Latest news & articles

All of us, quite often, find ourselves on the wrong end of troubling research findings.  These come from analysts, subject matter experts, and marketeers.  Such findings can lead us to change something drastically or just worry a lot.  We’re commonly not in a position to challenge how well the research behind the findings was done.  A we can’t know whether the conclusions are actually correct.  In these situations we can ask a simple question.  This question can almost always change how we decide to act on those frightening findings, and usually lower our heart rates.  Here it is:

“OK, if I assume these findings are true, what do they really mean for me?”

We can do this with zero subject matter expertise, and usually quite quickly.

Let’s do this with a recent news release from the World Health Organisation’s cancer agency, the IARC.  This release scared the bejesus out of meat eaters.

IARC Frightens Carnivores with Scary Headline

The IARC news release said that processed meat caused colorectal cancer and that red meat probably did too.  The release contained just 1 piece of data: every 50g of processed meat eaten daily increases the odds of contracting colorectal cancer by 18%.

Here are the conclusions behind the headline:

The broader conclusions, as usual, are a bit less sensational than the headline, particularly for red meat given its limited evidence of harm.  Still cause for concern though: sounds like eating not very much increases our chances of dying young by quite a lot.

OK, Let’s Ask Some Questions

So let’s check what these findings mean for us.  To do this we need to put everything in context.  What do we mean by red and processed meat?  How much is 50-100g?  And what does a 17-18% increased risk really mean?  Then we need to ask what happens if we do and don’t follow the implied advice.

Sweeping Definitions that Cause Uncertainty

Let’s get clear about what the IARC means when it says red and processed meat because those groups sound a bit broad.  Its red meat research doesn’t distinguish between a slow-cooked organically raised local lamb stew, and a minced burger that’s fried in oil, comes between 2 slices of sugar enhanced bread, and is served with fries and a cola.  Its processed meat research doesn’t distinguish between traditionally cured Serrano ham and a scotch egg.

We’ve only looked at definitions, but intuitively we’re already probably a bit less worried if we’re home cooking foodies or paleo warriors.

But let’s be prudent in this case and assume the findings apply to all the processed and red meat that we eat with no exceptions, from steak tartare to kebabs.

Small Looking Numbers that are Really Large

Let’s look at that small sounding extra 50g of processed meat or 100g of red meat.

The average person who eats red meat consumes 50-100g per day, and heavy red meat eaters eat more than 200g per day.  Apparently there aren’t reliable numbers on processed meat.  So eating that small sounding extra 50-100g means doubling your intake if you’re an average Joe; and cutting down by 50-100g means cutting it out entirely.  So changing by 50-100g isn’t a small amount, it’s a lot unless you’re a major carnivore.

The critical thinking alarm bell here was the 50-100g number being presented as an average daily amount.  If it had been weekly (half a kilo) or monthly (1.5-3 kilos), then it would sound like the large amount it is.  No wonder those mobile phone salesmen always convert the insurance cost into a few pence per day.

Large Looking Percentages that Don’t Amount to Much

Now let’s look at the effect of doubling your intake, and that scary 18% uplift in your chances of getting colorectal cancer.

When faced with large percentage increases or decreases, we have another critical thinking alarm bell going off and a typically very useful question: “An increase from what to what?”

Currently, the odds of mortality from colorectal cancer are about 1 in 8,000 in developed countries.  An 18% uplift gives you an extra 1 in 45,000 risk of mortality, or 0.002%.  To make these numbers meaningful, here are some activities with an equivalent risk of mortality.