Guest post by S. Stanley Young and Warren Kindzierski
Summary
The World Economic Forum, assisted by food researchers in academia, wants you to believe that meat is unhealthy compared to soy, tofu, insect and fungus protein diets. Statistical workings of food research are presented here to show this is not true. Food frequency questionnaires (FFQs) are used in studies of population cohorts. Years later, this information together with health outcome observations are combined in statistical analyses. These analyses easily lead to over 20,000 food−disease associations tested in a typical FFQ study – called multiple testing. Researchers can then search thru and select and only report the results they want, but many of these can be false. Red meat is not unhealthy. It is belief of deceptive statistical practices and false claims from academic food researchers that are unhealthy.
Introduction
Kip Hansen’s recent WUWT article was dead-on about nonsense behind meat being a problem for climate change. The World Economic Forum (WEF), assisted by academics, wants you to believe that meat is unhealthy compared to soy, tofu, insect and fungus protein diets.
The WEF asserts that in the future “…meat will be a special treat, not a staple for the good of the environment and our health.” Academics claim that eating red meat causes mortality, numerous types of cancer (colorectal, breast), Type 2 diabetes, and the list goes on. Does this make sense?
There is a saying… math is hard. Well, as will be shown, statistics appears to be even harder for academic food researchers. A look inside the statistical workings of food research (nutritional epidemiology) is a way to show this and to address doubtful red meat−negative health claims.
Background
Many food claims – beneficial or harmful – are made based on observational study of large groups of people called cohorts. These cohorts are given a food frequency questionnaire, FFQ. A FFQ asks questions about different types and portion sizes of foods consumed. Years later food researchers ask about their health conditions.
They then perform statistical analysis of food−disease associations with the data collected. Surprising food−disease associations end up as published research claims. But are these claims true?
Unhealthy red meat claims merit special attention given the WEF’s fixation on it. Kip Hansen’s WUWT article pointed out an evaluation of red meat FFQ studies completed by the Bradley Johnston research group in 2019. It was an international collaboration examining red meat consumption and 30 different health outcomes.
The Johnston research group reviewed published literature, selected 105 FFQ studies, analyzed them and presented their findings in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. They took a position opposite to the WEF – studies implicating red meat were unreliable. Their findings created a firestorm among food researchers, who are mostly academics. More about that later.
Analysis
Statistically confirming the same claim in another study is a cornerstone of science. This is called replication. Given the potential importance of the Johnston study, it was recently independently evaluated in a National Association of Scholars report.
In the report, 15 of the 105 FFQ studies were randomly selected and subjected to counting of specific details. This included counting number of food categories, number of health outcomes and number of adjustment factors in each of the 15 studies.
Food researchers use various techniques to manipulate FFQ data they collect. Researcher flexibility allows food categories from FFQs to be analyzed and presented in several ways. This includes individual foods, food groups, nutrient indexes or food-group-specific nutrient indexes. It was found that there were from 3 to 51 (median of 15) food categories used in the 15 studies.
The number of health outcomes ranged from just 1 to 32 (median of 3) in the 15 studies. Adjustment factors can modify a food−disease association. Nutrition researchers almost always include these factors in their analysis. These factors ranged from 3 to 17 (median of 9) in the 15 studies.
With these counts, the analysis search space can be estimated. This is the number of possible food−disease associations tested in a FFQ study. It is estimated as estimated as the ‘number of food categories’ ´ ‘number of health outcomes’ ´ ‘2 raised to the power of the number of adjustment factors’.
The typical (median) analysis search space estimated in the 15 studies was over 20,000. A large analysis search space means many possible associations can be tested. Food researchers can then search thru their results and select and only report surprising results, but also most likely false ones as we now show.
Now the elephant in the room… many of these types of analyses are likely performed by researchers with an inadequate understanding of statistical methods.
A p-value is a number calculated from a statistical test. It describes how likely (the probability) you are to have found a surprising result. It is a number between 0 and 1. The smaller the number the more surprise (the greater the probability).
The normal threshold for statistical significance for most science disciplines is a p-value of less than 0.05. Researchers can claim a surprising result if the p-value in a statistical test is less than 0.05.
However, a false (chance) finding may occur about 5% of the time when multiple tests are performed on the same set of data using a threshold of 0.05. Five percent of 20,000 possible associations tested may lead to 1,000 false findings mistaken as true results in a study.
The practice of performing many, many tests on a data set is called multiple testing. Say 20,000 associations are tested on a red meat FFQ study data set. Normally only several dozen results from all these tests would eventually be presented in a published study.
Of course, some of the results would be surprising. For example, a wild claim that red meat may lead to complications associated with erectile dysfunction. Otherwise, their study might not be accepted for publication.
Given these many tests with 1,000 possible false findings and only several dozen results presented, how does one tell whether a result claiming red meat leads to erectile dysfunction complications is true or just a false finding?
Without having access to the original data set to check or confirm a claim, you can’t! The Johnston research group was right to call out red meat FFQ studies as unreliable.
Cue the firestorm. Nutrition thought leaders – from Harvard – badgered the main editor of Annals of Internal Medicine to withdraw Johnson’s paper before it even appeared in print. The editor held firm. The food research mob did not prevail.
Implications
Too many nutrition thought leaders, mostly academics, take a position that multiple testing is not a problem in food research. They teach it is not a problem. They are wrong, it is a big problem.
No problem for them, but massive disinformation problems for everyone else when false findings are claimed as true results. John Ioannidis from Stanford and others have called out multiple testing as one of the greatest contributors to false published research claims.
FFQ studies using multiple testing and claiming red meat is unhealthy are largely academic exercises in statistical flimflamming. Red meat is not unhealthy. It is belief of deceptive statistical practices and false claims from academic food researchers that are unhealthy.
There are over 50,000 food−disease studies published since the FFQ was introduced in the mid-1980s. Essentially all these studies involve multiple testing and are very likely false.
S. Stanley Young is the CEO of CGStat in Raleigh, North Carolina and is the Director of the National Association of Scholars’ Shifting Sands Project. Warren Kindzierski is a retired college professor in St Albert, Alberta.
Mankind has been eating animals for hundreds of thousands of years.
Possibly not in the way we do now though as staple diets would likely have been nut’s , berries etc. until hunters caught an animal to cook then a village, or just a family, would likely have gorged on the meat.
I don’t suppose they had a clue about a ‘balanced diet’.
Humans eating meat goes back at least 2.5 million years:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/evidence-for-meat-eating-by-early-humans-103874273/
With the discovery by early hominids of fire and how to control fire, meat became feasible as a major source of nutrition. Meat is not very digestible or well tolerated by the human digestive system unless cooked.
The earliest human ancestors were tree canopy dwellers like modern apes and monkeys … which was not conducive to building fires. As heavy tree canopies thinned over time and savannas spread in east Africa, hominids came down out of the trees, developed bipedalism, became proficient hunters, and utilized fire for cooking meat.
