Health & Wellness

Eat Less Red Meat, Scientists Said

  • Last Updated:
  • Oct 30th, 2020 3:16 pm
Deal Expert
Aug 22, 2006
27311 posts
12967 upvotes
qman23 wrote: if you are ignoring the OP, and the point of this thread then why are you here?
This thread is a discussion about quality evidence for or against the health benefits/deleterious effects of meat.
Why not go start another thread, and stop crapping in this one.
It's actually hilarious since most posters in here are after hard scientific data and @zoro69 just bursts in randomly with some clickbait headline and then disappears before finding another one instead of discussing the basis of the article itself.

This is the most laughs I've had this week.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
death_hawk wrote: It's actually hilarious since most posters in here are after hard scientific data and @zoro69 just bursts in randomly with some clickbait headline and then disappears before finding another one instead of discussing the basis of the article itself.

This is the most laughs I've had this week.
Tceight wrote: Very apparent.
I assume you have me blocked, and rather than engage in intellectual debate of the facts,
you're the guy who bursts into a room yells their opinion then plugs their ears saying "nyah nyah I can't hear you"
sigh.. I'm afraid you and @Tceight may be right, but I still hold out hope.
I wish for an open dialog discussing the facts because it is very clear to me the growing anti-meat sentiment is responsible for hurting a lot of people, both from a nutritional deficiency standpoint and from the nocebo effect that occurs.
It amazes me that this belief has so much traction, with zero evidence to back it up.
I think it's only possible, because the field of nutrition science is not held to a standard of evidence. It's like the medieval church studying astronomy based on reading of the bible instead of looking at the stars. Belief first, then find/manufacture facts that appear to correlate with the belief. This is the opposite of the scientific method.

Yet I think people actually believe it is held to the same level of scientific integrity that makes smartphones, builds bridges, and splits the atom. I know I believed this to be true until I looked into it, but it's actually closer to Alchemy than it is to Chemistry. This lack of integrity allows both charlatans and those with honest agendas other than health, to make stuff up for either profit or to bolster their ranks with supporters.

Where nutrition science is actual science, is in the field of animal agriculture. They have that down to a precision gram for gram food conversion efficiency with minimum input costs. Unfortunately that field isn't concerned with long term optimal health outcomes, just market weight/quality profit margins.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
141 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
qman23 wrote: I've been on the other side and used to believe that too. Until I took the time to actually look at the data.
There is By FAR many times more money put into supporting research by cereal based food companies than all animal based agriculture combined. Check out how much the Sanitarium Health and Wellbeing Company alone spends on it.
Cereal grains, legumes, and seed oils are far more profitable industries, as they can sell 35cents worth of corn as a 4 dollar box of cereal. The markup on non fungible animal products is far less with subsequently tiny profit margins.
But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.
downloadcc.png
lol are you trying to argue that cereals have more research, and thus that industry control us more? You sound like a lobbyist already. You tried to compare the cereal industry with meat and dairy when that wasn't the point. You've wasted your time.
Continue to eat your meat and dairy, it doesn't hurt me, it just hurts you way more. You clearly are part of the herd. The herd mentality that when someones industry feels threatened you proceed to compare it to an irrelevant industry
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
OAlton wrote: You've wasted your time.
Clearly. with you anyway.
But maybe not entirely, as others will read the exchange and notice the incongruency in your line of reasoning.
Care to share any evidence based studies that meat or dairy are bad for you? or did you just come to rant about how big meat/dairy "controls" people, whereas you of course are free from any corporate influence.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
141 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
qman23 wrote: Clearly. with you anyway.
But maybe not entirely, as others will read the exchange and notice the incongruency in your line of reasoning.
Care to share any evidence based studies that meat or dairy are bad for you? or did you just come to rant about how big meat/dairy "controls" people, whereas you of course are free from any corporate influences.
Yes I have a bunch of evidence based study journal articles on my computer. But why would I share those with you if you're being ignorant to the facts, and then try to undermine general knowledge? Listen, if you like your Sunday BBQ's with your family good, but don't be ignorant to HCAs. Additionally, if you're a huge dairy fan which it seems like you are (because again, you're ignorance really shines), then you need to get off your high horse. Dairy is meant for baby cows... are you a baby cow? if you are then that is fine, your low IQ response already proved to me you like to move in the direction of your herd.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
OAlton wrote: Yes I have a bunch of evidence based study journal articles on my computer. But why would I share those with you if you're being ignorant to the facts, and then try to undermine general knowledge? Listen, if you like your Sunday BBQ's with your family good, but don't be ignorant to HCAs. Additionally, if you're a huge dairy fan which it seems like you are (because again, you're ignorance really shines), then you need to get off your high horse. Dairy is meant for baby cows... are you a baby cow? if you are then that is fine, your low IQ response already proved to me you like to move in the direction of your herd.
Please do share, as no one else seems to be able to find any.
You should share, as you could readily convince and save millions of ignorant people! Do you not care about people?
HCA's equivalents like benzopyrene are as prevalent with BBQ'ing plants as meat, with the addition of acrylamide and advanced glycation end products you get from plants but not meat. So not sure what your point is with mentioning BBQ, as it is a style of cooking and not the product. Should we talk about deep frying in vegetable oils? Not the point of the thread.
Secondly, this thread was about red meat not dairy, but I invite any actual evidence of dairy being detrimental.

