The problem is in the cancer cargo-culting mindset that people without a scientic education or mindset tends to have.
A person I know doesn't freeze bread because she says it causes cancer, and she's not the only one (far from this...) with such ridiculous preconceptions.
Drinking alcohol has many health benefits. Even a beer a day, something that 'common sense' would lead you to think was unhealthy, demonstrates to be good for your overall health. And eating processed foods while smoking and drinking would likely be more detrimental than eating well, while smoking and drinking. The hard part is determining what eating well is.
> The hard part is determining what eating well is.
Eating well in seven words: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.". ...where "food" is defined more or less as: "as little processed as available, mostly plant-based food in as close to it's natural form as possible".
But that's kinda my point, we don't know that, anymore than we know an all meat diet is okay for us. Most of the "science" around nutrition would only be acceptable in theoretical physics and paleontology. We're starting to see nutrition studied a little better, but it's the past half decade where we seeing actual science around nutrition, and we'll need at least a couple hundred years before we can say with certainty what is best for human longevity. Until then, we're guessing.
We think cholesterol is bad in excess, and conventional wisdom dictates, that since eggs are high in cholesterol, that eggs should be avoided. Except, the body doesn't metabolize much if any dietary cholesterol, and instead it's the cholesterol that you synthesize that's dangerous. There are some interesting observations with high fat dairy, which actually reduces cholesterol instead of increasing it. Again, conventional wisdom is demonstrating itself to not be correct. Calories in, calories out sounds good on paper, eat less, and you will lose weight. But this also is proven incorrect over and over. I have seen this in studies, and witnessed it first hand with a girl I was living with who was trying to lose weight. She would eat a fifth of the calories that I would eat, and would gain weight, where I would chow down on meat, fats, and green beans and lose weight. What does appear to be apparent is it's easier to maintain a healthy weight if you never gain weight in the first place; essentially your body attempts to return to it's heaviest when calories are available. Many new studies show that the war on salt is based in bad science, and it may not have as much of an impact as we thought. So is a little haiku the answer? I don't know what the right answer is, but I know it isn't that simple.
People keep yapping on about the health benefits of alcohol, red wine in particular, but I'd be impressed if you could find me a single drinker who only ever drinks that one unit of alcohol a day. At that point it very quickly stops being beneficial to your health.
I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that light drinkers inevitably become heavy drinkers, and thus the benefits of light drinking are irrelevant?
Where do you live? I'm fascinated by your use of the word 'drinker', as if people who ever drink any alcohol aren't in the vast majority. Where I live (UK), pretty much everyone drinks alcohol at least weekly. Most people drink socially, within healthy boundaries (3-4 units per day is the current guideline), occasionally overindulging, often detoxing for a period of time. Whilst there are social problems caused by alcohol abuse, there is no way that in our society we would 'look down' on each other for consuming alcohol, nor define anyone as a 'drinker'. In my whole life I've met 2 people who are not 'drinkers', and one of them has a very rare drink from time-to-time.
As to your point, yes, of course hardly anyone who ever drinks never drinks more than one unit of alcohol per day; that is practically impossible. But many will drink on average, no more than one unit per day.
What's wrong with drinking a small amount of alcohol? There is a small amount of evidence that it is good for you in small amounts* and it is [or can be] a social experience. You can meet a lot of interesting people in pubs. Beer and wine contain antioxidants.
I really really enjoy a beer or two now and then, and I'm not going to feel the least bit guilty about it.
I also happened to meet my (now) husband in a pub.
Smoking is not as simple as many assume. Smoking actually changes the disease risk profile a lot, lowering risk for many diseases. It's probably an open question if light smoking is even bad for you. Super centenarians have disproportionately been light smokers.
In no way is it an "open question' if "light smoking" is even bad for you: "light and intermittent smoking pose substantial risks; the adverse health outcomes parallel dangers observed among daily smoking, particularly for cardiovascular disease."
Thalidomide is a good anti-nausea drug. Women who take thalidomide during pregnancy are at lower risk for nausea. Now, do you want to argue whether or not "light thalidomide" exposure during pregnancy is bad is an "open question"?
