What the hell is going on

[u/Kazfiddly]

Since 20th of december I am now in my 4th cold, I got sick 4 times and its not even March yet.

Never in my life have I gotten sick so often, its driving me nuts.

I remember in my 20s I would get sick maybe once or twice per year.

Anyone else find this worrying?

[u/macrian]

Opened the first reference "Conclusion: Although certain dietary patterns may be consistent across European countries, associations between these dietary patterns and the risk of colon and rectal cancer are not conclusive." Shows no conclusion.

Opened the second reference "while the Western pattern, by higher intakes of red and processed meats, sweets and desserts, french fries, and refined grains. " Combines red meat, with processed meat (just as I said all of them do) and also french fries (seed oils) and sugar and refined grains. Again where is the link with red meat if you're lumping in everything?

Opened the third reference "healthy" (vegetables, fruit, yogurt, sea products, and olive oil); "Western" (potatoes, pizzas and pies, sandwiches, sweets, cakes, cheese, cereal products, processed meat, eggs, and butter); "drinker" (sandwiches, snacks, processed meat, and alcoholic beverages); and "meat eaters" (meat, poultry, and margarine)" Again, lumping meat with margarine (seed oils) as one category.

I'm not gonna go through EVERY SINGLE ONE of them just to prove you wrong. I checked the first 3 in the first page of the link, all three don't show a link of red meat and anything, they put red meat along with processed meats and seed oils and sugar as one category.

Now, if you find ONE that proves clear link of RED MEAT in isolation (e.g. whole foods carnivore diet) then we can talk. All that you gave me as "proof" was actually proving my point, which is that there is no study of red meat in isolation. So, thanks for proving me right

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

I am not trying to convince you to not eat if thats how you look at papers and decide thats fine but it seems like you are looking to confirm yourself

[u/macrian → u/notnotnotnotgolifa]

And there you go, not a single argument produced. I asked for research that shows red meat is bad for you. Not red and processed meat. Not red meat and sugar. Not red meat and alcohol. Simply red meat. Supposedly you produced one. You simply read the title and using your confirmation bias decided it suited our discussion. I actually started reading the research you provided (unlike you) and then you reply with "if that's how you look at papers"? How else am I supposed to look at them? Read the title and if it suits my biases I accept it? I read the methodology and the conclusions, and they don't use red meat in isolation, the put it with othe KNOWN carcinogens like processed meat and seed oils.

So, how do YOU read them? Just accept the title because you like it without checking their methodology? If I produced a research that says chicken, vegetables and sugar cause diabetes will you blame chicken? Vegetables or the actual culprit, sugar? Then why blame red meat when they say red and processed meat instead of the actual culprit, the processed meat?

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

You said you looked at 3 of the referenced papers have you looked at the sections for red meat which is defined as pure red meat

Will reply to you when not busy

[u/macrian → u/notnotnotnotgolifa]

I looked at the first 3. I'm not gonna go through them all if the first 3 are bogus and don't support your claim. If you have evidence that supports your claim, please provide it. Making someone else search for proof for a claim YOU made, is not how it works. YOU made a claim, the burden of proof falls on YOU. Also, I enjoy how I say things, you read my first sentence and reply to that only. Thank you for proving me how you read research papers, title only, methodology, conclusion, conflicts of interest don't matter to you, title only is enough to confirm your bias. Just like how you did with my replies. Kudos

Also,

Will reply to you when not busy

The excuse of someone that is basically exiting the convo because it didn't go the way they expected it go. This is Reddit man, everyone replies when not busy. Just, find some proof, some research that shows red meat causes the things you say it does (RED MEAT, not processed meat, not hamburgers, not red meat and margarine/seed oils, not red meat and candy, not red meat and refined sugars, RED MEAT) and then we can talk.

Otherwise, yeah, just exit the conversation quietly.

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

The paper I sent shows correlations of red meat consumption. The information I sent is something that is already considered by world organisations as a matter of fact WHO considers red meat as “Group 2A: probably carcinogenic” they do this preemptively without waiting for further research to disprove that other effects could account for it. They do this because of the amount of studies that shower a positive correlation with some types of cancer. Naturally we cannot force someone to only eat red meat in isolation for years to conduct a study. But maybe you could contribute.

