Pointless University Research
Just seen news of a Cambridge University report which made BBC headlines. If you eat 2 slices of ham every day for 10 years, your chances of developing diabetes increases by 15%. I looked up the risk of diabetes for normal healthy individuals and it is 1 in 100. So for the cohort of imaginary people who eat 15kg of ham every year for 10 years the risk means 1.15 of that cohort in every 100 would likel develop diabetes.
Reinforces the misguided ides of many healthy eaters that you can’t consume too much of food, that in minute doses, promotes good health and can’t take too little of anything that taken in massive doses is harmful.
There was the publicised case of a 41 year-old health fanatic who consumed 8 pints of carrot juice a day over 10 days and died of vitamin A poisoning. On the same grounds that consumers seek a variety of free-from food, why don’t we have carrot-free imitation carrots?
Also why don’t we have the much more useful research into how much carrot juice you need to consume over a few months before it kills you rather than how much ham over ten years can give you diabetes?
The reason is, there isn't a commercial interest, like manufacturers of imitation ham, that would be served by funding it.
Comments
-
I think it's important to understand the long term impacts certain foods can have on your health. I think they've maybe picked ham as it's processed red meat and to be fair regularly consumed by many. Whilst the headline is clickbait, many people are at a higher risk of diabetes so a 15% increase can be a bit more signifcant. It's not the most useful research in the world but serves a point.
As for carrots, you can easily find online how many carrots you need to eat before the toxicity levels are too high.3 -
‘Ham’ is part of the carcass of a dead pig so I believe.
Eating that may or may not be good for you, but I don’t think it is good for the animal.4 -
It's probably the reason the pig existed in the first place.seth plum said:‘Ham’ is part of the carcass of a dead pig so I believe.
Eating that may or may not be good for you, but I don’t think it is good for the animal.3 -
eh? I think that rather demeans another sentient creature.BrentfordAddick said:
It's probably the reason the pig existed in the first place.seth plum said:‘Ham’ is part of the carcass of a dead pig so I believe.
Eating that may or may not be good for you, but I don’t think it is good for the animal.1 -
Well they shouldn’t be so bloody tasty thenseth plum said:‘Ham’ is part of the carcass of a dead pig so I believe.
Eating that may or may not be good for you, but I don’t think it is good for the animal.1 -
But it's bloody delicious so who cares.seth plum said:‘Ham’ is part of the carcass of a dead pig so I believe.
Eating that may or may not be good for you, but I don’t think it is good for the animal.0 -
Dont smokeDont drinkEat healthilyExercise regularlyDie anyway6
-
You forgot to sayIdleHans said:Dont smokeDont drinkEat healthilyExercise regularlyDie anyway
Don’t watch Charlton!0 - Sponsored links:
-
I thought this was a topic on Pointless.0
-
If God wanted us to be vegetarian, why did he make animals out of food?seth plum said:‘Ham’ is part of the carcass of a dead pig so I believe.
Eating that may or may not be good for you, but I don’t think it is good for the animal.1 -
You are six times more likely to develop diabetes if you are overweight. A 15% increase in the risk of developing diabetes is not a news worthy item unless you intend to eat ham every day for ten years.follett said:I think it's important to understand the long term impacts certain foods can have on your health. I think they've maybe picked ham as it's processed red meat and to be fair regularly consumed by many. Whilst the headline is clickbait, many people are at a higher risk of diabetes so a 15% increase can be a bit more signifcant. It's not the most useful research in the world but serves a point.
As for carrots, you can easily find online how many carrots you need to eat before the toxicity levels are too high.
The real issue is academics justifying their existence by conducting pointless research at the behest of commercial interests to influence consumer choice based on statistically insignificant findings.
1 -
-
The problem is often not that the research is pointless but that the press headlines, and often the text too, takes one element of that research and sensationalises it.
So you get "Eating food kills you" say scientists;100% of food eaters die" when the actual research is often telling a different and more nuanced and factual tale.
Although some research is poorly done more often it is poorly reported.4 -
If they are doing it for commercial purposes, then surely the customers are paying for the research? If this subsidises "proper" research, personally I don't have a problem with it.Dippenhall said:
You are six times more likely to develop diabetes if you are overweight. A 15% increase in the risk of developing diabetes is not a news worthy item unless you intend to eat ham every day for ten years.follett said:I think it's important to understand the long term impacts certain foods can have on your health. I think they've maybe picked ham as it's processed red meat and to be fair regularly consumed by many. Whilst the headline is clickbait, many people are at a higher risk of diabetes so a 15% increase can be a bit more signifcant. It's not the most useful research in the world but serves a point.
As for carrots, you can easily find online how many carrots you need to eat before the toxicity levels are too high.
The real issue is academics justifying their existence by conducting pointless research at the behest of commercial interests to influence consumer choice based on statistically insignificant findings.0
