trantheman713 t1_iya1rs3 wrote


trantheman713 t1_iy9vvpn wrote

Please provide a quote from the article that asserts there was a replacement involved. This seems to be a misinterpretation and does not defer to the verbiage used in the article.

Edit: Thanks to u/Moont1de for showing me the part where it was replaced for some red meat, which reduces the overall meat consumption. My apologies for the misunderstanding.


trantheman713 t1_iy9t68i wrote

The parent comment was discussing a plant-based diet, which excludes food sources from animals - land, fish, or fowl. I was simply clarifying that this study does not examine a plant-based diet, though it does support one that is vegetable-rich.

No one is arguing the merit of reducing red meat consumption - only that the article does not explicitly discuss overall meat consumption. You are correct in asserting the article does not state participants replaced red meat with poultry or fish, but the article does not explicitly state that they did not either.


trantheman713 t1_iy9ilor wrote

I think you’re misreading my comment, friend. I’m suggesting that the reduction of red meat does not mean that overall meat consumption is reduced (including animals of non-land habitation).


trantheman713 t1_iy94vc8 wrote

If you could point to where it discusses overall protein substitution or meat reduction between the two MED diets, I’d love to concede, but it simply does not. The reduction of red meat consumption and the addition of the plant shake does not equal to reduced poultry and fish consumption.


trantheman713 t1_iy929hr wrote

I don’t gather that from the article. It states “reduced red meat consumption”, which could still equate to poultry and fish consumption.

It does add the greens shake, but it does not discuss overall animal product consumption.