The grass-fed beef would be better idea still doesn't work for me. First convict beef, any beef, and then we can get down to brass tacks about whether grass fed would be more innocent. Is "processed" red meat worse? Won't know unless those studies Bob was talking about, the ones they won't do on humans, are done. Doesn't matter if they do a 7 or 8 billion person study and the correlation still holds. It's likely it would. I don't care. You find an association, and then you find a way to explain it. You don't make up a way to explain it, you come up with an hypothesis that fits the data, then try to disprove it. A good way to disprove it would be, oh, I don't know, do a bunch of studies where people live on meat, normal, conventional meat, with no particular restraint on processing, except perhaps keeping people from adding carbs, and see how they do. The evidence is--at least with carbohydrate restraint, they seem to do pretty good. This doesn't mean the meat or processed meat can't be contributing in some other context--sucks for people eating in those other contexts. Or maybe it does, need more studies looking at those other contexts.
Personally I wouldn't have trouble having a study where everything is controlled, but these people eat bacon and sausage, those eat chicken and fish, with all the macros the same otherwise, same calories and veggies etc. Only real problem is, if the effect you're talking about is so horribly weak that the study has to be a decade or longer to reach statistical significance--well, it's stupid. That's the real problem, the effects are too small to chase. I think if we try to help people in ways that can actually be established to be helpful, that might work better over all.
|