These lying, food propagandists are trying to kill you. Just eat your tofurkey, veggie burgers and high-carb diet and you'll live just as long as the murderous dictatorship wants you to.
Thanks, Godzilla!
Posted on 03/12/2012 4:48:53 PM PDT by Sub-Driver
Red meat is blamed for one in 10 early deaths
The Department of Health was last night urged to review its guidance on red meat after a study found that eating almost half the daily recommended amount can significantly increase the risk of dying early from cancer and heart disease.
By Rebecca Smith, Medical Editor
10:00PM GMT 12 Mar 2012
Small quantities of processed meat such as bacon, sausages or salami can increase the likelihood of dying by a fifth, researchers from Harvard School of Medicine found. Eating steak increases the risk of dying by 12%.
The study found that cutting the amount of red meat in peoples’ diets to 1.5 ounces (42 grams) a day, equivalent to one large steak a week, could prevent almost one in 10 early deaths in men and one in 13 in women.
The scientists said that the government’s current advice that people should eat no more than 2.5 ounces (70 grams) a day, around around the level the average Briton already consumes, was “generous”.
Dr Frank Hu, co-author of the study, said: “Given the growing evidence that even modest amounts of red meat is associated with increased risk of chronic disease and premature death, 2.5 ounces (70 grams) per day seems generous. The bottom line is that we should make red meat only an occassional rather than regular part of our diet.”
Red meat often contains high amounts of saturated fat, while bacon and salami contain large amounts of salt. Replacing red meat with poultry, fish or vegetables, whole grains and other healthy foods cut the risk of dying by up to one fifth, the study found.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
So if you eat bacon, you have a 120% chance of dying? I think I'll take my chances since not eating bacon will only reduce my chances of dying to 100%.
Good question. He preached a diet high in meat and low in cereals, starch, and sugar. I don’t know if he specified which kind of meat was best.
LLS
I am going to go on ating red meat. Obamacare will kill us all when we reach 65 anyway. I might as well enjoy it while I can.
Sometimes I want a 14 oz U.S.D.A. Prime boneless rib steak. If the daily limit is 2.5 oz, 14 oz is 5.6 times the daily limit. There is no way I am going to cut up that steak into six 2.3 oz pieces. I guess I die—which I will anyway.
It’s not the meat, but the crap they raise it on. I have cut back significantly on my consumption (both for health and cost reasons), and only eat that which is certified organic or I killed myself...
Good job!
White people would not exist were it not for daily consumption of red meat...when they could get it. Certainly it was the absolute STAPLE 50,000yrs ago.
For as long as homo sapiens and Neanderthals migrated out of Africa, meat has been what's for dinner.
We have trouble with rice and wheat though. That sh!t will kill you.
Barley? We handle that just fine:)
It’s not the meat, it’s the NHS
Cows have been hurt the worst.
This was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Unfortunately, it is a type of study which remains publishable, even though just about everything about it is crap. Statistics are normally used to determine whether results are valid (if there is more than a 5% chance of the results happening by chance (aka P value), they are rejected). But in this kind of study, statistics are used to find correlations between many different factors. At the usual criteria, where the P value is 5% or less, one out of twenty statistically significant correlations is not real. The other consideration with correlations is that they do not equal causation.
One of the methodical flaws of this study is that it did not propose a testable hypothesis (is consumption of certain food items associated with higher mortality?), but set out to demonstrate an association between consumption of red meat and mortality (to what extent does red meat consumption increase mortality?). Asking the wrong questions, especially questions that assume a predetermined result, leads to the wrong observations being made, and the wrong statistical tests being applied. (There are enough different statistical methods that if one does not produce the desired result, another can be used. One should not choose the statistical test that gets the desired result out of the data--the test should be applied according to the type of data being analyzed, regardless of the outcome.)
Another methodical flaw is the way the data was gathered, through questionaires sent out at intervals asking participants about their diet. Who really remembers what they ate and how much, over the course of a week or longer?
Anyway, sorry for being so wordy here. Bad studies are a pet peeve of mine. You can read the study for yourself here.
great explanation - thanks
The headline is ridiculous. It could easily have been “Many unhealthy people eat beef.”
You’re welcome.
Do a Freeper search for Red Meat and you will see the posting from a year ago that proclaimed red meat won’t harm.
.....Shrinking the livestock industry could also reduce greenhouse gas emissions and halt the destruction of forests to create pastures, he wrote.
sorry, This link:
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-he-red-meat-20120313,0,565423.story
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.