No evidence of adverse health effects from meat consumption: Study
Adults can continue to eat their current levels of red meat, as well as processed and unprocessed meats, unless they feel inclined to change their habits for non-nutritional reasons, according to a panel of reviewers who conducted several recent studies and developed a new guideline on the topic.
An editorial accompanying the studies and guideline stated, “This is sure to be controversial, but it is based on the most comprehensive review of the evidence to date. Because that review is inclusive, those who seek to dispute it will be hard pressed to find appropriate evidence with which to build an argument.”
Unprocessed red meat and processed meat are unlikely to be causal factors for adverse health outcomes, although it is possible they have a very small causal effect, the guideline stated. The guideline, editorial, and reviews were published by Annals of Internal Medicine on Oct. 1.
The guideline stated, “Our weak recommendation that people continue their current meat consumption highlights both the uncertainty associated with possible harmful effects and the very small magnitude of effect, even if the best estimates represent true causation, which we believe to be implausible.”
The guideline was developed by a panel based on four de novo systematic reviews that considered evidence on consumption of meat, as well as one review that addressed consumers' beliefs and values about consuming it. The reviews included data from millions of patients.
The first review was a meta-analysis of cohort studies that focused on how dietary patterns, including the amount of red or processed meat consumed, affected all-cause mortality, cardiometabolic outcomes, and cancer incidence and mortality. More than 100 studies including more than six million participants were analyzed. The overall conclusions were that dietary patterns, including differences in meat consumption, may result in only small differences in outcomes over long periods.
The next study was a meta-analysis that looked specifically at cohort studies examining how reductions in red and processed meat might affect cancer incidence and mortality. It included 118 studies with more than six million participants, and it, too, found that the possible impact of reduced meat intake was very small.
The third study was a meta-analysis of cohort studies that looked specifically at meat consumption and its relationship to all-cause mortality and cardiometabolic outcomes and found that any link was very small.
In the fourth analysis, researchers examined randomized controlled trials that compared diets with differing amounts of red meat for at least six months. They found 12 eligible studies, but one of them—the Women's Health Initiative—was so large (almost 49,000 women) that it dominated the analysis. The authors concluded that diets restricted in red meat may have little or no effect on major cardiometabolic outcomes and cancer mortality and incidence, although the certainty of the evidence was low.
Finally, a review of consumers' beliefs about meat consumption found that reasons for eating meat included enjoyment, the belief that meat was essential to a healthy diet, cultural reasons, and disbelief about potential negative health effects.
The editorial said that nutritional epidemiology research often has methodological problems and that it may be time to stop producing observational research in this area. “These meta-analyses include millions of participants. Further research involving much smaller cohorts has limited value,” the editorial said. “High-quality randomized controlled trials are welcome, but only if they're designed to tell us things we don't already know.”
Instead, the editorial continued, a major overhaul of the methods for communicating nutritional data is needed to reach target populations and change health outcomes. One potential takeaway from these studies is that there are many reasons other than health to reduce meat consumption, the editorialists said.
“Ethical concerns about animal welfare can be important, as can concerns about the effects of meat consumption on the environment,” they wrote. “Both of these issues might be more likely to sway people, and they have the added benefit of empirical evidence behind them. And if they result in reducing meat consumption, and some receive a small health benefit as a side effect, everyone wins.”
courtesy: acpinternist.org
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Modi should leverage his ties with world leaders to de-escalate war in West Asia: Omar Abdullah
Jammu (PTI): Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah on Monday said India can play a meaningful role in de-escalation in West Asia, given Prime Minister Narendra Modi's strong relations with the warring countries and their neighbours.
He said Pakistan was leveraging ties with Iran and the United States, and that any effort towards ending the war should be welcomed.
"As I said in the House (Assembly), we would like the war to end as soon as possible. The role that the prime minister can play may not be possible for anyone else because of his good relations with all these countries," Abdullah told reporters on the sidelines of a function here.
He, however, said any escalation would not be easy to manage.
"Any such move by US President Donald Trump, despite the long history of Iran resisting external domination, would not be easy," the chief minister said.
Asked about Pakistan mediating in the war, he said, "I will simply say that if any country can play a role in preventing this war, no one should have any objection to it."
He added, "I will repeat what I said … our prime minister has good and close relations with all countries — whether it is Israel, the United States, Iran, or the countries around Iran. If those relationships can be used to make some progress and help ease the situation, it would be a good thing."
Abdullah said attacks by terror groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Mohammed in India, as suggested by a report from the United States, are not unlikely.
Meanwhile, he asserted that any efforts to end the war, be it from Pakistan, must not be resisted.
"Pakistan is using its good relations with Iran and the United States to its advantage, and it has done so. How can we object to that? If that angle helps in stopping the war, would you want them not to act and let the war continue? We want the war to stop. If any country can play a role in that, it should. And if we can play an even better role, then we should do so," he said.
On unemployment in J-K, the chief minister said the issue cannot be resolved overnight, and government jobs alone are not the solution.
He stressed the need to explore alternative avenues, highlighting the importance of Mission Yuva in promoting entrepreneurship.
"Mission Yuva provides not just funding but also support in preparing DPRs and post-startup assistance, such as marketing. In just nine months, distributing Rs 1,000 crore and approving numerous schemes is a significant achievement," he said.
Abdullah credited the coordination between the government and Jammu and Kashmir Bank for the scheme's progress.
