It’s been a couple of days since the story first hit the news, so I imagine most folks who pay attention have seen at least a headline shouting that there’s a “death link” to red meat. As is typical, the headlines obscure the findings in order to be as fear-mongering as possible. WebMD’s article, disappointingly, is little better.
Similar to the last time I touched on this subject, sources one might reasonably expect to be more balanced in their reporting have fallen far short. Here’s the first paragraph from the second link above, to a site called eFitness Now [all emphasis mine]:
Research shows that a person who eats a quarter pound of red meat per day faces substantial chance of getting cancer, ulcers, Alzheimer’s disease and other medical illnesses that can cut a life span.
Whoa! How have humans survived this long, eating such a toxic substance? A quarter pound is just 4 ounces ... that paragraph makes it sound as though red meat is much more harmful than nutritious. But let’s look at the details of the study, shall we? The full study is available online. It is very disappointing that not even the EurekAlert article mentions the extensive efforts to control for convariates, as that is crucial to assessing any study like this.
This study, looking for an association between meat-eating habits and risk of death, is correlational research. I expect y’all know the warning on that: “Correlation does not mean causation!” And in general, that’s true; some unaddressed variable might be more responsible for the association than the variables under study. However, with sound methodology, sufficient statistical power, and appropriate statistical analyses, a researcher may be justified in speculating about a causative relationship ... but that is largely the stuff of dreams—a sort of Holy Grail statisticians talk about, but researchers rarely see.
So yeah, if you’re suspecting that I have issues with this study, you’re right. With over half a million participants, and an impressive covariate list, what can I gripe about? Let me roll up my sleeves ...
The participants: half a million is a large number; and the researchers rightly tossed out a lot of others whose data were incomplete or suspect in some other way. But all the individuals studied were part of a National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study. I’m not sure if this means they had to be AARP members, but irrespective of that, it is not a random sample, even just of Americans. All participants came from just 8 states, and in two of those, only metropolitan areas: California, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Atlanta GA, and Detroit MI. Not random! I am not comfortable generalizing from the results of this study to all Americans of the age range studied.
I know that it is extremely difficult to get genuinely random samples of such large numbers of people; however, pretending that these large groups—especially when they may be wholly from some self-selected population, such as AARP members—are close enough to random to count is a grievous laxity that appears to be growing. It is fundamentally flawed science. And it’s especially galling here, since the research report begins with this sentence: “Meat intake varies substantially around the world, but the impact of consuming higher levels of meat in relation to chronic disease mortality is ambiguous.” The study didn’t have a good sample of all Americans, yet it leads off invoking worldwide eating habits!
Operational definitions: That is to say, how meats were classified into “red”, “white”, and “processed”. From the article:
Red meat intake was calculated using the frequency of consumption and portion size information of all types of beef and pork and included bacon, beef, cold cuts, ham, hamburger, hotdogs, liver, pork, sausage, steak, and meats in foods such as pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew. White meat included chicken, turkey, and fish and included poultry cold cuts, chicken mixtures, canned tuna, and low-fat sausages and low-fat hotdogs made from poultry. Processed meat included bacon, red meat sausage, poultry sausage, luncheon meats (red and white meat), cold cuts (red and white meat), ham, regular hotdogs and low-fat hotdogs made from poultry. The components constituting red or white and processed meats can overlap because both can include meats such as bacon, sausage, and ham, while processed meat can also included smoked turkey and chicken. However, these meat groups are not used in the same models; thus, they are not duplicated in any one analysis.
Notice that bacon and hot dogs are included in both red meat and processed meat. How was this accomplished? And can anyone tell me the difference between “cold cuts” and “luncheon meats”? I know that it’s a tricky thing, operationally defining processing: hamburger could be considered processed, since it is made by grinding up steak. But to list items that almost certainly have chemical additives, such as ham, hot dogs, bacon, and “meat in foods” as red meat hopelessly confounds the categories.
Last, the study was conducted over 10 years; surely there were many changes in meat handling and processing over that time. Assuming that they were able to neatly sort out all their categories at the outset, it would have been enormously challenging to keep them straight over the course of the study.