Whether or not it's meant for a baby cow is irrelevant, as that's a naturalistic "ought / is" fallacy.

stating you believe my IQ is low is an ad hominem attack and irrelevant to the content of the post.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
141 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
Not an ad hominem attack, rather pointing out how pathetic your communication is. Please read academic journals, searching isn't hard, even for low IQ individuals
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
OAlton wrote: Not an ad hominem attack, rather pointing out how pathetic your communication is. Please read academic journals, searching isn't hard, even for low IQ individuals
I agree that reading academic journals as opposed to google web searching, is the better way to find information.
I disagree that low IQ individuals would have the capacity to research, read and understand them though. The lower threshold would likely be around 115.
Fortunately, I do have full access to numerous academic journals as part of my job. I've posted links to articles from them in this thread.

What part of my communication is it you find challenging or difficult to understand?
I'll attempt to use simpler words, or rephrase things for you.
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
141 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
qman23 wrote: I agree that reading academic journals as opposed to google web searching, is the better way to find information.
I disagree that low IQ individuals would have the capacity to research, read and understand them though. The lower threshold would likely be around 115.
Fortunately, I do have full access to numerous academic journals as part of my job. I've posted links to articles from them in this thread.

What part of my communication is it you find challenging or difficult to understand?
I'll attempt to use simpler words, or rephrase things for you.
I'm done with you. Don't need your lessons on life, I don't like yours.
Deal Fanatic
May 14, 2009
6390 posts
1205 upvotes
qman23 wrote: I agree that reading academic journals as opposed to google web searching, is the better way to find information.
I disagree that low IQ individuals would have the capacity to research, read and understand them though. The lower threshold would likely be around 115.
Fortunately, I do have full access to numerous academic journals as part of my job. I've posted links to articles from them in this thread.

What part of my communication is it you find challenging or difficult to understand?
I'll attempt to use simpler words, or rephrase things for you.
Don’t waste your time. You can’t have a sensible discussion with someone who comes in with ad homs and when asked for proof of their claims pulls out the ol’ ‘do your research’.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
OAlton wrote: I'm done with you. Don't need your lessons on life, I don't like yours.
So in summary,
1. You have no evidence based studies that meat or dairy are bad for you, to share.

2. You just came by to rant about how big meat/dairy "controls" people, and that people who don't agree with you have a low IQ.

3. You have a belief structure that you are inwardly insecure with, so that when the premises of your epistemology are shown to be incongruent with demonstrable facts, you become anxious and angry.

Is that about it?
Thanks for your input.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
amz155 wrote: Don’t waste your time. You can’t have a sensible discussion with someone who comes in with ad homs and when asked for proof of their claims pulls out the ol’ ‘do your research’.

I think this kind of response is actually of value,
Not because I hold out hope that any individual fanatical position will be swayed,
but perhaps others reading along will see the width of the dichotomy, and how the "meat is bad for your health" narrative was built with no actual evidence behind it and so can only be defended with sentimental appeals, insults, and fallacious arguments.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 19, 2001
8426 posts
2098 upvotes
Stay away from Pork

Why is pork bad for you — a look at what the science says

"Consumption of meat, in any quantity, can be detrimental to your health in a number of ways, and generally speaking, the more you eat, the more you increase your risk.

Not all pork is made equal. Uncooked meat can carry pathogens, while processed meat tends to be worse. Meat that is high in saturated fats and trans fats causes the greatest risk to health.

Multiple conditions have been associated with pork consumption, including but not limited to diabetes, MS, cardiovascular disease, obesity, cirrhosis, and multiple types of cancer. The exact nature of this risk is still a matter of active research, but if you want to be on the safe side, no amount of pork is safe. If you just can’t give it up, the common recommendation is to not go over 500 g (1.1 pounds) per week and stick to lean, unprocessed meat.

