02/25/2026
This isn’t how researchers “make studies say whatever they want.” It’s how people (like ) who don’t like the results try to downplay them.
Here’s the issue 👇
Let’s say we follow 1,000 people who avoid red meat and 1,000 who eat it daily (hypothetical).
After 2 years:
• 10 non-meat eaters die (1%)
• 15 meat eaters die (1.5%)
That’s a 50% higher relative risk (RR = 1.5), but an absolute difference of 0.5%.
Critics love to say: “See? Only 0.5%! That’s tiny!”
But it accumulates over time.
Extend it to 10 years:
• 100 vs 150 deaths
Absolute difference = 5%
Extend it to 30 years:
• 300 vs 450 deaths
Absolute difference = 15%
That’s 30% vs 45%.
Same relative risk. Very different absolute risk.
All three examples reflect the same 50% increase in relative risk. The difference is duration and total events.
This is why researchers report relative risk. It allows comparison across studies with different follow-up times and event rates.
Dismissing statistically significant relative risks because the short-term absolute difference looks “small” ignores how disease risk accumulates, and reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of epidemiology.
If the data show increased risk, the responsible response isn’t to wait until more people die so the number “looks bigger.”
It’s to interpret the evidence honestly.
Don’t fall for statistical sleight of hand.
