You must log in or register to comment.

[deleted] t1_is1y9ew wrote



[deleted] t1_is22rcf wrote



[deleted] t1_is278fd wrote



MadroxKran t1_is2f2qr wrote

Wasn't there a study posted yesterday that said the red meat correlation wasn't strong enough yet?


rachid116460 t1_is4pewn wrote

i honestly dont trust American academia anymore. These studies are so often corrupted with big moneyed interests. So many examples over the years of being lied to.

Smoking Dairy Sugar/high fructose/cornsugar Meat


healthmadesimple t1_is4vsck wrote

I’ve started looking at cultural diets. I think the average American is so far disconnected from food, culture and tradition, that it’s evolved to convenience.

If you look at any culture. They figured out to survive with their foods and balance out tastes…. And they vary.

Some cultures are meat heavy. Some are plant heavy. Some are fish heavy. Some depend on the season.

The issue is fillers that are stripped of micronutrients that serve no nutritional purpose (except macronutrients for energy) but prioritize shelf stability, texture for hyper palatability, and cost resulting the over use of highly subsidized crops: corn, soy, wheat, etc.

Also food is just one factor of health. Movement. Sleep. Stress. Relationships.

Edit: I wouldn’t be surprised if this large push for eating cows is pushed by cow ranchers. Whether is good for health or not is hotly debated but one things for sure it’s bad for the environment and other countries thrive on alternative sources of protein.


thatthingicn t1_is4vvus wrote

This is why you need to read the article including method


SchwiftyMcCool t1_is5d1m9 wrote

Well this says weak evidence. Seems to be eat more veg with your red meat to cancel it out. I’m rolling with this…


TheLeakingPen t1_is2h8rg wrote

Thing is, there are a lot of variables that none of these studies really account for. The few studies that also collected data on soda and other processed sugary drink usage found that normalizing for sugary drink consumption made the differences in meat and no meat practically vanish.

The other thing is, numbers are scary when you don't understand them. The general number is an increase in 9 percent per serving of red meat per day.

Heart disease impacts about 200 per 100,000 people in the US.

What this means, numerically, is that, lets use the above number as a base. If 200 people per 100,000 that ate no red meat got heart disease, than 218 out of 100,000 people who ate a serving of red meat every day would get heart disease.

Its not, "it gives you a 9 percent chance".


TheCorpseOfMarx t1_is3fs05 wrote

>Heart disease impacts about 200 per 100,000 people in the US.

Where has that number come from? The CDC sates:

"About 20.1 million adults age 20 and older have [Coronary artery disease] (about 7.2%)."

Which would be 7,200 per 100,000...



TheLeakingPen t1_is3weml wrote

hunh, looks like the page i was looking at was specifically deaths, not heart disease in general. my bad.


TheCorpseOfMarx t1_is4o9dx wrote

It's still way off!

>About 697,000 people in the United States died from heart disease in 2020—that’s 1 in every 5 deaths.


TheLeakingPen t1_isccvbq wrote

deaths per total population vs deaths per total deaths.

Also, A. deaths from "heart disease" includes more than just heart attacks.
B. 2020, 21, 22 are outliers. a LOT of heart attacks and circulatory issues related to Covid. Since its a heart attack, they lump it in, but I personally wouldn't unless they had previous heart disease.


TheCorpseOfMarx t1_isciqq8 wrote

Your numbers are clearly way off mate I don't know why you're still pushing this


Dr_Hyde-Mr_Jekyll t1_is4o2tw wrote

Interessting. Source for the studies controlling for sugary drinks etc. ?


triffid_boy t1_is2ko6b wrote

To be honest I think everyone gets the numbers these days.

Public health has to be based on these sorts of calculations... So obviously (blindingly obviously) 18 people per 100k (what's that, about 18,000 across the whole population?) saved would be a good thing.


stopandtime t1_is43sm9 wrote

also with alot of these epidemiological studies they look at correlation, not causation. For example - people who enjoy eating meat are also far more likely to have a unhealthy lifestyle with tobacco/alcohol/no exercise. And with epidemiological studies these confounding factors are extremely hard to control for.

It's the same thing with cholesterol - cholesterol is 100% healthy and the body absolutely needs it, but it is the high sugar/carbohydrates that screws it up for people.

Humans aren't designed to eat grass, and while you can survive by being on a vegan diet - you have to exert far more resources to get the same gains someone that has meat in their diet does

why bother?


TarthenalToblakai t1_is516yl wrote

"while you can survive by being on a vegan diet - you have to exert far more resources to get the same gains someone that has meat in their diet does"

That isn't true in the least.


AgedAmbergris t1_is4kcp4 wrote

90% of diet "studies" would be ignored if people just understood the difference between relative and absolute risk.


DrNukes t1_is4jthg wrote

Everything in moderation is one of the few universal truths that really stood the test of time.


AutoModerator t1_is1tr8u wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


BruiseHound t1_is4j8fz wrote

Do any of these studies clarify what kind of red meat? Saturated fat seems to be the main issue which is high in beef and lamb but, as far as I know, low in game meats like venison.


L7Death t1_is4ycqk wrote

The problem isn't saturated fat.

Beef fat is predominantly monounsaturated, and maybe 40 percent saturated. Chicken fat is like 30 percent saturated, even fish fat is 20 percent saturated. Our bodies make saturated fats constantly, and cholesterol too.

Ancel Keys was a quack. Minnesota and Sydney RCTs proved replacing saturated fats with PUFA increased all-cause mortality. The official stance of the AHA and other orgs are pushing advice that's known to be harmful, and they've been doing it for decades. Animal fats are healthy in moderation. Ultraprocessed foods (like seed oils or sugar or white whatever) aren't -- especially not at the ubiquitous levels found in western diets. Processed foods cause metabolic disorders, especially when they become staples.

Too many examples of peoples all around the world that have thrived on very high meat consumption with extreme amounts of saturated animal fats and yet didn't have metabolic disorders or CHD. Read some of Dr. Mary Enig's work if you want examples.


[deleted] t1_is1ucek wrote