@ylenews @TeeaKort In 2021, YLE did a rewrite from @HSfi where they let another Finnish nutritionist claimed that eating meat causes colon cancer https://t.co/qGTtwYrTa8 Is was a second response on @methodsnerd:s GRADE-based https://t.co/CZms77ogYS
RT @Aspers16: Laatste studies tonen aan dat rood vlees eten helemaal niet slecht is voor je. #roodvlees https://t.co/cp22tnJfWm
@Mauriurp @PaiviNerg @TaaviHorila Here is a comprehensive analysis, "GRADING" the evidence: https://t.co/XlmR28eua3 Uncertainty also stressed here: https://t.co/2EboZHC4P9
@Mira404 @scienceisstrat1 The anti-red meat push is not based in science. Correlation =? causation. We have been eating red meat for millennia. Only with the advent of processed and fast foods, serious diseases and health risks trended upward. https://t.c
Kun lihansyönnin negatiivisiin terveysvaikutuksiin liittyy epävarmuutta (havainnoivat tutkimukset, triviaalit riskit yms), korostuvat yksilöiden arvot ja mieltymykset. Valtaosa kaikkiruokaisista pitää lihasta, mutta tähänkin liittyy epävarmuutta. https:
@katie_pai @berger_nicky Plenty of studies showing past red meat studies are weak and done poorly. https://t.co/yx8wrtfn2A
@UnequivocallyB You can claim whatever you want, but however you twist it, it really isn't more than small risk at (very) low certainty evidence level, for which the data is potentially (& rather likely) confounded. -https://t.co/XlmR28eua3 -https://t.
@ChadxMichael @SuzanneDalangin @nutrition_facts The recommendation of the experts is that adults continue to eat red meat. The quality of the research results on red meat is poor & harmful effects are negligible, possibly zero. https://t.co/0NzH9YbM9t
@whereisjasonnow @Jokermanhere @Xrystoffer @nutrition_facts I've read their rationale in full. It's BS from bias. This study looked at all the evidence. https://t.co/OvpUWGsfhG
@dylanarmbruste3 @drjkahn @maxlugavere Pure on sat fat and this. You have nothing, either do I, that's the whole idea. Confuse and confound and push people to industrial plant slop. There is nothing. https://t.co/i0TE58RtZ0
@Marijn3D @Soetman @RuudBodem @Reezyard 'These recommendations are, however, primarily based on observational studies that are at high risk for confounding and thus are limited in establishing causal inferences, nor do they report the absolute magnitude of
@Haasje23 En deze studie weerlegd aanbevelingen WUR hoogleraar: https://t.co/dpH9JHMDv3
Laatste studies tonen aan dat rood vlees eten helemaal niet slecht is voor je. #roodvlees https://t.co/cp22tnJfWm
@JohnnyScott234 @ascentovalhalla @sciencebyjae @FatEmperor Again, not consistently. https://t.co/xumFgBeki3 The effect may well be random, confounded and publication biased due to our prejudices (meat = bad).
@TaaviHorila @yleuutiset According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/mHO9lSkzp6
@yleuutiset According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@YleOulu According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@Alena_iWl According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@nnewspdates According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@HeikkiOjala According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@minnaminski1 @TaaviHorila @yleuutiset According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEt
@PetraNyqvist According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@PasiJJunnila According to science she's correct: Johnston et al. 2019 https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Han et al 2019 https://t.co/7xUQk4rvCW Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENsZFdZ Aiello and Wheeler (1995) https://t.co/BHntmEtOOL
@MikaelFogelholm @jelenameinila @DrJyrkiVirtanen Ja voisi kuvitella että tästäkin olisi edes mainittu. https://t.co/75zCr6lhXX
@FugaciousPotato @RealMattCouch I appreciate Frank Hu’s concern and especially his focus on planetary health, but there will always be a study that says some food is bad, followed by a study that says it’s good, rinse, repeat.. https://t.co/u6sp3LxLK1
@methodsnerd @MaritKolby Bradley, I thought about Johnston et al 2019 https://t.co/CZms77ogYS in relation to what Marit wrote in her thread about processed meat.
