Latest / Common Sense Health / Misleading Nutrition 'Science'
Transcript
- Stephen Thomas BSc. Hons: Hello and welcome to another chat. This is a response to a New York Times article and also a summary of a plant protein study. ⁓ We can talk about red meat, the villain that we've been told is lurking in every sausage, steak and burger, and it's ready to clog our arteries with every bite. And now in the latest plot twist from a food drama series no one asked for, plant protein has swooped in wearing its spinach caped superhero costume to save the day. Or at least that's the tale spun by certain studies and occasional overly earnest nutrition articles that shan't be named. But am looking at you the New York Times. But hold on, the plot thickens. When you realize the battle between plant protein and red meat is less real life brawl and more hand wavy, what if scenarios? No stakes were sacrificed in the making of this hypothetical drama. It's all thought experiment theatre. So. Grab a fork and let's dig into why the meat vs plant debate might just be a thinly sliced case of selective science served with a side of bias. What am I waffling on about? Let me begin. Well, the New York Times published an article last year that appears heavily biased in highlighting conflicts of interest only in studies that suggest red meat may not be as harmful as traditionally predicted or depicted. Similar conflicts of interest are prevalent in studies supporting plant-based diets, but these are not given comparable scrutiny. And I'm going to go through my response to a summary of a plant-based or plant protein study and a detailed critique will be happening here, focusing on the misuse of relative risks, confounders and biases. So the New York Times article does have biases and it has its frames of concern selectively focused on conflicts of interest. The article emphasizes how red meat appears healthier in studies that are funded by the meat industry, but ignores similar funding sources behind many plant-based studies. For example, studies promoting plant-based diets often receive funding from organizations with vested interests in plant-based products, including companies, for instance, producing soy products or soy supplements and processed vegetarian foods. But by implying that financial conflicts are predominantly a meat industry issue, the article neglects the broader issue of funding biases in scientific research, in nutrition science. And then we get into weak associations misrepresented as cause and effect. And there are statements such as, we've long known that eating saturated fats, which are abundant in red meat, have been associated with cardiovascular disease. So there they're conflating correlation with causation and the world known is misleading. It implies definite proof. While the evidence for saturated fat causing heart disease remains contested. Similarly, claims about plant protein reducing cardiovascular risk are largely based on relative risks, hazard ratios in the studies. They are not particularly pronounced and may be influenced by confounders like lifestyle differences. There's always flawed logic and inconsistencies and the nuances are always overlooked. So this article fails to note that most large-scale epidemiological studies, including some that favor plant-based diets, are observational in nature. These studies cannot effectively demonstrate causation due to confounding factors like social economic status, physical activity, smoking habits, and just simple overall diet quality. So here we're seeing some potential double standards. If it is concerning that meat industry funding affects conclusions, why is it not equally concerning when plant based studies receive substantial support from groups or commercial entities that, for example, support the soy industry? And the soy industry has been implicated in funding nutritional studies that highlight benefits of soy protein while dismissing the risks of processed soy products. The plant protein study had some key findings, not my findings, not my beliefs. This is what they said. The study was entitled, Association of animal and plant protein intake with all cause and cause specific mortality in a Japanese cohort. And it presented the following main conclusions. When it looked at plant protein, it said that higher intake of plant protein was associated with lower all cause mortality. The HR for that was 0.87. and cardiovascular disease related mortality was also improved and that was 0.73. They said that substituting 3 % of energy from plant protein for red meat protein reduced total mortality. It reduced cancer related mortality and cardiovascular disease related mortality. To put another way, and I quote from the study, furthermore, our study showed that substitution of 3 % energy of plant protein instead of red meat protein would result in an absolute risk reduction of overall mortality of 15 years of 3.6 percent. We'll come back to that, the way. Then it came to animal protein. said no significant association was found between animal protein intake and all cause or cause specific mortality. However, red and protein meat intakes were associated with higher risks when consumed instead of plant proteins. So then we come to the limitations. One of the things is called residual confounding. The study adjusted for confounders like physical activity, smoking, caloric intake, but confounding due to unmeasured variables such as overall diet quality, they remained. So plant protein consumption was associated with so-called healthier eating patterns, e.g. if you ate more vegetables and soy foods, which may independently reduce the mortality risks. There is also healthy use of bias to consider. We'll come back to that later. So they also looked at relative risk rather than absolute risk. They report hazard ratios like zero point six six, which can sound impactful, but these represent relative, not absolute risk reductions. The absolute risk differences, e.g. three point six percent reduction over 15 years of really modest. For example, replacing three percent of energy from red meat with plant protein would hypothetically reduce overall mortality by 3.6 % over 15 years, a small difference in practical terms. And I will give you the practical details at the end of this YouTube. So observational design was another thing that the studies have inherently problematic because it can't establish causation. It relies on participants self-reported eating behaviors, which are subject to recall bias and inaccuracies. I can't remember my breakfast two weeks ago, for instance. The