Yes, possibly if the meat in question comes in the form of close contact with an irritated, aggressive bison ox, crowded in its chin and with bad morning humor. I have heard of people who have died of carnal death in this horrible way, and of course do not wish that anyone needs to go this way.
On the other hand, dying prematurely as a direct result of eating good quality red meat is more questionable. Another new one study claims, however, the opposite, and of course it has received a great deal media attention worldwide. Unfortunately, in most cases, critical scrutiny is lacking on the part of the media, and instead the study is entirely sonicated as if it were the truth of the day.
Fortunately, there are many knowledgeable doctors and others out there who dissect the studies for us, pointing out its shortcomings. In this case, there is much to look into.diet Doctor has written a good post about the latest meat alert, as well as the docent Ralf Sundberg, and also Denise Minger has written a detailed and good guest post at MDA.
What does the study report, and how has it been conducted?
What you have done this time is not a completely new study, but you have analyzed data from two (numeroone and two) earlier major studies conducted over the past three decades, one on women and the other on men. These have since been divided into about 120,000 people five different groups, based on how much red meat they say they have eaten. These data have since been compared with the mortality in the test group, and what has been determined is that the intake of unprocessed red meat increases the risk of premature death by 13%, while processed red meat increases the risk by 20%. It doesn't sound useful at all.
Why the red meat warnings can be matched to the sparkling wood even this time
With the help of statistics you can produce all kinds of truths, and therefore it is of course a good idea to take a closer look at the study in its entirety, how it has been performed and what other factors can play into the result. Here are some examples.
- The study is an observational study, ie a study that is good for finding possible connections, but without the ability to find a provable cause. Thus, no type of controlled experiment has been performed with the red meat, but based their facts on various forms that the participants in the study filled out.
For example: Is it true that people with bigger feet are better at reading than people with small feet? Yes, that connection exists because adults are better than children at reading, but that obviously does not prove that it depends on shoe size.
- When we talk about the forms anyway. Would you, with any precision or certainty, be able to recount what you have eaten in recent years? If so, take a look at one of them yourself form (PDF) which the participants had to fill in every four years. Not quite easy, is it? Do you even remember what you ate last week?
- Other studies show that people who fill out dietary forms of the aforementioned nature have a tendency to both underestimate and exaggerate what they have eaten, where, above all, health conscious people who actually live longer tend to exaggerate how much food they have eaten, and miss or ignore. in reporting whether they stop eating burgers or anything that is considered junk food.
- Speaking of burgers, these fall into the category of unprocessed red meat for some strange reason, and in the category of processed red meat we find, for example, hot dogs and sandwiches with meat sandwiches. This type of food contains nothing but meat, right? It can also be suspected that sausage and hamburgers are actually something that is eaten more often than steak and pork chops, and therefore the result for the "red meat" has a huge impact.
- Can you find other factors in the group that eat the most red meat (farthest to Right), which may also lead to higher mortality? How about three times the proportion of smokers, less physical activity, fewer vitamins, higher BMI, and greater alcohol intake. Could it be that those who eat more red meat (often hamburgers, pizza, etc.) also generally live less healthy than others? It doesn't feel unreasonable if I can say it myself.
- To further reinforce the suspicion that these dietary forms are probably not completely reliable, we can look at the average caloric intake for men and women, in the groups that ate the least and most red meat, respectively.
Do you really feel that the women in the small meat group only eat an average of 1,200 calories a day? and that the men only eat about 1600 calories? A loss of around 800 calories compared to those who reported eating more meat. Either these people enjoy going very hungry, or it may be that they missed being reported to some ice cream stick. Whatever the case, I think we can conclude at this point that observational studies where ordinary mortals should fill in what they have eaten over the years do not prove a hoax.
What else is there to say?
Do you still feel that it is primarily red meat that leads to increased mortality?
In that case, we can look more closely at the risk increase itself. After all, it is reported that intake of unprocessed red meat increases the risk of premature death by 13%, while intake of processed red meat increases the risk by 20%. It sounds almost like a death sentence already there!
But assume that your current risk of dying of heart disease is, for example, 5%. A 20% increase will take you to a mighty 6%. Not as dramatic was it? and then we have not even proven that the cause is there at all.
Another remarkable detail in this study is the numbers of cholesterol. There we see that those who reported eating the least amount of red meat still have the worst cholesterol levels, while the group that eats the most red meat has the second best values. Why don't we see headlines in the newspapers that "Red meat lowers your cholesterol levels!” ?
In conclusion, I would say that I do not necessarily defend all types of meat and claim that it is completely harmless in unlimited quantities. However good the bacon is, it is often of questionable quality and contains substances that the body would manage without. Then I do not talk about the saturated fat, or even that the meat comes from pig and is classified as red. Even ordinary meat of poor quality may need to be restricted, as the animal is rarely bred with healthy methods. Another risk factor with meat is also found in the cooking method, where much indicates that cooking at too high temperatures can probably be harmful.
However, I still insist that good quality meat is among the most nutritious and nutritious you can put in, especially when compared to whole wheat bread, pasta and legumes that are otherwise simply produced as beneficial and beneficial.
I also have no hurts to say about the study's calls to eat more fish and vegetables. However, these will never taste as good as a juicy freshly grilled steak.