Correct, not only is it correlational, to say that it proves meat doesn't cause cancer is rather odd. It's one tiny study, researching a culture that consumes meat in a way much different than we do. The problem I have with this argument is they always only cite a study debunking one of your claims. Even if meat protected against cancer risk, it's ability to cause atherosclerosis like no other would still stop me from consuming it, not to mention the ethical implications of doing so. When looking at epidemiological and cohort studies, 25,000 is nothing.Animus wrote:Oh my god sorry, the wrong link ended up in my clipboard...
It was supposed to be this one: http://m.ajcn.nutrition.org/content/ear ... 2638.short
So as far as I can tell that's just purely correlational, right? Is such a dietary study completely useless since it's not based on a randomized controlled trial? I wonder what possible explanations there are for this result. Maybe it's because they eat less red and processed meat, but I would still expect the mortality rate to go up as total meat consumption increases.
Also, you missed one thing right at the beginning... :/ "Total or red meat intake has been shown to be associated with a higher risk of mortality in Western populations" This is a mediocre study, interesting as it may be.