Red meat and cancer...

Forums › Health and fitness › Red meat and cancer...

1 | 2 | 3

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221704 21-Apr-2019 12:39

Batman:
Fred99:

This wasn't a clinical "trial". It was extracted from data from a prospective cohort study with <500,000 participants.

Which is a clinical trial https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/what-clinical-trials-are/types-of-clinical-trials#cohort

Ooohh - that's getting pedantic. Can't say I agree. I think they just dumped that in their list without further definition. Clinical "study" perhaps. To me "Trial" suggests testing the effect of some intervention.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2221719 21-Apr-2019 13:21

Fred99:
Batman:
Fred99:

This wasn't a clinical "trial". It was extracted from data from a prospective cohort study with <500,000 participants.

Which is a clinical trial https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/find-a-clinical-trial/what-clinical-trials-are/types-of-clinical-trials#cohort

Ooohh - that's getting pedantic. Can't say I agree. I think they just dumped that in their list without further definition. Clinical "study" perhaps. To me "Trial" suggests testing the effect of some intervention.

I'm not being pedantic. It is what it is. Whether you agree with something that's been set in stone for a hundred years won't change the fact that they are a type of clinical trial. It's not fair on other GZers when you diss them incorrectly. From that page.

Medical research studies involving people are called clinical trials.

There are two main types of trials or studies - interventional and observational.

Interventional trials aim to find out more about a particular intervention, or treatment. People taking part are put into different treatment groups, so that the research team can compare the results.

Observational studies aim to find out what happens to people in different situations. The research team observe the people taking part, but they don’t influence what treatments people have. The people taking part aren’t put into treatment groups.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221807 21-Apr-2019 19:12

You're wrong IMO, and it's pedantic, obsessing about trivia.

Cohort studies differ from clinical trials in that no intervention, treatment, or exposure is administered to participants in a cohort design; and no control group is defined.

Maybe you should read articles before you post them:

There are two main types of trials or studies - interventional and observational.

Interventional trials aim to find out more about a particular intervention, or treatment. People taking part are put into different treatment groups, so that the research team can compare the results.

Observational studies aim to find out what happens to people in different situations. The research team observe the people taking part, but they don’t influence what treatments people have. The people taking part aren’t put into treatment groups.

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2221863 21-Apr-2019 21:19

wizard:
It's easy to get confused when reading scientific studies

I think this is an important point.

A paper is often a very carefully written, each word and sentence often has a very specific meaning to the audience that is written for.

So when a layperson (someone who has no knowledge in that field) reads and quotes them it is very easy for them to get the wrong end of the stick, or draw a conclusion that may be different from what was expected.

When I read papers, some things I look for are:-

Is it a meta study
Are the references correctly cited and easy to check
I check the references and sources (especially if the paper was cited in a news article)
I look for anonymous generalisations (scientists say, experts agree, it could be said, it was found)
Is it provable & is there a supporting study done by a different organisation
Who sponsored the study
How long was the study and how big was the sample set.
Who performed the study - were they new to the field.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2221866 21-Apr-2019 21:28

Fred99:
MikeB4:

I eat a small amount of red meat, it is a source of vitamin D which is hard to get during winter and only available from the sun during the middle of the day.

Supplements?

I believe the UK NHS now recommend supplementation of 800iu/day.

One thing we learn about in science is to ask the question why?

The other thing we learn is to check to see if something is comparable to our own situation.

I would consider, what is it about the UK that requires them to be more considerable about Vitamin D there than we are here? Is there less sun, less UV, longer winters, are people inside longer etc.

...they/their/them...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221888 21-Apr-2019 22:17

TwoSeven:
Fred99:

MikeB4:

I eat a small amount of red meat, it is a source of vitamin D which is hard to get during winter and only available from the sun during the middle of the day.

Supplements?

I believe the UK NHS now recommend supplementation of 800iu/day.

One thing we learn about in science is to ask the question why?

The other thing we learn is to check to see if something is comparable to our own situation.

I would consider, what is it about the UK that requires them to be more considerable about Vitamin D there than we are here? Is there less sun, less UV, longer winters, are people inside longer etc.

I think the main point of difference there is that they're probably just more up to date (or of course - they could have jumped the gun).

Otherwise the same should apply here.

https://www.nhs.uk/news/food-and-diet/the-new-guidelines-on-vitamin-d-what-you-need-to-know/

AFAIK, it's complicated. Epidemiological studies (including in NZ) seem to show a very high correlation between deficiency or low vitamin D levels and some health conditions (ie MS regional occurrence rates correlating to low Vit D in childhood)). Clinical trials testing for evidence that supplementation works (apart from preventing rickets) aren't so encouraging, even for conditions where it's routinely used (ie osteoporosis prevention).

OTOH, there have been all kinds of hypothesis based on epidemiological studies, and trials purporting to show other benefits.

There's a fundamental problem, Vitamin D is cheap. Research is expensive - so there's no incentive for a for-profit organisation to fund research.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#2221914 21-Apr-2019 23:10

So you wouldn’t for example that the angle of incidence of the sun may be totally different in the UK during the year, especially in the winter when it is much lower and the days much shorter

...they/their/them...

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2221930 21-Apr-2019 23:21

TwoSeven: So you wouldn’t for example that the angle of incidence of the sun may be totally different in the UK during the year, especially in the winter when it is much lower and the days much shorter

No - I would. But IIRC blood serum levels for Vit D in NZ show much the same regional (and by skin colour) geographic variation as the UK, albeit a bit better here. One factor mitigating the difference in daylight hours / angle of incidence is climate. Despite London being further North than Invercargill is South, London is warmer. I'd possibly add skin cancer awareness as another mitigating factor, because of our high incidence of melanoma, we're very sun averse. Then it starts getting extremely complicated.

1 | 2 | 3