- Joined
- Dec 26, 2003
- Messages
- 9,353
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21682779
Funny survey that said people eating tons of processed meat more likely to die early on the Beeb.
Leaving aside the fact that people who eat tons of processed meat are likely to do other unhealthy behaviours angle the stats were not exactly overwhelming.
Additionally these mass surveys perpetuate the myth of commonality - that any given sample of the population serves as a good proxy for the whole when we increasingly know that an individuals genetic inheritance plays a huge role to the point that future medicines are likely to be personalised...
1 in 17 on the survey died during the period they were tracked - 5.88%
It was then stated 'if everyone on the study had eaten less than 20g of processed meat a day 3% of the deaths could have been prevented' thats a 0.176% drop - so for every 600 people on the survey 35.28 would have died as opposed to 36.28 if they had eaten more meat.
Considering theres an error factor in all this is that really significant?
Other studies showed vegetarians died earlier than omnivores so you have to wonder.
Another dodgy stat - if the whole UK population kept below eating 10g of processed meat a day (ie basically none) we could prevent 4000 bowel cancer cases a year!
Though in the UK we have over 40,000 cases a year so this would actually be a drop in the ocean in return for radical impact to peoples behaviour lol.
Finally and most scientifically damning the authors of this junk propose a correlation but without a causation!
Correlations are ten a penny and meaningless unless you can show causation - for example - most people who die see a doctor in their last 7 days - thats a correlation - from that you could argue we should all avoid ever seeing a doctor - without causation its meaningless.
Funny survey that said people eating tons of processed meat more likely to die early on the Beeb.
Leaving aside the fact that people who eat tons of processed meat are likely to do other unhealthy behaviours angle the stats were not exactly overwhelming.
Additionally these mass surveys perpetuate the myth of commonality - that any given sample of the population serves as a good proxy for the whole when we increasingly know that an individuals genetic inheritance plays a huge role to the point that future medicines are likely to be personalised...
1 in 17 on the survey died during the period they were tracked - 5.88%
It was then stated 'if everyone on the study had eaten less than 20g of processed meat a day 3% of the deaths could have been prevented' thats a 0.176% drop - so for every 600 people on the survey 35.28 would have died as opposed to 36.28 if they had eaten more meat.
Considering theres an error factor in all this is that really significant?
Other studies showed vegetarians died earlier than omnivores so you have to wonder.
Another dodgy stat - if the whole UK population kept below eating 10g of processed meat a day (ie basically none) we could prevent 4000 bowel cancer cases a year!
Though in the UK we have over 40,000 cases a year so this would actually be a drop in the ocean in return for radical impact to peoples behaviour lol.
Finally and most scientifically damning the authors of this junk propose a correlation but without a causation!
Correlations are ten a penny and meaningless unless you can show causation - for example - most people who die see a doctor in their last 7 days - thats a correlation - from that you could argue we should all avoid ever seeing a doctor - without causation its meaningless.
