News

I'm not a nutritional epidemiologist.

But I've started to get into learning about it in the last few months.

It's really starting to feel like this is a giant bullshit field, and as much as they are trying to find useful results, there's something severely wrong with how they seem to arbitrarily assign causality and correlation.

In a contrived example: "People who live near power lines have more cancer" - "No, poor people live near power lines because they're poor, and poor people have more cancer"

What are the kind of people that eat processed hot dogs? I can promise you they are not millionaires. I can promise you it's not people who can afford filet mignon but decide to have a steamed hot dog. It's not people who work out and take care of their bodies. It's not people who cook.

So when a study is done like this, what answer are you actually getting? probably finding out that the type of people who eat processed meat are more prone to these conditions for a variety of considerations that are just totally left out of the analysis.

Im so screwed.

So I have to eat raw meat?

7% increase of an already small chance in exchange for 1 hotdog/day doesn't sound that bad to me.

It’s also important to note that the studies included in the analysis were observational, meaning that the data can only show an association between eating habits and disease –– not prove that what people ate caused the disease

Considering humans have been eating processed meats like these for centuries, I think I’ll take my chances.

as little as one hot dog a day

That still seems like a lot to me.

Everyone who has ever eaten a hot dog will die

"As little as one hot dog a day", doesn't really strike me as a great example of a "small" amount of processed meat. I'd generally say I ate a lot of something if I had it literally on a daily basis.

Dang, you mean to tell me that animal refuse blended into mush and saturated with salt is bad for us?!

...and what do they say about just plain meat, I wonder? 🤔

Let's begin by reading the article, and noting this key sentence: "“Habitual consumption of even small amounts of processed meat, sugary drinks, and trans fatty acids is linked to increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease and colorectal cancer,” said lead author of the study, Dr. Demewoz Haile, a research scientist at the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation in Seattle. "

Health effects associated with consumption of processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages and trans fatty acids: a Burden of Proof study https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03775-8#author-information

Abstract

Previous research suggests detrimental health effects associated with consuming processed foods, including processed meats, sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and trans fatty acids (TFAs). However, systematic characterization of the dose–response relationships between these foods and health outcomes is limited. Here, using Burden of Proof meta-regression methods, we evaluated the associations between processed meat, SSBs and TFAs and three chronic diseases: type 2 diabetes, ischemic heart disease (IHD) and colorectal cancer. We conservatively estimated that—relative to zero consumption—consuming processed meat (at 0.6–57 g d−1) was associated with at least an 11% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 7% (at 0.78–55 g d−1) increase in colorectal cancer risk. SSB intake (at 1.5–390 g d−1) was associated with at least an 8% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 2% (at 0–365 g d−1) increase in IHD risk. TFA consumption (at 0.25–2.56% of daily energy intake) was associated with at least a 3% average increase in IHD risk. These associations each received two-star ratings reflecting weak relationships or inconsistent input evidence, highlighting both the need for further research and—given the high burden of these chronic diseases—the merit of continuing to recommend limiting consumption of these foods.

Then I hit a paywall. Anyone got a ladder?