Because that's what you're arguing with nicotine, along with cherry picking questionable studies, moving the goal posts, and even linking to organizations associated with tobacco manufacturing.
Opioids have beneficial uses. So do you want us to think that it's an "open question" about whether "light intravenous use of heroin" as practiced is a good thing?
Did you actually READ any of the articles you linked? In almost every case you cite, mention is made of the overall risks of smoking ANY amount. In some cases, the articles aren't even talking about smoking - they are merely talking about nicotine in a variety of forms.
“Any smoking, even social smoking, is dangerous,” says David Wetter, Ph.D., chair of the Department of Health Disparities Research at M. D. Anderson. “Cigarettes and cigars are the only legal products whose advertised and intended use -- smoking -- will cause cancer and kill the consumer.”
And c'mon, really? Really? You cite a damned mouse study on carbon monoxide as that you think might be evidence that smoking might somehow, some way, be helpful...for...wait for it....heart attack and stroke? You cite a cell study that shows elevated levels of glutathione in smokers lungs and you want us to therefore magically jump to the laughable belief that smoking is therefore somehow good for your lungs? You cite a study that claims that rare thyroid cancer is reduced among smokers, when the likeliest explanation is that thyroid cancer is so rare that smokers die of other more common cancers and little things like strokes and heart attacks long before they can ever develop thyroid cancer.
Many of the other bullshit claims you cite above have been thoroughly debunked:
What's wrong with light heroin use? I doubt it's a problem. You seem like some sort of puritan.
I don't think much of anything you've said or linked has bearing on a cigarette a day in the context of a healthy diet. Are you as dogmatic about not living in cities? Because urban air pollution is a known stressor.
So now you're agreeing that known "stressors" like dirty air are in fact problematic.
Why don't you tell us more about the "open questions" of how safe dirty needles and dirty nicotine delivery systems are.
Now if you'll excuse me, you seem like someone uninterested in reason or in supporting your silly, shifting claims, and who is much more interested in rationalizing your own bad health habits.
Study of the regions of the world known as blue zones,[11] where people commonly live active lives past 100 years of age, have speculated that longevity is related to a healthy social and family life, not smoking, eating a plant-based diet, frequent consumption of legumes and nuts, and engaging in regular physical activity. In another well-designed cohort study, the combination of a plant based diet, frequent consumption of nuts, regular physical activity, normal BMI, and not smoking accounted for differences up to 10 years in life expectancy.[12]
Many centenarians manage to avoid chronic diseases even after indulging in a lifetime of serious health risks. For example, many people in the New England Centenarian Study experienced a century free of cancer or heart disease despite smoking as many as 60 cigarettes a day for 50 years. The same applies to people from Okinawa in Japan, where around half of supercentenarians had a history of smoking and one-third were regular alcohol drinkers. It is possible that these people may have had genes that protected them from the dangers of carcinogens or the random mutations that crop up naturally when cells divide.[15]
The results are sobering: "There is no pattern," says Barzilai, 54. "The usual recommendations for a healthy life -- not smoking, not drinking, plenty of exercise, a well-balanced diet, keeping your weight down -- they apply to us average people," says the researcher, "but not to them. Centenarians are in a class of their own." He pulls spreadsheets out of a drawer, adjusts his glasses and reads out loud: "At the age of 70, a total of 37 percent of our subjects were, according to their own statements, overweight, and 8 percent were obese; 37 percent were smokers, on average for 31 years; 44 percent said that they only moderately exercised; 20 percent never exercised."
But Barzilai is quick to point out that people shouldn't start questioning the importance of a healthy lifestyle: "Today's changes in lifestyle do in fact contribute to whether someone dies at the age of 85 or already at age 75." But in order to reach the age of 100, says the researcher, you need a special genetic make-up. "These people age differently. Slower. They end up dying of the same diseases that we do -- but 30 years later and usually quicker, without languishing for long periods."
37 percent isn't disproportionate. It is about average.
The NHS makes me very proud here. A well written next-day response to widely published bad science journalism of the worst sort.