The data: Self-report data of the sort this study relies upon is notoriously low in quality. Even with the disposal of obviously dubious data, the remainder is dependent upon each respondent’s accuracy and honesty. And those aren’t as high as researchers desperately want them to be. Also, given the fuzzy boundaries between the types of meat, how much detail did the surveys ask for? Brands of meat? How many people even pay attention to that sort of thing, all the time?
I understand that researchers conducting studies like this may have the best of intentions. And I know very well that the crème de la crème of reseach—a highly controlled, completely randomized, true experiment—is simply not possible for many interesting or worthwhile research questions. However, all the taxbux that are burned in pursuit of such dubious knowledge as found by this study is wasted, plain and simple. We’re better off ignoring such fear-peddling projects, and eating a variety of whole foods in moderation every day. There ain’t no escaping death anyway, so why not enjoy life while one can?
Cynic alert
I frequently doubt their intentions. My first question is, “Who sponsored the study? Que bono?”
I also question why, if a study is THAT important, the scientists can’t set up the proper conditions to make sure the results will be as near accurate as possible. When a scientist knows the methodology is unworkable and will not prove anything, why would he use it?
AND: I question many studies that are done at all! A lot of them are just so silly... far-fetched... obvious (in results or intent)... unnecessary... and even duplicates of previous studies (with the same results as years ago), that it makes me wonder what brain had nothing better to do than think them up.
End of cynicism.
Diet advice
I quit even trying to consider these things a long time ago. They are so contradictory, with poor or outright bogus "science" as their basis, that taking even part of their advice would probably lead to malnutrition if not outright starvation.
One of the things so many people misunderstand, or outright refuse to accept, is that there have always been many ordinary things in this world that are toxic to people. In fact, in many ways our living environment is far cleaner than it has ever been before. Try living somewhere with ONLY horse drawn transportation, coal oil lamps, a fire pit in the center of the tent for heat and cooking...
The human body is designed with systems and special tissues to deal with the normal toxins found in everyday life. The poison is in the DOSE, as well as individual or racial susceptibility. Obviously, we want to limit our exposure to known and dangerous toxins if we can, but the current obsession over microscopic amounts, which our bodies are made to deal with naturally, is far more unhealthy than the potential toxins themselves.
And, as I've said so often before, the affects of physical chemicals on the physical body are only 1/3 of the total. None of these "studies" even pretend to deal with that.
Nuts to the fear mongers. And if someone doesn't wish to eat meat they have my sympathy... there's all the more for me. :)
Designed?
First off, please enjoy all that meat, Mama, and when you are enjoying the pork barbeque, think of me and smile as I'm giving it up for you at a great cost. ;-)
But on to my point... I really have a hard time with statements such as, "The human body is designed..."
If it was, indeed, designed, whoever did it made some MAJOR screw ups. So even if you wanna buy that idea, it still makes no sense that the design was perfect.
I prefer to think that we have gotten to where we are through some level or other of evolution (regardless of where we came from) and should recognize that the system we are dealing with is simply what is, not what might be optimal. If we and our environment were "designed" perfectly, then there would be no issues to study and accomodate. Right?
The fact that we have issues regarding our diets is proof in itself that perfection has not obtained. And as you say, the poison is in the dosage, and so there probably is no perfect diet as any change in one thing will affect all others in the system, so it is always going to be a dance.
As you suggested, it is far better to celebrate the dance than to worry over a few missed steps on occassion. The spirit, whatever-the-hell it is, appears to have more effect over our health than many if not most external issues. Just like that E.F.T. stuff, it is certainly far beyond our ability to quantify. I would guess that a happy and fullfilled person eating at McDonalds would have a better chance at good health than a distraught and frustrated person grazing at Whole Foods.
- NonE
Of cynicism and designs
We’re FAPped again [grrrrr] so this will be brief.
First, from Pagan:
You are probably right more often than I on this, at least in today’s politically-charge scientific environment.
Oh, to keep the grant monies flowing in, maybe? To become a celebrity in his field—maybe even become a household name? See, I can do cynicism too! :-)
Also, I question exactly what many scientists “know”, having seen many individuals get doctorate degrees of varying sorts without learning the first thing about scientific rigor. Some programs even boast that they don’t require statistics courses to complete the program.
Again, I point to the funding issue, primarily, in answer to this. Well, that and the publish–or–perish attitude that still pervades much of academia. Both encourage makework over substance.
Thanks, Pagan, for your spot-on remarks.