Tutkimus: Punaisen lihan vähentämisellä ei ole positiivisia terveysvaikutuksia. https://t.co/mKKajtn6VP
@SBakerMD the source https://t.co/6sXn8wbfkU
@Tom28380 @Trophymad @Markus_Soeder Da der Artikel nicht explizit benennt, auf welche Studie er sich bezieht (schlechter Journalismus), nehme ich mal an, dass es um diese Studie geht: https://t.co/mXKkDpFzqX. Die Studie wurde bereits zerissen, weil das Stu
@Nacho1man @SBakerMD https://t.co/bjv1NtxJ8K took two seconds to Google it
RT @DrXaverius: Paper que ofrece guía nutricional general sobre el efecto de la carne roja en la salud en el cual hay una tabla de conflict…
Paper que ofrece guía nutricional general sobre el efecto de la carne roja en la salud en el cual hay una tabla de conflictos de interés informando de cuánta carne roja consume cada autor https://t.co/gZHiEqjWUO https://t.co/uzoYV744RR
@Schall_abweiser @ZigaMalek Potem konzorcij pod vodstvom očeta "evidence based medicine" https://t.co/o5x5nA3RBB https://t.co/46x7Csea3i https://t.co/rVgfFcuQep https://t.co/AMFmxwiZL2 https://t.co/19eNcXHYHX https://t.co/7nlresqrvg https://t.co/oFsualP5FK
@KatarinaJenko @ZigaMalek Psihiater je zadevo napisal na način, da bi lahko tudi izobraženci razumeli, da so jih nategnili. Žal zaupajo WHO. Zato so v areno stopili težkokategorniki v svetu znanosti, medicine itd. in napisali serijo (peer reviewed) članko
RT @Genlearnman: Here are some interesting references för @aftonbladet to report about: Begley (2017) https://t.co/g4cCN8rWsP Johnson et a…
RT @Genlearnman: Here are some interesting references för @aftonbladet to report about: Begley (2017) https://t.co/g4cCN8rWsP Johnson et a…
Here are some interesting references för @aftonbladet to report about: Begley (2017) https://t.co/g4cCN8rWsP Johnson et al 2019 https://t.co/CZms776FAi Zeeratkar et al. 2019 https://t.co/x7xENthg5x White and Hall (2017) https://t.co/gNt24dXZkn
@LucianTritt @HappyVegan19 @CarnivoreSapien Wrong. A statement such as "Flesh gives you cancer" is the fallacy, based on weak "studies" that fail to take into account the endless factors that contribute to disease and unhealth. https://t.co/uEVnDEtgFP
@AlejandroTN7 @henri_mourant @ScepticalDoctor There is no causal evidence that red meat causes chronic disease. https://t.co/OvpUWGsfhG
@KoomikkoKivi @MarkoViinikain1 Kymmenen vuotta vanha kyselypohjainen tutkimus. Tuoreemmat katsaukset antavat toistakin näkökulmaa. Ravitsemustutkimus on melko hankala tieteen ala ja kontrolloituja sokkotutkimuksia pitkällä aikavälillä käytännössä mahdoton
@tednaut @SBakerMD I think it's the https://t.co/ogG3B3SpO4 one he's referring to but there are many. https://t.co/HdT3c2KU3j https://t.co/HWGaxt5k2X
@itsgirlalex Define "high levels" (high-income countries eat less than world average nowadays & within safe window - i.e. where statistical significance of harm is absent)? Even at highest intake, the evidence is only of low to very-low certainty. May
RT @thalesnemo: @peter_melzer @KenDBerryMD Rubbish comment ! Another dietary myth! https://t.co/yAAZftCo2p ➡️ https://t.co/8VcT4RJpAM ➡️ ht…
@peter_melzer @KenDBerryMD Rubbish comment ! Another dietary myth! https://t.co/yAAZftCo2p ➡️ https://t.co/8VcT4RJpAM ➡️ https://t.co/3Un9OmcM9J
@itsdavidramms So cook steak in grass fed butter :) https://t.co/d1U5fuhxWa https://t.co/aa9IE217Tz Many plant-based foods are lower in iodine and zinc compared to animal foods, which are already challenging to be absorbed due to antinutrients.
