual 11% increase, you know you would be making the exact same excuses to dismiss it.
So does every one of your insurance providers.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't the occasional gagger not kill you in your sleep?
There's some usable truth in this article. However, "no safe amount" is not accurate because very few people eat these types of food daily. Also, talking about "processed food" is not useful because the term is not obvious. They call out sugar-sweetened drinks, so that's clear. However, what is processed meat? Smoked meats? Is cutting or cooking meat considered processing? Sausage, like all sausage, including fresh ground and stuffed? Cold cuts, like all cold cuts? Jerky? Spam?
If only the list TFA is used to define what bad food is and why you shouldn’t eat it, then I have NO idea why you feel “very few” eat those types of food daily. Carbonated sugar water, sugary sweets, and processed meats are basically the American diet. 7 billion hot dogs are consumed just between Memorial Day and Labor Day. Over 800 every second. And it shows when measuring by health and not weight or volume.
And while game hunters have their own definition of “processing”,
Let's substitute X in the equation (Score:2)
You can probably eat a tablespoon of sawdust a day without dying, perhaps as much as a quarter of a cup.
You shouldn't actually eat any sawdust though, it does you no good whatsoever.
A term with multiple nuanced meanings (Score:5, Informative)
If food has been changed from its natural state, then it is processed. Bake an apple pie, that's processed. You cooked the apples with added sugar and spices, perhaps in a crust made of flour and shortening.
Minimally processed would be like if you bought some shelled raw almonds. It's not completely original, but it's processed in a way that added no additional ingredients.
A classic example of processed food would be canned sardines. They have added oil and salt and are cooked in their can. They are not necessarily devoid of nutrition, but you as the consumer don't have a lot of control over their preparation and ingredients. You're buying them as a package deal.
Processed meats, is a whole other category beyond simply being a processed food. And the term can have a very specific meaning. For this context of this article, assume that processed meat being meat that is transformed through salting, curing, fermentation, smoking, or other processes to enhance flavor or improve preservation.
Ultra-processed food is a new category. It's a little harder to pin down because part of the definition is the intent to create food produces through intensive manufacturing processes. A signature trait of ultra-processed foods are ingredients that are taken from other foods. Generally purified at a chemical level such as lactose, modified food starch, casein, whey, hydrogenated oils, protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar, or high-fructose corn syrup.
Re: (Score:3)
In a literal sense you are correct...and even understating the case. In common usage, though, "processed food" refers to food that's had a lot more processing that that. The problem is that the term is so vague that it has no precise meaning. Cooking a steak is processing food. So is cutting it off the steer. Even draining the blood before you cut it off is processing. So is washing a carrot.
It's a term that has no precise meaning except as derivable from context...and that limits the precision unless
Is there a safe amount of air to breathe? (Score:3, Insightful)
The more you breathe, the more the risk of age-related illnesses increases.
There is, of course, no other factor other than eating the hot dog that can explain diabetes, and not, say, a poverty-based lifestyle.
It's the hot dog.
My dad lived to 99 on a diet of Chinese take out, frozen pizza, cold cuts, and beer.
He was slim and still active.
Re:Is there a safe amount of air to breathe? (Score:5, Insightful)
The more you breathe, the more the risk of age-related illnesses increases. There is, of course, no other factor other than eating the hot dog that can explain diabetes, and not, say, a poverty-based lifestyle. It's the hot dog. My dad lived to 99 on a diet of Chinese take out, frozen pizza, cold cuts, and beer. He was slim and still active.
Ah yes... The "My grandfather made it to 100 drinking a liter of whiskey smoking 3 packs a day." argument. Some people get lucky. Most don't.
Re: (Score:2)
He was slim and still active
You just gave away the secret recipe. Activity matters, and I don't mean sitting on a bike that goes nowhere or a running on a treadmill.
:(
-If only I could follow the recipe, alas I am a lazy loaf
Re: (Score:3)
Those people are probably already dead too.
Re: (Score:2)
:-P
Re: (Score:2)
s/data/dad/
rant: automatic text prediction rewriting is getting worse all the time. yadda yadda yadda.
Re: (Score:3)
The more you breathe, the more the risk of age-related illnesses increases.
What control group was used in this study?
Re:Is there a safe amount of air to breathe? (Score:5, Insightful)
My dad lived to 99 on a diet of Chinese take out, frozen pizza, cold cuts, and beer.
Genetics and luck are bigger factors than diet. But diet is statistically meaningful and something that we can control. So you'd be an idiot to ignore your diet.
Obligatory XKCD (Score:3)
My dad lived to 99 on a diet of Chinese take out, frozen pizza, cold cuts, and beer.
He was slim and still active.
