| It seems there's another "meat-is-bad" study is making the rounds. It's unlike the others because, well, it's one of the most pathetic ones I've ever seen. Here's the actual study. According to the results... Eating red meat was significantly associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. What was the association, you might wonder? After all, "significantly" is a powerful word with a lot of heft. Significant must be, well, significant. Right? The hazard ratio of red meat consumption for all-cause mortality was 1.03. A hazard ratio of 2 would mean red meat consumption doubles your risk of all-cause mortality. A hazard ratio of 10 would mean it increases it by 1000%. A hazard ratio of 1.03 means red meat increases the risk of all-cause mortality by 3%. Three. Per. Cent. And that's not even absolute risk. That is relative risk. And "significantly" refers to statistical significance, not importance in deciding your diet and lifestyle. Besides, all the usual stuff we talk about applies here too, like healthy user bias, the buns and french fries cooked in seed oil that most people eat alongside their "red meat," the inherent inaccuracies of food frequency questionnaires. Despite all that, they still can only muster an increased risk of 3%. Nonsense. They're on the ropes, folks. Don't let up. What's the silliest bit of "nutrition science" you've come across recently? Let me know in the comments of Weekly Link Love. Take care, everyone. | 