Eating processed red meat, like bacon and sausages, is linked to a 16% higher dementia risk. This alarming finding highlights the importance of dietary choices in protecting cognitive function as we age.

N=133,000 over 40 year time period

Observational study so limitations may apply but the findings do hold after adjusting for a large list of factors I will quote here:

educational attainments, family history of dementia, menopausal status with hormone use status, total energy intake, regular antidepressant drug use, history of depression, BMI, moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, neighborhood SES [socioeconomic status], marital status, living arrangement, smoking status, histories of hypertension, diabetes, and hypercholesterolemia and intakes of sugar-sweetened beverages, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, poultry, fish, eggs, nuts and legumes, low-fat dairy products, high-fat dairy products, and alcohol

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      1·
      21 minutes ago

      They also found associations with unprocessed red meats too

      Unprocessed red meat intake of ≥1.00 serving per day, compared with <0.50 serving per day, was associated with a 16% higher risk of SCD [subjective cognitive decline] (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03–1.30; plinearity = 0.04).

    • AnarchistArtificer@slrpnk.netEnglish
      4·
      3 hours ago

      I can’t actually access the full paper (either via university access, or Anna’s Archive/sciDB), so I can’t comment on specifics, but their extended abstract mentions that that they used “Cox proportional hazards models, general linear regression, and Poisson regression models were applied to assess the associations between red meat intake and different cognitive outcomes.”

      Speaking as a biochemist (i.e. someone well versed in reading scientific papers from the life sciences, but who does not have particular training or experience with the quite different context of clinical medicine research), it looks fairly legit, in that those statistical methods are typical of what I’d expect for something like this. That’s vague, but it passes the sniff test, I suppose.

      I was initially dubious of the journal/research on the basis of being unable to access the paper (and not knowing anything of this journal), but I feel comfortable in dismissing those concerns after have a wee gander at the journal itself (it seems fairly prominent and well respected). Having not read the paper (nor being familiar with this specific area of research), I am far less able to judge the paper itself, but at least it’s not a case of dismissing the research outright because of the journal being sus.

      Without knowing your background, it’s hard to gauge whether this explainer on some of the stats methods mentioned above would be appreciated, but here you go, just in case.

      • howrar@lemmy.ca
        1·
        2 hours ago

        Thanks, I appreciate the link. I’m a scientist by trade too, but not in a field where hazard ratios would be part of my repertoire.

        My concern is not so much the quality of the publisher (though it’s nice to know) or whether they used methods that are standard for these kinds of studies, but rather whether the general public is coming to the correct conclusions given what the researchers did.

        So based on just this little excerpt, it seems that there’s no casual relationship being established at all. They don’t seem to claim any casual relationship either. On the other hand, the psypost article talks about it as if they did.

      • Kit@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        4·
        15 hours ago

        Stupid question - are whole plant foods just fruit and veggies and nuts, or is it also stuff like nut milks, chickpea pasta, etc?

        • AnimalsDream@slrpnk.netEnglish
          8·
          10 hours ago

          When people say “whole” they’re referring to virtually any plant food that’s in it’s whole, ideally intact, form. For example in descending order:

          1. Farro is a whole grain. It’s a type of wheat, and it’s whole because all parts of the grain are still there - the bran, germ, and endosperm. This is the ideal kind of grain to eat - whole and intact.
          2. Whole wheat noodles are still a whole grain, but a bit less so because although all parts of the grain are still in it, it’s been broken down and reconstituted into a new form. The structure of plant foods in and of itself has health impacts.
          3. Whole wheat bread is still a whole grain, but quality can vary greatly depending on the ingredients and ways it gets processed. The vast majority of “whole wheat bread” is honestly dubious at best. Even more, since bread is less compressed than noodles, it digests more rapidly, and takes on properties that start to resemble refined grains more.
          4. Refined grains. Think white rice, white bread. Low fiber, low phytonutrients. These foods digest rapidly, lack important nutrients, and have a high glycemic load (high blood sugar spikes).

          Chickpea pasta would be comparable to number two on this list, so not bad. Store bought plant milks are not whole foods because the plant solids have been strained out. If you were to make a plant milk by, say, blending whole soy beans or almonds in water, that would be a whole food.

  • chicken@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    51·
    17 hours ago

    My reason for cutting red meat out of my diet was that it’s expensive, glad there’s other reasons it’s a good choice too

  • LaunchesKayaks@lemmy.world
    2·
    14 hours ago

    Kinda glad my body decided to just stop digesting beef a few years ago. I’m learning so much about what I can be potentially avoiding by not being able to consume it. Beef just sits in my stomach for an absurdly long time. So I don’t eat it. I have mostly fish as my animal protein, but substitute with plant based proteins and sometimes chicken to avoid too much mercury. I eat pork on occasion but it isn’t my favorite. I tried going vegetarian and vegan a couple of times and my already poor health declined. Now I do whatever it is that I do lol. I just eat what I like and what I know is good for my specific health conditions.

  • SocialMediaRefugee@lemmy.ml
    57·
    11 hours ago

    I find it hard to believe they can adjust meaningfully for that many variables. No mention of obesity, which is likely the real issue here, in the article. It feels like there is a study “proving” a link to some different thing to cognitive decline seemingly every month.

  • solarvector@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    1311·
    22 hours ago

    Hmmm, I wonder if they’re conflating processed foods and red meat again?

    Yep:

    Eating processed red meat (such as sausages, bacon, hotdogs and salami) was linked to a 16% higher risk of dementia and a faster rate of cognitive ageing. Eating about two servings of processed red meat a week raised the risk of dementia by 14% compared with those who ate less than about three servings a month. (A serving is a piece of meat roughly the size of a deck of playing cards – around 85g.)

    If people substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts, tofu or beans, they could reduce their dementia risk by 19%, the study found.

    A review of studies, published in 2023, found that people who ate lots of ultra-processed foods (of all kinds – not just processed meats) had a 44% higher risk of dementia

    • usernamesAreTricky@lemmy.mlOP
      302·
      22 hours ago

      No, they also found associations with unprocessed red meats too

      Unprocessed red meat intake of ≥1.00 serving per day, compared with <0.50 serving per day, was associated with a 16% higher risk of SCD [subjective cognitive decline] (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03–1.30; plinearity = 0.04).

  • marcie (she/her)@lemmy.ml
    310·
    22 hours ago

    I would wager its not because of the meat but because microplastic contamination is much higher in processed food, especially meats. People are often eating the maximum dosage for plastics in a year in one meal. Its very hard to avoid. Microplastic contamination is highly correlated to dementia.