Obligatory XKCD. https://xkcd.com/1827/ [xkcd.com] Note this is obligatory because people using phrases like this on Slashdot deserve to be mocked by Slashdot's favourite comic strip.
Re: (Score:2)
Food causes 40% of deceases. There are some rare genes that can protect you from cancer and other deceases. If you want to live long your options are:
1) Get your genes checked, if you are lucky and have those genes, you have nothing to worry about. Or perhaps, if you had the genes and would eat healthy you would live even longer and more healthy.
2) Eat healthy.
Regarding the breathing, oxygen is toxic for all living things and it literally kills us if we get too much of it.
https://gladstone.org/news/res... [gladstone.org]
An
Re: (Score:3)
Even after decades of pretending to be a nerd, you're still dumb enough to think that studies published in top-tier journals like Nature might not have accounted for even the most obvious confounding variables.
There are reasonable reasons to be skeptical about this study, or any individual study. However, you didn't identify one; you just spewed some recycled anti-intellectual claptrap.
Re: (Score:3)
Even after decades of pretending to be a nerd, you're still dumb enough to think that studies published in top-tier journals like Nature might not have accounted for even the most obvious confounding variables.
And in fact the article pointed out this out:
"It’s also important to note that the studies included in the analysis were observational, meaning that the data can only show an association between eating habits and disease –– not prove that what people ate caused the disease. They also relied on people recalling their dietary patterns, which can leave room for misremembering or misreporting, said Dr. Gunter Kuhnle, professor of nutrition and food science at the University of Reading in the
Re: (Score:2)
And it's a meta-analysis paper, according to the description, and they described the correlation as somewhat questionable. I automatically assume that meta-analysis papers are going to be weak.
Nature MedicineArticle https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591... [doi.org] studies adjusted their effect size measure for age and sex. All studies except one adjusted for smoking. Other common adjustment variables included energy intake (n=13)28,30–35,37,38,40–42, alcohol consumption (n=12)27–30,32,33,36–38,40–42 and BMI (n=14) 27–30,32–36,38–42.
So not all of the original studies adjusted for income.
These study-level covariates included length of follow-up period (10years and >10years), precision of the exposure and outcome definitions, study design (that is, RCT or prospective cohort study), reported measure of association (RRs or ORs), outcome measures (incidence or mortality), number of exposure measurements (single or repeat), method by which outcomes were ascertained (administrative records, self-reports, biomarkers or physician diagnosis) and level of adjustment for relevant confounders (for example, age, sex, smok-ing, education, income, calorie intake, BMI, physical activity, alcohol intake, saturated fat intake and other dietary factors). We adjusted for these covariates in our meta-regression if they significantly biased our estimated RR function.
So basically, it sounds like nowhere near all studies adjusted for income, and they think they took that into account, but because this is a meta-analysis, there's a certain degree of garbage-in-garbage-out involved. The only way to really be sure is to exclude
Re: (Score:2)
I got the full PDF content in a viewer from this CNN link. [nature.com]
Correlation is not causality... again ffs (Score:5, Insightful)
The headline is not what the research says. The research says people who regularly eat industrial food are more likely to be unhealthy.
Re:Correlation is not causality... again ffs (Score:4, Insightful)
The research literally says that consuming certain types of processed food increases likelihood of certain diseases because of the way the food ingredients affect the body; the data is confirming this and at a glance appears to be properly normalized to adjusting for other factors that aren't a subject of the specific causes.
The "correlation is not causation" mantra is only acceptable if the argument using it can provide another credible explanation. Your comment doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, they did
Of reading comprehension ze gift, have it you do not.
Re:Correlation is not causality... again ffs (Score:5, Informative)
anyone can identify 'safe amount' subjects. The headline term 'new research'
doesn't hold water either, this was a review of many old studies.
Correlation can mean that health issues cause diet, or diet causes health issues.
Neither is unlikely.
I just ran across How to Lie with Statistics the other day.
My hardback is first edition, 1954.
Maybe we should pay the copyright holder and train AIs on that text?
Re: (Score:2)
Correlation can mean that health issues cause diet, or diet causes health issues.
Or both have a common cause.
Re: (Score:2)
When talking about people and environmental effect, the general rule is "your model is too simple". Probably both have a common cause AND there is some direct effect. And also something the study didn't consider (though nobody knows what..perhaps air pollution or micro-plastics).
Re: (Score:2)
I just ran across How to Lie with Statistics the other day.
For people who don't understand statistics, the world is a very confusing place.
Re: Correlation is not causality... again ffs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Correlation is not causality... again ffs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who's going to ... (Score:5, Funny)
Well within the margin of error (Score:5, Informative)
the study "relied on people recalling their dietary patterns, which can leave room for misremembering or misreporting...Utilizing even the most sophisticated techniques does not really solve the problem that the information about diet is rather limited – which is obviously a big problem in nutritional epidemiology in general"
So you really want to see a much stronger correlation before drawing a conclusion. Eating hot dogs every day is weird. I have to imagine that someone who eats hot dogs every day probably has other things going on in their diet (like never eating vegetables).