Substituting red meat protein with plant protein is linked to a longer, healthier life, with multiple studies backing this up. Reducing pork consumption can also have a positive environmental impact, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption associated with our food. Ethically, slaughtering billions of animals every year (especially animals as — or even more — intelligent than dogs) is not the right thing to do.

Oh, and there’s another reason why avoiding pork might be wise, Hunnes notes.

“In the past couple of decades, a couple of disease epidemics (swine flus) have emerged from pigs. Just another reason not to raise animals in confinement.

In short, I do not recommend eating pork. Under any circumstances,” she concludes."

https://www.zmescience.com/science/why- ... -17072020/
Jr. Member
Aug 26, 2019
141 posts
118 upvotes
The6ix
qman23 wrote: So in summary,
1. You have no evidence based studies that meat or dairy are bad for you, to share.

2. You just came by to rant about how big meat/dairy "controls" people, and that people who don't agree with you have a low IQ.

3. You have a belief structure that you are inwardly insecure with, so that when the premises of your epistemology are shown to be incongruent with demonstrable facts, you become anxious and angry.

Is that about it?
Thanks for your input.
Great articulation on point #3. I'm sure you're sitting at your desk doing right what you need to be doing. Being a heroWinking Face
Again, I'm done with you. Your IQ level is very inferior to mine. I'm expecting a response from you because you've proven that you ramble on for no apparent reason.
[OP]
Sr. Member
Apr 18, 2017
587 posts
288 upvotes
zoro69 wrote:
"Consumption of meat, in any quantity, can be detrimental to your health in a number of ways, and generally speaking, the more you eat, the more you increase your risk."
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If meat in any quantity is detrimental, and the more you eat the worse risk, Then it should be rudimentary to demonstrate causality.
Yet, this has never been shown.

"Uncooked meat can carry pathogens, while processed meat tends to be worse. "
Food poisoning is more from common from plants than meat, but what does that have to do with anything?

"Meat that is high in saturated fats...(causes the greatest risk to health.)"
Where is the evidence?
The lipid hypothesis was initially based on minimal (and fraudulent) evidence. Intervention, RCT and clinical trials have been completed and it is no longer considered a risk factor.
“The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary….The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of saturated fats.”


" trans fats causes the greatest risk to health. "
This is a statement I will agree with.
So where did the vast majority of trans fats in the food supply come from? Hydrogenated polyunsaturated (vegetable) oils, that were designed to replace animal fats.
Those "healthy margarines" used to replace butter are undoubtedly responsible for many negative cardiovascular outcomes.
Now that transfats are widely recognized as toxic, the use of palm and coconut oils has increased dramatically to make up for them. (Note: Palm and coconut oils are saturated... so which is it?)



"Multiple conditions have been associated with pork consumption, including but not limited to diabetes, MS, cardiovascular disease, obesity, cirrhosis, and multiple types of cancer. "
Where is the evidence? that is what we want to see. Association, is not causation.

"The exact nature of this risk is still a matter of active research, "
And after years and years of trying, they still can't get the results that would support their hypothesis.

"Substituting red meat protein with plant protein is linked to a longer, healthier life, with multiple studies backing this up. "
As demonstrated, there are exactly zero studies backing up any causation.
All supporting studies show is a possible correlation with many confounds not controlled for, such as the SDA study compared to the general populace, based on food questionnaires.
When you compare a group with shared confounding factors (i.e. non smoking non drinking close community ties etc.) but that do eat meat, differential disappears.
When you compare them to Asian observational studies, you find the exact opposite effect with more animal products being directly proportional to health and longevity.



Next are many motives unrelated to meat being "bad for you" that might be argued on their own merits but do not belong in a discussion about whether or not eating meat has negative health effects.

"Reducing pork consumption can also have a positive environmental impact, reducing the greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption associated with our food. "
"Ethically, slaughtering billions of animals every year (especially animals as — or even more — intelligent than dogs) is not the right thing to do. "
" In the past couple of decades, a couple of disease epidemics (swine flus) have emerged from pigs. "

They are often included in such discussions,
I presume because they realize there is insufficient evidence to support the claim on its own merits and so hope to persuade people to stop eating meat by attempting to elicit an emotional response, and changing the subject.
Yet another post, that fails to provide any evidence based study demonstrating meat is bad for you.
But thank you for the opportunity to point out the flaws in the reasoning, and the true motives behind it.

Top