That headline was plastered across the front-pages of all the newspapers I read with no caveats. Both scare-mongering of unproven dangers and diminishing of more certain dangers like smoking & dietary excess. IMHO media outlets should be heavily fined for bad science journalism. Its a grave form of libel but poor injured science isn't able to sue them for it.
Don't forget that it is not easy to remove confounding with smoking, drinking, low physical activity etc. as, incidentally, those who eat most meat happen to also score worse with those factors. Of course, there are statistical methods, but there are reasons to believe that not all confounding may be properly removed.
For those interested in statistics behind studies like this, I think this (not very long) video is a good explanation why it is not so easy to remove all residual confounding:
The lector actually discusses a very similar or even the same study - mortality as a function of meat consumption. Not too complicated for a technical person even without a background in statistics, I believe.
> Don't forget that it is not easy to remove confounding with smoking, drinking, low physical activity etc. as, incidentally, those who eat most meat happen to also score worse with those factors.
And those who aim to be healthy will probably try to be at least moderate w.r.t their meat intake because they have heard that meat is unhealthy, which further "proves" that meat is unhealthy, while in reality it might be because of other habits that they might have, like exercising.
Things like paleo might make things a little less one-sided.
A cross-sectional study of this type of data will yield crappy, linkbait-friendly results.
For confounders, they didn't look at: income, geography, genetics (self-reported ethnicity is not a good proxy), etc. etc. etc.
The time and sample scale for powerful epidemiological research often seems higher than publish! publish! publish! researchers are given time and money to do.
Any morsel of truth to animal protein having a negative effect is lost in the structure of the study and data available.
Probably because the study was badly done. The difference in their results between 50-65 and 65+ is almost impossibly large and other studies done have never found those kinds of differences.
I once took a class in business school on medical pricing and the instructor said that if you look at a graph of life expectancy that a large percentage of the population dies in the 50-60 age range, but statistically people who live past the age of 60 or 65 (I can't remember the exact figure) will be likely to live to be over 75. In other words, once you make it past a certain age you are sort of screened out as somebody who is high-risk to die of certain ailments like heart disease or cancer.
So if we take that to be generally accurate, then these findings make sense because I would wager that if you studied any diet or habit thought to be unhealthy, more people would die off between 50-65 than after 65.
This also explains why averages don't make sense with regard to any conversation about life expectancy since the averages really need to be observed in bands.
That has the dank stench of an urban legend. According to the CDC, death rates increase monotonically with age once you pass early childhood, and begin to increase dramatically at about age 65:
I dunno the instructor was a surgeon and faculty member at the University of Michigan medical school. Not saying that makes him correct but I wouldn't be too quick to dispute him either.
Besides, death rates increasing monotonically is not at odds with what I am saying. Once a person reaches age 65, their odds of reaching age 85 are higher than the average person at the age of 50. Many serious medical problems onset between the ages of 50-65. With each passing year, people who are susceptible to hereditary illnesses, for example, will die. This leaves people less likely to succumb to those illnesses. Yes, within the smaller group mortality rates will be higher than the previous overall group because more medical complications occur as you age.
In short what I am saying is that even though overall death rates increase, the odds of each person in those groups of living to the age of 85, goes up after the age of 65.
You seem to be changing what you're saying. You previously said:
> more people would die off between 50-65 than after 65
And that is clearly untrue.
Yes, someone who's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50. That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2) people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age, the more likely you are to reach that age.
I'm getting confused as to what sort of point you're trying to make. You originally seemed to be saying that there's a spike in mortality around ages 50-60. Now you seem to be saying... well, I can't figure it out.
Yes, someone who's 65 is more likely to live to 85 than someone who's 50. That's extremely obvious once you know that 1) people occasionally die and 2) people don't come back to life after they die. The closer you are to an age, the more likely you are to reach that age.
What you're doing here is grossly oversimplifying the statistical significance of that fact. You seem to think that all people, regardless of race, genetic profile, income, etc. have equal chance of dying the older they get. This is simply untrue.
For example, people between the ages of 50-65 have a higher likelihood of dying from cancer before the age of 85 than somebody who is age 66. This isn't simply because the 66 year old has already made it to 66 so is 1/3 of the way ahead of a 55 year old, which is what you seem to be suggesting.