And now, to NonE. ...:
Many times it’s a sloppy linguistic shorthand ... sometimes I use it myself, so that a more important idea will be focused on, for example when I’m trying to answer a snolf’s question.
But even knowing that Mama’s a Christian, she didn’t imply—at least not to my eyes—that design equals perfection. Being a nurse (not to mention human) for so long, I’m sure she knows elsewise.
Not to mention stress. You are spot on with this last observation, m’friend.
Shorthand
I point it out as it is a VERY common shorthand in the medical field and one which informs our thinking... incorrectly. Words create our reality, so it is helpful to be clear on them. After all, freedom equals slavery, and voluntary equals mandatory. Just ask Obama.
Oh yes. Withdrawal equals escalation.
Let me also point out the psychological ramifications of sloppy word use. "Designed" implies an intentional specific goal of the designer, and in general creates the assumption that there is knowledge and intent, rather than the reality that all of life is a happenstance of stuff, some of which works, some of which fails, but most of which is less than optimal. I suggest that using the word "designed" more often than not will lead the mind into acceptance over skepticism, and if there is anything we need more of today it is skepticism of the very corporatized and politicized fields like pharmacology and medicine.
Another issue is that "designed" leads the listener into the thought pattern of uniformity, like cars coming off an assembly line, all stamped from the same stamping mills. The vast diversity within living beings via sexual reproduction implies pretty much the opposite of "designed" and should inform the mind that each person and each instance is unique and should be approached with education, yes, but also humility. Pretty much the opposite of the approach of the industry.
Greenspan could have used a bit of this perspective, for instance. I suggest that the economy and the public health are perhaps seeing the results of the same set of confidence and hubris in thinking patterns. Designed my ass!
- NonE
Mountain, meet molehill.
And you know that is reality ... how ...?
Unless a mind asks the next question, or is suggested it: “Designed by whom or what?” That can lead all sorts of fruitful places.
Which is not to say that I disagree with you completely, NonE. Bernanke, Geithner, and The Anointed One, like most usurpers of power, think they can design that which cannot be designed or controlled. But in the current context (and environment), the meaning intended by “designed” seemed pretty clear: the human form with all its purposes has been shaped by environmental forces that sometimes favor certain genes over others.
Molehill, meet Mountain
Regarding "designed" you suggest:
You seem to be totally confusing "designed" and "evolved." They are mutually exclusive concepts and you are equating them.
Of course this does not preclude designs evolving, thank goodness. I'm happy I'm not still typing this on my Osborne 1. But they are two distinctly different processes.
Yet you contradict yourself when you point out that the economy cannot be designed.
The hubris that thinks an economy can be designed is the same hubris that thinks life can be engineered. And that cities can be zoned and that drugs can be controlled and prostitution eliminated.
Let me offer this as a thought, Sunni.
As libertarians, voluntaryists or anarchists - however you want to label the ideas behind what leads many of us in life - there is a word which we consider a crucial component of our ideals. That word is freedom. And yet look about you at those like Bush and most of those who demand and comply with a huge government complex of control over our lives, those who believe that the word freedom is what best describes the american experience.
Designed/evolved, tyranny/freedom. Molehills?
When discussing government mandated volunteerism, my sister thought that the idea was great. She thought volunteering was good. Warm. Fuzzy. Mmmm.
Obamanation.
You may poke fun at my thinking this is an important concept, just as most of the people I encounter also poke fun at the idea that freedom means more than the fascist state we are living in. Okay. All I can do is speak my mind and share my thoughts. Take them as you will.
I believe there is an important core issue here. It all revolves around the reductionist view of the world. It's a fatal conceit, as Hayek described it.
Iatrogenic death is the leading cause of death in this country currently.
We might say that we have an iatrogenic failure of our economy presently taking place.
Molehills? In the grand scheme of the universe that is assuredly true.
- NonE
Battling concepts ...
My apologies, NonE.: I should have used a question mark in my subject, rather than a period ... and if we weren’t still FAPped, I’d’ve edited my comment immediately. But since we’re tangled in this tango, I’ll do one last spin with you—but that’s all, as this is far off the subject of the post and already generating more heat than light, I suspect.
I don’t see the two words as being necessarily mutually exclusive. One definition of the verb “design” is “to devise for a specific function or end”. Does this not apply to the evolutionary process? It seems to me that your response might come, at least in part, from the intelligent design vs. evolution brouhaha, but I don’t see that that is relevant here.