I dunno. Most people I know tolerate rare and medium rare steak just fine. It’s more of a psychological issue about eating bloody meat than a digestible issue.
It’s still cooked, and it’s one thing to eat a piece of rare to medium cooked fine beef, which was developed over thousands of years of domestication and selective breeding to produce the characteristics thereof, and a very different thing eating a piece of raw and very wild mastodon or camel or giant sloth.
French eat raw minced steak, Teak Tartare
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steak_tartare#:~:text=Steak%20tartare%20or%20tartar%20steak,raw%20egg%20yolk%20on%20top.
And Steaks barely introduced to the pan
Bleu – Done on a very hot grill for one minute on each side.
Saignant – Rare. ‘Saignant’ means bloody, so expect this to be very rare. It’s cooked slightly longer on the second side than a bleu steak
À point – Medium-rare. Note that this is still rare by most British or American standards. This implies that a steak is cooked a little longer than a saignant one.
Not just the French.
This Brit is quite partial to steak tartare and I love raw fish.
I think restaurants don’t know saignant anymore. They often do medium when you say saignant, at least in Paris.
One issue is that they employ people who don’t know how to cook.
(Also immigration implies they have people who can’t be allowed some meat they have to serve which is a serious issue.)
When a waiter or waitress asks me how i would like my beef cooked, I tell them that it should have a reasonable chance of recovery….
Bison Jerky and pemmican is not cooked, nor is freeze-dried fish, often consumed by Indians around the Great Lakes.
Are you suggesting that the Clovis people, with their advanced knapping technology, had not yet learned to dry various kinds of meat? I believe it was common practice of the Indians to eat the liver raw, and possibly the tongue of bison.
The practice of drying or salting meat for preservation goes back almost as long as fire and was probably what got us out into the wide world – if you’re going to travel you need to carry food with you that will last for a while – stopping to hunt in unfamiliar territory isn’t easy.
You’re mixing apples and oranges dude. Preservation is not preparation. Besides without fire there is no jerky – it is meat dried over an open fire with smoke.
And you’re talking about Clovis people who were NOT the hominids of 2.5 million years ago that I referred to. They were modern homo sapiens who lived a mere 10-12 thousand years ago – about 2.5 million years removed from the hominids who came down out of the trees, developed bipedalism, and and discovered fire for cooking the meat they killed.
SMH – learn a little science before spouting off on science. Also try learning to read that always helps to avoid dumb commentary.
Duane – we have very little, if any, information on the digestive systems of early hominids. It is quite possible that their systems were more able to process raw meats than modern humans.
In fact, I think it is quite likely, as the digestive system has evolved, and is still evolving. There are still quite large cohorts that cannot properly handle gluten, lactose, etc. But the mechanism for handling those substances has become widespread – lactose tolerance has, for instance, been pinned down to a specific (chromosome 4, the gene that regulates the production of the lactase enzyme) and recent (5K – 6K years ago) inherited mutation.
Wrong! You are the one bleating falsehoods and then accusing others or error with your specious strawmen.
Jerky is dried! Period!
Cooked meat makes a very poor jerky prone to spoilage.
Native Americans dried jerky in the sun or under shelters, away from the fire.
Dry fruits and berries the same way, pulverize the dried meat and dried fruits/berries, mix together pack into a storage bag then fill with melted fat, often bear or goose fat. That is pemmican!
Pemmican is why Native Americans did not suffer scurvy or rickets when the Europeans arrived.
Pemmican and dried meats are traveling foods. A practice maintained from when mankind traveled the world, exploring new places. Keeping the explorers healthy until they could harvest fresh meat.
You are using the classic logic trap of applying 21st century urban mores and food fads as a metric for prehistoric mankind.
Chimpanzees have been observed killing and eating other monkey species.
Prehistoric man was clever and fashioned thread. Useful for stitching together furs or cloth.
Thread, even thread made from dried tendons can be used for making snares. Snares that can easily catch/kill animals up to deer size.
Blood stores poorly, the same goes for most organs. If need be, there are tenderizing methods with rocks. Blood can be drunk immediately.
Raw meat, besides eating immediately, is dried for longer term usage. Actually long term storage requires the use of salt. A not unusual usage for peoples who evolved around dry lake beds and salt water.
Many if not most meats are tender until they are cooked. Cooked, many meats begin to rival thread for toughness and stringiness.
Just as sushi is tasty and tender, so too are raw meats. A fact used by many cultures to serve raw meat dishes.
Agreed. Any “lack of tolerance” would also have come from getting worms and diseases from eating raw meat. Imagine commandeering a carcass after your tribe has chased away a pride of lions that killed the animal and had started feeding on it. If you can cook that leftover meat you will run far less risk of parasites and illnesses.
“
Cooking has many advantages for those consuming meat. However, it isn’t clear that it was well understood by our primitive ancestors. Even so, it was not unheard of to eat some meat raw. It is even done today.
You’ll eat anything if you’re hungry enough.
The key words I used were that cooking is necessary for meat to make up a major portion of a human diet. It just is. Look it up.
But then
https://www.tweaktown.com/news/79206/latest-internet-trend-is-to-eat-raw-decomposed-rotten-high-meat/index.html
“Inuit eat raw meat. Did you know that fresh raw meat is even a source of vitamin C!
As it turns out, their Vitamin C came from animal organs: liver, adrenal glands, roe, and tongue, to name a few. Traditional cooking methods also helped: Vitamin C is present in raw muscle meat,”
Fire made more plant foods available to humans. Plants are what we have difficulty digesting. Meat is easy to digest, including raw meat.
Other apes have a large hind gut that aids in breaking down the cellulose in plants. We are the only ape that does not have a large hind gut
steak tartar
If it’s eaten at a candlelight dinner, then it’s not strictly uncooked. The stray BTU from the candle flame will have hit the meat at some point or other. So strictly speaking, it’s not uncooked.
It’s just very, very, very, very, (did I mention very?) very, rare.
😉
Another view of dinner in low light situations like candlelight
Way back in BC one of our local mail deliveries was by pack horse. It left town on Monday and any traveller rode along.
No ice packs to keep the meat.
So Wednesday night’s dinner was by firelight
So you’re saying billions of humans live on steak tartar? And that the early hominids of 2.5 MYA did so too?
Yeah, right.
The exceptions, tiny that they are, prove the rule that cooking is required for meat to become a major proportion of the human diet. It just is.
Nice assertion there. Got any actual facts to back them up?
Your claim was that human’s can’t handle raw meat, that it causes problems.
The fact that people routinely eat raw meat without the problems refutes this belief of yours.
DuhWayne, sashimi doesn’t cause digestive problems. Neither does steak tartare.
