this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
133 points (94.0% liked)

Science

13686 readers
241 users here now

Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage


founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

N=133,000 over 40 year time period

Observational study so limitations may apply but the findings do hold after adjusting for a large list of factors I will quote here:

educational attainments, family history of dementia, menopausal status with hormone use status, total energy intake, regular antidepressant drug use, history of depression, BMI, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, neighborhood SES [socioeconomic status], marital status, living arrangement, smoking status, histories of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia and intakes of sugar-sweetened beverages, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts and legumes, low-fat dairy products, high-fat dairy products, and alcohol

all 29 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] PanArab@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

processed

Thank goodness I never found processed meat appealing or appetizing.

This is my idea of red meat.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 3 points 46 minutes ago

They also found associations with unprocessed red meats too

Unprocessed red meat intake of ≥1.00 serving per day, compared with <0.50 serving per day, was associated with a 16% higher risk of SCD [subjective cognitive decline] (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03–1.30; plinearity = 0.04).

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 6 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210286

I don't have time to dive into this paper myself yet. Has anyone else been able to and can give a quick summary of that they did to infer the causal relationship from observational data?

Edit: Aaah, I don't have access to the paper. I guess this isn't happening.

[–] AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

I can't actually access the full paper (either via university access, or Anna's Archive/sciDB), so I can't comment on specifics, but their extended abstract mentions that that they used "Cox proportional hazards models, general linear regression, and Poisson regression models were applied to assess the associations between red meat intake and different cognitive outcomes."

Speaking as a biochemist (i.e. someone well versed in reading scientific papers from the life sciences, but who does not have particular training or experience with the quite different context of clinical medicine research), it looks fairly legit, in that those statistical methods are typical of what I'd expect for something like this. That's vague, but it passes the sniff test, I suppose.

I was initially dubious of the journal/research on the basis of being unable to access the paper (and not knowing anything of this journal), but I feel comfortable in dismissing those concerns after have a wee gander at the journal itself (it seems fairly prominent and well respected). Having not read the paper (nor being familiar with this specific area of research), I am far less able to judge the paper itself, but at least it's not a case of dismissing the research outright because of the journal being sus.

Without knowing your background, it's hard to gauge whether this explainer on some of the stats methods mentioned above would be appreciated, but here you go, just in case.

[–] howrar@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 hours ago

Thanks, I appreciate the link. I'm a scientist by trade too, but not in a field where hazard ratios would be part of my repertoire.

My concern is not so much the quality of the publisher (though it's nice to know) or whether they used methods that are standard for these kinds of studies, but rather whether the general public is coming to the correct conclusions given what the researchers did.

So based on just this little excerpt, it seems that there's no casual relationship being established at all. They don't seem to claim any casual relationship either. On the other hand, the psypost article talks about it as if they did.

[–] SkaveRat@discuss.tchncs.de 14 points 19 hours ago

that's why I always brown it first

/s

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 42 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

Yet another reason to shift to more veganism.

[–] jol@discuss.tchncs.de 32 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

People really need more whole plant foods in their diets.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 38 points 23 hours ago

From a health perspective, economic perspective, climate perspective, and ethical perspective.

[–] Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

Stupid question - are whole plant foods just fruit and veggies and nuts, or is it also stuff like nut milks, chickpea pasta, etc?

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 8 points 10 hours ago

When people say "whole" they're referring to virtually any plant food that's in it's whole, ideally intact, form. For example in descending order:

  1. Farro is a whole grain. It's a type of wheat, and it's whole because all parts of the grain are still there - the bran, germ, and endosperm. This is the ideal kind of grain to eat - whole and intact.
  2. Whole wheat noodles are still a whole grain, but a bit less so because although all parts of the grain are still in it, it's been broken down and reconstituted into a new form. The structure of plant foods in and of itself has health impacts.
  3. Whole wheat bread is still a whole grain, but quality can vary greatly depending on the ingredients and ways it gets processed. The vast majority of "whole wheat bread" is honestly dubious at best. Even more, since bread is less compressed than noodles, it digests more rapidly, and takes on properties that start to resemble refined grains more.
  4. Refined grains. Think white rice, white bread. Low fiber, low phytonutrients. These foods digest rapidly, lack important nutrients, and have a high glycemic load (high blood sugar spikes).

Chickpea pasta would be comparable to number two on this list, so not bad. Store bought plant milks are not whole foods because the plant solids have been strained out. If you were to make a plant milk by, say, blending whole soy beans or almonds in water, that would be a whole food.

[–] Zoldyck@lemmy.world 20 points 22 hours ago
[–] chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 17 hours ago

My reason for cutting red meat out of my diet was that it's expensive, glad there's other reasons it's a good choice too

[–] LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world 2 points 14 hours ago

Kinda glad my body decided to just stop digesting beef a few years ago. I'm learning so much about what I can be potentially avoiding by not being able to consume it. Beef just sits in my stomach for an absurdly long time. So I don't eat it. I have mostly fish as my animal protein, but substitute with plant based proteins and sometimes chicken to avoid too much mercury. I eat pork on occasion but it isn't my favorite. I tried going vegetarian and vegan a couple of times and my already poor health declined. Now I do whatever it is that I do lol. I just eat what I like and what I know is good for my specific health conditions.

[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 12 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

I dont wanna remember shit anyway

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 5 points 22 hours ago (1 children)
[–] DeadWorld@lemm.ee 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Huh? Put what in writing? I'm eating smoked ham

[–] dumnezero@piefed.social 1 points 51 minutes ago

Put it in writing for your family, friends, lawyer, so that they know what retirement strategy to pick.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 4 points 18 hours ago

Starting to feel like that's a serendipitous feature.

[–] SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml -1 points 11 hours ago (3 children)

I find it hard to believe they can adjust meaningfully for that many variables. No mention of obesity, which is likely the real issue here, in the article. It feels like there is a study "proving" a link to some different thing to cognitive decline seemingly every month.

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 11 points 10 hours ago

They have a large data set, you can adjust for a lot more when your sample size is 133,000

No mention of obesity

They account for BMI as mentioned in what I quoted

[–] AnimalsDream@slrpnk.net 10 points 10 hours ago

It's from two of the largest, most rigorous cohorts in the country. I am definitely going to trust this science over the flippant comment of an internet rando anyday.

https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210286

[–] solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Hmmm, I wonder if they're conflating processed foods and red meat again?

Yep:

Eating processed red meat (such as sausages, bacon, hotdogs and salami) was linked to a 16% higher risk of dementia and a faster rate of cognitive ageing. Eating about two servings of processed red meat a week raised the risk of dementia by 14% compared with those who ate less than about three servings a month. (A serving is a piece of meat roughly the size of a deck of playing cards – around 85g.)

If people substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts, tofu or beans, they could reduce their dementia risk by 19%, the study found.

A review of studies, published in 2023, found that people who ate lots of ultra-processed foods (of all kinds – not just processed meats) had a 44% higher risk of dementia

[–] usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.ml 30 points 22 hours ago

No, they also found associations with unprocessed red meats too

Unprocessed red meat intake of ≥1.00 serving per day, compared with <0.50 serving per day, was associated with a 16% higher risk of SCD [subjective cognitive decline] (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03–1.30; plinearity = 0.04).

[–] MedicPigBabySaver@lemmy.world -3 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Fuck it. I'm having an A5 Wagyu soon, as a bday treat.

[–] pastermil@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 hours ago

Hell yeah! Dry-aged to perfection!