02-018 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE
Eat less processed meat (ham, bacon, sausages, luncheon meat)
少吃加工肉(火腿、培根、香肠、午餐肉)
It costs nothing — in fact, it saves money — and doesn’t take extra time. The hard part is simply eating less of a food you really enjoy.
People who eat the most ham, bacon, sausages, and similar processed meats have a roughly 20% higher chance of dying during the same period compared to those who eat the least. For every extra serving of processed meat consumed daily, that risk rises by another 20%.
A
Move “Eat less processed meat (ham, bacon, sausages, luncheon meat)” to Future Me's calendar
The excuse
If I do not open the notes, no new task has technically appeared.
What feels good now
Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.
What the source says
The source summarizes the return this way: “People who eat the most ham, bacon, sausages, and similar processed meats have a roughly 20% higher chance of dying during the same period compared to those who eat the least. For every extra serving of processed meat consumed daily, that risk rises by another 20%.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.
Use the original facts and limits. For an urgent medical, safety, financial, or legal issue, contact a qualified local professional or service.
THE ENGLISH EDITION
Original recommendation and evidence
18. Eat less processed meat (ham, bacon, sausages, luncheon meat)
Cost: It costs nothing — in fact, it saves money — and doesn’t take extra time. The hard part is simply eating less of a food you really enjoy.
In plain terms: People who eat the most ham, bacon, sausages, and similar processed meats have a roughly 20% higher chance of dying during the same period compared to those who eat the least. For every extra serving of processed meat consumed daily, that risk rises by another 20%.
Benefit: When multiple long‑term studies are pooled together (without separating participants into groups), the group eating the most processed meat faces about a 23% higher risk of death (RR 1.23) than the group eating the least. For all red meat combined, the increase is about 29% (RR 1.29). Unprocessed red meat raises the risk by roughly 10% (RR 1.10), though this difference isn’t statistically significant. Another analysis looks at daily intake: each extra daily serving of processed meat adds about a 23% higher death risk (RR 1.23), while each extra serving of red meat adds about 10% (RR 1.10).
Evidence grade: A
Sources: Larsson SC, Orsini N (2014). Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. <https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt261>; Schwingshackl L et al. (2017). Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. <https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.153148>; Johnston BC et al. (2019). Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the NutriRECS Consortium. Annals of Internal Medicine. <https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1621> (disputing party NutriRECS guide)
Notes: This is a contested area. The NutriRECS guidelines apply the standard GRADE evidence‑rating system and deem these studies “not very reliable.” They end up giving only a very weak recommendation: “continue eating as you do now.” The debate centers on whether the evidence is strong enough, not on the overall direction of the findings. No studies have shown any benefit from eating processed meat, and the effect of unprocessed red meat appears minimal and statistically insignificant. The key takeaway is to limit processed meat consumption.
Source links
- Larsson SC, Orsini N (2014). Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. ↗
- Schwingshackl L 等 (2017). Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. ↗
- Johnston BC 等 (2019). Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the NutriRECS Consortium. Annals of Internal Medicine. ↗
- Pinned original chapter on GitHub ↗
Read the complete Chinese source and notes
18. 少吃加工肉(火腿、培根、香肠、午餐肉)
成本: 不花钱,甚至省钱,也不占时间。难在要少吃自己爱吃的那口。
说人话: 火腿、培根、香肠吃得最多的人,同期死亡的概率比吃得最少的人高约两成。每天多吃一份加工肉,概率也高两成。
收益: 把多项跟踪研究合起来算(只记录、不分组):加工肉吃得最多的那组,比吃得最少的那组死亡风险高约 23%(RR 1.23)。红肉合计高约 29%(RR 1.29)。没加工的红肉高约 10%(RR 1.10),但这一项没看出统计上的差别。另一项汇总是按每天吃的量算的。加工肉每天多吃 1 份,死亡风险高约 23%(RR 1.23)。红肉每天多吃 1 份,高约 10%(RR 1.10)。
证据等级: A
来源: Larsson SC, Orsini N (2014). Red meat and processed meat consumption and all-cause mortality: a meta-analysis. American Journal of Epidemiology. <https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwt261>;Schwingshackl L 等 (2017). Food groups and risk of all-cause mortality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. <https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.117.153148>;Johnston BC 等 (2019). Unprocessed Red Meat and Processed Meat Consumption: Dietary Guideline Recommendations From the NutriRECS Consortium. Annals of Internal Medicine. <https://doi.org/10.7326/M19-1621>(争议方 NutriRECS 指南)
备注: 争议。NutriRECS 指南用一套通行的证据打分法(GRADE),把这些研究评为「不太靠得住」。它只给了一句很弱的建议:照现在这么吃就行。双方争的是证据够不够硬,不是方向。没有研究说加工肉有好处。没加工的红肉影响小,也看不出统计上的差别。要管住的是加工肉。
YOUR PRIVATE LIST