https://feddit.org/post/13994826/7165181
Everything I downvoted was because I genuinely do not think it’s good. Like meat is not going to cure cancer.
I actually really like eating meat I just try to life a life that gives others room to enjoy this earth too without mutually destroying it.
Please tell me how I am the asshole :)
Reducing the amount of pure garbage that someone consumes is going to help them, yes. If you’re advocating for replacing the garbage with meat, and then give credit to the meat because of the lack of garbage is helping them, I don’t think that makes a ton of sense.
The study actually talks about this. They point out some correlations with BMI where the meat diet is probably not the issue, and then they point out some other health issues where they can’t find an obvious correlation with anything else and so provisionally it is maybe okay to blame the meat.
I’m just pointing out that in all your studies I looked at there was an instant 2-seconds-of-thinking correlation that was more likely the cause than meat consumption, and it didn’t seem like the study was addressing that. It kind of looks like someone is aiming to prove that meat is healthy, and grasping around for anything they can find that will demonstrate that, when most of the science I’m aware of (again, based on consuming the type of meat that’s available in a modern first world society) says the opposite.
Absolutely agree. I actually personally suspect that almost all the bad health outcomes according to modern science from eating too much meat would evaporate if the people were consuming healthy untainted meat. But, also, I think you have to be aware of that and communicate it if you’re advocating for someone to eat a lot of meat when it’s likely that what they’re going to be eating is tainted.
In my understanding this makes perfect sense
You have to decide if correlation is important to you or not. If not, then there is no smoking gun against meat. If correlation matters then there are opposing epidemiology to consider.
Other then having lower omega-3 levels - I’m not aware of any problems with low grade meat.
This is absolutely false. Cows eat plants, and any pesticides in the plants can bioaccumulate in the cow so that it winds up with more pesticide than you would have gotten from just eating the plant in the first place. It’s one of the problems with eating meat in the modern world.
This has some links to various high-level explanation: https://www.consumerreports.org/health/food-safety/how-to-shop-for-safer-healthier-meat-a1124955526/
It was actually pretty difficult for me to find a study about this that was (1) from the US and (2) not on some site that was clearly trying to promote one side of the battle or the other. But Consumer Reports is pretty trustworthy, to me.
I have explained my thought process, why I think you need to be cautious about assuming correlation is causation when there is a clearly obvious alternative explanation for the correlation, but you can accept epidemiology in general instead of throwing out any study that relies on correlation as any part of its argument.
Opposing epidemiology that to me is hilariously weak and implausible, yes. I considered it.
You really should be. It’s not just an issue with “low grade” meat. If you’re in the US, you should know that most of the world won’t even import our meat products because they are so full of hormones, pesticides, antibiotics, and all kinds of other fun stuff that they are illegal to sell in other first world societies. Do you really not know this?
I’m not in the US.
I know the data sources your referencing, I just draw different conclusions.
I’ve not seen bad health outcome studies based on meat itself, I’ve seen speculative mechanistic appeals, I don’t find that compelling
As far as cost goes - Carnivore is less expensive because your just buying meat, no sides, a adult can eat maybe 1kg a day, which in the US is about $5 (bulk purchases - like costco business)… That gives many people the wiggle room to buy the higher quality grass fed meats.
The debate about which is optimal is a bit of a waste of effort. People don’t do carnivore unless they have run out of all other options - usually. So that means by the time they are on the ropes enough to do it, they have already tried the farm plants and it didn’t work for whatever problem they have.
Got it. Some of what I’m saying about the health risks of meat may not apply in a country with better food standards. I think it’s moderately weird that for all the studies and effort that’s been spent on this, this doesn’t seem to be a chief area of investigation when people talk about the health impacts of eating meat.
None of these are the question. The question is, “Is it a good idea for a first-world society inhabitant to replace their diet with a largely-meat diet?”
Here’s a pretty comprehensive attempt to address the issues you’re talking about with epidemiological studies:
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6971786/
No, not largely meat - Exclusively meat - yes. But that is just my opinion and we don’t need to keep talking in circles about it. The problem with Largely is that sugar and carbs will creep in, and all the associated chronic non-communicable diseases they bring.
It’s late, I have not read this metanalysis of epidemiology before, but let me just refer you to the counter factual analysis
https://www.dietdoctor.com/red-meat-and-colon-cancer-the-evidence-remains-weak
https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
This articles are very well cited (hover over the numbers for the publications)
TLDR The evidence against red meat is extremely weak, and has tremendous healthy user bias, especially since most people in epidemiology surveys have a carbohydrate metabolism. For a true comparison against carnivore eaters we would need to see a ketogenic metabolism.
I mean that’s pretty easy to study. Take a big random sample of people, randomly assign half of them to try that diet, and see what happens.
All I really know is my sample size of 1 person I know who tried that, and she got all fucked up because not eating carbs will do that to a person. But that’s not really all that scientific.
I read some of the cites and I’m not convinced. It seems mostly like an exercise in misleading citation, taking studies which indicate a lack of indication of one particular factor of X, and claiming that they find definitively that X does not occur, which isn’t the same thing.
And what will it do to a person?
We can both be reasonable people see the same data and come to different conclusions, that is ok.
In her case, it made her physically weak, she had trouble thinking, and she became irritable and unreasonable. Basically physically, mentally, and emotionally it made her worse.
I mean it does make sense to me. Your body needs energy to function and getting it from complex carbohydrates is a standard way and it’s going to struggle if it doesn’t have that available. As I understand it, the no-carb diets are sort of well known to produce that kind of impact, although I can definitely believe that there could be people who are having a bad reaction to some particular substance that they’re eating so that cutting out all carbs entirely will give them a good result because they’re also not being exposed to that substance, I don’t think that kind of thing is in general a good thing for the average healthy person to do.
Your opinion is scientifically unsubstantiated nonsense, the only thing you’re even remotely right about is that we don’t need to talk in circles about it, you can safely be disregarded as either a moron or a paid shill
Thank you for your opinion about my opinion. You have not changed my mind, but that is ok, I don’t expect you to.
But why are you even here? If your not going to try to educate me, are you here for performative signaling? Nobody is watching this post anymore.
I’m here to make sure any literate person who even perfunctorily skims these comments will know that you’re peddling dangerous bullshit. You’re welcome for nothing, you deserve worse.