|WikiProject Food and drink||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
Dark meat ?
"Dark meat", in the context of chicken, redirects here.
However, it seems to me, "dark meat" in chickens, which seems to be mostly an American obsession, has nothing in common with meat like beef.
addition of 2011 ref cited by IARC
User:Tronvillain in this diff you added PMID 21674008 and content based on it, leveraging the referencing of that study in the Lancet Oncology paper. PMID 21674008 is actually an OK ref - a meta-analysis - and we could cite it is on its own, but a) it is right on the edge of being outdated per MEDDATE and b) it is already summarized in the Lancet Oncology paper. So on both counts we don't need to use it.
Also, the journal citation template has a "pmid" field that autoformats a link to the pubmed abstract in a a ref (just like the wiki software autoformats a link to the abstract if you just type (nowikified) PMID 21674008 as I did above. There is never a need to include the pubmed url in a ref; just adds clutter. Jytdog (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
also, the actual IRC monograph should publish next year -- IARC has about a two year lag between when they finish a monograph and announce it with a press release and a summary in Lancet Oncology, and when they publish it. Monographs are here and we should check from time to time so we can cite it when it publishes; this one is #114 and as of now they have posted 113, so this one is next. Jytdog (talk) 17:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- The article currently says finding that with each additional 100g of red meat consumed per day, the risk of colorectal cancer increased by 17%, while the IARC article says A meta-analysis of colorectal cancer in ten cohort studies reported a statistically significant dose–response relationship, with a 17% increased risk (95% CI 1·05–1·31) per 100 g per day of red meat", which is the meta-analysis I added. I understand wanting to summarize and avoid plagiarism, but doing so has made the text extremely misleading, implying that risk increases linearly indefinitely ("200 g per day must be a 34% increase in risk), when the meta-analysis the IARC are directly referring to says that the risk plateaus at ~140g/day. Our summary of their summary has distorted the original results. It is simply not true that "with each additional 100 g of red meat consumed per day, the risk of colorectal cancer increased by 17%", because going from 100 to 200 grams per day does not cause a seventeen percent increase in risk - the 17%/100g/day is just the slope of the linear portion of the graph.
- As for the cite journal template, I add a url primarily because I like to be able to click on the article title for the link rather than the later PMID. So far, I don't see anything in the template documentation that says this shouldn't be done. In fact, both the useage and the examples sections show the inclusion of a URL along with a PMID, but perhaps I should be using the journal URL rather than the
- And yes, the IARC monograph will be out before too long, but I still think we can make this small piece of the article less misleading in the meantime.--tronvillain (talk) 18:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- easy thing first - the doi link points to the abstract at the journal's website. adding a url would be duplicative. i wouldn't be opposed to the url to the journal instead of the doi; it is longer and more clutter and long refs make editing more difficult than it had to be. Compact-as-possible refs are good. :) but this is all a style thing and hard to resolve.
- hm. what you are saying about the risk plateauing is indeed important. thanks so much for making your reasoning clear. I reckon the same is true on the processed meat? in any case I will self revert (and yield on the ref thing as well). Thanks for talking! Jytdog (talk)!
- Yes, it's purely a style thing - it just offends my eye to not have the title clickable. I wonder if they've considered having that happen automatically when an explicit URL isn't included but a DOI and/or PMID is? Probably, but perhaps I'll suggest it and see.
In the section "Red Meat" under "human health" there is a reference to a 2010 study with an assertion of the harmlessness of the consumption of unprocessed red meats and its link to cardiovascular disease (CVD). There is a subsequent 2012 Harvard study which took an in-depth look at the eating habits of more than 100,000 Americans for a continuous period between 1986 and 2006 specifically studying the consumption of red meat (processed and unprocessed), and the resulting mortality from red meat related diseases. The findings of the study indicate no statistical significance in the difference between processed and unprocessed red meat as related to CVD mortality. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3712342/ The question was addressed earlier about a lack of consensus of which I agree, the reports are still widely disputed as to health benefits and risks of the consumption of red meat, however I believe that section is a little lopsided and the existence of the subsequent study indicating little difference in the risk factor relating to CVD ought to be addressed on the page.
I also find no links to other pages, or any mention of methane production that results as a byproduct of the raising of animals for harvesting red meat, which itself can definitely be translated as a human health concern in its wider effects on the environment. ExpresMan (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
- Please quote here the part of the "human health" section you are discussing. Jytdog (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Hard to read
Because of the heavy use of primary sources and the lack of summary of those sources this article is hard to get the jist of. One studies says x, another study says y, and the reader is not given the tools to determine which are more reliable. The article should speak to scientific consensus and add counter studies to indicate when the consensus is not complete or changing. If there are multiple non fringe opinions on the topic both should be addressed as alternatives. But this regurgitation of raw statics without any real analysis leads to the reader self confirming there original belief. In other words this article does nothing, absolutely nothing to inform the reader.2600:1008:B11F:101F:5D03:A7D9:F472:3A01 (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
The paragraph about "Processed meat" as any relevance for the article? I imagine that the conclusions are the same if the processed meet was "red" or "white", then what this have to do specifically with "red meat"?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- Good point. Perhaps it could be moved over to Meat, though the cancer section there already seems to do a pretty good job. --tronvillain (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
- My sense is that it is relevant because processed meat includes red meat. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
The section is in there because it was segregated by me from the rest of the article. There are many studies about the dangers of processed meat and red meats as a larger group. The studies were done on the consumption of processed Meats and unprocessed red meat. The vast majority of studies work done this way therefore they cannot be excluded as they entail much of our knowledge of red meat.2600:1008:B109:2B03:B0DF:F25:2FB7:7797 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2017 (UTC)