this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2025
1 points (55.6% liked)

Carnivore

51 readers
19 users here now

Carnivore - The ultimate elimination diet

Purpose

Rules

  1. Be nice
  2. Stay on topic
  3. Don't farm rage
  4. Be respectful of other diets, choices, lifestyles!!!!
  5. No Blanket down voting - If you only come to this community to downvote its the wrong community for you

founded 1 week ago
MODERATORS
totallynotjet@lemm.ee
jet@hackertalks.com
1
Article - Should dietary guidelines recommend low red meat intake? (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
submitted 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) by jet@hackertalks.com to c/carnivore@lemm.ee
6 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

TLDR - There is far from consensus in the vilification of red meat in dietary guidelines. This article dives into the details of the ongoing schism.

Mainstream dietary recommendations now commonly advise people to minimize the intake of red meat for health and environmental reasons. Most recently, a major report issued by the EAT-Lancet Commission recommended a planetary reference diet mostly based on plants and with no or very low (14 g/d) consumption of red meat. We argue that claims about the health dangers of red meat are not only improbable in the light of our evolutionary history, they are far from being supported by robust scientific evidence.

Full paper at the above link.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jet@hackertalks.com 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Thanks for taking the time to read the paper so we can have a discussion, i really appreciate it, genuinely.

I can't find the graph you included in the paper, where is it from? The Schoenfeld paper? https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.112.047142 looks like it. I admit I have not read "Is Everything we eat associated with cancer? A Systematic cookbook review" yet.

I think the major thrust of the argument is that correlative studies of epidemiology are a poor place to set prescriptive guidance from.

Even the Schoenfeld 2013 says "Associations with cancer risk or benefits have been claimed for most food ingredients. Many single studies highlight implausibly large effects, even though evidence is weak. Effect sizes shrink in meta-analyses."

The context of sick person confounders also needs to be accounted for in RCTs, such as sugar intake in diets, healthy patient confounders, etc. (A classic example would be smokers tend to eat red meat and ignore common health guidance, and also eat more red meat - we could try to control for the smokers, but they would skew any epidemiological results)

i.e.

A pooled analysis of prospective cohort studies in Asian countries even indicated that red meat intake was associated with lower cardiovascular mortality in men and cancer mortality in women (Lee et al., 2013).

This data point speaks to a confounder in the western cohort, I suspect its sugar and processed food.

It would be a interesting, and likely positive correlation, research question - Red Meat Plus High Carbohydrates all cause mortality? I suspect any combination of foods plus sugar will show a correlation!