A new study investigates the link between processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and trans fatty acids, to diseases such as cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003. I like how precisely we can measure it using regular statistics, but what does it tell to a human being? To me it tells nothing about hotdogs
I guess the point is that it shows the correlation between processed food and cancer is statistically significant. As in there is definitely a link, and this meta analysis shows good evidence this link exists. Even if the impact is small.
As for the day to day impact of this study, I’m not sure there is one. Processed food is already on WHOs list of things that definitely cause cancer.
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003.
Depending on the average amount of processed meats eaten, it could also show not eating a hot dog every day will reduce your risk of cancer by about that much. It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say. But one food’s impact like this is probably only important to scientists.
1000 people show up to the annual picnic. If we remove hot dogs from the market, and dont serve them at our picnic, or any picnic, ever, 40 of those 1000 people are going to get colorectal cancer.
If we do serve hot dogs at our picnic (and every other picnic), 43 people are going to get colorectal cancer at some point in their lives.
Fish are carnivorous, and mercury is bioaccumulative. So, larger fish tend to have higher concentrations than smaller fish, but pretty much all fish have some level of mercury. There is no “safe” concentration.
But the real problem with your scenario is that I’d prefer hunger pangs over fish, grilled or otherwise.
It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.
I don’t think that quite transfers, epidemiology is very weak, it only surfaces associates which is a good point to do a interventional trial but that is rarely done. The core problem with these studies is that to isolate variables they have to make a model of that variable in isolation, this relies on both assumptions of the model maker, accuracy of data, and is very vulnerable to p-hacking. Model assumptions that a hamburger and fries counts as meat, but not vegetable (potato) also impact the outcomes.
The large observational food surveys conducted typically have a 1-4 year questionnaire about how many servings of different food someone ate. Once every 4 years leaves lots of room open for forgetfulness.
There is a huge problem with healthy user confounders, people trying to follow all the modern health advice are going to skew results - not because all of the advice is correct, but some of it is. If someone exercises regularly, practices mindfulness, avoids processed foods, avoids meat - Are their improvements due to any single variable, yet on a food survey they get over represented because of these exclusionary behaviors.
We also have multiple different epidemiology studies covering the same topics and getting different results, that probably means we are focusing on the wrong question, it’s noisy.
From my reading its far more likely the modern epidemic of chronic disease is caused by the introduction of excessive carbohydrates in processed foods, the novel addition of industrial oils (again processed foods) into the food supply - they account for 30%!!! of the average westerners average calorie intake, exposure to food contaminates from agrochemicals such as pesticides. The metabolic context of people filling out these surveys is a critical part that is being omitted.
In the following graphs notice how the incidence is very high in countries with traditionally low meat consumption like india? This indicates the hypothesis generated from the abstract paper isn’t asking the right question.
example graphs
CVD
Type 2 Diabetes
My point is that you can follow every bit of advice from associative food surveys, but since the wrong questions are being focused on, your outcomes wont be as good as you hope. Quite frankly epidemiology is more about publicity and marketing then being part of the scientific process.
If you haven’t read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It’s a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).
Like I said, it may be a scientifically interesting study, but the broader audience can’t take anything from it but anxiety.
a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say.
That would be significant, but probably not today. The lifetime risk of dying as a pedestrian in a car accident is around 1 in 100, so mitigating other risks is not an option for now
Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.
So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.
The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.
Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.
WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.
The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.
funny thing is diabetes can cause all the rest of the illness, or as a comorbidity. if your type 2 your at risk for all of those other diseases. people who have type 2 already are taking avrostatin(anti cholesterol meds), maybe blood pressure meds if its high enough, medications to reduce triglycerides. of course insulin, or insulin stimulating medication, because type 2 is insulin resistance. diabetic neuropathy, renal disease. thats type 2 is also a very profitable disease, ton of medications for different associated illnesses.
type 1 is an expensive disease, but different causes.
The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.
e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.
There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.
More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.
They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.
They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.
Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…
If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.
And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.
And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.
My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.
Full stop.
No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.
Parent comment discussed “anxiety”, a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.
