Cancer and red and processed meat

[Altfish]

Latest post of the previous page:

You'd need to dig deeper to read the basic research, but: Vegetarian diet and health problems

I'd rather see independent information - I'm sure the 'meat lobby' produce similar documents given alternative results

[Alan H]

You'd need to dig deeper to read the basic research, but: Vegetarian diet and health problems

I'd rather see independent information - I'm sure the 'meat lobby' produce similar documents given alternative results

It's disappointing: they do cite the papers but in shorthand and not links to the them.

[jdc]

Their comment on the link between vegetarian diets and reduced mortality led me to this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836264

There were 2570 deaths among 73,308 participants during a mean follow-up time of 5.79 years. The mortality rate was 6.05 (95% CI, 5.82-6.29) deaths per 1000 person-years. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for all-cause mortality in all vegetarians combined vs nonvegetarians was 0.88 (95% CI, 0.80-0.97). The adjusted HR for all-cause mortality in vegans was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.73-1.01); in lacto-ovo-vegetarians, 0.91 (95% CI, 0.82-1.00); in pesco-vegetarians, 0.81 (95% CI, 0.69-0.94); and in semi-vegetarians, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.75-1.13) compared with nonvegetarians. Significant associations with vegetarian diets were detected for cardiovascular mortality, noncardiovascular noncancer mortality, renal mortality, and endocrine mortality. Associations in men were larger and more often significant than were those in women.

So... looking at those confidence intervals... fish eaters were less likely to die than meat eaters?

[jdc]

They mention EPIC-Oxford which led me here: http://www.epic-oxford.org/epic-oxford-publications/

There's this: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19297458 "The standardized mortality ratio for all causes of death was 52% (95% CI: 50%, 54%) and was identical in vegetarians and in nonvegetarians. Comparing vegetarians with meat eaters among the 47,254 participants who had no prevalent cardiovascular disease or malignant cancer at recruitment, the death rate ratios adjusted for age, sex, smoking, and alcohol consumption were 0.81 (95% CI: 0.57, 1.16) for ischemic heart disease and 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.16) for all causes of death." & "mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters"

And this, which looks positive for the vegetarians - and like the study I linked in the previous post it looks good for fish fans: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24898235

[animist]

Surely if vegetarianism was such a health benefit a very high proportion of sportsmen and women would be vegetarian. Whilst there are many vegetarian sports men and women I don't believe the numbers are more than a relatively small proportion.
I stand to be proved wrong.

that may be assuming that good health over a lifetime is the same thing as athletic prowess in youth. I think that the latter is often bad for the former, so things are not that simple

[Altfish]

WHO partial retraction...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 14576.html

Anyway. more important research...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 14586.html

[jdc]

WHO partial retraction...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 14576.html

Isn't it more of a clarification than a partial retraction?

It was people reporting on (or perhaps "misreporting" would be more accurate) the WHO classification update rather than the WHO that were scaremongering wasn't it?

[Alan H]

WHO partial retraction...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 14576.html

Isn't it more of a clarification than a partial retraction?

It was people reporting on (or perhaps "misreporting" would be more accurate) the WHO classification update rather than the WHO that were scaremongering wasn't it?

Yup. The meeja does it again. Headlines over accuracy.

[Dave B]

WHO partial retraction...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style ... 14576.html

Isn't it more of a clarification than a partial retraction?

It was people reporting on (or perhaps "misreporting" would be more accurate) the WHO classification update rather than the WHO that were scaremongering wasn't it?

Yup. The meeja does it again. Headlines over accuracy.

'Swhy I don't buy newspapers and listen to radio news with a very critical and analyrical ear.

[Alan H]

This is rather good, touching on carcinogenic bacon, homeopathy, fad diets, pseudo science... well worth reading all of it: What is healthy eating?

[Dave B]

This is rather good, touching on carcinogenic bacon, homeopathy, fad diets, pseudo science... well worth reading all of it: What is healthy eating?

Fools and their money are soon parted...

Well, my version of a healthy brekkers (porridge with dultanas and honey) is fermenting well inside me. Now, lunch? Think I'll have an olive, onion, mushroom and pepperoni and/or bacon omellette, or may use those on one of the mini pizza bases in the freezer...

Heart condition? Yeah, but I don't let it bother me too much! Done OK for years on my diet.