@anders_sorby Svak evidens for det, vil tro motsatt effekt hvis man erstatter det med ultraprossesert mat som liksom kjøttburger https://t.co/ups8FHeXPw
@RizziEmmanuel @Perrin_Cam @Green_Europe @CeliaNysss For health, no good reason to reduce red meat beyond current intake because of the (very) low certainty evidence coming out of studies claiming otherwise. Conclusion when applying the gold standard for e
RT @fleroy1974: Interesting also that THI embraces a New Age charlatan but finds it ok to criticize the scientific position of NutriRECS (a…
RT @fleroy1974: Interesting also that THI embraces a New Age charlatan but finds it ok to criticize the scientific position of NutriRECS (a…
RT @fleroy1974: Interesting also that THI embraces a New Age charlatan but finds it ok to criticize the scientific position of NutriRECS (a…
Interesting also that THI embraces a New Age charlatan but finds it ok to criticize the scientific position of NutriRECS (a consortium advocating evidence-based approaches to dietary recommendations), just because they didn't like their stance on meat. 7/n
@JTayScience @JoannaBlythman @JulianMellentin @drdairy50 @filsdeproust @helsinkiuni @KaarleHameri Having said that, some good news is that @GuyattGH received an honorary doctorates at @HelsinkiUniMed which may implicate more use of GRADE (Guyat et al. 2011
Somewhat echoing the points of the Nutri-recs group, although they took a stronger stance and recommended to not make recommendations on red meat intake https://t.co/yOTMRoa5ck
@dylanarmbruste3 @TheNutrivore @FusionProgGuy @drmatthewnagra that there are other variables at play in the red meat-CVD observations rather than dismissing the paper out of hand due to some perceived lack of rigour? Perhaps some skepticism around the weak
@ziberespazioan @JSB_saez No niego la evidencia científica, aquí tienes un análisis de 5 revisiones sistemáticas sobre el consumo de carne https://t.co/4frqNQtSTe
@SentientBlobBob @sensemakr @CarnivoreSapien This 2019 metanalysis also takes all the older and newer studies and not account and finds any associations too weak to make policy from. https://t.co/yx8wrtfn2A
@SentientBlobBob @sensemakr @CarnivoreSapien We w provided 6 metanalyses that all agree. And a seventh.. https://t.co/yx8wrtfn2A
@Tellit007 @SamaHoole Many studies to show there's little to no concern with consuming animal products (meat or fat) and LDL https://t.co/gZuj1i6TEg https://t.co/EU10ASP73H https://t.co/jOf1nJYdWu https://t.co/7JxO5vQNjx https://t.co/lbVYVog484 https://t.
RT @JuanPascual4: 11/ 4 revisiones de 122 estudios probaron un muy bajo o ningún riesgo de salud asociado con el consumo de carne roja, y l…
RT @JuanPascual4: 11/ 4 revisiones de 122 estudios probaron un muy bajo o ningún riesgo de salud asociado con el consumo de carne roja, y l…
11/ 4 revisiones de 122 estudios probaron un muy bajo o ningún riesgo de salud asociado con el consumo de carne roja, y la certeza de esos riesgos es baja a muy baja. https://t.co/0kYgC2RgdU
@Orabido0 No te creas. https://t.co/CFwhW1xGgq
@roosvonk Dit is onzin mevr. Vonk. Er bestaat helemaal geen wetenschappelijk bewijs dat het huidige consumptieniveau ongezond is. Dat is een aanname. https://t.co/xMNP8HqjyE
RT @maxlugavere: This 2019 paper was met with fierce opposition by “experts” with significant COIs. The findings of this review of randomiz…
This 2019 paper was met with fierce opposition by “experts” with significant COIs. The findings of this review of randomized controlled trials? No solid evidence to say red meat is unhealthy, nor should the public reduce their consumption of it. https://t.
