...prompting criticism. [from those with vested interests in scaring you].

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/hear...d-meat-n1060511

Too many "experts" still stuck in 1990 bashing saturated fat and the meat that contains it. Sigh.

ah, the controversy continues......

Haven't seen the headline: "Eating Bacon Is Just As Harmful As Cigarette Smoking!" for awhile. I think that got debunked as well?

Saturated fats and trans-fats are both labeled as unhealthful by nutritionists because they say: "We don't want to confuse people."

More on this in the UK:

Red meat row: Major review concludes cancer link is 'weak'

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...view-concludes/

Gina Kolkata at the NYT is having a hard time coming up with an explanation of this study. https://apple.news/AYEEOfBgYQ8eBEwX4YrONqw


Aaron Carroll discusses the impossible task of nutritional studies.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/...rss&partner=rss

From the NYT/Kolata article:

Of course we should not, cuz if we do, we find that eating meat of any kind is benign at worst and beneficial at best. We find this in the famous Bellevue All-Meat Trial. Instead, what is responsible and ethical is to create the weakest kind of evidence, then based on this weak evidence, make Laws that ultimately cause people to get fat, sick and weak.

Accept our nature. Our nature is a) we are exquisitely adapted to eating meat, and b) lying to the greatest number of people for the longest time (and the corollary, being lied to) is one of our favorite passtime. I mean, think of the countless music, theater plays, novels, TV soaps, movies, all of it lies of the first order, and we love it to no end. The only irresponsible and unethical thing here would be to destroy the illusion by telling the truth once in a while.

/sarcasm off

This quote from CNN is quite interesting -



https://www-m.cnn.com/2019/09/30/he...ness/index.html

I prefer this quote from that same CNN article:

(Side note, my respect for Chris has just dropped)
Why, he asks? The evidence is absent any certainty, therefore we cannot possibly justify any strength of recommendation other than "weak". Consequently, we can safely ignore that recommendation. That's why.

Chris, it's as dangerous as the evidence justifies, which is to say that it is weakly dangerous at worst. You're a scientist, Chris, you should know better than to hyperbole weak evidence.

Chris needs to do one more study. A to Z, Atkins (the real deal, from the book) beat the Zone, Ornish, etc. So he did another study--his idea of a healthful low carb diet merely tied with his idea of a healthful low fat diet. So from this--no low carb advantage? But this isn't a second trial of the same diets, it's a trial of two different diets. I want pork rinds, bacon and butter, up against his broccoli, steamed wild salmon and avocado version of the diet. I would bet that at least on compliance--and that's what Gardner has said in the past was a big determining factor in A to Z--traditional Atkins would win out over the more "virtuous" version.

It's sort of funny that people who would have said that a keto diet or Atkins is relatively untested health wise not that long ago are yet willing to jump to conclusions about just what constitutes the most healthful low carb diet. Other than avoiding trans fats, I have no idea if I'm better off eating butter or olive oil.

More on topic--"processed meat" is a broader class, not a species. It's just meat that's had something done to it, it's a little silly to think that grinding, sausaging, spicing, breading, deep frying, emulsifying, tenderizing, marinating--going on and on, that all of these processes count the same towards health.

Long article by Dr Bret Scher on DietDoctor. Does evidence support limiting red meat? https://www.dietdoctor.com/does-evi...miting-red-meat

Thanks, Janet, the Scher article is literally hot off the presses. As usual, very objective in providing findings and grading credibility.


That's good news, as I consume red meat frequently, mostly beef, and find it provides the proteins I require, preserves muscle mass, and can be prepared in many different ways in a variety of satisfying meals. I consume other healthy proteins as well, but beef edges out others in terms of frequency.

And this statement is one of the reasons I trust DietDoctor for providing sound, credible information without an agenda:



So, when we continue to read and watch the news drumbeat related to nutrition, we can, at least for now, feel secure that much of the misinformation about red meat consumption is from a variety of sources with unsubstantiated information, agendas having nothing to do with recommending good human health practices, and some vested interests driven to change the perception of what constitutes healthy foods purely for marketing purposes.

Now, please pass the NY strip . . . . . .

one of the closing sentences...

Inforum quotes Nina Teicholz. https://www.inforum.com/lifestyle/h...ly-on-the-ropes

Heard this news on the radio yesterday.....making for great confusion for most people. There is too much pull between the factions, and the lay people continue to be victimized by it all.