Humans can’t produce vitamin B-12. Before synthetic B-12 supplements were invented the only way humans could get B-12 was from meat and animal products. Neurological problems will happen without B-12, developmental problems, and reproductive problems too. Humans clearly ate raw meat before they mastered fire.
Duh Stupid Meab – we are talking meat, not seafood, and millions of years ago in hominid history, not what is trendy in SoHo today. The hominids of 2.5 MYA who came down out of the trees and developed bipedalism and discovered fire and had the ability to hunt down, kill, and cook meat weren’t sashimi eaters, in case you hadn’t heard.
Did you even read his second sentence or did you stop at sashimi and start typing?
The answer to that question is obvious. No.
Meab and others answer with factual specificity the other throws out insults, hints and ignorance.
Chimpanzees eat meat. Do they secretly have stoves to cook it, or is one of our closest ape relatives capable of digesting raw meat just fine?
more to say “human” goes back 2.5 million and that’s why we’re unsure about the eating meat part going back further
Eskimos doñt eat vegetables
Eating the whole animal (not just the meat) is quite healthy.
Good point, Waza. Their tomatoes never seem to do very well, for some reason. And fruit… they never get oranges, grapefruit, or apples off their trees.
–
But I’m sure some can-do vegans could come up and teach them how to grow rice.
–
–
(OMG! The image of a half-dozen vegans getting stuck with the natives above the Arctic Circle for the Winter is just plain funny.)
Those vegans will be eaten by polar bears, which in turn are eaten by the eskimos, sorry, Inuit.
Vegans can cook?
To me it seems they always eat somebody else’s cooking or they themselves are steaming some coarse vegetable. Or eating plain pizza and turning blind eyes to the oil or wheat white flour and canned tomatoes, neither one organic.
It reminds me of a Steve Goodman song, ‘Chicken Cordon Blues’:
https://youtu.be/V_4yfQyWH4Y
Eskimos also don’t eat yellow snow.
Apparently…
WW2 era and a couple of Australians managed to acquire a boat from up in Indonesia and were headed for Oz.
The rations situation was sketchy and getting worse when a seabird landed on the boat. One of them very stealthily managed to catch it. Comment was that they ate it all and treated the uncleaned guts as “predigested protein”.
They didn’t mention the feathers IIRC
Yes, but how much meat? How often?
Not a steak dinner/fast food hamburger every day before modern times
A Gates scientist says that Fruit Loops are healthier than steak and eggs.
It could be a case of you are what you eat.
That’s a sure sign of progress and wealth through Capitalism Griff…
Depending on the hunting success, easy to answer question.
Vegetarian: Ancient Indian word that means “lousy hunter”.
Why focus on steak? I eat one of bacon, pork, chicken, or cow almost every single day in some form or another. It doesn’t have to be “steak” or “hamburger”. Doesn’t seem to have hurt me over 72 years.
My father lived to age 98 with such a diet
Bacon and eggs were his favorite for breakfast
So ! Is it you who’s buggered up The Climate, left The Mess for everyones grand- great grand- more grands children to fix ? Have you No Remorse,, you, you, you qxt@%&$# !!
The second part of your reply says it all – “fast food”…My grandparents and great aunts/uncles lived well into their 90’s and ate plenty of meat. But fast food did not exist for most of their lives so they didn’t eat it.
Is it really the burger that is bad for you in fast food, or the fries and sugary soft drink? If I have a fish sandwich at a fast food restaurant is that healthy or does the fried breading make it bad for you?
Processed food is not good for us. Fast food is heavily processed, so are these fake meat products. Add in the extra salt, sugar and preservatives and you really shouldn’t eat either very often and definitely not for every meal.
Never eat anything that comes in a box.
The problem with fast food is the bun nothing but pure sugar.
The meat is usually fine. The mystery condiments are suspect though.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-inuit-paradox
From sycomputing’s link:
Fatty brains are good.
I suspect that Griff’s brain might be fatty…mmm…
Ebor, put down that nice Chianti…
Fffffff, ffffffff, fffffff.
You can’t prove something that doesn’t exist.
About 20% of the human brain is cholesterol.
Brain cholesterol is made in the brain, since it doesn’t pass the blood-brain barrier in significant amounts.
No. NO! the brain contains about 20% of the cholesterol in the body. The brain is around 70% cholesterol.
What do you think happens if you starve the body of fat and cholesterol?
As I said – nothing. Every single cell in our body is making its own cholesterol. And the brain make all the cholesterol all by itself.
Plus just imagine all the fools over the last 40 years who have believed they must lower their cholesterol by eating low cholesterol food (tasteless) which does not lower your cholesterol one iota and is not required anyway as the cause of heart disease is not high cholesterol or even saturated fat . It’s all been a huge con !
My LDL went down more than 50% since I’ve ditched animal products.
Seek out Dr Malcolm Kendrick to help you understand cholesterol.
Dr Malcolm Kendrick has studied cholesterol for years and informs us statins are the most widely distributed and profitable drug known to man (well, until covid popped up).
He also tells us that statins are, at best, useless, at worst very harmful.
Back when I was in the trades, a guy I used to work with – a carpenter, most of the time – stared taking statins on the advice of his doctor. Within a month, he couldn’t lift his arms over his head without severe pain. Stopped taking them again and the problem receded. Started taking them once more (again on the advice of his doctor) and it came back. He ended up retiring soon after.
” how much meat? How often? ”
Simple answers to two very simple questions:
A carnivore diet must be good since griffter is against it.
griff is a vegetable.
In hard times, that is before 1960 in the UK you ate whatever was put in front of you.
Why don’t you challenge an Argentinian gaucho on that point. If you do, take care, they bear arms.
Steak for breakfast, lunch and diner, if you leave one out you obviously are a poor sod.
Tell giffie that it must eat beef the Argentinian gaucho way.
From the Lewis and Clark Expedition.
My bolding.
People not only survive. they thrive eating meat raw and cooked. Lewis & Clark’s expedition covered a lot of distance and territory and frequently wanted to avoid conflicts with natives. Meaning they preferred to jerk the meat and eat it on the paddle/march.
Making your urban dilettante rationalization bit of sophistry truly absurd.
Humans did not evolve to eat feed-lot beef.
https://macroseasy.com/34-we-dont-know-if-grain-fed-beef-is-healthy/
” Humans did not evolve to eat feed-lot beef. ”
I often cite:
Man is the only animal able to distinguish between drinking water and holy water
— Leslie White, The evolution of culture: The development of civilization to the fall of Rome 1959:1
Of course they did not. Nor to wear shoes or neckties. I wonder if the distinction between “edible beef” and “feed-lot beef” is not a metaphysical, ideological one (quoting the given reference, my stress: “We Don’t Know if Grain-Fed Beef is Healthy”).
Grain diets are bad for ungulates, (includes cattle).