The fact is that certain diseases, statistically, have a higher incidence in that 50-65 age band and once you are out of it, your odds of succumbing to those diseases are lower. Sure, the 66 year old could get a clean bill of health and then walk in front of a bus, but the odds are they aren't going to die of cancer. That isn't insignificant. Obviously the longer you live the greater the odds something will happen that will end your life, but looking at life expectancy in a black box and ignoring the causes of death is misinformed.
The rate of death from cancer goes up with age. There's no age where it decreases.
Perhaps there are certain diseases that have a higher incidence in the 50-65 group than in the 65+ group. Cancer, at least taken as a whole, is not it though.
If you're going to continue this, please give me some numbers before calling me "misinformed" because I'm actually checking your claims.
If there's a confounding variable, it's likely that it is affected by retirement. For instance, a high protein intake in someone who's fifty might signify junk-food lunches, whereas the same thing in a retired person might be a sign of a more affluent lifestyle in general.
I suspect that there are confounding variables at work.
Also, given that they only chose one day on which to sample, it could be something as kooky as Catholics eating fish on a Friday and being regularly exposed to aromatic hydrocarbons from incense. The possibilities are virtually endless.
"Among those aged 50-65, those who ate a high protein diet were 74% more likely to die during follow up than those who ate a low protein diet (hazard ratio (HR) 1.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02 to 2.97). People in this age group who ate a high protein diet were more than four times as likely to die from cancer during follow up than those who ate a low protein diet (HR 4.33, 95% CI 1.96 to 9.56).
The results were similar once the researchers took into account the proportion of calories consumed from fat and carbohydrates. Further analyses suggested that animal protein was responsible for a considerable part of this relationship, particularly for death from any cause.
However, the opposite effect of high protein intake was seen among those aged over 65."
"Researchers doing observational studies have much the same problem. They try to think of all the differences between two large populations of subjects so that they can statistically negate them so that only the observation in question – the vitamin C level in the example above – is different between the groups. Problem is they can never possibly think of all the differences between the groups. As a consequence, they never have a perfect study with exactly the same number, sex, age, lifestyle, etc. on both sides with the only difference being the study parameter. And so they don’t really ever prove anything. In fact, we would all probably be a lot better off if all the researchers doing observational studies had followed my lead and fallen asleep mid study."
The China study's results are a massive dataset of statistical correlations, useful as input for hypothesis generation.
On the other hand, "The China Study", Dr. Campbell's best-selling popular book wherein he attempts to interpret the data causatively, has been absolutely demolished and debunked as egregiously bad science for some time now. Evgeny already linked to Denise Minger's notorious initial critique that got the ball rolling. Dr. Eades (of the grandparent post) wrote his own critique at:
"The web has been alive with commentary the past few weeks since Denise Minger lobbed her first cannonball of a critique across the bow of The China Study, the vessel T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D. rode to fame and bestsellerdom. Seems like everyone is now jumping into the fray and gunning for poor Dr. Campbell, who early on in the fracas made a few halfhearted attempts to fight back but has now fled the scene. I've been laying low watching it all play out, and so now figured it's about time I add my two cents worth to the debate."
She uses Campbell's own figures, but comes to almost diametrally opposite results. It's up to statisticians here to judge how right or wrong she is ...
"Information on food intake was only collected for one 24-hour period... ...this may have changed over the 18 years of follow up"
I wonder if the researchers' and USC's ploy to use sensationalist(though outright false) PR is going to end in them getting more funding. I hope not, but they do say no publicity is bad publicity.
I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge. Never mind the fact that there is an intense amount of bias in nutritional research. Never mind the fact that the results of many studies cannot be accurately reproduced. Never mind the fact that observational studies generally suck and cannot 'prove' anything. Nah, this new study, which happens to conform to my preconceived notions, this new study changes EVERYTHING.
Read down toward the bottom: the study was based upon one self-reported day of each individual's diet extrapolated over 18 years.
This study is even less meaningful than most. I'd go so far as to say that it's utterly devoid of useful information and quite probably is misinformation.
