Take care when reading press reports...

Docb

Docb

Moderator
Relationship to Diabetes
Type 2
In the papers and on the news this morning there was a lot of bigging up of a report in the Lancet which according to the Guardian said that eating red or processed meat increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 16%. Thinking that was a bit of an odd claim, I had a quick look at the paper. After a couple of lengthy paragraphs discussing the limitations of the study, comes this......

In conclusion, higher meat consumption was associated with higher type 2 diabetes incidence in a global individual-participant-based federated meta-analysis. The current findings support the notion that lowering the consumption of unprocessed red meat and processed meat could benefit public health by reducing the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Uncertainty remains regarding the positive association between poultry consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes, and this association should be further investigated. Beyond research on type 2 diabetes, our integrative work stimulates further investigation on sustainable dietary patterns to reduce meat consumption and its effect on other non-communicable diseases, multi-morbidity, and planetary health.

No 16% in there. The results, highly dependent on the methodology used, possibly support a notion about something. The reporting does not say that.
 
It would appear that the story has disappeared from the Guardian on line and as yet, no mention on World at One. Possibly somebody else has actually looked at the paper and pulled what was probably a regurgitated and embellished press release.
 
If you followed all the advice on what's good and what's not good in dietary terms, with some of it even being conflicting, you'd most likely find that you can hardly eat anything. A few days ago there was a report suggesting that the increased rates of colon cancer in young adults was due to their junk food diets, until it emerged that fit and healthy vegans and vegetarians were also being diagnosed.
 
There have been a number of similar studies or, often the reverse, ie saying that vegans and vegetarians have a lower risk of Type 2.

I can’t find the 16% study you mentioned, but there’s reference to what sounds like the same kind of thing in here, but with a higher percentage:

www.scrippsnews.com

Eating any red meat increases risk of Type 2 diabetes, study finds

A new study indicates eating more red meat can give you more than a 60% higher chance of developing Type 2 diabetes.
www.scrippsnews.com www.scrippsnews.com

www.hsph.harvard.edu

Red meat consumption associated with increased type 2 diabetes risk

People who eat just two servings of red meat per week may have an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to people who eat fewer servings, and the risk increases with greater consump…
www.hsph.harvard.edu www.hsph.harvard.edu

“For this study, the researchers analyzed health data from 216,695 participants from the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS), NHS II, and Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS). Diet was assessed with food frequency questionnaires every two to four years, for up to 36 years. During this time, more than 22,000 participants developed type 2 diabetes.

The researchers found that consumption of red meat, including processed and unprocessed red meat, was strongly associated with increased risk of type 2 diabetes. Participants who ate the most red meat had a 62% higher risk of developing type 2 diabetes compared to those who ate the least. Every additional daily serving of processed red meat was associated with a 46% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes and every additional daily serving of unprocessed red meat was associated with a 24% greater risk.

The researchers also estimated the potential effects of substituting one daily serving of red meat for another protein source. They found that substituting a serving of nuts and legumes was associated with a 30% lower risk of type 2 diabetes, and substituting a serving of dairy products was associated with a 22% lower risk.”
 
Wholeheartedly agree with what @Martin.A says, if you were to take advice of every article in the media then then they'd be nothing left to eat & drink, surely meat like all foods it's about finding the right balance to keep fit & healthy.
 
Robin said:
Have they ever asked the question, if people are eating a lot of red and/or processed meat, what is the rest of their diet like? What are they eating as well as the red meat? What aren’t they eating?
Click to expand...
That's a big issue with such research, of course. It's essentially impossible to do long term randomised trials of dietary variations so what you're left with is looking at a big sample of people and asking them what they remember from their diets (maybe they've been asked to keep diaries but I don't think that's all that common). At best you've got correlation rather than anything causative.
 
Robin said:
Have they ever asked the question, if people are eating a lot of red and/or processed meat, what is the rest of their diet like? What are they eating as well as the red meat? What aren’t they eating?
Click to expand...

I imagine they collect all their dietary information then adjust the parameters according to what they’re looking for/studying. When I was young, my family took part in a study that I think was called EPIC or similar. It entailed recording every single item of food and drink that passed your lips. That study was looking at cancer risk, but some studies collect diet data then look at various risks or benefits.
 