The grains ferment where the digestion poorly handles fermentation products.
Cattle may receive a portion of grain, they mostly eat alfalfa, timothy, fresh meadow grass, silage, beet greens or other coarse vegetables.
We have evolved to eat such meat, as proven by the success of doing so. By your definition of evolution, we did not evolve to live past an average age of 42. That we are doing so is due to a variety of things, including change in diet, that you seem unwilling to accept as part of evolution.
Have you ever done any foraging? It takes a lot of time and energy for very little in the way of calories; rarely enough to make up for the energy that is expended in gathering those foods. And let’s not forget that berries and nuts are available only in season, and that there are very few habitats where humans have access to edible plants all year long.
Estimates suggest that most hunter-gatherers consumed a diet that was between 50% and 65% animal foods. This included small mammals, lizards, birds and fish, some insects when times were hard, eggs when available, and large game animals.
Isolated troupes of Aborigines in the central desert regions of Australia were still nomadic hunter / gathers when their first encounters with Europeans occurred in the 1950s.
Their food sources were relatively limited and seasonal – leaves, grass seeds, roots, lizards, snakes, birds, marsupials, rodents, etc.
Division of labour was basically – males hunted, females gathered.
Full-time occupations for both.
While hundreds of thousands of Aussies now claim indigenous identity, I can’t seem to find how many of them are planning to adopt their traditional sustenance practices.
Despite elk, deer, and javelina being present in Northern Arizona even today, obsidian bird-point, arrow heads are relatively abundant around Meteor Crater. It speaks to primitive people being adept at using any and all resources available to them. If one is hungry enough, they may not even take the time to build a fire if a kill is lying at their feet.
Yes, but nut’s what?
Or are you possibly a grocer in disguise? (see “grocer’s apostrophes”)
”Mankind has been eating animals for hundreds of thousands of years.”
Yes, and one of his first inventions was the spear.
First inventions were the rock and the stick.
In Australia is where the stick received advanced manipulation to become a boomerang. Other cultures used curved sticks for throwing at small animals.
Spears got invented when man needed to kill things four to five feet away from their own bodies, e.g., bears, lions, tigers, other people…
Also I can’t imagine Egor the caveman cutting all the fat from his meat , quite the opposite as was found when early North American Explorers visited the Indian tribes they found them eating fat in prodigious quantities along with meat plus they were all in excellent health , very few of the whiteman diseases were evident and they all had mouthfuls of healthy teeth m no caries !
Here are more studies that show that red meat is not bad for you.
All of the Evidence that Red Meat is Not Bad For You (carnivoreaurelius.com)
According to my study, everyone who eats red meat will die.
Everyone who eats tofu is a dork
And 98% of prisoners eat potatoes, proof that eating potatoes cause crime
In 1997, I predicted the climate would get warmer, unless it got colder.
We have a winner !
And, 100% of those who don’t eat meat will die. Those who don’t eat anything die soonest.
Those who eat bad fugu die soonest. Or VX, cyanide,… Those who don’t eat anything can last for days, perhaps weeks.
“It is belief of deceptive statistical practices and false claims from academic food researchers that are unhealthy.”
This is a clumsy sentence IMHO.
Mixing a singular and plural.
Could be, say
“It is beliefs of deceptive statistical practices and false claims from academic food researchers that are unhealthy.”
or
“It is belief of deceptive statistical practices and false claims from academic food researchers that is unhealthy.”
But even then…
This is a clumsy post IMHO.
It should never have been written.
I just assumed the researchers weren’t eating a balanced diet.
This is stupid.
There are so many “foods” that only impact a person when that individuals threshold is passed.
For me its MSG.
I can handle a few portions a week without any impact.
Mines white bread. I had to stop eating it years ago due to health concers – more than a couple of slices and I’m in agony.
Yeah, I have a very low cilantro threshold! > ; }
My low threshold is what comes out of the rear end of meat that I eat.
I can eat as much asparagus as I can fit in.
But then I’m exiled from our bathroom for a day and have to walk down to the local pub for a pee.
Yes we’ve been eating animals – but which parts?
I think we all know the ‘Romantic Ritual Dinner’ = steak and wine.
For the knowledgeable and pretentious it had to be red wine that went with the Red Meat
The red wine obviously represents blood – gotta be the most nutrient dense foodstuff anywhere, notable for the electrolytes, trace elements, and water-soluble fat (Cholesterol) it contains
Where things go a little awry in the Romantic Setting was, due to the immense scarcity of what the Real Red Meat actually was.
To do things properly and be on a near sure-fire date, the ‘red meat’ would have been raw liver.
Economics eh – the might dollar wins again.
Nothing is immune, even the blood found its way into scarcity so, ta-dah (or should that be Voila) gravies and sauces were created – salty gelatinous confections with The Main Ingredient being = Fat
Another epic treat to win over the heart of your intended and thus get your genes propogated, was to present her with the brain of the critter you’d spent best part of a very hungry week following around before you finally caught it
Bone marrow and kidneys were much sought after by the Selective Female
We are not Carnivores.
And bang on schedule, the good ol’ Farmer’s Weekly UK edition delivers……
Headline:“World cancer charity criticises red meat study
here
Nice bits of steak in their photo – see the marbling (fat) that everyone swears by?
If they could talk the cows would also be swearing: That Marbling (fat deposits inside muscle) is a sure fire sign that that animal had Full Blown Type 2 Diabetes when it died.
Because: because it was (force) fed a diet high in Carbohydrate (wheat, corn and (in the UK), Barley.
nice. not.
Think about that when your Fasting Glucose is ‘on the up’
See what the Planet Saving Plant Eating Warmists have in store for you there. Equally not nice.
“The red wine obviously represents blood”
Give it up with the religious mumbo-jumbo.
Oh God, thread bombing.
Here’s a one, and it is Very Very Scary. Damn near nuclear.
A very long time ago in our past, before us and the (contemporary other) Large Apes parted company to go our separate developmental ways, our Common Ancestor ran out of ‘proper food’
i.e. Went into a starvation situation requiring desperate measures.
How we might deduce that is, apart from ourselves and those large apes, all other critters on this Earth manufacture Vitamin C inside themselves.
They make The Right Sort, on demand and in the quantities required.
It has to be made on demand because is:
a/ Water soluble
b/ Intensely useful stuff – it’s used up as fast as it’s made (or ingested)
We know that we (and the other apes) did used to make our own Vitamin C because the genetic pathway is still there within us, it has just ‘been disabled‘ somehow
It becomes more and more obvious, given even a modicum of thought, reading & research, that the Vitamin C mechanism was switched off by ‘something‘ implanting a teeny weeny itsy bitsy weeny weeny bit of DNA into our own DNA.
Who would do that?