I wonder how much was spent on performing the study?
US average consumption is not an appropriate comaprison, because the general US average would cover all age demographics. Older people tend to eat less.
It's also true that people tend to self-report lower than they really consume. But that isn't exactly earth-shattering news to scientists who work in the field. They know about it & know how to adjust their interpretations of the research accordingly.
I agree with your point... just want to mention that I actually eat about that much (sub-2000 calories. I'm a white, middle class American). Of course, I have to try rather hard to stay that low here in the States but I feel great, doing it.
[insert bro-science disclaimer here] The volume of food you eat may be "normal" but the calorie density might be lower. The trick to increasing or decreasing calorie intake without feeling like you are stuffing yourself or starving is to keep the volume pretty much the same and tweak the calorie density.
Do you happen to have any links to descriptions of the densities of various foods? I've been aware that this is a good strategy for a while, but haven't been able to find anything that systematically discusses various food types and how they rank (as opposed to individual tidbits such as, hey, carrots have very few calories but are pretty bulky, so munch away).
I don't have a list, but I've developed a feel by tracking calories on MyFitnessPal. Over time you notice what food helps you hit your calorie goals while also being good (which is extremely subjective).
I wouldn't necessarily be so quick to knee-jerk throw out that technique. Perhaps it's like BMI where it's an approach that's completely inappropriate for assessing an individual, but when applied to a population its shortcomings average out in a way that lets it serve as a valid statistical tool for certain purposes.
I think the real story here is illustrated in the contrast between that last section that you mention, and how many folks are reacting to this study: The actual science is full of nuances and caveats which experts in the field are expected to understand, and like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols. The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
> like literally any scientific paper its results should be considered tentative unless and until it's been corroborated by further research, including research that uses different protocols
To expand, this study is interesting in that it opens an avenue for further investigation. It's like learning an extra person was at the scene of crime. It proves nothing, and doesn't even necessarily SUGGEST anything. It's just another "lead" that researchers should investigate.
In this case, it doesn't help that the additional "suspect" is something sexy like protein-rich diets.
> The public reaction, on the other hand, treats this as if it should be a cut-and-dry statement on a black-and-white issue.
That's because the public as a whole usually wants cut-and-dry statements and black-and-white issues. And the news caters to the public.
> I like how people think one study is enough to upend an entire body of knowledge
almost nobody in this thread thinks this. in fact, quite the opposite. it seems everyone thinks, "well, this study doesn't conform to my preconceived notions, so it can't be true".
in fact, this is one study (although there was also a similar one done on mice) that shows a surprising result. i think an appropriate reaction is: maybe its true, and we should definitely do more research in this area.
Please read my sibling comment. The appropriate response to this study is:
The people who designed the study used absolute garbage for inputs. They should be heavily mentored or fired for ever proposing it, much less for releasing misleading information to a gullible public.
This has nothing to do with preconceived notions. This has everything to doing credible statistical work.
While I would not say smoking/chewing tobacco has any health benefits, the statistics they bandy about for smoking are skewed [i]heavily[/i] to weight the desired results, too. Sorry to be the unpopular guy and say this... bring on the pitchforks & someone get a rope! When a death certificate has space allocated to 'Death caused by tobacco: Probably' a sensible person should know where the numbers will trend regardless of the data received. Again, not defending tobacco, just saying that when you lie and manipulate data to make a valid point more valid(?), the results are tainted. The billions spent on synthesizing tobacco is also suspect, but yes, inhaling vegetable matter can't be good for anything.
IE: A man smoked in Vietnam for 1.5 year tour. Never smokes again for 42 years. Man develops neuroendocrine cancer and dies after stage 4. Tumors found in lungs(and everywhere else), death certificate's official cause of death? 'Probably' tobacco. One more stat for the witch hunt, one less for the Agent Orange cover-up/compensation. Yay statistics!
are you saying that no one should ever do observational studies with self reported data? do you think that this is the first study like this? do you think that scientists do not understand the limitations of these techniques? do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies?
how are you supposed to get funding for (expensive) studies with high statistical power without first conducting the studies with low statistical power?