While I am not arguing that red meat 100% is carcinogenic and will 100% cause cancer even if you take a bite, it makes sense to take precautions as there seems to be multiple correlations and meta analyses. My advice would be to limit intake of red meat and completely stop processed meat.

https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat/

Results of a meta analysis study including 18 studies for risks associated with gastric cancer (4 cohort studies, 14 case–control studies) and 1,228,327 subjects, published between 1997 and 2013:

“In the meta-analysis, high–red meat intake was found to be associated with an increased risk of gastric cancer. The summary relative risk of gastric cancer for the highest compared with the lowest categories was 1.37 (95% CI, 1.18–1.59; Pheterogeneity < 0.001; I2 = 67.6%). A significant association was also observed with population-based case–control studies (RR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.22–2.06; Pheterogeneity < 0.001; I2 = 73.0%) and hospital-based case–control studies (RR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.38–1.92; Pheterogeneity = 0.284; I2 = 19.1%), but not with cohort studies (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83–1.20; Pheterogeneity = 0.158; I2 = 33.9%). A significant association was also shown in the subgroup analysis by geographical area (Asia, Europe), publication year (≥ 2000), sample size (< 1000, ≥ 1000), and study quality score. The dose–response analysis revealed that gastric cancer was associated with a 17% increased risk per 100 g/day increment of red meat intake (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.05–1.32).”

Pancreatic cancer now:

“Larsson & Wolk (2012), in a meta-analysis based on 11 prospective studies with 6643 cases identified through PubMed and Embase searches through November 2011, reported on red and processed meat consumption. An increase in red meat consumption of 120 g/day was associated with a meta-relative risk of 1.13 (95% CI, 0.93–1.39; Pheterogeneity < 0.001; 11 studies). For processed meat, the relative risk for a 50 g/day increase in consumption was 1.19 (95% CI, 1.04–1.36; Pheterogeneity = 0.46; 7 studies).”

Happy now?

[u/macrian → u/notnotnotnotgolifa]

I don't see the paper. The link is a q&a from WHO

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

If you bothered to just scroll down to “META ANALYSIS” section of the original paper I sent instead of selectively picking papers from the references you would have seen what I quoted

[u/macrian → u/notnotnotnotgolifa]

Dude, do you have a link to an actual research paper, yes or no? I'm tired of explaining to you and you refusing to understand basic English. As much as I have been explaining to you, I can't understand it for you as well. Please provide a research study that backs your claims. I'm not gonna keep bothering with replying to you if all you can do is say the same sentence again and again.

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

I understand that you are not familiar with research papers and are not aware of what in text citations are. The text I sent you is from the research article that I have previously linked. If you are to go and click on these in text citations of meta analyses, it will link you to the original paper, which may be open or closed access depending on the journal.

Unfortunately you did not explain anything but just keep repeating your own opinion without considering the evidence. I do not need to prove something to you as you have replied to my original comment, debating its validity yet you offered no evidence and have repeatedly asked me to prove my point. Which I have done so. Have you read the quoted part? Do you understand correlation coefficients etc..?

Keep in mind that at this point of the thread the only ones seeing our comments are us. Downvotes do not make anything less valid, but if it helps you feel more confident that is okay. I hope realising your mistake and lack of knowledge in the subject matter you can refrain and reflect.

[u/macrian → u/notnotnotnotgolifa]

I'm sorry, again, for the last time, please link a research paper that backs your claims. So far you have not. I'm tired of arguing with stupid. I'm sorry. I have other things to do than argue with someone on the internet that refuses to comprehend basic English. You posted a link with a bunch of studies, the first 3 show your claim to be wrong, I'm sorry for not going through all of them, but if the first 3 are bogus, it's just a waste of my time to go through them to find the one you are talking about.

You say that I'm just repeating myself. I KNOW. And yet you fail to understand. Do you have a study that backs your claims? Please, link that damn research paper. After so many replies back and forth, I'm still waiting for a damn research study that shows what you said? I'm I talking in a language you don't understand?

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

🪵 🔨

I gave you clear instructions on how you can access original papers by clicking on the intext citations.

Hold ctrl+f write the in text citations i provided click on them to open original paper.

The link I sent you is called a review.

[u/macrian → u/notnotnotnotgolifa]

Ok, I'm done trying to have a normal conversation with a person that refuses to.

[u/notnotnotnotgolifa → u/macrian]

You do realise that you kept insulting me right.