The paper: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00179-7/fulltext

Results summary:

Among 1 966 444 adults eligible for participation, 107 271 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified during a median follow-up of 10 (IQR 7–15) years. Median meat consumption across cohorts was 0–110 g/day for unprocessed red meat, 0–49 g/day for processed meat, and 0–72 g/day for poultry. Greater consumption of each of the three types of meat was associated with increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, with HRs of 1·10 (95% CI 1·06–1·15) per 100 g/day of unprocessed red meat (I2=61%), 1·15 (1·11–1·20) per 50 g/day of processed meat (I2=59%), and 1·08 (1·02–1·14) per 100 g/day of poultry (I2=68%). Positive associations between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes were observed in North America and in the European and Western Pacific regions; the CIs were wide in other regions. We found no evidence that the heterogeneity was explained by age, sex, or BMI. The findings for poultry consumption were weaker under alternative modelling assumptions. Replacing processed meat with unprocessed red meat or poultry was associated with a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.

Closest thing to "16%" is the HR of 1.15 per 50g per day of processed meat consumption.

This type of study can't prove causation, just association. Just like the studies which convinced people that smoking is bad for you.
 
Docb said:
In the papers and on the news this morning there was a lot of bigging up of a report in the Lancet which according to the Guardian said that eating red or processed meat increases the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 16%. Thinking that was a bit of an odd claim, I had a quick look at the paper. After a couple of lengthy paragraphs discussing the limitations of the study, comes this......

In conclusion, higher meat consumption was associated with higher type 2 diabetes incidence in a global individual-participant-based federated meta-analysis. The current findings support the notion that lowering the consumption of unprocessed red meat and processed meat could benefit public health by reducing the incidence of type 2 diabetes. Uncertainty remains regarding the positive association between poultry consumption and the incidence of type 2 diabetes, and this association should be further investigated. Beyond research on type 2 diabetes, our integrative work stimulates further investigation on sustainable dietary patterns to reduce meat consumption and its effect on other non-communicable diseases, multi-morbidity, and planetary health.

No 16% in there. The results, highly dependent on the methodology used, possibly support a notion about something. The reporting does not say that.
Click to expand...
Yup, 16% of not very much is not very much at all.
 
@Eddy Edson
Thanks for the posting the link.

NG writes:
It’s been known for a long time that iron influences glucose control because of the relationship between hemochromatosis and diabetes. Haemochromatosis is an inherited condition where iron levels in the body slowly build up over many years. When phlebotomy was first used to treat hemochromatosis in the 1950s (because it was known that too much iron causes lots of damage to the body generally), clinicians observed that glucose control improved in a large proportion of patients.

The reverse was the case for me: glucose control appeared to reduce iron. In the three months before phlebotomy started my HbA1c came down from 104 to 39 and my ferritin came down from 1,200 to 600.

My conclusion. No one really knows what goes on in the body, so best to get back to as near normal as you reasonably can.
 
Another study, just published: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landia/article/PIIS2213-8587(24)00179-7/fulltext

Findings​

Among 1 966 444 adults eligible for participation, 107 271 incident cases of type 2 diabetes were identified during a median follow-up of 10 (IQR 7–15) years. Median meat consumption across cohorts was 0–110 g/day for unprocessed red meat, 0–49 g/day for processed meat, and 0–72 g/day for poultry. Greater consumption of each of the three types of meat was associated with increased incidence of type 2 diabetes, with HRs of 1·10 (95% CI 1·06–1·15) per 100 g/day of unprocessed red meat (I2=61%), 1·15 (1·11–1·20) per 50 g/day of processed meat (I2=59%), and 1·08 (1·02–1·14) per 100 g/day of poultry (I2=68%). Positive associations between meat consumption and type 2 diabetes were observed in North America and in the European and Western Pacific regions; the CIs were wide in other regions. We found no evidence that the heterogeneity was explained by age, sex, or BMI. The findings for poultry consumption were weaker under alternative modelling assumptions. Replacing processed meat with unprocessed red meat or poultry was associated with a lower incidence of type 2 diabetes.

Interpretation​

The consumption of meat, particularly processed meat and unprocessed red meat, is a risk factor for developing type 2 diabetes across populations. These findings highlight the importance of reducing meat consumption for public health and should inform dietary guidelines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top