2w ago

New study links red meat to faster cognitive decline

www.psypost.org New study links red meat to faster cognitive decline

Eating processed red meat, like bacon and sausages, is linked to a 16% higher dementia risk. This alarming finding highlights the importance of dietary choices in protecting cognitive function as we age.

N=133,000 over 40 year time period
Observational study so limitations may apply but the findings do hold after adjusting for a large list of factors I will quote here:
educational attainments, family history of dementia, menopausal status with hormone use status, total energy intake, regular antidepressant drug use, history of depression, BMI, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, neighborhood SES [socioeconomic status], marital status, living arrangement, smoking status, histories of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia and intakes of sugar-sweetened beverages, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts and legumes, low-fat dairy products, high-fat dairy products, and alcohol

Science @lemmy.ml

usernamesAreTricky @lemmy.ml

2w ago

New study links red meat to faster cognitive decline

www.psypost.org /new-study-links-red-meat-to-faster-cognitive-decline/

153 41

vegan @lemmy.world

Aqua @lemmy.vg

2w ago

New study links red meat to faster cognitive decline - If people substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts, tofu or beans, they could reduce their dementia risk by 19%.

www.psypost.org /new-study-links-red-meat-to-faster-cognitive-decline/

62 9

You're viewing a single thread.

23 comments

Using the nurses study data. A food frequency questionnaire
Do you remember what you ate for lunch Monday? How about 5 years ago? That's what a food frequency questionnaire asks. This one counts a McDonald's big Mac meal with a bucket of coke as "red meat"
Garbage in/garbage out
- As PSUD said, plus the question is what are we comparing against? Observational studies are comparing against people's FFQs filled in on a annual basis.... its not really a AB test of any measure.
  Association is not causation!
  a standard western diet is mostly poison anyway. Is meat bad in the context of lots of sugar and fructose? Probably. Are the people self reporting zero meat consumption also healthier eaters avoiding sugar and fructose? Probably. This is the healthy user confounder, a healthy person is following current advice and limiting sugar and meat already, this doesn't mean meat is bad. It might mean sugar is bad and people who ignore the meat advice (which is wrong imho) also ignore the sugar advice and have bad outcomes.
  Without having full access to the paper (can't find it), I have to speculate, but did they control for sugar and fructose in their comparison groups? (probably not).
  We run across these observational hit pieces pumped out every 2-3 months from the same FFQ observational studies, occasionally we get a meta analysis of observational studies to mix things up a bit.
  Standard Anti-Meat response with references:
  https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
  We have seen amazing work being published on the effect of ketones for NDDs (neurodegenerative diseases), which shows actual causation... not associative risk reduction.
  A ketogenic diet includes carnivore, (keto) vegan, etc. For cognitive decline: sugar and insulin resistance are the real bell weathers of bad outcomes, not meat.
  I'd love to see a paper comparing a PBF vs ASF ketogenic intervention in retirement homes on humans - then we could get science on the meat / plant debate. So far we have to settle with mice.
  
  I recall last time I looked up the nurses study, they not only didn't control for sugar, they deliberately made it difficult to do. My favourite example is "hamburger". There is no category for fast food other than that and similar entries like "hotdogs". Hamburger is classed as red meat with no telling what else was in the meal; hotdogs is processed meat, again with no indication as to what is consumed with it
  So maybe it's the bread wrapping the meat that was bad
  Maybe it was the sauces
  Maybe it was the french fries
  Maybe it was the drink
  
  on an annual basis
  Actually on a 5-yearly basis
  
  Lol.... tell me Mr Mr how many servings of red meat did you eat 5 years ago per week? 0, 1-4, 5-10, 10-15, 16+
- Well, a big mac contains a beef burger, which is actually processed meat, which is known to increase the risk of cancer, cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's.
  