Somehow you cannot see that little protein sequence coming from our eating other animals – they all make and need Vitamin C so would not never ever carry such a DNA strand
Thus, the DNA strand that switched off our Vitamin C factory must have come from eating a plant. Which makes perfect sense, plants don’t like being eaten any more than any critter enjoys becoming lunch.
But plants require much more subtle ways of getting the message across
So they use poisons, irritants & allergens – the Nightshade Family being an immensely good example.
But by definition, all the plants we now see around us MUST have chemical defences, else they’d have been all eaten up hardly before they even evolved. The only plants we see around us are, by definition, Toxic
One such plant, however many millions of years ago, sussed it out beautifully.
Because it recognised that in order to be eaten, the creature doing the eating required ‘Teeth’
So what better way to deter both the casual and the seasoned plant eater than by poisoning them in such a way that their teeth go rotten, wonky, painful and in due course, fall completely out.
Welcome to Scurvy – the very first initial signs, well before the really serious effects kick in, are exactly those things: bleeding & receding gums, tooth decay, gappy teeth and total tooth loss
That is just soooooo very neat isn’t it. So perfect, a True Doctor Evil at work.
Yet look at us, we still haven’t taken the hint.
Be careful people, because the Glyphosate molecule, apart from having an extra Nitrogen atom, is an exact copy of Glycine.
= one of the four amino acids that go to make DNA.
If you know what you’re looking for, the ‘detritus’ inside us is measurable, where Glyphosate has been included BUT, the mistake was spotted before it got too far.
But mistakes are mistakes, that shit is going to become an un-movable part of our DNA and us before long. Just like whatever plant did those 100’s thousands years ago when it switched off Vitamin C
As for Glyphosate, send big love, hugs and kisses to the No Till Lo Tillers of this world, while you still can – before they Save The World but completely trash you.
Alternatively, we were getting so much vitamin C from eating other animals that our bodies no longer needed to produce it. There are other possibilities.
I understand that our specie was going into extinction due to lack of food,
That as a rebuff, to this happening we (homo Sapien) stopped producing
vitamin C, as that required food energy that was not available,
So those who could produce Vitamin C, Starved, whilst those who did not survived.
It is known that at one time the population was reduced to approximately 10,000.
Were you on the census team?
You have it backwards. Eating Vit-C rich foods prevents scurvy.
This is a very unlikely mechanism.
Eating a plant caused DNA damage that disabled our ancestor’s ability to generate vitamin-C????
It had nothing to do with our ancestors bodies not wasting energy creating something that they were able to get from the environment?
It’s only with wealth that it’s possible to pick and choose what to eat.
Across most of Europe the “ordinary folk” kept a pig and some chickens.
The traditional English Breakfast – The chicken is involved but the pig is committed.
Every part of the pig was eaten. Pigs Trotters for example. Neither cost a great deal in food as they eat virtually anything. Pigs doing particularly well on acorns.
Modern British houses do not have gardens big enough for a pig and some chickens so hard times ahead.
You know what really puts a dampener on great tasting dishes for me Peta?
Being told what’s in them.
Some interesting second opinions here:
http://second-opinions.co.uk/
http://second-opinions.co.uk/healthy-eating_index.html
I’m a lapsed vegetarian ;=})
I’m a post-modern vegan.
I only eat meat with a twist of irony.
Where do you get those twists of irony?
I have to take irony supplements and I’m looking for a better price.
It’s native in the UK so prices are cheap.
I understand you are able to purchase “special shipments” from your usual dealer but be careful these “special shipments” of irony may be laced with self-deprecation.
🤣
It’s the poor stats that’s interesting, not the edibility of red meat.
The poor stats means we cannot talk about the conclusions as they are not worth reading.
And poor stats is a wider problem for academia than just food science.
Read this only this morning
Vegetarian women are a THIRD more likely to suffer hip fractures later in life because ‘they don’t get enough nutrients to keep bones strong’
Daily Mail
Question of Vitamine D missing
Lack of calcium as well. Early onset osteoporosis does appear to be a problem with vegans and vegetarians. Not a good sign for future generations that have bought into this nonsense.
Read somewhere recently that a study found that vegan children were on average 3cms shorter and had lower bone mineral content of 4 – 6%. Were also three times more likely to be deficient in B12 than children eating meat and dairy. But had ‘healthier’ cholesterol levels and lower levels of body fat.
Lower levels of body fat could be evidence of malnutrition.
Meat eaters were fat and had heart disease.
Prevalence of CVD, cancer, or diabetes at recruitment was highest in regular meat-eaters (n = 1250 (10.2%)), and lowest in vegetarians (222 (5.8%)).
BMI was lower in vegetarians (mean (standard deviation, SD) 23.3 (3.9 kg/m2)) and pescatarians (23.3 (3.5 kg/m2)) than in regular meat-eaters (25.2 (4.4 kg/m2))
When I was a much younger man I rarely ate anything that came out of the ground. And, I was anything but fat at 6′ tall and 155 lbs. At 80 years of age, I have a BP of 118/80, taken in my doctor’s office last week.
I’m guessing that you haven’t actually investigated any of those claims and how incredibly weak the evidence behind them is.
Perhaps you are afraid that you will find out that your chosen life style is not the panacea that you wish it to be.
And yet life expectancy in western nations has improved dramatically over the last couple of hundred years as meat (even processed meat) became a staple rather than a rarity.
And average height has increased.
The only thing keeping the average height of US “residents” from increasing (it is actually going DOWN) is the massive influx of Mexican and Central American undernourished illegal immigrant.
My son-in-law is the progeny of two parents born in Mexico. ALL of his brothers and sisters who were raised in the US (7 siblings total) are taller then their parents probably on average by 3 to 4 inches.
Hard working family with a father who worked 2 full time jobs and a stay at home mother.
3 of the 4 brothers are Police officers. Back the Blue!, except in Las Vegas, Metro wears brown.so Back the Brown.
There is a young lady in our church from Guatemala. Even in 4 inch heels, she doesn’t make it up to my shoulder. Her 3 kids are all normal height.
I love my red meat. It has done me no harm. Beef, lamb, mutton, venison – I love them all.
Roast wild boar. Just sayin’.
Over a roaring fire, al la Asterix. I’ve had that once in the south of France at a wedding. Never to be forgotten.
How about feral camels, donkeys, water buffalo and other introduced pests that make a great barbecue feast in outback Australia?
Goat cooked under ground, comes out nice and greasy and delish!
anyone else pondered why red meat is BAD….unless youre willing to eat labvat redmeat in which case suddenly its fine?
latest scare items in Aus this week
all rainwater is bad cos PFAS therefore we should stop drinking the cleanest water we get
neglect to consider ALL the lakes rivers and storages are rainwater fed/supplied anyway
second was we shouldnt eat backyard hens eggs cos soils in aus are lead contaminated(implied was all/fact was a few suburban ex industrial areas and maybe leadpaint debris etc)
home hens eggs were Gasp! 40x more lead than commercial
so commercial is% MICROgrams or less and home might manage a tad more.
anything to deprive people of non commercial crap for profit food options
Or, to put it a little more succinctly, researchers cherry pick their results in order to have a higher probability of getting published.