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
Is red meat bad for us? Yes, if you follow junk science. Otherwise, don't worry. 🥩😁
RT @fleroy1974: Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown…
Regardless of heme iron, what's the evidence linking red meat to disease to begin with? Well... It's (very) weak. As shown by this in-depth analysis using the state-of-the-art GRADE methodology: https://t.co/n188G7T24z
@bmhalvarsson @evaangenete @martin_rutegard @JacobGudiol Här kommer rapporten dock inte från FN 🤦♂️ som jag skrev innan Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recommendations (NutriRECS
@Landwirt007 @EichstadtTilman @SebastianLakner @EUAgri data is weak Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the Nutritional Recomme… https://t.co/aMGa67q017
@Malnutridos @gemagoldie La postura de la OMS es esa. Pero (como suele pasar con los temas complejos) hay análisis discrepantes (conflictos de interés aparte) https://t.co/SPJfGMIKma Y el mayor estudio observacional que apoya la postura de la OMS tiene cur
@PieterseMarc @huismuizen @VarkensTweet @DeSpeld Verkeerde link...hier is degene die ik wilde posten: https://t.co/FD5dPhZNip
@Karl_Lauterbach @fokus_fleisch @dge_wissen Tatsächlich empfiehlt eine Studie (https://t.co/m1ppYOtlIo), an der Meerpohl mitgewirkt hat, ein Beibehalten des bisherigen Fleischkonsums – aber nicht, weil gesundheitliche Risiken widerlegt sind, sondern: siehe
The studies benenefits of #ASF on health: Itkonen et al. 2021: https://t.co/ewfgGFGgJx Johnston et al. 2019: https://t.co/I4uEtJtR2u Ylilauri et al. 2019: https://t.co/mwsQHqBT4y Dehghan et al. 2018: https://t.co/TGrxi2r271
@Natts26469814 @JayneReesBuxton @hollharl @thismorning There are no proven links between eating meat and bowel cancer: https://t.co/ObxYnmZpps
@dutchyankee2 @NutritionDanny @DiscoStew66 I thought you didn't like mechanistic conclusions? Obviously it's OK to do that when it fits your bias? This is a very thorough analysis. Maybe try reading real science rather than being like a broken record. ht
In this blog, Dr. Raulca Mateescu talks about the importance of red meat in our diets as well as the effects of red meat on our health! Use this link to read more: https://t.co/po12aKoNuX Use this link to read the article published about recommendations:
@NZStuff @CcileJourno A recent large metaanalysis of studies on potential harms of eating red meat found virtually no evidence of any link between red meat and cancer. Annals of Internal Medicine: https://t.co/DYSIcpnazC
@deux_deu @hakanalpaslans @belaettiler Bu tam doğru değil. 2019’daki bir araştırma bu bulguların kanıtlarının zayıf ve hiç olmadığını söylüyorsun. https://t.co/3hJlcEStXd https://t.co/YfyZF3d5xU
RT @LuisFernandoGm6: Esta revisión no encontró, entre otros hallazgos, evidencia convincente acerca de los beneficios directos para la salu…
RT @GuyattGH: Our vilified #guideline proposing people continue with current meat consumption based on inference about #valuesandpreference…
RT @GuyattGH: Our vilified #guideline proposing people continue with current meat consumption based on inference about #valuesandpreference…
RT @GuyattGH: Our vilified #guideline proposing people continue with current meat consumption based on inference about #valuesandpreference…