Galileo was Framed (The Scientific Method)

First, I am not going to even begin to think that I can put myself up against a scientist (doctor); however, second, I saw this article a few days ago and my “wonky meter” went off. Here were my thoughts at the time, which may very well be those compounding variables.

Red meat is defined as “beef, pork, bacon, ham, hamburger, hot dogs, liver, pork sausage, steak, and meats in foods such as pizza, stews, and lasagna.” Take away your steak and the beef (assuming just plain super-lean beef), and ever single one of those mentioned red meats is junk food. If you are on a diet of lasagna, pizza, stews, and hot dogs, well, *yeah*, you’re *going* to be at a greater risk for heart disease. The fact that red meat is consumed along with this is *not* the issue here.

Then there is red meat quality. What kind of ground beef goes into meatballs, sausage, lasagna, hot dogs, McDonald’s burgers, etc.? Certainly not quality meat. So, now we have the question, *what kind* of red meat were the subjects eating? Bacon? Again, not considered a nutritious red meat.

The article continues that those who ate the most red meat consumed the equivalent of a quarter-pound hamburger. But are we talking about a quarter-pound of meat mixed in lasagna, a Big Mac, Hamburger Helper? What is the delivery method of the red meat?

Did this study include those who consumed pasture-raised beef, extra-lean beef, and ate them in ways other than slathered in sauce or grease, or just your typical American going through a Burger King drive-thru?

The study claims that those who ate the most “red meat” were at greater risk than those who ate less “red meat.” Well, again, doesn’t it depend on the delivery method? If you compare a meal of a four-ounce strip steak, baked sweet potato fries, and steamed asparagus to a quarter-pounder with cheese, fries, and a coke…well, that’s an equivalent amount of red meat, BUT there is a huge difference in the overall meal.

Processed meats were considered less of a risk in this study. Well, if you are talking about a ham sandwich, you usually are using less meat there and adding vegetables. Not always, of course…huge white bread rolls and tons of mayo knock that out quickly. But, then, it was only “slightly lower.” So is the issue the bad meat, or the meat combined with mayo/ketchup/etc.?

White meat, defined as “turkey, fish, chicken, and chicken mixtures,” are not as frequently featured in junk food as red meat. I’m not saying that is universally true–think chicken nuggets, for instance–but, on the whole, your hot dogs are not turkey dogs and your quarter-pounders are not made from ground chicken. So, again, to analyze all red meat sources, you are going to increase your junk food mixes.

So there’s my long two-cents, written before my morning coffee. Really, when I first saw it a few days ago, I wondered what kind of person would consume a quarter-pound of meat a day, and immediately thought of drive-thru burgers. And, if *that’s* your diet, well, the red meat consumption is the least of your issues…

[Reply]

This reminds me of a thing recently that said kids who take multivitamins tend to be healthier in general.

But if you’re a mom who religiously gives her kids their Flinstones, aren’t you going to be more interested in their overall diet anyway?

Regarding the meat study:

1. bacon was considered red meat. Even the government agency that makes the stupid food pyramid considers it a fat.

2. hot dogs are red meat? Hot dogs aren’t even meat and should not be considered a consumable good.

3. the amount they are giving is very, very small. most men I know eat far more than this every day. At every meal, even.

If you’re in a group that considers pizza, hamburgers, hot dogs, bacon & sausage to be daily fare… YOU’RE GOING TO DIE. Earlier than most people.

What about the meat eaters who avoid anything fried or processed and eat only lean beef as well as healthy-cooked chicken and fish? What then? Here’s the major problem with this study. They looked at junk food vs. chicken. I don’t think it’s about red meat so much as it is about GREASE. Do the study again with lean healthily prepared beef vs. the same for chicken, then we’ll talk.

Is this what you were looking for? This is what jumped out at me after a quick read. More would come to me if I took more time, I’m sure.

[Reply]

Adding after reading Michelle’s post….

A quarter pound of meat is only 4 ounces. This is slightly larger than a deck of cards.

The only people I know who eat less than this are vegetarians.

[Reply]

I would agree with the poster above and also add that in order to offset the variables you would have to look at several things.

1. Is the death age ( I can’t think of the right word here) still set at 77 in the U.S.? If this is so, then you would have to look at the parents of the individuals who died. Look at their life expectancy overall in comparison of those around them. (I found the right words, yeah!)

2. Also, does the risk of heart disease or cancer run in their family? Are we looking at a normal group of the population wherein some are going to run a higher risk of heart disease and cancer, or did they choose people based solely on their diet at the time of the study?

3. What was the ratio of race here and how might it play into the study? Asian’s typically have lower risk of heart disease simply b/c they do eat less red meat. African American’s have a higher rate of heart disease and high blood pressure that may simply be related to race, but could also be related to familial dieting patterns.

I hope I have made sense here, these were the first variables that came to me.

