I've gone of my breakfast

[dieseltaylor]

Kind of depressing as I am very fond of processed meats. Looks like dried cured could make a comebak ... possibly [if I knew entirely what was involved]

(PhysOrg.com) -- In a new study, researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) have found that eating processed meat, such as bacon, sausage or processed deli meats, was associated with a 42% higher risk of heart disease and a 19% higher risk of type 2 diabetes. In contrast, the researchers did not find any higher risk of heart disease or diabetes among individuals eating unprocessed red meat, such as from beef, pork, or lamb. This work is the first systematic review and meta-analysis of the worldwide evidence for how eating unprocessed red meat and processed meat relates to risk of cardiovascular diseases and diabetes.

"Although most dietary guidelines recommend reducing meat consumption, prior individual studies have shown mixed results for relationships between meat consumption and cardiovascular diseases and diabetes," said Renata Micha, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology at HSPH and lead author of the study. "Most prior studies also did not separately consider the health effects of eating unprocessed red versus processed meats."

The study appears online May 17, 2010, on the website of the journal Circulation.

The researchers, led by Renata Micha, a research fellow in the department of epidemiology, and HSPH colleagues Dariush Mozaffarian, assistant professor in the department of epidemiology and Sarah Wallace, junior research fellow in the department of epidemiology, systematically reviewed nearly 1,600 studies. Twenty relevant studies were identified, which included a total of 1,218,380 individuals from 10 countries on four continents (United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia).

The researchers defined unprocessed red meat as any unprocessed meat from beef, lamb or pork, excluding poultry. Processed meat was defined as any meat preserved by smoking, curing or salting, or with the addition of chemical preservatives; examples include bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs or processed deli or luncheon meats. Vegetable or seafood protein sources were not evaluated in these studies.

The results showed that, on average, each 50 gram (1.8 oz) daily serving of processed meat (about 1-2 slices of deli meats or 1 hot dog) was associated with a 42% higher risk of developing heart disease and a 19% higher risk of developing diabetes. In contrast, eating unprocessed red meat was not associated with risk of developing heart disease or diabetes. Too few studies evaluated the relationship between eating meat and risk of stroke to enable the researchers to draw any conclusions.

"Although cause-and-effect cannot be proven by these types of long-term observational studies, all of these studies adjusted for other risk factors, which may have been different between people who were eating more versus less meats," said Mozaffarian. "Also, the lifestyle factors associated with eating unprocessed red meats and processed meats were similar, but only processed meats were linked to higher risk."

"When we looked at average nutrients in unprocessed red and processed meats eaten in the United States, we found that they contained similar average amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol. In contrast, processed meats contained, on average, 4 times more sodium and 50% more nitrate preservatives," said Micha. "This suggests that differences in salt and preservatives, rather than fats, might explain the higher risk of heart disease and diabetes seen with processed meats, but not with unprocessed red meats."

Dietary sodium (salt) is known to increase blood pressure, a strong risk factor for heart disease. In animal experiments, nitrate preservatives can promote atherosclerosis and reduce glucose tolerance, effects which could increase risk of heart disease and diabetes.

Given the differences in health risks seen with eating processed meats versus unprocessed red meats, these findings suggest that these types of meats should be studied separately in future research for health effects, including cancer, the authors said. For example, higher intake of total meat and processed meat has been associated with higher risk of colorectal cancer, but unprocessed red meat has not been separately evaluated. They also suggest that more research is needed into which factors (especially salt and other preservatives) in meats are most important for health effects.

Current efforts to update the United States government's Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which are often a reference for other countries around the world, make these findings particularly timely, the researchers say. They recommend that dietary and policy efforts should especially focus on reducing intake of processed meat.

"To lower risk of heart attacks and diabetes, people should consider which types of meats they are eating. Processed meats such as bacon, salami, sausages, hot dogs and processed deli meats may be the most important to avoid," said Micha. "Based on our findings, eating one serving per week or less would be associated with relatively small risk."

More information: "Red and Processed Meat Consumption and Risk of Incident Coronary Heart Disease, Stroke, and Diabetes Mellitus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," Renata Micha, Sarah K. Wallace, Dariush Mozaffarian, Circulation, online May 17, 2010.