That has been a perpetual failing of the publishing business going back forever. “News” is always cherry picked to either further an ideological objective, or to simply generate more revenue (ie more subscribers, higher ratings, more clicks).
Hoity toity outfits use a fancy term for this by claiming their stories are “curated” – which is just a high-falutin synonym for “cherry picked”. Everybody does this – both “them” as well as “us”.
Can the WEF explain away why humans have incisor teeth in maxilla and mandible? They are not the teeth of an herbivore.
The human digestive system produces many pancreatic enzymes that exist solely for digesting the proteins and fats found in meat, like pepsin. Bile production in the gall bladder also supports the digestion and absorption of animal fats. This is another patently obvious sign that the human body is designed to digest meat.
Many herbivores spend well over 60% of the day eating.
My cat has a feed in doublequick time and then spends ages sleeping it off.
Nature really is savvy – and so are those who laugh at the WEF and its ilk.
At least we are omnivores.
We are omnivores – our intestines are longer than pure carnivores to cope with a varied diet, our teeth are designed to cut and chew meat and we cannot survive without the trace elements found in animal fats and meat. We are not a vegetarian animal and any attempt to make us one will not end well.
I agree entirely. However the mental illness in others is not going to go away without a fight. Thank you Dutch farmers.
“Why go vegan?”
Hint: It’s about… feelings, of course.
“Preventing the exploitation of animals is not the only reason for becoming vegan, but for many it remains the key factor in their decision to go vegan and stay vegan. Having emotional attachments with animals may form part of that reason, while many believe that all sentient creatures have a right to life and freedom.”
https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/why-go-vegan
Have they told the fly about its rights when it comes to predation by spiders? Have Wildebeest been advised to take out a restraining order on Lions?
Your average green gauges their compassion for a species by their estimation of its intelligence and/or its cuddlability. You don’t hear them shouting save Variola…
Some lives matter – but not all.
Bunny Lives Matter
Bugs?
Carrots have feelings.
Apparently.
And they don’t even realise that if cattle and sheep hadn’t been useful to humans they wouldn’t be around now anyway.
What they completely forget about (conveniently) are the studies that show that vegetables also feel and react to pain (more slowly) communicate and can create sounds. There was a rather harrowing sound recorded (speeded up and put into audible frequencies) of a carrot being pulled from the ground – I may be anthropomorphising but it didn’t sound as if it liked it.
As others have pointed out, a quick examination of the human digestive track (from the pH of the stomach to the size of the colon) shows that humans are not evolutionarily adapted to be herbivores.
But one must understand that science has little to do with modern vegetarianism. Whether you reference Sylvester Graham or the Seventh Day Adventist church, vegetarianism is largely an adaptation from earlier religious cults. Strongly embraced by the various “new age” religions of the post-Christian left.
So arguing science with “we believe in science” religious-based vegetarianism adherents is largely pointless. Their lived reality is that vegetarianism is morally superior. So nothing else matters.
The much-maligned drug companies don’t have it so easy as the food quacks, or so I have been lead to believe.
The FDA does not allow data-mining/p-hacking from results of clinical trials. Thus, if the results of an erectile disfunction trial show that it doesn’t raise the dead, but does, apparently, cure cancer, then they have to do a completely new trial designed to test for cancer treatment not erectile disfunction.
I and my wife are vegan because our cholesterol was high as was our blood pressure. Prior to becoming a vegan we by no means were eating what most would consider an unhealthy diet as we ate largely fresh vegetables, chicken, fish, and very little red meat. Since going vegan our cholesterol has been cut in half (or more than half for my wife) and our blood pressure has fallen back into the normal range. Red meat is not bad for you in the same way that not exercising is not bad for you, but eating a plant based diet with no meat and exercising will make you live longer. Period. https://youtu.be/a7SprgZTK2o
Best laugh of the day
So far…
First off, samples of 1 are not very scientific.
Second, are you claiming that cutting out all meat products was your only life style change?
Thirdly, I’ve never seen studies that tie chicken and fish to cholesterol, however I’ve seen lots of studies that tie excess carbohydrates to cholesterol.
Fourthly, recent studies are discrediting the notion that what you eat has much impact on blood cholesterol.
Yes, i eat whatever i want as much as i want and my cholesteral level never changes much. A friend cut out all sorts of things he likes and still takes meds to try and keep his low.
Has he tried exercise?
For me, the secret to controlling cholesterol is not to eat anything in the evening or at night, and to keep up with my exercise,
What I eat doesn’t matter.
The secret to controlling cholesterol is quit trying. The stress reduction will be beneficial.
Mileage may vary. Moderation is probably a better path to follow for an omnivore.
Look up Dr Malcom Kendrick.
He’s been studying cholesterol for decades and finds that statins are the most profitable drug known to man, and they are at best useless, at worst, dangerous.
Cholesterol isn’t a problem, unless there is profit in declaring it is.
What can a devout vegetarian/vegan look forward to?
Iron deficiency – Red meat and liver are especially good sources
Iodine deficiency – Dairy, eggs and fish
Cholesterol deficiency – The good stuff…
Vitamin A deficiency – Greenpeace approved
Vitamin D deficiency – See cholesterol….
Vitamin B12 deficiency – Liver, kidneys, milk, eggs etc
Zinc deficiency – found especially in red meat…
Calcium deficiency – brittle bones ahoy
Lack of Satiety – Protein is the most important nutrient to promote satiety, keep you from feeling hungry
That’s why many vegetarians look more than just undernourished.
Heme iron is harmful, while there is enough iron in legumes and grains. https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/heme-iron/
Cholesterol deficiency — no such thing. Cholesterol is harmful.
Vitamin A deficiency – easily supplemented if you are a slow beta-carotene converter.
Vitamin D deficiency – not possible to get enough from food in any case.
Vitamin B12 deficiency – easily supplemented.
Zinc deficiency – not really a problem.
Calcium deficiency – more than enough in greens and grains. Anyway, you don’t need as much if you cut your salt and protein intake.
you die without cholesterol. Everything is harmful, its all about the dose. Too much vitamin A will kill you, as will everything else.
Every single cell in our body can make cholesterol. It’s made from acetyl-CoA, which means every energy substrate is suitable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Biosynthesis
All bolding is mine
You say: “Cholesterol deficiency — no such thing. Cholesterol is harmful.”
Others (https://www.betteraging.com/nutrition/understanding-cholesterol-and-the-brain/) say:
You really have bought into everyone of the vegetarian myths.
How accurately and honestly do people generally answer a questionnaire? Self-reporting is a questionable practice to begin with.
