Comments on: Absolute risk, relative risk – and red meat

By: Dr. Joe Today

Dr. Joe Today — Mon, 22 Oct 2012 11:51:32 +0000

[…] Present results that are most likely to impress – for example, reduction in relative rather than absolute risk. […]

By: Suzie Towns

Suzie Towns — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:55:07 +0000

I am familiar with those studies…of mice and men! But I am more aware of Dr Ornish’s local work here in the Bay Area and his diet, exercise, support group, meditation programs with people who show marked improvement in their arteries. I read that after a gruelling review, Medicare is going to start covering Ornish’s program, which i was amazed!

I am sure you are familiar with The China Study also. This is not to say that the red meat studies were not flawed, but I have the strong impression that animal fats should not be first choice for certain advanced heart disease patients in particular. And that the elimination of animal fats can render some dramatic improvements.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sun, 24 Jun 2012 00:31:26 +0000

I’m easily confused, too, Suzie. But here’s my understanding of this very widely-publicized red meat study that Dr. Ornish and vegans often cite, using data from the Harvard Health Professionals Follow-Up Study and the Harvard Nurses Health Study.

In this study, men and women with higher self-reported intakes of red meat did show higher all-cause mortality rates, but they were also LESS likely to be physically active and were MORE likely to smoke, drink alcohol and have a higher body mass index – all considered risk factors for cardiovascular disease and diabetes. But those factors somehow didn’t make it into the media headlines although they are clearly stated by study authors A.Pan et al.

It’s also important to separate out less-reliable mice studies (Dr. Ornish likes these!) from human studies, which are notoriously challenging for researchers due to their self-reporting nature usually over an extended period of time.

Perhaps a real live scientist can help us by wading into this question for Suzie?

LikeLike

By: Suzie Towns

Suzie Towns — Sat, 23 Jun 2012 22:06:24 +0000

I am confused how this reflects on the work of Dean Ornish and others who have some impressive research as to the benefits of cutting out animal fats and the improvements in clogged arteries and diabetes…. ??

LikeLike

By: Jessy S.

Jessy S. — Thu, 21 Jun 2012 19:12:36 +0000

That’s true. It wouldn’t hurt to enjoy a hamburger once in a while. But if you were to eat red meat for every meal and dessert, all I can say is it was nice knowing you.

LikeLike

By: Razwell

Razwell — Sun, 17 Jun 2012 13:56:02 +0000

Avoiding red meat will do nothing to lower heart disease risk.

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:40:39 +0000

I agree, Dr. Ruth. Just like eggs: in the 70s, the advice from doctors was apparently NO EGGS. Then it became okay to eat three eggs per week max. Now my cardiologist tells me: “One egg a day is fine!”

With bacon, even better . . . 😉

cheers,
C.

LikeLike

By: Ruth

Ruth — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 22:34:59 +0000

I remember in the 70’s there were many headlines about “fats’ – first cholesterol was a bad thing; then HDLs, then LDLs, were all bad for you; then it all changed again to something else.

I just told my patients to ignore the headlines because they would only change again the following year. I prefer to live according to the words carved into the walls at the Temple of Delphi in Greece: “Nothing in excess”. (At least, I try to).

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:39:14 +0000

Thank you!

LikeLike

By: Carolyn Thomas

Carolyn Thomas — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:36:10 +0000

Thanks Dr. W. I enjoyed your “It’s All Relative” article!
regards,
C.

LikeLike

By: Skeptical Scalpel

Skeptical Scalpel — Sat, 02 Jun 2012 15:15:15 +0000

Great post. Well written. More people should read it. I will tweet it to my followers.

LikeLike