Provided by Harvard School of Public Health

http://www.physorg.com/news193319745.html

[dieseltaylor]

Just to show how diverse is the PhysOrg site there is also this thought provking article:

http://www.physorg.com/news193337917.html

"The typical taxpayer with $5 million of income received almost half of it from capital gains and qualified dividends, which are taxed at a lower 15 percent rate," writes Brown. "That is why their tax rate is 23 percent.

"The Obamas, however, had a negligible amount (less than $2,500) of income subject to the 15 percent rate, with the rest of their income subject to the maximum 35 percent rate. That is why their tax rate was 32 percent."

Brown says the Obamas are not alone in being taxed too much. "Most of us do not benefit greatly from the 15 percent rate" of taxation on capital gains, she writes. Most people with incomes between $50,000 and $100,000 have no more than 3 percent of their income from capital gains, she says, and taxpayers in the $100,000-$200,000 income bracket have no more than 6 percent of income from capital gains.

"Should someone who receives $5 million in royalties from a book he worked long and hard to write and get published pay taxes at a higher rate than someone who receives $5 million by taking her stockbroker's advice in deciding when to buy and sell stock?" asks Brown.

"Put another way, should someone who works a 40-hour week and is busy trying to raise a family pay more in taxes than someone who never gets out of bed but earns the same money from going to the mailbox and getting a dividend check (or just going to the computer and checking their account online)?" Brown asks.

"All income should be taxed the same," she argues. "No type of income should get preferential treatment."

[hoolaman]

Salt, saturated fat. Kind of obvious really.

[dieseltaylor]

It was the percentage increses that I was shocked at!

Ok much less obvious

The Loma Linda University researchers investigated data from 25 international nut consumption trials involving 583 women and men with high cholesterol or normal cholesterol levels. Each study compared a control group of research subjects to a group assigned to specifically eat nuts regularly. None of the study participants took cholesterol lowering drugs such as Big Pharma's widely prescribed statins.

On average, the people in the trials who ate about 67 grams (approximately 2.4 ounces) of nuts each day had an overall reduction in total cholesterol levels of 5.1 percent. Even more important, there was a 7.4 percent drop in low-density lipoprotein (LDL), which is known as the "bad" cholesterol, and a significant 8.3 percent change in the ratio of LDL cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein (HDL), the "good" cholesterol that protects from heart disease.

The news got even better when the scientists looked at the effect of nut consumption on high levels of triglycerides in the bloodstream. These blood fats, when excessive, are known to contribute to the development of heart disease, stroke and peripheral vascular disease; triglycerides may play a role in the development of type 2 diabetes, too. The Archives of Internal Medicine report showed that eating nuts didn't change healthy levels of triglycerides in the body. However, in people with high levels, a diet rich in nuts caused triglyceride levels to take a 10.2 percent nosedive.

http://www.naturalnews.com/028831_natural_health_technology_renewable_energy.html

[Michael Emrys]

DT, did you see anything in that report that specified which nuts they were eating? Or does it not make a difference? And what about things like sunflower seeds?

Michael

[flamingknives]

Is this one of those studies where a an increase from 0.0001% to 0.000142% constitutes the 42% increase? The sort where the increase could be a statistical anomaly?

The NHS:

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/05May/Pages/processed-meat-and-heart-disease-risk.aspx

As it stands, this well-conducted study shows an association between eating processed meat and an increased risk of heart disease and diabetes. However, it is still not certain whether this increased risk is actually caused by particular components of processed meat, or if it is due to other dietary or lifestyle factors that are associated with higher consumption of processed meats. Further research will need to address this question.

[Stalins Organ]

Haven't we had enough propaganda over the last few years to know that processed anything is not as good as "natural" anything? Cheese, meat, flour.....

Salt in meat is bad for you - whodathunk that!

Mind you 2.4 ounces of nuts is a lot of nuts - I have a little bag of mixed nuts & seeds in my drawer at work for munching on during the day to replace hte chocolate I'd really like.....2 ounces is probably more than I'd eat "grazing".

[dieseltaylor]

ME

Pistachios were the nuts.

[Michael Emrys]

ME

Pistachios were the nuts.

Thanks. So we don't know yet what the results of the test would have been with some other kind of nut or mixed nuts? One thing I am thinking is that some nuts are higher in fats than pistachios.

Michael