Carnivore

101 readers

32 users here now

Redirect. This community has been closed in favor of [email protected]

Attacks against other users or groups will not be tolerated.

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

Serinus

[email protected]

-2

Red Meat and Processed Meat - IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans Volume 114 (publications.iarc.fr)

submitted 4 days ago by veganpizza69 to c/carnivore

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

it speaks to relative risk, not absolute risk 1.17, and 1.18 relative risk isn't very significant, especially when we are talking about observational data.

Can you link to the actual meta-analysis so we can look at the science together?

[–] veganpizza69 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Can you link to the actual meta-analysis so we can look at the science together?

It's the link post, the PDF can be downloaded from that page, somewhere on the top right side - "Download Free PDF".

[–] [email protected] 3 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Not the expert opinion, the meta-analysis that they're referencing please

[–] veganpizza69 0 points 4 days ago (1 children)

LOL,

This volume of the IARC Monographs provides evaluations of the consumption of red meat and the consumption of processed meat. An IARC Monographs Working Group reviewed epidemiological evidence, animal bioassays, and mechanistic and other relevant data to reach conclusions as to the carcinogenic hazard to humans of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. The Working Group assessed more than 800 epidemiological studies that investigated the association of cancer (more than 15 types) with consumption of red meat or processed meat, including large cohorts in many countries, from several continents, with diverse ethnicities and diets.

I don't think you understand what they do. https://www.iarc.who.int/branches-esc-research/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago

Its not research, its opinion - expert opinion to be sure, but still a opinion.

The quote you listed at the top talked about a single study, but didn't name the study. That is the only thing I'm interested in reading.

We can cite experts at each other all day, all it will do is demonstrate the current literature is inconclusive with only observational relationships and even then very small relative risk ratios <1.4.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/diet-and-cancer#red-meat

Many sources reporting on the health issues of red meat and a potential link to cancer often quote a report from the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC).

What is often under-appreciated is that this WHO report is not actually a study, but rather the interpretation of the overall science by a specific group of individuals. It is notable that the authors of the WHO report repeatedly state that the evidence linking red meat to colorectal cancer is weak and inconsistent, and the magnitude of any real effect may not be very large.

Furthermore, the few randomized trials available have found that diets restricted in red meat have little to no effect on the risk of colon cancer.

Several randomized studies have assessed the ability of a low-fat, high-fiber, and low red and processed meat diet to reduce precancerous adenomas, known as colon polyps. All revealed no reduction in polyps in the dietary intervention arms.Notably, these low-fat groups were randomized against a western diet arm, yet still revealed no benefit.

I'm happy to talk about science (so the paper referred but not named in the original quote), but appeals to authority are boring and wont move the needle. I'm genuinely happy about your concern for my health outcomes. My null hypothesis is the normal human diet is my default until proved otherwise.