/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>16448176
Yeah sure I'll clarify. They weren't all "debunked" per se but these studies that claim an increase of risk in say cancer from red meat consumption are observational studies. What that means is that they can only show associations not causation except perhaps in extreme cases link cigarettes and lung cancer where the effect size is huge. We also know that most "associations" 80-100% from observational studies turn out wrong when tested in clinical trials. Here is one such example with colorectal cancer.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11522565/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7730878/

"After polypectomy for adenomatous colorectal polyps, 201 persons were randomized to receive counselling on a diet low in fat (the lesser of 50 g/day or 20% of energy) and high in fibre (50 g/day) (LFHF), or to follow a normal western diet (ND), high in fat and low in fibre. After 12 months of counselling, fat consumption was about 25% of energy in the LFHF group and 33% in the ND group; fibre consumption was 35 g and 16 g respectively. After an average of two years of follow-up, an intention to treat analysis led to a ratio of cumulative incidence rates of 1.2 (95% CL 0.6-2.2) for recurrence of neoplastic polyps, a finding which suggests no significant difference between dietary groups over the period of observation."