  Known, thanks to the nurses study which doesn't control for healthy user bias, doesn't collect enough information to know whether the was meat in that burger
  It may have been fish burgers
  It may have been impossible burgers
  It may have been vegeburgers
  It may have been a large double whopper meal
  Also it's not "known" it's correlated, the more times a week a person eats red meat for example "burgers" or processed meat for example "hotdogs" the note likely they're going to have some bad effects. I suspect it's the sugar that comes with the meat
  It doesn't ask about fast food meals, it asks "burgers?"
  
  If you want sources, here are some. Wikipedia: "Medical health organizations advise people to limit processed meat consumption as it increases risk of some forms of cancer,[5][6][7][8] cardiovascular disease, and Alzheimer's disease."
  Studies:
  "American Cancer Society guideline for diet and physical activity for cancer prevention" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32515498/
  "Red meat consumption, cardiovascular diseases, and diabetes: a systematic review and meta-analysis" Note, this is also about "processed meat", not just "red meat". https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/
  "Diet's Role in Modifying Risk of Alzheimer's Disease: History and Present Understanding" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37955087/
  ( The middle one is a meta-analysis study. )
  Not sure why I get downvoted except for people disagreeing, but I'm not saying anything out of the ordinary here?
  Certainly if something is scientific consensus one can use the term "known" to refer to the scientific consensus as if it is common knowledge, right?
  
  The first one is based on epidemiological studies, correlation, not causation
  The third one is comparing good diets to the standard American diet - high meat, high sugar. Since diabetes is a significant risk factor, don't you think it might be the sugar?
  Your middle one says among other things:
  Inconsistencies might be due to differences by setting; most studies showing a positive association were conducted in North America or Europe
  So it's probably not the meat, it's the things western people eat with their meat.
  Why meat comes up as a risk? People who are taking care of their health and watching what they eat, exercising they follow guidelines and don't eat much meat, but they also avoid pizza and avoid Coca-Cola, and avoid highly processed foods. The people who don't take care of their health are eating all those things, and meat.
  You don't look down voted to me, you're on 1 point. I feel like you're contributing to the conversation.
  
  Thanks! I feel we're genuinely discussing now. I'm just saying that it's scientific concensus (about processed/red meat). I have no "steak" (pun intended) in the outcome. Ethics and health aside, I like the taste but choose to consume it only rarely (pun?). If we disagree about what is scientific concensus, that's understandable and we have to agree to disagree.
  Other things that come to mind: excess sugar is also a factor in many diseases, that's true. The same goes for salt. Too much salt is bad for many things, like blood pressure. Salt may also damage kidneys. Saturated fat is also a contributor to many diseases. Sugar too. Even protein (when from animal sources) can greatly increase the chances of kidney stones.
  And too much dairy may increase the risk of Alzheimer's. Eating too much in general can cause many diseases. Not just because of obesity. But also because metabolism itself causes damage. Our lysosome cells (material processors, let's say) can't break down everything. Some cruft stays in our bodies. That can cause the formation of beta-amyloid plaques in the brain which is thought to be a factor in Alzheimer's.
  Even breathing causes damage (oxygen, free radicals).
  Back to meat: it may be that cooking/frying meat itself causes the formation of certain chemicals that (somehow) increase the risk of cancer. Which chemicals? Not sure, but I seem to come across "heterocyclic amines" and "polycyclic amines" being mentioned. Also, nitrates and nitrites are added to processed meat to improve shelf life. And heme is a pigment that is found in red meat, which may increase the risk of colorectal cancer.
  Also, thanks for your response. I was afraid we would fail to find a bridge and be able to discuss things. It seems odd that we (humans in general) live in an age of information abundance and yet we often can't even agree about reality.
  
  Luckily we now have populations that eat only animal sourced food and populations who only eat plant foods
  It'd be really good to get a prospective study comparing those groups, but in the last 20 years that there have been both of those, no one has compared either to the other. Both have been found to be better than the standard American diet, but just about anything is
  I think the problem is there's religious need behind the effort to make meat look dangerous so more people go vegetarian, but there's no organisation behind the meat eaters

23 comments