The headline has probably cheered more than one in the morning: "A review of studies estimates that it is not necessary to reduce the consumption of red or processed meat."
Even more so if you have heard later that it is an investigation published in 'Annals of Internal Medicine' that basically contradicts what the nutritional recommendations of the last years advise and affirms that there is no statistically significant association between consumption of this type of meat and the risk of cardiovascular disease or cancer.
The problem is that public health researchers, epidemiologists and experts in first level nutrition have already come to the fore to ruin their conclusions .
For example, TH Chan of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard University has issued a statement that strongly criticizes both the methodology that has been carried out in the review when interpreting the data, and the analysis that has led to the final conclusions. Chan calls the work of "unfortunate" and says that "it has the potential to harm public health, that of patients and that of the planet . "
Miguel Ángel Martínez, Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at the University of Navarra and one of the main researchers on the effects of the Mediterranean diet, agrees with his point of view: "Consumers face an avalanche of information that can be overwhelming and it makes them feel that nutrition researchers end up not agreeing on anything, "he laments. "But we do agree. I am part of a coalition with more than 500 public health and nutrition professionals, the True Health Initiative, and we all agree: abusing red and processed meats is harmful to health. " .
As he explains, the aforementioned study makes serious mistakes, such as "unfoundedly denying the validity of observational studies" or disregarding the "essential nutritional concept of substitution" (it does not refer to eating meat instead of eating foods of origin vegetable). In addition, among other problems, it also uses the usual methodology for the study of the efficacy of drugs, a method of analysis that is not equally valid for research on nutrition or lifestyles, he emphasizes.
The review of studies - which has led to the development of a guide - has been carried out by a group of recently trained researchers in which scientists from the Canadian universities of Dalhousie and McMaster or from the Polish and Latin American Cochrane Centers collaborate, among others. Under the name of 'NutriRECS', this team points out that its mission is "to produce reliable nutritional recommendations". To this end, they have analyzed five previous studies with data of about 54,000 people and their conclusions are just the opposite of those that have been supporting organizations such as the World Health Organization or international panels such as EAT-Lancet for years.
Among the scientific community, the reactions have been immediate. "These conclusions are not the conclusions of the medical community. They have selected the studies that included [in the review] and the weight they were given," said Elizabeth Klodas, a member of the Nutrition Group of the American Society of Cardiology in statements to The Washington Post .
In that sense, Martínez wonders why the analysis has not included rigorous studies, such as the 'Predimed' or the 'Diabetes prevention program', "although they are randomized controlled trials."
Martínez, who has contacted colleagues from different countries upon learning of the study's publication, points out that many researchers directly surprised by the publication of these data in a prestigious scientific journal given that "the recommendations made in this article appear to be in direct contradiction with the data included in the article itself ".
"The main health organizations and public health experts will continue to recommend reducing red and processed meat based on a really impressive previous collection of good studies," he concludes.
Earlier this year, the international commission of scientists EAT-Lancet estimated that a global dietary transformation that doubles the intake of "healthy foods such as fruits, vegetables, legumes, nuts and seeds" and reduces consumption by more than 50% on average of foods such as red meat would "prevent approximately 11 million deaths per year in the world," which represents between 19% and 24% of the total and deaths in adults. "
In 2015, the International Cancer Research Center (IARC), under the World Health Organization, said processed meat is a carcinogen for humans. According to their estimates, "each 50 gram serving of processed meat consumed daily increases the risk of developing a tumor in the pollen by approximately 18%."
According to the criteria of The Trust Project
Know more- Science and Health
HealthThe bubble of mindfulness: why meditation is not the remedy for all evils
Immunization Measles vaccine: when and who should get it
Astrophysics First detected water in a temperate exoplanet