I guess I left too much unsaid in my attempt to be brief. All those things can be attempted, as can be seen all around us. But the degree of control necessary to try to reach the goal is what does the plan in. There are simply too many degrees of freedom to be able to cover them all.
It is undeniably true that Newspeak has become real, and it was never my intention to hint or assert otherwise. That said, it seems clear to me that that discussion is very far afield from the use of the word “design” in a comment here. Given my success rate with the Princess Bride quoting technique, and then trying to persuade an individual that his definition of “freedom” is wrong, I have decided that a better course is to be an example of the freedom I mean. By seeing the difference, I might kindle some curiosity in others; and then, when someone asks me about it, his mind is open to the possibility that his definition and/or world view might be a little off somewhere. Or, to put my point more pithily: word wars leave no victors, only casualties.
Volunteering is good. It isn’t impossible to affirm that, while pointing out that the idea of mandated voluntaryism is wholly contradictory. O’course, that doesn’t mean that she’s open to that perspective at present ...
It was never my intent to poke fun at that, NonE.; and I apologize for my poor communication. What I did (and do) think is that you had a visceral reaction to a word that is charged for you, but which was not intended in the sense in which you apparently took it.
Much as I dislike scientific reductionism, is it not accurate to say that each person will, of necessity, have a reductionist view of the world? How can it be elsewise, when no one has the resources nor ability to take in (much less parse into a meaningful framework) the sum of human history and science to date?
Direction of flow.
Let me offer this idea, Sunni.
The difference between design and evolution is the direction of the flow. It's the difference between a command economy (for instance) and one that evolves naturally, ala Austrian Economics.
Perhaps from this perspective you may see that I think it is more significant than a mere faux pas with words.
And so let me point out that I am not trying to be a word dictator here. Rather I am trying to point out something which is significant but that most people don't grasp the significance of, same as the above analogy with a command economy.
Does this analogy help convey my meaning?
And as to your conclusion that all people must have a reductionist view of the world, I will suggest to you that this is the difference between (to make a gross exaggeration for the sake of simplicity) Eastern and Western thought. One does not have to have the answers to know that there are forces beyond one's knowledge. Au contrare. To suppose understanding when there is none is the greater failure, I do believe.
How can it be elsewise? Humility.
And finally, I'm so sorry that the gods of FAP have wreaked their vengeance upon you. :-[
- NonE
OTOH, nonE...
You must be the only one who didn't understand ML's meaning!
Whereas "design" CAN mean a "definite specific goal of the designer", evolutionarily-speaking, it means that Mother Nature "designed" us, so to speak (or we "designed" ourselves), into the best that she could come up with in order to keep us alive. While nothing is perfect, if it kept us goin' and goin' and goin' over millions of years, I'd say that was sufficient enough - for Mother Nature *or* God.
Aren't you the one who thinks that nothing can or should be defined so closely? Or at least you reject those definitions that others apply to certain words and terms. So why should YOU be concerned with the definition of "design"?
Good point.
Pagan, you said:
I will have to think some on this. It appears that you have a very good point. I think you are misunderstanding something I've said, but then, it could be that I am full of shit. Thanks for the pointer.
Meanwhile, I offer my previous reply to Sunni for your consideration.
- NonE
Aren't you the one...
Pagan,
The point you bring up is a good one. Let me ruminate out loud upon it.
First, the map is not the territory. Words are not reality. Words represent ideas or concepts. They are poor substitutes, yet they are probably the best we have at this point.
Next, there is truth in the idea that I "understood" what Mama was pointing at with the specific words she used.
You suggest that I like to have a loose definition of words rather than a more specific one. I think this may be a misunderstanding of my position. I think it may have come from a few instances where I used words in a manner which differed from the map that Jorge or others had for those words. I was then told that I was wrong.
Okay, what does that mean, that I was wrong? It may make sense to say that I had chosen a poor word to convey the idea I was attempting to express. Or a flat out incorrect choice of words. But does this mean that I was wrong? What about the idea that I was attempting to express? In the issue with (I think) Jorge, it seems that he wanted to focus on the "wrongness" of my word choice rather than to try and see past my incorrect map to the underlying idea I was attempting to convey. Okay, I may have understood the word incorrectly, or at least differently than he, but that has nothing to do with the underlying idea. So am I wrong?
