Your Diet And Risk Of Heart Attack Or Stroke
....or how to panic people with statistics.
We all "know" that vegetarian diets are far more health than eating meat, or even fish. Right?
But is that really true? And if so, what does it really mean anyway? After all,
There are lies, damned lies and statistics. -Mark Twain
There was a recent article in the British Medical Journal,
This study has a pretty decent size study group (48K subjects) and good follow up (18 years). So what did they find?
First, there is a greater risk of ischemic heart disease in meat eaters, compared to vegetarians. But wait, there is a second major finding in the paper also. Vegetarians have a higher risk of hemorrhagic stroke during that same time period.
Wow.... maybe specific diets are bad for people. After all, the statistics say so.
But let's look at a bit more at the data and really see what these data mean to ... you.
Heart Attacks
Meat eaters had 46.2 AMIs (acute myocardial infarct) per 1000 people over 10 years.
Fish eaters had 40.4 and vegetarians had 36.2. Looks like a slam dunk eh? Better stop eating meat. Statistically, it is, for this one element.
Strokes
Meat eaters had Strokes (all kinds) at a rate of 15.4 per 1000 people over 10 years. Fish eaters 17.5 and vegetarians 18.3. So in this case, meat-eaters "win".
Heart Attacks AND Strokes Together
But let's put them together. After all, either event (AMI or Stroke) is a bad thing. By doing this, we see that the total incidence of events is 61.6 per 1000 people per 10 years for meat eaters; 57.9 for fish eaters and 54.5 for vegetarians. It still looks like it's a big deal to stop eating meat. But wait a minute ....
Let's look at these numbers in a practical way
These numbers are per 1000 people. Typically we think in terms of per 100 people (at least I do). Changing this one item allows you to see that per decade (10 years), if you eat meat, you will see 6.3 events (AMI or stroke) per 100 people. For fish eaters, the number is 5.8 and for vegetarians, it's 5.5 people. The difference between meat-eaters and vegetarians is 0.8 events per 100 people over 10 years. That's just a difference of 0.008 events per person over 10 years (and 0.0008 events per per-person per-year). Statistically significant? Probably. Does it really make a difference to the average person? Probably not.
Furthermore, the study mentions that there are some other elements (weight, blood pressure, diabetes) that were higher in meat eaters, which may have contributed to the difference. If one then assumes that as a meat-eater, if you maintain a healthy weight, blood pressure and treat your diabetes effectively, the difference may be even less pronounced.
In summary, the practical difference over 10 years between eating meat and being a vegetarian for AMI and stroke is probably minimal, although it may be statistically significant. I am not advocating for any particular dietary habit, but merely showing that there is more to a study and/or story than the article title or a story's headline. (Also note that I am limiting my assessment to vascular issues, and not taking into account any differences due to other diseases, including malignancy.)
If It Bleeds....It Leads.
Writers want to create a conclusion or title that seems compelling. It's what editors and publishers want. That's where statistics come in. By saying something is "statistically significant" is playing into a numbers game. It's saying that there IS a difference, but it doesn't provide a value judgment if that difference is important. Perhaps for some reducing their annual risk of AMI or stroke each year by 0.0008 is worth the effort of going vegetarian. For me...it's not. (BTW, I am not knocking vegetarians. That's their dietary choice and I am fine with their decisions. There may be other health or social issues to consider when making your own decisions on dietary habits.)
It's important for everyone to read and analyze the underlying data and "facts" that are presented and reported to support the title or headline. Sometimes those "facts" are simply irrelevant. Do your own analysis.
...Then make your own conclusion.
There are risks all around us. Relying on someone else's interpretation of data and creation of paper titles, conclusions or headlines is a hidden risk of life. Simply believing someone else's conclusions regardless of practical implications or data interpretation is simply abdicating your responsibility for critical thinking. (BTW...don't take my word for it...check out the article data yourself.)
N.B. I ran across this summary in my newsfeed while writing this blog post, which supports my assessment of this article: https://www.newswise.com/articles/no-need-to-cut-down-red-and-processed-meat-consumption?
WhiteCoat Risk Management provides these articles to help improve general risk awareness in all aspects of your life. It is not responsible for any actions you take or fail to take regarding any aspect of your financial planning or risk management. This article is provided for information purposes and is not intended to provide individualized advice. You alone are responsible for your decisions.
Visit or contact WhiteCoat Risk Management at www.WhiteCoatRiskManagement.com or join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WhiteCoatRisk/
Be sure to sign up HERE to receive a notification when new blog posts are published.