A new study analyzing data from other projects? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This important research shows that Trump is right - being trans causes all sorts of issues!
Guess what we're having for dinner tonight? (Score:3)
Homemade hamburgers!
It is the Fourth of July, after all.
One hotdog !?! (Score:4, Insightful)
"As little as one hotdog daily..."
I LOVE hot dogs.
A hotdog EVERY DAY is not "little". OMG.
That's an outrageous amount of hotdog in your diet.
Is this study like the rats and saccharine?
Re: (Score:2)
That said I do wonder how much a hotdog is substituted with healthy home made food when you're not eating hotdogs. That's sort of the problem. Yeah I love hotdogs I'll eat them maybe once every 2 weeks. But I'm pretty sure I can classify my diet as processed meat maybe every 3rd day otherwise. The overall study wasn't about hotdogs specifically.
That said even the study says the correlation is weak.
Re: (Score:2)
"As little as one hotdog daily..."
I LOVE hot dogs. A hotdog EVERY DAY is not "little". OMG. That's an outrageous amount of hotdog in your diet. Is this study like the rats and saccharine?
Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, Americans will eat 7 billion hot dogs. That’s thousands by the time you get to the end of this sentence. Over 800 every second.
It ain’t the rats running around championing an outrageous body positivity at any size movement.
Re: (Score:2)
7 billion hot dogs / 350 million Americans / 3 months = on average, about two per nine days
"As little as" four and a half times the average summer consumption of our infamously gluttonous country.
Is it the food or being poor? (Score:3)
Researchers analyzed data from more than 60 previous studies on the relationship between processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids in a person’s diet and their risk of type 2 diabetes, colorectal cancer and ischemic heart disease, which reduces blood supply to the heart and cuts off oxygen and nutrients, according to the study published Monday in the journal Nature Medicine.
3 variables? So which is it?...the sugar? the trans fats? the processed meat? What does processed meat mean? Hot dogs?...no problem...but what about tinned fish? what about smoked salmon? "processed" is a non-specific term.
I eat psychotically healthy. I am around people who eat like shit. I honestly don't see any correlation. I've had days where I was on vacation and ate like shit...again..no correlation. I didn't feel better or worse, beyond heartburn...which I honestly get more from eating healthy than eating some absolute garbage. I can feel a massive difference in drinking or not drinking, but junk food vs eating fruits and vegetables and lean protein?...nope...not really.
I think there's a stronger correlation between stress and health...and poor people tend to be under greater stress and eat shittier. The older I get and the more experience I have eating healthy, I am starting to think the difference between junk food and healthy food is very minor. Quantity matters more than quality...yes, junk food is easier to overeat with, but if you can avoid that, I honestly can't tell you the difference between the weeks I eat like shit because I am staying with relatives who live off junk food or at home when I live off salads and fruits and lean meat or whey protein.
When I was young and poor and eating very mediocrely...I felt guilty. I couldn't afford lots of fresh fruit and vegetables and had to eat a lot of processed calories because I was going to college and working multiple jobs...because I was constantly on the run, I sometimes had to live off stuff that didn't require refrigeration and when I did eat, I'd often eat something high in calories because I was broke...so would go longer between meals. I drank sugared soda as a means to go longer between meals.
I apsired to someday be able to eat healthy. Once I graduated and had a consistent schedule and general stability, I ate perfectly...no more sugar in drinks, barely ate dessert, stopped eating chips, etc.....didn't experience a single difference whether my meal was a cold cut sandwich or salad.
Today...whether I eat perfectly or eat like shit...can't tell the difference. I'll wager that these differences would disappear once you account for socioeconomic status. I will bet those who live off hot dogs daily have a lot more stress in their life than those who never eat sugarey drinks or processed meats.
Junk Science or Junk Reporting (Score:2)
The study apparently is fine but the article really has nothing to do with the study. Its inventing an interesting conclusion to make it effective clickbait.
Its not just the obvious correlation/causation problem. Its also attributing the statistical characteristics of the population to the individuals in the population. Even if there is causal effect that creates the statistical result, that doesn't mean it applies to all the individual members of the population. It means it applies to some portion of the
Re: (Score:2)
The study apparently is fine but the article really has nothing to do with the study. Its inventing an interesting conclusion to make it effective clickbait.
Its not just the obvious correlation/causation problem. Its also attributing the statistical characteristics of the population to the individuals in the population. Even if there is causal effect that creates the statistical result, that doesn't mean it applies to all the individual members of the population. It means it applies to some portion of the population. So it tells you nothing about how much danger there is for you or any other individual.