By definition, no questionnaire is worth the paper it’s written on.
Multiple studies show vegetarians have higher, or at best, the same rates of cancer as meat eaters.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=avast&q=higher+cancer+rates+vegetarian&ia=web
Before anyone claims meat eaters have more heart disease, they ought to familiarize themselves with cardiolipin & carnitine, nutrients available only from meat https://www.nutraingredients.com/Article/2013/04/23/L-Carnitine-has-heart-health-benefits-Mayo-Clinic
Meat rather seems to have helped our brain development. I remind my vegetarian acquaintances, when they insist that I should eat like them, that Hitler was a vegetarian. I don’t give a darn what they eat, and I don’t try to persuade them to eat meat. Yet vegetarians (and vegans are much, MUCH worse) seem to feel the need to try and convert everyone to their choices.
Earlier this year I read about a vegan couple who were arrested for child abuse when their infant died from malnutrition. They were feeding it an entirely soy based diet.
I seem to read about cases like this about once a year.
Human beings are “designed” to eat meat (as part of a balanced diet). We would not be where we are today as a species without meat, especially cooked meat as part of our diet.
The politicians and the elites who fund them truly and deeply hate us through and through. We are ‘deplorable’ and have ‘unacceptable viewpoints’. Their hatred for us is powerful and strong. They do not care for us, not even a little; but they certainly care about themselves. (Which is why they feign interest in us during elections. They have a strong hate toward us, but since they love power and themselves, they will do whatever it takes to win the election. And that means faking interest in us.)
When you understand how much these people hate us, then you can understand why they against anything that makes us happy and gives us freedom. Red meat makes us happy; it must go. Oil lets us enjoy life, work less, and gives us more freedom; it must go. And so on. Everything that lets us enjoy life must go.
Evolution would have made red meat safe to eat over millions of generations. We cook meat because ancient humans noticed raw meat can kill you. But it isnt the meat that does the killing.
See:
https://macroseasy.com/32-animal-fat-becomes-the-new-cholesterol/
If a generation is 20 years, a million generations would be 20 million years. I don’t believe humans have been eating meat for that long.
I presume you dispute the existence of humans 20 million years back. Would you accept that human ancestors of 20 million years past ate meat, and their descendants have done so ever since?
The human line only goes back 2 to 3 million years.
Somewhere between here and then our ancestors started eating and that was a good thing.
Vegetarians don’t live longer. It just seems longer
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++1000
Nothing enhances quality of life like tying into a steak.
Q: How can you guess that someone is a vegetarian?
A: You don’t have to guess. They’re gunna tell you real soon after you meet them.
To me this problem of incompetent use of Statistics is not just confined to food; but is rife throughout the scientific community; with the added sinister aspect that much of it is deliberate, secure in the knowledge that few people, or any, are competent enough to point out the errors. The Hockey Stick fiasco being a case in point.
It seems that science has sold its soul to its now political masters in its thirst for Grant Money and woe betide anyone not deemed to be cooperating.
Beef from 100% grass fed, pasture raised cows is among the healthiest foods you can eat. Where we went ‘wrong’ with beef is when ‘Big Agra’ started locking them up in tiny little stalls & started feeding them corn, soy, other grains, out of date commercial cereals, stale gummy bears, etc.
One example of why this is brain dead is Pasture Raised Grass fed beef has an Omega 6 – Omega 3 ratio of 1.5-1. The other beef has a ratio of 20-1. There is a Hopkins study that asserts that long term ratios above 4-1 in humans contributes to a number of chronic disease issues, among them, diabetes, high BP, & heart disease.
Another is that grass fed beef is the best source of EAA (Essential Amino Acids)/calorie consumed. vegetarians ‘can’ get the same amount of EAAs, but they must consume a high volume of plants. If you want to get your EAAs from Chickpeas, you must consume 700g of Chickpeas at a single sitting, 1200 calories, including 140g of carbs.
There is much more.
True enough. Beef (and other livestock) are an efficient way to process grass and forage into something we can eat.
All beef is grass fed– it’s the grass finished beef that shows some slight differences in lab-evaluated nutrient levels– levels that are statistically significant but not clinically significant….As study ~10 y/a out of Scandinavia showed that those lab differences can be preproduced by feeding only grass/hay to feed lot cattle for the 2 weeks prior to slaughter….
Absolutely right about nutrient density– 6 oz of beef will supply 60 gm protein, 25%-50% of most vits & mins and only 500cal….It takes 3000cal worth of rice, beans & corn to supply the protein and only half the vits & mins as beef.
Red meat is already a “special treat” for most of us.
Biden’s Inflation Reduction efforts have made sure of that.
Recommended reading:
“Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price
I’ll just stay a second-hand vegetarian then:
Sorted!
😉
😉
You are what you eat. I eat vegetarians. Therefore, I am a vegetarian.
You eat vegetarians? That’s going to make Erast Van Doren nervous.
The article is stupid and ignorant. No, it’s not the food questionnaires only, there are tons of high quality research that proves beyond doubts that meat, eggs, dairy, and fats in general are detrimental to human health.
The biggest killer of our time is, of course, heart disease. Plant-based nutrition can eliminate the disease completely! Check out “The cholesterol war” by Daniel Steinberg and “Cholesterol and Beyond” by Stewart Truswell.
Another killer is diabetes. Again, ditch the animal food, and you are safe. Please read “Mastering Diabetes” by Cyrus Khambatta.
Cancer? Meat is a carcinogen, while many plants can inhibit tumor growth. Check out the Dr. Greger’s work: https://nutritionfacts.org/topics/cancer/
The same is true for virtually every other civilizational disease. Here are some other books on the topic:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25663961-how-not-to-die
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/12567860-the-starch-solution
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/62345.Dr_Neal_Barnard_s_Program_for_Reversing_Diabetes
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/59090.Prevent_and_Reverse_Heart_Disease
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25816777-the-end-of-heart-disease
Please stick to the climate science, and don’t tarnish your reputation.
Meat, eggs, dairy, and fats (not seed oils) are the healthiest food you can eat. The biggest killer of our time is high carb, low fat diet. Low carb, no/low junk processed food, fasting and physical activity is a cure all.
Most of that junk is based on Attribution Statistics which itself is unscientific and comes from the field of marketing.
We actually know the molecular pathways that cause the damage.
I’m guessing that you believe that a quality study is one that agrees with what you already want to believe.
Utter bollox.
Mankind has evolved to eat meat. Scientific nonsense cannot defy that simple fact.
I remember reading a summary of the famous Framingham study many years ago. One outcome was that low fat diets extend life by 2 weeks
I love animals, they’re delicious!
The bigger problem with the American diet I believe, without any erroneous statistical manipulations, is the over consumption of grains. Nothing will pack on the pounds like a big plate of pasta with a loaf of bread.
