August 2nd, 2024

Eating Processed Red Meat Linked to Increased Dementia Risk

Recent research links processed red meat consumption to a 14% higher dementia risk. Unprocessed red meat showed no significant risk increase. Experts recommend reducing ultraprocessed foods for better brain health.

Read original articleLink Icon
Eating Processed Red Meat Linked to Increased Dementia Risk

Recent research presented at the Alzheimer’s Association International Conference indicates a link between the consumption of processed red meat and an increased risk of developing dementia. The study, which followed over 130,000 adults in the U.S. for up to 43 years, found that individuals consuming about two servings of processed red meat weekly had a 14% higher risk of dementia compared to those who ate less than three servings per month. In contrast, unprocessed red meat did not show a significant increase in dementia risk, although daily consumers reported more cognitive decline.

Processed meats are categorized as ultraprocessed foods, which are prevalent in the American diet, accounting for approximately 58% of caloric intake. Previous studies have linked ultraprocessed foods to various health issues, including cognitive decline. For instance, a study in Brazil found that individuals consuming a high percentage of ultraprocessed foods experienced faster cognitive decline, while research in the UK and the U.S. reported increased dementia risk associated with higher ultraprocessed food intake.

Experts theorize that ultraprocessed foods may negatively impact brain health through mechanisms such as compromising vascular health, displacing nutritious foods, and directly damaging brain cells. While the studies indicate a correlation, they do not establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. Researchers suggest that reducing ultraprocessed food consumption and incorporating healthier options could benefit brain health, emphasizing gradual dietary changes.

Link Icon 8 comments
By @kjksf - 3 months
Sadly, this is another garbage study that you should ignore.

Why garbage? For 2 main reason.

First reason: the methodology. They way those correlation studies work is that they study large number of people (here 130k) over long period (here "up to 43 years").

They want to study "effect of X on Y". Here X is "consumption of red meat, processed or not" and Y is "dementia".

So what they do is they periodically ask "how much of X do you do". In this case apparently "how many servings of processed red meat you eat per month", "how many servings of unprocessed red meat".

Would be able to tell a precise "how many servings of processed red meat you eat per month"? Like, what is "processed meat"? What is "serving"?

If you're not taking meticulous notes you have not hope of answering this precisely, from memory. And let's face it, those 130k people are not fastidious scientists, they just answer a periodic survey that has no importance to them.

The opposite of "precise" is garbage. And garbage data leads to garbage conclusions.

Second reason: confounding of factors. No controlling for other variables. What if dementia is affected by heavy drinking, heavy smoking, drug use, lack of muscles or excessive sugar / carb intake?

What if heavy drinking is the real causation with 54% increase in dementia and the 14% correlation is purely coincidental i.e. in this particular 130k population, heavy drinkers are also eaters of processed meat?

You should ignore all those kinds of studies. They are all garbage.

There's also a general strand of anti-meat studies.

When you study "effect of eating X on bad outcome Y", then you'll find a correlation to something at some point. It's just a matter of time. The more studies you do, the more likely you'll find a spurious correlation.

Somehow the studies of "eating meat causes bad Y" get a lot of press, including landing on HN page. When was the last time you've seen a similar study for vegan diet or drinking soda or eating candy?

By @account42 - 3 months
> The results of the study have not yet been published in a journal.

So why is this here?

By @sebow - 3 months
I expect this "red meat inherently bad" paper to be rebuked faster than the previous one, which lasted quite a while. Of course even retracted if there are still people with integrity in academia.(which I'm sure exist but as a tiny minority when we're talking industries of mass consumption: tobacco, foods, pharma, etc.)
By @FrustratedMonky - 3 months
Maybe this will help explain the Vegan-Carnivore diet war.

It isn't 'all' meat that is bad.

Either Vegan or Carnivore can be good as long as they are un-processed.

You can be a junk-food vegan and unhealthy And You can eat bacon all day and be carnivore, and unhealthy.

This puts more emphasis on whole foods. Eat as close to source as possible.

By @FrustratedMonky - 2 months
dang? Why is this flagged? This doesn't seem to violate anything.
By @baggiponte - 3 months
cool article, but I need a subscription