I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.
What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.
It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.
If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.
Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?
Like… is it written to excite anxiety?
Getting a colorectal cancer probability in a lifetime is about 0.04, eating hotdog adds 8% to it or ~0.003. I like how precisely we can measure it using regular statistics, but what does it tell to a human being? To me it tells nothing about hotdogs
I guess the point is that it shows the correlation between processed food and cancer is statistically significant. As in there is definitely a link, and this meta analysis shows good evidence this link exists. Even if the impact is small.
As for the day to day impact of this study, I’m not sure there is one. Processed food is already on WHOs list of things that definitely cause cancer.
Depending on the average amount of processed meats eaten, it could also show not eating a hot dog every day will reduce your risk of cancer by about that much. It’s probably only important in the cumulative though. When we have studies like this for many foods, you could put together a diet that reduces your chance of cancer by 20 or 30%, say. But one food’s impact like this is probably only important to scientists.
So getting back to your original question:
Yes. Anxiety drives clicks which drives revenue.
1000 people show up to the annual picnic. If we remove hot dogs from the market, and dont serve them at our picnic, or any picnic, ever, 40 of those 1000 people are going to get colorectal cancer.
If we do serve hot dogs at our picnic (and every other picnic), 43 people are going to get colorectal cancer at some point in their lives.
Pass the mustard.
What if you could have a grilled fish instead though?
Mercury.
Isn’t that only an issue with some types of fish though, like tuna?
Fish are carnivorous, and mercury is bioaccumulative. So, larger fish tend to have higher concentrations than smaller fish, but pretty much all fish have some level of mercury. There is no “safe” concentration.
But the real problem with your scenario is that I’d prefer hunger pangs over fish, grilled or otherwise.
Freshwater fish also exist, or areas with less contamination. If you won’t eat fish though that sounds more like a you problem.
Freshwater fish can still have mercury. Even farmed fish can have mercury contamination, if their feed is sourced from the wild.
Nah, I’m perfectly happy with my hot dogs. You’re the one eating broken thermometers and fluorescent lights.
I don’t think that quite transfers, epidemiology is very weak, it only surfaces associates which is a good point to do a interventional trial but that is rarely done. The core problem with these studies is that to isolate variables they have to make a model of that variable in isolation, this relies on both assumptions of the model maker, accuracy of data, and is very vulnerable to p-hacking. Model assumptions that a hamburger and fries counts as meat, but not vegetable (potato) also impact the outcomes.
The large observational food surveys conducted typically have a 1-4 year questionnaire about how many servings of different food someone ate. Once every 4 years leaves lots of room open for forgetfulness.
There is a huge problem with healthy user confounders, people trying to follow all the modern health advice are going to skew results - not because all of the advice is correct, but some of it is. If someone exercises regularly, practices mindfulness, avoids processed foods, avoids meat - Are their improvements due to any single variable, yet on a food survey they get over represented because of these exclusionary behaviors.
We also have multiple different epidemiology studies covering the same topics and getting different results, that probably means we are focusing on the wrong question, it’s noisy.
From my reading its far more likely the modern epidemic of chronic disease is caused by the introduction of excessive carbohydrates in processed foods, the novel addition of industrial oils (again processed foods) into the food supply - they account for 30%!!! of the average westerners average calorie intake, exposure to food contaminates from agrochemicals such as pesticides. The metabolic context of people filling out these surveys is a critical part that is being omitted.
In the following graphs notice how the incidence is very high in countries with traditionally low meat consumption like india? This indicates the hypothesis generated from the abstract paper isn’t asking the right question.
example graphs
CVD
Type 2 Diabetes
My point is that you can follow every bit of advice from associative food surveys, but since the wrong questions are being focused on, your outcomes wont be as good as you hope. Quite frankly epidemiology is more about publicity and marketing then being part of the scientific process.
If you haven’t read about the Metabolic Theory of Cancer I highly recommend giving it a read. It’s a much more compelling model, and explains the surge of cancer since 1900, as well as actionable steps to reduce incidence (reduce sugar and inflammation).
