What if the health risk you’ve been warned about… wasn’t as dangerous as claimed? In this video, Dr. Eric Westman reacts to a bold new study that claims plant-based nitrates reduce mortality while naturally occurring nitrates in meat increase it. But does the science actually support the fear? And what does the size of the study really tell us about risk? Join Dr. Westman as he separates scientific fact from fiction—and exposes the statistical sleight of hand used in nutrition research. The conclusion may surprise you.
Paper discussed https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01133-5 - Source-specific nitrate intake and all-cause mortality in the Danish Diet, Cancer, and Health Study
summerizer
The summerizer doesn’t do well with debate or analysis views… lets see how wrong it gets it this time
Study Shows Nitrates In Meat Causes An Early Death!
In this video, Dr. Eric Westman critiques a recent Danish study claiming that nitrates from meat are associated with increased mortality risks. He discusses the study’s findings, methodology, and implications while emphasizing the need to understand the magnitude and relevance of reported risks. Dr. Westman also compares plant-based and animal-based nitrates and addresses misconceptions related to dietary recommendations.
Key Points
Overview of Study
The video starts with a discussion of a Danish study involving over 50,000 participants that investigated nitrates in both plant and animal foods regarding their association with various mortality risks.
Cohort Study Limitations
Dr. Westman explains the difference between cohort studies and clinical trials, arguing that the lack of randomization in cohort studies can lead to biased conclusions. He stresses that a larger sample size does not necessarily indicate a more significant effect.
Plant vs Animal Nitrates
The video contrasts the effects of plant-derived nitrates, which correlated with lower mortality rates, with animal-derived nitrates, which indicated increased mortality risks. Dr. Westman points out the bias against meat in the study’s interpretation.
Magnitude of Risk
Dr. Westman emphasizes the importance of understanding absolute versus relative risk. He critiques the way statistics are reported in the study, noting that a 19% increase in mortality from animal nitrates is not clinically significant when considering the population studied.
Healthy User Bias
The video discusses potential confounding factors, such as healthy user bias, that could influence study results. Dr. Westman argues that adjustments for various health metrics may not fully account for these biases.
Critical Review of Nutritional Claims
Dr. Westman encourages viewers to critically assess claims regarding food sources and their health effects. He concludes that the evidence presented does not warrant a shift in dietary recommendations regarding meat consumption.
Yet another epidemiology weak association cohort study. if it takes 50,000 people on a cohort study to see a small effect, it was a very small effect.
cohort adjustments do not actually adjust away bias in the data, absolute risk is still the king of informing risk and epidemiological studies always use relative risk for their endpoints.
i.e. 19% risk… is 1.19, which is very low, not significant enough for a epidemiological finding, its not clinically relevant. hypothesis generating
even if nitrates in meat where trying to kill you that’s 1 thing in meat vs all the defence chemicals in plants.
Epidemiology is about as useful as Astrology.
And nitrates are in plants too
