Copyright Notice: This article was first published from Slender Dragon Health, a dead man with obesity problems in China, and I have commissioned the "Rights Defender Knight" to carry out rights protection actions for my article.
Disclaimer: The following text, do not make any medical advice, only do information sharing, please carry out under the guidance of professionals.
Please feel free to forward to the circle of friends, if you need to contact the background.
This article has an edited word count of 2856 words, and the estimated reading time is 8 minutes.
Winter is almost here, and it's the annual sausage season again!
Who doesn't love processed meat? Bacon, sausages, bacon, salami, Harbin red sausage... Each one is so delicious.
However, in recent years, the crusade against processed meat has also become louder, saying that processed meat causes colon cancer.
Behind these voices, there is no evidence of the research of the past few decades, but is this research really scientific?
Recently, a meta-analysis of past research hit the face, let's take a look.
<h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="27" > meta-analysis of processed meat and cancer</h1>
The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which has been coordinating the preparation of the European Code of Resistance against Cancer with the European Commission, is also supported by WHO.
(Dietary advice in the European Anti-Cancer Code: avoid processed meat + whole grains)
The scientific basis for these so-called cancer reduction methods is the risk of cancer from a large number of observational scientific studies and many summary papers in recent decades that the consumption of meat and processed meat products.
Each guideline recommends that you reduce your intake of processed and red meats.
However, few people think about how much science these studies are, and how much of the interests are relevant.
On October 14, 2021, this meta-analysis found that the quality of these studies in the past was poor, and in fact processed meat and bowel cancer were not very much related.
→ quality analysis results are poor
First, the analysis made two main requirements for research on processed meat – quality assessment and literature search– which filtered out more than 100 articles.
Only 22 of the 130 studies met these two basic criteria, so the GRADE method was used to assess quality in these 22 papers.
(Quality screening results of previous studies)
The GRADE method is a scientific method of grading assessment, formulation and evaluation, which grades the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations, and pays great attention to the quality of evidence.
The studies, all about the risk of morbidity and mortality from processed meat and chronic diseases, drew conclusions about cancer in 19 of the 22 papers, and the rest were type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease.
Cancers include cancers in different parts of the body, mostly in the digestive system, including the esophagus, stomach, colorectum, and pancreas, but the results vary widely, spanning 30-70%.
This meta-analysis showed that 75% of eligible studies were at moderate to severe risk of data loss, half were biased, and only two studies were scientifically rigorous enough.
The study concluded:
Therefore, the recommendations to reduce processed meat and meat products and prevent cancer in the general population do not convincingly confirm the methodologically strong evidence.
There is a lack of randomized studies assessing the effects of reducing processed meat intake, and while such trials may not be feasible, cohort studies have not provided strong support for this association.
Thus, the recommendation to reduce the consumption of processed meat and meat products to protect against cancer in the general population does not seem to be convincingly substantiated on the evidence that is methodologically strong. Clearly, there is still a lack of randomized trials evaluating the effect of lowering processed meat intake, and while such trials may be infeasible, cohort studies do not lend strong support for an association.
< h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="172" > previous research data, which is very problematic</h1>
The results of this analysis are astounding and one wonders: What are the problems with previous epidemiological studies of processed meat?
→ data is inaccurate
First, the definition of processed meat varies widely in the studies, with some being classified according to preservation methods, some listing individual food items, and some without further definitions.
Second, there were few randomized controlled studies investigating red meat consumption and colon cancer risk, and only two eligible trials looked at the effects of different dietary patterns on cancer risk.
Finally, food frequency questionnaires are often used to identify processed meats, and subjects don't necessarily remember exactly the food list, portion sizes, and cooking methods.
In some prospective cohort studies, although there are 3.5 million participants, the experimental method is that cancer patients recall processed meat intake, whether it is different from non-cancer cases, this is a bit too outrageous.
→ do not control variables
As we all know, the causes of cancer are complex, so experiments should be designed with promiscuous control in mind, such as age, sex, family history of disease, BMI/overweight, energy intake, alcohol, and smoking.
However, in the meta-analysis, none of the studies had controlling variables except for the two eligible studies.
This means that the association between processed meat and cancer outcomes is not very reliable and is difficult to prove causation.
Dr. Barry, a family doctor, argues that these studies are using the "optimal option", ignoring other studies that suggest processed meats are beneficial and deliberately conducting results-oriented studies.
There is a clear bias →
This is a very serious problem, because even if the researcher is deliberately willing to retain the accuracy of the data, if there is a bias against red meat, how can it be guaranteed that it will not quietly affect the results of the study?
In fact, a large number of past research leaders have been vegetarian or prefer a plant-based diet for healthier healthier.
However, those two eligible studies proved that the low-fat diet model did not reduce the participants' risk of colorectal cancer.
It's also important to note that this bias is not limited to researchers, but also to peers and journal editors who review it, and if they also promote a plant-based diet, there will be no objection to the study data.
→ interests
Even more frightening are interest-based, grain-funded research that would vigorously advocate a whole-grain diet while concluding that processed meat is harmful.
Some researchers work directly for grain or sugar companies, or hold an honorary position, but every year they get cash from food companies and become their mouthpieces.
Some people may wonder: is there any interest in this meta-analysis? There's no need to worry at all, there's not a dollar in funding from process meat companies, or any other meat-related agency or organization.
<h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="173" > can processed meat be eaten? </h1>
→ processed meat does not increase the cancer rate
As mentioned earlier, there were only two eligible studies in these past studies, both of which studied the independent effects of processed meat on colon cancer, and both found that they did not affect colon cancer incidence.
Research from the NutriRECS consortium shows that raw red meat and processed meat do not increase chronic diseases to your first, and current processed meat intake can continue.
This analysis also uses a rigorous systematic review method and a GRADE method, which limits the conflict of interest between the members of the group, and its scientific and impartiality can be guaranteed.
<h1 class="pgc-h-center-line" data-track="174" > key skinny dragon said</h1>
The dangers of processed meat seem to be linked to almost all diseases, when in fact most of them are correlation studies.
The main reasons for being criticized are:
1, nitrite, in fact, the nitrite in vegetables is also very high, but why do everyone say that vegetables are good?
2, salt is high, but salt is very important, is salt really so harmful? not necessarily
There is no definitive evidence of the relationship between processed meat and bowel cancer, but only the guilt of some vegetarian and grain food companies.
Today's study, which reviews all the research over the years, finds that these studies are deliberately demonizing processed meat products.
Studies on the relationship between processed meat and cancer are mixed, data missing and confusing, and there is a great bias.
For most people, don't worry about red meat and processed meat, but more about sugar and starch in food, and other unhealthy ingredients.
However, processed meat also has unhealthy places, such as adding a lot of starch, sugar, such processed meat is unhealthy.
Healthy processed meats, such as fermented ham and bacon, can be eaten normally within the normal range.
Processed meat of pure meat, not only tastes very good, but also rich in nutrition, so feel free to eat it!
Follow @Skinny Dragon Health and teach you how to eat lean yourself healthily and eat healthy.
#Health##Weight Loss##Health##Health #Health ##低碳饮食 #
Healthy weight loss, fat loss, slimming click below, pay direct attention to me Oh.