I quit. Just unreal http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=red-meat-diabtetes
now we’ll have to explain to people that hear about this article why it’s a load of BS
LOL.
Well, it isn’t because they are eating that “red meat” in the form of a refried cheeseburger 5 times a day…it’s meat that causes diabetes.
I saw a show called Hoarders where the woman trapped in her house by things she keeps buying says, “it feels like my house is closing in on me!”
Notice, she didn’t say she’s buying too much crap and therefore has no place to stand…her house is doing it.
^^^I love Hoarders!
If you have a bad day and need to feel better about your life, watch hoarders.
And X is right, they never blame themselves. Though you can argue that for almost anyone.
Did you know Al Capone said it wasn’t his fault? He was just giving the people what they wanted.
He was an entrepreneur.
Die-uh-beat-us is from dat 'dere sugars and being a fat fuck.
I <3 silly research.
[quote]JLone wrote:
^^^I love Hoarders!
If you have a bad day and need to feel better about your life, watch hoarders.
And X is right, they never blame themselves. Though you can argue that for almost anyone.
Did you know Al Capone said it wasn’t his fault? He was just giving the people what they wanted.
He was an entrepreneur.
[/quote]
Hoarders makes me immediately clean my house. It’s like 5min from the start before the vacuum gets cut on.
Reading this kinda shit makes me angry at people. We were made to eat meat.
Herbivores make me angry in general…
Okay, now this is just a downright, blatant LIE.
Diabetes is basically when your pancreas can’t make insulin. If it’s contracted then it’s probably because you ate a lot of sugary stuff which spiked your insulin to the point where it can’t be made anymore. How can red meat have anything to do with that when there aren’t even any carbs to spike your insulin significantly? Doesn’t it actually increase insulin sensitivity? (If this isn’t accurate in some way, let me know; I’m no expert lol)
People fail to realize that a huge percentage of food consumed in this country is fast food, and red meat is often accompanied by fries and a large Coke under that circumstance.
You can’t just crunch numbers, find trends and expect it to mean something. If your assertion makes no biological sense, then it’s fucking worthless. Give a dude with a bad heart a steak, and if he happens to die, TEH STEAK KILLED HIM OMGZ!!!
When you’re out to prove that red meat = death, it’s easy to devise a study that suggests that. The only way it makes sense is if you already buy into it. I’m just a stupid kid and I can see the horseshit in this type of “science.”
(Not that I had to tell anyone here any of that. XD)
[quote]xjusticex2013x wrote:
Okay, now this is just a downright, blatant LIE.
People fail to realize that a huge percentage of food consumed in this country is fast food, and red meat is often accompanied by fries and a large Coke under that circumstance.
[/quote]
Amen
This data is derived mainly from mostly un-reliable large scale observational/epidemiological studies where confounding variables are common, inaccurate survey reporting occurs, and you get relationships for a bunch of different variables. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation and observational studies can only kind of prove relationships but NOT causal ones.
A plethora of RCTs are needed to strengthen the data from these studies before they can be taken at face value. You have to realize that these studies produce a shit ton of correlations, some more ridiculous sounding than others. They have to be verified as causative relationships, as in real life, there is an interplay between 1000s of variables. Note that they are also combining data from multiple studies with varying methods.
Some confounding variables can be removed, but often they aren’t properly removed or the researcher wants to outline a specific correlation and pretend it’s a causative relationship to stroke their scientist ego. People should check the variables they took into account. It could just be the fact that meat is energy dense and correlates to weight gain in the population as a whole on a mixed diet.
This weight gain would be what is the actual direct causative factor for the increased risk, or even something else. It could be that vegetarians are at healthier bodyweights or are more health-conscience than your average unhealthy American who eats meat (which is most mostly true in general).
Some other questions that need to be asked:
Is there a real dose/response relationship between meat intake and diabetes with all other factors controlled? —> You need lots of RCTs for this.
Is there a strong theoretical basis for meat directly contributing to diabetes when all variables are taken into account?
Does meat contribute to health and disease in a way that is heavily dependant on the individual’s context (this is what is usually the reality)?
Also, even if one is to accept the lack of strength this data has at establishing causation, the best relationship they were able to make was a 10% increase in diabetes risk with meat consumption, which is notable but not huge.
[quote]xjusticex2013x wrote:
People fail to realize that a huge percentage of food consumed in this country is fast food, and red meat is often accompanied by fries and a large Coke under that circumstance.
quote]
This is extremely true and is a very relevant confounding variable that can EASILY sway the data completely left field.
You can edit this into another one of my posts:
Another thing to consider is that the Scientific American article does tell us what the baseline risk and therefore doesn’t correct for it. A 12% increased risk may actually be almost irrelevant based on the data they used.
Scientific American hasn’t been relevant in years.
So many factors minimized or not discussed at all in this article.
For example, the bit about “iron overload”. They attribute it to the meat without mentioning that just about every freakin’ processed/box/package food is “fortified with iron” as if every human is anemic. Add in the multivitamins fortified with iron that we’re bombarded with and no shit there’s iron overload.
Beef: Good
Beef + Vegetables: Good
Beef + Ice Cream + Wonder Bread + Twinkies + 2 packs a day + 12 hrs of television daily + sit in front of computer + high stress = Bad.
Is it that hard?
the studies include hot dogs, bologna, crap meats
"One of the tricky aspects of lifestyle studies like this one is that unhealthful behaviors often go together, making it tough to tease them apart to see if one is having a larger effect than others. And in the studies, those who reported eating the most red meat also tended to have other risk factors for diabetes, such has having a higher body mass index (BMI), smoking and not getting much physical activity. “People who eat a lot of meats tend to gain more weight,” Hu says.
So the new findings might be more “a reflection of poor dietary intake by people who eat meat,” Burant says. Seaquist explains more plainly that perhaps “people who eat red meat end up eating French fries with it.”
Lol - only at the very end do they reveal the fact that it’s not in fact the red meat, but all the other factors like eating lots of fast food burgers with HFCS loaded buns and french fries - plus maybe a full sugar soda too - ya think? What blatant bullshit…
[quote]Josh Rider wrote:
This data is derived mainly from mostly un-reliable large scale observational/epidemiological studies where confounding variables are common, innacurate survey reporting occurs, and you get relationships for a bunch of different variables. Correlation DOES NOT imply causation and observational studies can only kind of proove relationships but NOT causal ones.
[/quote]
Bingo. Spot-on Josh… : )