Like I said, it may be a scientifically interesting study, but the broader audience can’t take anything from it but anxiety.
That would be significant, but probably not today. The lifetime risk of dying as a pedestrian in a car accident is around 1 in 100, so mitigating other risks is not an option for now
Cancer is the leading cause of premature mortality and morbidity (death and disability) in Canada.
So, an accumulation of small risks, and avoidance of risks, have significant benefits at both the individual and population levels.
The general population needs to be aware that unhealthy eating is impacting their lives and quality of life.
Let’s stick to the peer reviewed science and evidence consensus.
WHO established the four behavioural common risk factors for the four major chronic noncommunicable diseases decades ago.
The kind of research synthesis in this article is about continuing to build the evidence on relative and absolute risks, and in some cases look at how these differences impact different populations more or less due to intersecting determinants.
Common risk factors
Major chronic noncommunicable diseases
funny thing is diabetes can cause all the rest of the illness, or as a comorbidity. if your type 2 your at risk for all of those other diseases. people who have type 2 already are taking avrostatin(anti cholesterol meds), maybe blood pressure meds if its high enough, medications to reduce triglycerides. of course insulin, or insulin stimulating medication, because type 2 is insulin resistance. diabetic neuropathy, renal disease. thats type 2 is also a very profitable disease, ton of medications for different associated illnesses.
type 1 is an expensive disease, but different causes.
The reason WHO frames common risk factors and common chronic diseases is because persons with these risks, conditions and diseases often end up with more than one of these diseases.
e.g., WHO now considers obesity a disease in itself, but obesity is also a biological risk factor for cancer and diabetes.
There are a lot of interrelationships in the risks.
More, with these conditions, they are also more vulnerable to infectious diseases.
It’s important though to keep in mind that, as I note in another reply, these kinds of studies aren’t just about informing individuals’ choices.
They’re not about ‘blaming’ or ‘shaming’ individuals choices.
They are about understanding what are the underlying determinants of health and risk factors that are shaping health outcomes.
Back to the study in question, and the OP’s remark that they were surprised that people were eating that much processed meat daily…
If the protein sources that are most available and affordable are the most unhealthy, preprocessed ones, then consumers will buy and consume more of these than healthier ones.
And their preferences and consumption habits will be shaped by these experiences.
And that will affect overall health and life expectancy of the population.
No questions regarding the populational risks as the small percentages would shine with the big numbers.
WHO’s recommendations remain the same for decades indeed: lower processed and red meat, eat chicken and fiber.
What’s your point exactly?
My point is that raising risks of getting hit by a car, or other accidental causes of injury and death beyond the individual’s control, is a deflection.
Cancer is the leading cause of death in Canada.
Full stop.
No one single risk factor is responsible for that. Building the evidence base to be able to both inform individual behaviour but also to inform food safety regulations is important.
Parent comment discussed “anxiety”, a condition which has its own associated morbidity and mortality, and should also be considered when evaluating these studies.
I would argue that this is missing the point - and so, in fact, is the article reporting on the study.
What is important to keep in mind is that the benefit of this research is not primarily about ‘telling’ or ‘informing’ individuals so that they can make different food consumption decisions.
It’s more about how food environments are shaped to encourage healthy or unhealthy choices.
If eating that much processed meat daily or weekly increases cancer risks, what’s driving or nudging people towards that.
Is it barriers to availability, accessibility or affordability of healthier and palatable choices?
This is like saying it’s not safe to go outside because there’s some marginal percent you’ll be murdered or some shit.
Higher chance you will die of heart disease if you don’t.
Egads! Everythings dangerous!
The title is also shit, leaving put sugars etc and only putting forward processed Meat.
It would be more useful to correlate this with other common risks, like PFAS exposure, genetic factors, etc
Agreed and it should be mandatory to add in the headline who financed the study
Isn’t big tobacco still the major investor in cancer epidemiology research? I mean, when it’s not about cigarettes and nicotine
Histeria clickbait makes money. Extra points if some kind of agenda can be pushed so more people share.
Imagine using this argument with someone that gets cancer. Statistics mean nothing to the individual.