If the “some” people the study is referring to are eaters of processed food and you aren’t one of them, then what exactly are YOU looking for here? Pretty sure the 700-pound neighbor shoveling processed meats in their pie hole isn’t what is gonna give you diabetes.
If a study comes out saying that smoking is bad for you and smokers have a massively greater risk of dying from smoking-related diseases, are you going to question that study or the accuracy simply because you don’t
This is why I don't "trust the science" (Score:2)
Because this report is almost telling use to just stop eating meat from cattle, pigs and even chickens, let alone seafood. It almost sounds like they want us to switch to an insect-based diet, which may or may not be a good thing given that we haven't really tried to harvest insects for food on an industrial scale. Besides, the phrase "everything in moderation" makes way more sense for a health perspective.
"soda" is not all the same (Score:2)
>"Drinking approximately one 12-ounce soda per day was associated with an 8% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and 2% increased risk of ischemic heart disease."
That was an example. It actually was referring to sugar-sweetened drinks. It wasn't all "soda" or just soda. And not all sodas are the same. Some have sugar, some have corn syrup HFCS, some have caffeine, some have aspartame, some have sucralose, some have sodium, some have artificial colors, some have artificial flavors, etc. The only thing t
Linux distro (Score:2)
That's great that you drink mostly water.
But the important question is which Linux distro did you install on your grandmother's computer?
And is Grandma still on speaking terms with you?
Re: (Score:2)
>"That's great that you drink mostly water."
It isn't exciting, but ya get used to it.
>"But the important question is which Linux distro did you install on your grandmother's computer? And is Grandma still on speaking terms with you?"
My grandmother died when I was in college, decades ago. She never had a computer. But when my mom got a computer, at that time I installed Mandrake. Later Mageia. Then Mint. But she hasn't used a computer in a few years now due to AD.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Drinking approximately one 12-ounce soda per day was associated with an 8% increase in type 2 diabetes risk and 2% increased risk of ischemic heart disease."
That was an example. It actually was referring to sugar-sweetened drinks. It wasn't all "soda" or just soda. And not all sodas are the same. Some have sugar, some have corn syrup HFCS, some have caffeine, some have aspartame, some have sucralose, some have sodium, some have artificial colors, some have artificial flavors, etc. The only thing they all have in common is water and carbonation, both of which have no negative connotations.
Me- I mostly drink water. But I have a soda sometimes once a day. And my selection has no sugar or HFCS or any calories, no caffeine, no sodium, no color, and no artificial flavors. They are harder to find, but not overly so. Sure, water would be better, but that can also be boring.
You bring a valid point about “soda”, but your point is pretty damn new too. Most “healthy” soda options available today didn’t even exist a decade ago. And the overwhelming amount of “soda” dispensers available at fast food places and restaurants are NOT offering healthier options. Its filled with the usual suspects.
Re: (Score:2)
>"You bring a valid point about âoesodaâ, but your point is pretty damn new too. Most âoehealthyâ soda options available today didnâ(TM)t even exist a decade ago."
Some did. The most significant being RC brand (sold as "Diet Rite"). They had several flavors, my favorite being white grape. That is really hard to find now for some reason. I also prefer sucralose-sweetened vs. aspartame. Again, that will narrow choices down a lot. Stevia-sweetened just doesn't taste good and is
Well, I'm f***ed (Score:2)
i should be dead already
I'll believe it.. (Score:2)
I will believe I need to avoid sausages when their research shows that stopping eating them improves your health.
I think we will anyway soon have edible man-made meat substitutes, and then we just need to shame the manufacturers into not grossly overpricing them.
So I already have type 2 diabetes, heredity (Score:2)
Caused by ... (Score:2)
Moderation in all things, including moderation. (Score:3)
There is no safe amount of alcohol
There is no safe amount of air pollution
There is no safe amount of driving
There is no safe amount of taking to strangers
There is no safe amount of sex with new people
There is no safe amount of life
We are all going to die.
Might as well I’ve a little first
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who paid for this junk? (Score:2)
There is no safe amount to eat (Score:2)
FTFY. All eating eventually ends with death. Better stop it now!
The thing where this all can nicely be seen as a junk claim is when you realize that "one hot-dog per day" is seen as lower border. You can eat a) significantly less processed meat than "one hot-dog per day", in fact you do not even need to do it daily! Such a novel and unherad of idea! And b) processed meat is not the same as processed meat. There are huge variations in what is added and what is done to it and what the quality of the source ma
Throw It on the Pile (Score:2)
Lol diabetes (Score:2)
More idiots blaming the hot dog for the damage done by the bun and sides.
Re: Well... (Score:2)