[Reply]

The aforementioned posts have already stated the importance of :
1. Quality of food Product
2. Family History
3. Lifestyle

I will add:
4. Exercise
5. Stress
6. Environmental Factors
7. Increased population = increased deaths of cancer & heart disease.
8. Increased life expectancy = Increased diseases of older age.

AND, the statement that pisses me off is the one about how many people DIED (gasp!)

Well, let’s think about that, shall we? 50-71 at the start. 60-81 years old, ten years later.

NOTE; they say during a FOLLOW-UP period people had croaked.

So what they are saying is that people over 65 and many of them being over 81 AT LEAST – this follow-up could have been another 10 years later, for all we know – are going to die.

Well no shit. It’s a little thing we call LIFESPAN.

People have this idea that we should live to 120 if we were only healthy enough… but really, guys, the human body has to wind down sometime and 65-90 years old is about that time. We are way luckier than our species has ever been to live so long and thrive so well.

Not that I don’t think we need to learn how our body works & be healthy… but not like this, through anecdotes and scary one-liners. (oh, you know what “they” say – so true!)

Liz’s last blog post..Dining With the Princesses

[Reply]

I was so not expecting a pop quiz this evening. Try me in the morning when blood is actually flowing to my brain. d – all of the above?

mrsbear’s last blog post..Toilet Non-Humor and Random Tuesday Thoughts

[Reply]

I am SO glad you brought this up. Because people are way too gullible when it comes to “scientific studies”.

Now, about the red meat study: there are variables at work here. the most important, in my viewpoint, is that people who eat that much meat every day tend to:
1. fill most of their plate with meat or dished containing meat (lasagna, etc, as listed) and less with produce, which is necessary for a balanced diet and key to general health.

2. eating that much meat for most people means that they have to buy the cheaper kind, because they buy too much. Which means the meat will be the kind with hormones, antibiotics, and all that stuff. Hormones, especially synthetic hormones, are linked to many kinds of cancer, which is a more and more common cause of death.

Antibiotics and overuse of OTC and prescription drugs (I bet they kept antacids handy!) wreck the liver, no doubt about that. Liver disease also often leads to death.

One positive thing about the study is that they said “eat too much meat” as a cause of death, not just eating meat in general. I hate that whole “vegetarians are healthier” spiel. I bet if you take someone who eats meat but not at every meal and not every day, but chooses good quality meat without hormone etc, and also chooses fresh produce and whole grains to complement – I bet they woulnd’t find that diet increased their risk of death.

Elisa’s last blog post..Mixed feelings and random thoughts

[Reply]

Whew….all this went totally over my head. I sucked at science in school, obviously!

Helene’s last blog post..What I say vs What He Hears….

[Reply]

I’m going to totally fail this pop quiz. Someone is out to stop the Atkins diet. It’s that simple.

On a somewhat but not very related note, did you see the study that found arbitrarily removing ovaries during a hysterectomy increases the risk for heart disease?

The Lawyer Mom’s last blog post..Eunichasia

[Reply]

So I was wondering what else in their diets was monitored. Was their cholesterol checked? Did they exercise? How about vitamins?

But my real two thoughts (before clicking over to the article) were, sure, red meat can kill you – drop a side of beef on my head from 10 stories up, I bet my neck will break. And, too much red meat can kill you, sure, but too much green meat can kill you faster. (Of course I have no medical studies to back me up.)

Drama Queen Jenner’s last blog post..Never a Bride

[Reply]

It’s no fun being late to the party. I guess that’s what I get for being too busy to read Mother promptly.

However, since I am an expert on being practical, we could save a lot of money by skipping studies that are too vague and full of compounding variables. Eating a variety of foods in moderation, staying active physically and mentally and some proper rest makes sense to me.

Also a little butter makes everything better.

the Mayor’s last blog post..Banking "Fun"damentals

[Reply]

Wow, what a load of info! I was never an A student for Science so I’m really challenged at this.

veronica lee’s last blog post..x-ray art

[Reply]

I have a problem. I only get maybe a quarter of the way into almost anything labeled “study” and I’ve already written it off. I also can’t stand commercials like the one for high fructose corn syrup (the line…”it’s fine in moderation” kills me when you can’t possibly ingest it in moderation if it is IN EVERYTHING). People start quoting these sound bites of information like fact. Often I am caught asking questions and piss off someone because they don’t have the answers.

This study had the numbers at first glance, but the reference to people kicking off between the ages of 60 & 81 – duh. Add to that the BROAD definition of red meat and the vague references like “…11% of all deaths in men and 16% of deaths in women could have been prevented if participants cut their red meat consumption to that eaten by the lowest intake group…” Huh?

Sorry. I can’t hang after I read crap like that, the compounding variable are simply freaking out of control.

AmyAnne’s last blog post..Frustrated Much?

[Reply]