In the subsequent dialog and cascading series of dictionary definitions, it does seem that I was mistaken as to the specifics of the terms I was using. I learned something. But to extrapolate from that that I don't think words have specific meanings, or that I don't think clarity of communication is important is to misunderstand my position.
Similarly, I was pointing out the reason that I thought the use of the word "designed," in the context in which Mama used it, is a poor choice of words, similarly to Jorge's pointing out the same thing for my use of whatever the word was that confused him. As I said, this is a usage that is prevalent, and I do believe it maps poorly to reality and is therefore less than optimal. I did not say that Mama was wrong. I said I had issues with that (very common) choice of words to convey the idea that it appeared to me that Mama was attempting to convey. And I pointed out as well that our word choice affects our thinking, and so it is worthy of examination.
Does that help to clarify my thinking on this for you?
- NonE
Clarified
Yes, if that's what you meant (though I don't agree entirely with how you view word usage). But how does one know? You quite often shoot from the hip (or lip), and it's hard at times to know which paragraph is being flippant, and which is being serious. It's even hard sometimes to understand what you're trying to say.
Frankly, if you can explain yourself more clearly the second or third time around, why can't you stop and think to explain yourself better the first time? We don't know each other here, we have to take words at face value, and sometimes it's hard (for me, at least) to know what value to place on your words.
Anyway, thanks for the explanation.
I believe it's more to the point that our thinking should affect our word choices.
Guilty as charged.
Pagan, I stand guilty as charged. But in a feeble attempt at a defense, let me point out the tool that is used in communication wherein after you say something you ask the listener to repeat back to you what they just heard you say. If you've never tried this, heh heh heh, it's QUITE interesting and revealing. More often than not, what they will tell you they've heard is significantly different than what you attempted to convey. And so it is important, or at least helpful, to recognize that communication is a two way street. Each of us has differing concepts behind the symbols we use.
I think that only in dialog can we really approach clear communication. It takes the feedback loop to narrow in on the ideas being presented.
As to your final point, it seems to make the (I believe mistaken) presumption that words have distinct meanings that are set in stone and remain identical for all users. There is a wonderful book on how the words we use shape our thinking. It's called "The Tyranny of Words," by Stuart Chase and I think you might enjoy it if you are inclined. This is one of those areas where those who speak several languages have such an advantage over those who only speak one, as each language will have some words for things that other languages don't, and so enriches the mind in possible ways to think. As a simple example, the Spanish word "picante" is translated as "hot" in English. We don't have a word for "picante," and so it is hard to communicate and think as clearly about "pepper hot" as it is for Spanish speakers. It is said that Eskimos have 17 words for snow, or some such. The only one I have is "snow." I'm sure they have a far more complex and subtle understanding of snow than I can have with my limited symbology.
That is one of the interesting things about Zen, is that it can help you to understand that certain things are not expressible in words and not even thinkable in words. How do you think something if you don't have words for it? With great difficulty. That is what the art of Zen is all about.
- NonE
Let me add...
Pagan,
Let me add that it is not that I did not understand Mama's point, rather it is that her choice of words was problematical for me for the reasons I enunciated. I find this use of wording to be less than helpful for clarity of thought on these issues and that is the point that I was trying to make. I don't see what I said as an attack on Mama. As I stated, this is very common usage, and I think it obfuscates understanding.
And I wonder why, since there was only one reply to my post, you felt it made sense to suggest that I must be the ONLY ONE who... Do you speak for all of humanity? ;-)
- NonE
Perfection?
Who said anything about perfection? :)
I prefer to believe in a purposeful design, rather than random accidents for arriving at human life, but I don't insist that anyone else share that conviction. I use the word "designed" simply because it fits with the way I think.
And humans have seldom, if ever, lived perfectly within the design specifications - perfect or otherwise.
Life and living are just sooooo much more than food and chemicals (or lack of them). Humans can adapt and survive under the most incredible and deadly circumstances - if they make up their mind to do so. And, by the same token, someone in an ideal environment can (and often does) die simply because they have nothing to live for. I've watched it happen both ways.
Garbage research...
To lump processed products in with non-processed red meats is ridiculous...this would get a fail in any first year research report!