One day of self-reported data extrapolated over 18 years? Knowing what we know about psychology of self-reporting and the changing of diets for people over time, you think that this study means anything?
Is it any surprise that it shows very odd, contradicting results based upon age groups?
do you honestly think that NO conclusions can be drawn from observational studies?
Well, I didn't say that - but if the study referenced is the best they could do then they might as well give up.
Haven't you noticed the meta analysis of many studies recently that show that most of the original studies were flat-out wrong? Do you think maybe it might be because of weak studies like the one in this article?
If The Telegraph reported this as the NHS describes then this strikes me as profoundly irresponsible journalism. I'm no fan of The Telegraph, but I'm actually a little bit shocked
Looking at "animal protein" as a broad category is dumb. The interesting health questions are specifically about muscle meat. Eating a lot of muscle meat, to the exclusion of organ meat and collagen and dairy protein, probably provides too much iron and too much tryptophan in the amino acid profile.
Furthermore, you can't just talk about "meat". The distinction between fish, pork, chicken, and ruminants matters. The question of quality matters enormously. Are we talking about really cheap meat fed on moldy corn slop and handled improperly after slaughter (aged, dyed, pumped up with water and chemicals), or totally fresh grass fed beef?
There's also a significant different between unprocessed and processed meat, which these studies don't differentiate. Processed meat also varies widely in the kind of chemicals used in the processing.
Is there a good definition of processed food anywhere? All the ones I've seen have been made by examples (eg. Processed foods like hotdogs, bologne, etc.). Is it any food that have anything added to them for preservation or enhancements (eg is oj enriched with vitamin D considered a processed food). Many articles are confusing and seem to make processed food to be wholey bad w/o really defining what makes it bad...
"processed food" is generally intended to be less an exact term and more a proxy for "mass-produced food that has been engineered to cost little, last long, and taste good".
Enriching foods with vitamins is generally considered a form of "processing" (i.e. potentially "bad") because we may not fully understand the way our bodies digest the 'original' food with all of its nutrients, compared to whatever nutrients we've managed to discover to put back in whatever is lost in processing. In the case of orange juice, processing may lose vitamins and fiber, and even if we put the vitamins back in, that doesn't guarantee the body would absorb them the same way it would if it ingested the vitamins and fiber together (may not be exactly accurate in this example, but that's my general understanding of the difference)
It's not meant to be a precise definition as most food is "processed" in some way. Rather it is a reaction against the excessive, unnecessary processing that is basically taken for granted, and everything that goes with it: pasteurization, hydrogenation of fats, ammoniated "beef," "meaty" foods†, GMO, high sodium content, high pesticide content, synthetic estrogens leaching from plastics, decreased nutritional content, rancidity, hormones, dyes, synthetic preservatives, etc., etc., etc.
People who are more conscious of the hyperbole often prefer the term "minimally processed."
† There are legal requirements for what percent of a meat needs to be present to be a considered meat, thus we get things like "beefy tacos" which contain a meat-like product with so much filler they do not meet the already low standards of what the USDA considers to be meat.
A good rule-of-thumb: If it's packaged in cardboard it's almost always 99.99% processed. If it's shrinkwrapped (how meat should be) it's almost always 99.99% unprocessed, or minimally at the most.
>Typically, it means anything more manipulated than cut or ground,” says dietician Lisa Cashman, RD. “This includes most lunchmeats found in deli counters, anything with a casing or in sausage form, and, of course, anything smoked or cured like bacon.”
And the American Meat Institute (that's a thing?) defines processing as "processed meats are fresh products that have been changed from their original state. Some have added ingredients like spices. Some are cooked and some are cured."
Right so even cooking is a form of processing. This should be pretty obvious. Eating "unprocessed" means eating basically food that is in its natural state, like eating a peach. Processing changes it, like cooking that peach.
Meat shouldn't be shrinkwrapped it should be directly butchered from the animal and wrapped in butcher paper. A local single animal, butchered and slaughtered as cleanly as possible. I understand that more expensive and harder to scale across larger numbers of people but I think it's a better way to handle meat consumption. It's also the reason I hunt for my own meat when possible.
