https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...80613113743.htm



The improving lipids/lipoproteins in only five weeks bit is a hoot for anybody familiar with Dave Feldman's stuff showing you only need about 3 days to make a difference in that department.

Is red meat really down to 3 ounces a day? Incredible that such a small bit of red meat is blamed for so much harm.

Also, the qualifier that it be "lean" is amusing.

So much propaganda masquerading as science.

I have never beleived that red meat was "bad"......as presented above the study doesnt seem very well designed. Maybe purposely a vague presentation.

As far as



goes--it says the organizations didn't design the study, it doesn't say that the organizations didn't know the study design, or weren't aware of earlier similar studies on slightly different diets done by the same authors, etc. before they put their money down. Often results are predictable. Look at the almond studies, you can pull up a whole bunch of studies, all showing the same stupid lipid profile endpoints, after the first couple studies, everybody knew what the results would be for the next ten--a predictable result for another round of 'almonds are a special magic heart healthy food' headlines.

For all those many people out there who just can't yet accept that saturated fat, as found in foods like meat, isn't the dietary villain it's been made out to be. First, cholesterol now "not a nutrient of concern," next red meat found to more positively affect LDL cholesterol than its absence. Future, public acceptance that saturated fats were wrongly implicated in causing disease? Baby steps?

That's so randomly specific. From the paper:

That's more like it.

Anyways, check insulin. It dropped in both interventions, moreso for Med-Red in male subjects but then again they started with higher insulin. It doesn't make much sense because that same group started with lower insulin for Med-Control, as low as post level for Med-Red. Various other metrics also improved similarly.

Body mass change is interesting because from a low-carb point of view, it's neither low-carb nor lower-carb nor high-fat nor higher-fat, yet there was a drop of about 1kg in both interventions. In my view, 1kg over 5 weeks is quite insignificant, especially when it can go as high as several kgs just in the first week with Atkins induction for example. But then this wasn't a weight loss experiment.

If I could plot a graph to compare this experiment with the A-TO-Z experiment, I'd probably say it matches the other three diets (Ornish, Zone, Learn), but not the Atkins diet, in all things measured, in either arms.

Teaser, it's incredible that such a small amount of red meat is blamed, I agree. But then it's equally incredible that such a small amount of red meat somehow manages to produce an arguably beneficial effect in such a short period. When combined with much older evidence about fresh meat and scurvy and the all-meat trial, to me it suggests that meat has a unique property not found in any other food. For example, in parallel to the advice to eat tons of carbs and little fat, we're also told to eat as little red meat as possible. Then, this latest experiment suggests that even a small amount of meat has a significant effect, further suggesting that the official advice about it is at best completely wrong, and at worst obviously making us sick.

Ima stick with my ribeyes, bacon and eggs fried in lots of butter and lard.

I know red meat has a good effect on me. I go without for a few days and I miss it.

NO, NO, NO.

LDL is a horrible predictor of cardio problems. Numerous studies have shown this.

Retract that study!