The consumption of red meat as a source of protein and fats has become a major concern to many people. This is because they believe that it contributes to high death rates due to cardiovascular diseases, cancer and diabetes mellitus. This has therefore attracted attention from researchers who have carried out various researches to support the view or criticize it. The popular press article and scientific peer-reviewed article discuss the issue.
Comparison between the two articles
The scientific peer-reviewed article on Red meat consumption and mortality as well as the popular research article on red meat linked to high risk of premature death discuss the effect of red meat on human health through the research conducted. Through the research that was conducted in the two articles, there is evidence that raw, processed, or unprocessed red meat causes cardiovascular diseases, diabetes mellitus, and cancer (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
In both articles, the research analysis proves that those people who consume red meat increase the chances of premature deaths in their lives as compared to vegetarians. In the research, the sample that was used to collect data in the two articles is similar because they both used white men and women. In the two articles, the research took into account other risk factors such as the body mass index, age and the history of the family in relation to chronic diseases during the analysis (Colditz et al., 1989).
In the popular research article, the analysis shows that the percentage increase of premature deaths for those who consume processed meat such as a hot dog is higher than those people who consume unprocessed red meat. This is similar to the analysis in the scientific peer-reviewed article, which has the view that the increased risk of CVD and cancer mortality in those people who consume processed red meat is higher than the unprocessed red meat (Colditz et al., 1989).
In the scientific peer-reviewed article, the analysis shows that the consumption of red meat resulted in other effects of addiction like alcohol and smoking, which are harmful to human health. The popular press article indicates that those who eat red meat always have the urge of taking icy sodas, which cause other complications in human health such as heart diseases (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
In the popular press article, the analysis is not clear since it does not indicate the age bracket of the men and women who were used as the sample of the study. While in the case of the scientific peer-reviewed article, the analysis of the sample is clear since the age bracket is given that is 40-75 years for men and 30-55 years for women. This, therefore, shows that the analysis in the popular press article is not done well (Colditz et al., 1989).
In the popular press article, the information given lacks evidence because the research does not specify the sample of the study clearly and how the researcher collected the data for analysis. It also fails to explain how the assessment of meat consumption was done as well as the follow-ups to monitor the research that was conducted. The research fails to identify the components of red meat, which cause the effects stated in the study as is explained in the scientific peer-reviewed article. The solutions to the problem are provided like giving alternatives of healthy sources of proteins to red meat (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
Limitation of scientific peer-reviewed article
As much the scientific peer-reviewed article tries to specify the sample and explain the follow-up to ensure that the information collected is not biased there are loopholes left, which makes many researchers doubt the information given and conclusions arrived at after the study. The study in this case lacks a scientific base since in a scientific study the sample used to give the required data is usually of a randomized clinical trial where the participants are divided into two groups randomly.
The two groups should therefore match in terms of sex, age, health and any other factor considered to affect the results. One group is given medication as opposed to the other one, which is not treated. In RCT, there are other forms of treatment to apply to obtain unbiased information for the study more especially if the research is presumed to affect the human health (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
Due to the high costs of implementing the RCT many researchers result to observational study like in the scientific peer reviewed article where they used the cohort study to obtain the data for their analysis. In this kind of study, the sample was selected for a period of 22 years but the information collected was not valid since there was no prove of a cause-effect relationship. For example, between the red meat and the CVD, cancer or other behaviors like taking alcohol or smoking. For any scientific study, observation kind of study is not valid in collecting data to draw conclusions (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
Another limitation in the scientific peer reviewed article is that the sample selection was biased. The sample that was selected did not cater for all categories in terms of age. The women under the age of 30 years and men under the age of 40 years were not selected yet they consume red meat and suffer from diabetes mellitus as well as heart diseases. The age bracket was therefore a problem and this leads to more criticism on the data collected for analysis (Colditz et al., 1989).
During the random selection of the sample for the study, there was a problem in gender representation since the number of men in the study was not equal because women were many compared to men. In the cohort study, sample selection is specified as opposed to RCT where sample selection is done randomly and this result to inaccuracy in data collection.
In cohort study, the data obtained is inaccurate since the information collected is usually reported individually like what men and women did in the scientific peer reviewed study. At times, the information given in the Food Frequency Questions is not valid since people try to recall what they ate some days back hence giving wrong information (Colditz et al., 1989).
Correlation and causation is another limitation in the study since it is not always true to justify that A will cause B without any scientific prove to support the argument. This is because the information collected is not valid because there was biasness in gender selection, age and the data in the questionnaires was inaccurate.
The study is therefore based on invalid information because the information given in the Food Frequency Questionnaire by the HRT is exaggerated. The intake of some food was increased because they knew they are the healthiest foods and decreased the intake of those they thought were unhealthy like the red meat (Colditz et al., 1989).
Revised article
The original scientific peer article on the other hand failed to base the arguments on a scientific research. The observational study in this case is believed to generate hypotheses and that the information given about red meat cannot cause the effects stated. The hypothesis that red meat increases the rate of mortality could be viable if the research conducted could provide accurate information. For the information collected to be valid, the sampling must be done randomly and the gender and sex of the selected sample should be represented equally (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
The information is useful for study if the sample is selected at random. The sample is divided according to age, health history as well as gender. The information collected through RCT is regarded as genuine and can therefore be used to prove statements like A causes B but since RCT are costly to be implemented the study can be based on observation as long it proves that the associations between the cause and effect rely on valid data (Colditz et al., 1989).
Sample selection in terms of age or sex should not be biased for the data collected to be accurate. For instance, the age bracket for both men and women should be equal as well as the number to represent both women and men. The age bracket should not limit other people who consume meat and are within the bracket of the presumed hypothesis.
Sample bias will give inaccurate data, which will be used to draw invalid conclusions. For the information to draw accurate conclusions about the presumed hypothesis, all kinds of red meat for example raw red meat, processed red meat and unprocessed red meat should be given to the selected sample to obtain accurate data for analysis (Colditz et al., 1989).
The methodology of collecting the data should be realistic to give accurate information. For example, the Food Frequency Questionnaires used to collect data should be structured in a way that the information given is valid. The intervals of distributing the forms to collect the data should be realistic for the interviewee to give correct information without trying to remember what he/she consumed five days ago. The analysis should be clear to make the reader understand how the questionnaire has been structured and given responses (Lee & Zheng, 2009).
The analysis of the information collected should be explained clearly in details with enough evidence to support the arguments. The researcher should explain the association between the consumption of red meat and the effects. The analysis should state the components present in red meat and the presumed diseases. For example, the cholesterol and saturated fats from meat cause coronary heart diseases, which can be associated with CVD mortality (Colditz et al., 1989).
In the analysis, the article should explain the benefits derived from meat if consumed in smaller amount and the possible life span for such victims. The article gives insights on the effects on the people who do not consume red meat. In addition, there are alternatives where it is consumed to provide the proteins that one may lack in the absence of red meat consumption (Lee & Zheng, 2009). For instance, the study should state clearly the quantity of fish or eggs to be consumed to acquire the calories required in the body.
References
Colditz, G., Hunter, D., Rosner, B., Salvini, S., Sampson, L., Stampfer, M. & Willett, W. (1989). Food-based validation of a dietary questionnaire: The effects of week-to-week variation in food consumption. Int J epidemiol, 18(4):858-67.
Lee, S & Zheng, W. (2009). Well-done meat intake, heterocyclic amine exposure, and cancer risk. Nutr cancer, 61(4), 437-446.