plant protein benefits could partially arise from behaviors associated with healthier lifestyles. So when you go to eat plants, you also do less smoking and drink less alcohol and you start moving more because you're thinking overall about your health. And you can't overgeneralize a study that's conducted in Japan where dietary patterns emphasize nutrient diversity anyway, and they eat a lot more fish, they eat a lot more red meat. The findings cannot be generalized to populations with Western eating habits. So there's a lot of counter arguments against the New York Times claims, the relative risk and the causation misused, saturated fat and cardiovascular disease assumptions, all of those things. And many new meta-analyses and randomized trials, e.g. the PURE study, suggest no consistent relationship between saturated fat consumption and heart disease when confounders, like refined carbohydrate intake, are controlled. Yep. Public health messaging informed by weak epidemiological associations continues to demonize red meat largely to influence the dietary norms of everybody. They're putting you off basically high meat diets. So the conflicts of interest in plant based research is something you can see evidently. ⁓ A 2019 systemic ⁓ systematic review on plant based diets funded by plant protein advocacy groups like the soy industry. emphasised benefits while minimising concerns about anti-nutrients or processing. And multiple epidemiological studies promoting soy products, promoted cardiovascular benefits, they received direct funding or consultancy support from soy product manufacturers. So we're looking at a selection bias in this narrative. By mentioning only meat back studies as distorted by funding, the article avoids a fair critique of the halo effect. frequently attributed to plant-based diets within specific journals and the media. see it all the time. It paints plant proteins as inherently virtuous, despite similar limitations like the observational methodologies that we just mentioned. The portrayal of saturated fats as consistently linked to health risks disregards the growing evidence that challenges this narrative. Studies with conflicts favoring the plant-based diets, I can give you a few examples. So soy protein claims that cardiovascular disease reduction happens. We saw that in the American Heart Association. They once endorsed soy protein benefits for heart health. However, they did later retract these reviews and get rid of these endorsements because of the support from the soy product manufacturers and saying that they were influencing the data and the collection of the data and the framing. You've also got Eat Lancet, of course, the 2019 Eat Lancet diet promoting plant-based diets and the sustainable eating had heavy backing by substantially large organizations in the plant-based groups. Critics point out there was very strong biases toward plant inclusivity in the dietary recommendations. And then we get to hypothetical swaps. Looking at the Japanese cohort study that suggests swapping 3 % of your daily energy from red meat protein to plant protein, this could theoretically reduce your total mortality risk by 3.6 % over 15 years. It's entirely hypothetical. No actual participants in the study were instructed to ditch burgers for beans or trade stakes for tofu. Researchers simply ran statistical models estimating what might happen if such substitutions were made. So before anyone panics and starts doing meal makeovers at three in the morning, rest assured this whole idea of replacing red meat with plant protein exists solely in the realm of spreadsheets and statistical extrapolation. And it is a tiny impact anyway, that 3.6 % reduction in total mortality over 15 years. Although that might sound promising, it isn't when you break it down. If you had a room full of a thousand people, and they live their lives on plant proteins instead of red meat for the next decade and a half, only 36 fewer people might theoretically buy their celestial ticket earlier than expected. That's fewer than the number of people you'd find standing in a line for brunch at a trendy vegan cafe. So it's not exactly a game changer. A thousand people, only 36 over 15 years. So that's why we need to look at absolute risks rather than relative. So while some studies claim plant proteins may have benefits in the context of an overall dietary pattern and lifestyle. The biases present in both plant-based and meat-based research must be equally scrutinized. Observational data does not reliably establish causation, and absolute effect sizes are often overhyped in media narratives like the New York Times article. The article fails to hold plant-based studies to the same standard of critical review, creating an uneven portrayal that favors one dietary over ideology over another. So what's the takeaway? Well, no one in this Japanese cohort study actually swapped steak for soy or bacon for lentils. The findings were purely hypothetical based on statistical models predicting risks, not on food diaries filled with plant to animal protein substitutions. It's like running computer simulations to see how your life might improve if you spent 3 % of your calorie budget on kale instead of cookies. Interesting in theory, maybe, but it doesn't mean you've handed over your Oreos in real life. And as for the New York Times article, they just say it's a lot of sizzling drama for what might just be vegetarian sausage dressed up as beef. Now, if this article and me reading it on YouTube has got your carnivorous neurons firing and you want to be part of a community that actually questions the narrative, applies common sense and doesn't flinch at a well seasoned rib eye. And why not come and join us at the Common Sense Carnivore Community online. It's packed with like-minded people who are done being lectured by spreadsheets dressed up as science. No plant-based agenda, no hand-ringing about saturated fat, just real people, real food and real results. And you can join the community with the link that's in the description to the video, or you can go to my sub stack and see a direct link there as well. Some of the studies are also linked in the sub stack article. If you want a more personalized conversation about your health results or blood results or dietary approach, you can book a one-to-one consultation with me directly. Then you can do that at the UK carnivore coach.com or the ukcarnivore.com forward slash booking. So until next time, keep it real, keep it animal based. And remember if the New York times says it'll kill you, it's probably delicious.