As W C Fields said,”I love children – but I couldn’t eat a whole one.”
MR beef and MR-M pork contain the only antioxidant that the human body will actually absorb without digesting it down into basic components (oxidizing it). None of those antioxidants in any of those supplements or foods should ever make it past your stomach acid unless you forcefully over-eat.
What is MR beef and MR-M pork?
When I do a search for the terms I just get restaurants and butchers.
A wild guess would be MR = Medium Rare and M = Medium
My grandfather was fond of eating the fat others trimmed off of their steak or roast. It killed him at 99 years and 9 months. Otherwise he might have made it to100.
Why didn’t Dr, Fauci warn him about this earlier?
A disgrace to the profession of doom-mongers.
The fact that humans enjoy the taste of animal fat suggests that it is good for them. The problem is that anything — even water — can be taken in excess.
I remember reading a summary of the famous Framingham study many years ago. One outcome was that low fat diets extend life by 2 weeks
Rules For Healthy Living
Rules 1, 2, 3 and 5 are optional.
#1 is important, unless you are into eating your food still alive.
Red meat is fine. The substitution of refined carbs instead of meat/fat in the 70’s has destroyed more lives than any other single factor.
All other factors aside, the vast majority of americans that have “died of covid” were obese.
Optimal nutrition consists of 75-80% carbs, 10-15% protein and 10-15% fat.
High carb diet is killing the western world… but I’ve come to believe that that is the goal of the idealist, collectively.
The best illustration of the possible problems with multiple testing is in this XKCD cartoon:
https://xkcd.com/882/
Another example is the attempt to find special patterns in the Hebrew bible as proof of its divine origins. They are proud of the fact that they have computerized the search so they could test millions of possibilities. Of course, they found some…
Yes the red-meat-illness theory is crap and we’ve known that for quite a while now. The basis for the theory was useless manipulated data that showed nothing of the sort. The early country- diet-heart disease studies where dishonest and selective in the data presented and when well constructed prospective studies were done, there were none of the expected health benefits tied to reducing saturate fat (a correlate of animal protein intake) in diet.
Over the past century the longevity of all societies has continually increased in parallel with an increase in the amount of protein (mostly animal sourced) in their diet. As for the environment – those countries with enough energy and food supply to consume more animal protein have also done the best job of lessening human impact on the environment. These are just correlations so not definitive proof that eating red meat is good for health or the environment, but they do provide convincing evidence that it is not harming health or the environment as the eco-zealots would have us believe.
It’s the same with drinking too much alcohol or too much red wine is apparently bad for you but then a study comes out that a glass of wine a day is beneficial more than say drinking tea.
So basically when it comes to what I eat and drink is up to me and I think I follow a good diet which is varied with fruit & veg (local if possible), meat (chicken, turkey, pork, lamb, beef, goat, venison) pulses, pasta, potatoes, salad and fish (local & fresh). I don’t add sugar or salt to food and I don’t drink fizzy sugary drinks. KFC, Big Mac or takeaways are an exception.
What I do find strange is when we have friends to stay or we go to a restaurant with friends how finicky other people’s diet’s are, some won’t touch a vegetable, some won’t look at a fish some won’t eat red meat and others won’t eat anything “foreign”.
If I die due to my diet then on my death bed I’ll be forever grateful that I wasn’t forced to eat locust and fungus by Bill Gates (all though I wouldn’t mind trying it as a local delicacy on holiday somewhere).
After all the bugs Bill Gates subjected us to with his software, you would still trust him with something (supposedly) edible?
It’s animal agriculture as a whole that is bad for the environment. And that comes back to harm us. WUWT just had an article titled: “The Big 5 Natural Causes of Climate Change: part 4 Landscape Changes”. Animal agriculture is a huge player in landscape changes.
Animal agriculture is tiny compared to regular agriculture. Eliminate animals from our diet means a pretty sizable increase in the amount of land devoted to agriculture.
You are aware that cows are allowed to graze for most of their lives?
Beyond that, climate change is not a problem, natural or not.
Are meat and dairy healthy foods or not? On balance and in moderation, I wouldn’t think they are unhealthy, but I’m no medical expert. Ideas such as veganism aren’t founded on health claims though, they are ethical concerns. And with good reason because while people ate animals for hundreds of thousands of years, they definitely didn’t farm animals the way we do today.
Cows are let out to pasture for most of their lives, that’s the same way our ancestors raised cows.
Pigs are kept in pens, that’s the same way our ancestors raised pigs.
Culinary justice
we should all switch to sea food.
This is a bit tautological, because that’s what the 0.05 means. Rather than “However”, it would have been better to write “By definition”
</pedantry>
When I see the menu at COP50+ has no meat in it then I will look for tofuburgers.
As for eating bugs, aren’t they meat as well?
Diabetes caused by red meat doesn’t even pass the smell test!
Mass diabetes cases is an extremely recent phenomenon. So there must be strong factors other than meat.
Now that doesn’t prove meat cannot ever cause the disease. But the other factors, unless properly described and quantified, make any analysis of meat as a factor completely worthless.
I haven’t seen this before –
“The plan for removing meat and dairy from our diets is very unclear -IMO. Around 30% of all cows are in India, more and although Hindus don’t eat meat because cows are a sacred animal, they drink milk. Non-Hindus in India do eat meat as well as consume dairy. If the green movement wants to remove meat and dairy from our diets then India would need to be their major global focus, being by far the biggest producer. However, I’ve never heard anyone in the green movement discuss the religious, cultural or dietary impacts of imposing this policy on the people of India. If India is not included in the plan then there would be no point in imposing the plan on smaller producers such as ourselves.”
https://joannenova.com.au/2022/08/climate-control-speed-bump-vegetarian-women-were-33-more-likely-to-suffer-hip-fractures/#comment-2577010
I don’t know if it was this blog or another but a rancher pointed out if we feed grain to fatten up cattle, why do our nutrition scientist think that would not be true for humans. That what the change food chart did in the 1970 and after that obesity rules, more grain more fat.
Association between vegetarian diets and cardiovascular risk factors
Unless you are arguing that the changes in meat consumption was the only thing that changed then your chart is close to useless.
The chart, assuming we can trust the data, shows an absolute risk reduction of a mere 5-6%….(a) now show as a graph of all cause mortality changes–It’s zero risk reduction (I don’t have time to do your homework looking up the data)…and, (2) Now show us a graph comparing fat in diet vs misery & anxiety index.
Here’s your homework– https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/102/6/1563/4555183?login=false
They use the stat trick of reporting Relative Risk Reduction to turn unimpressive fractional differences into impressive 2-digit percentage differences…Scroll down to the data tables for All Cause Mortality. Dietary fat intake & lipid levels are divided into quintiles. The All Cause Mortality Absolute Risk Reduction has a range of only 1.5% differences, with the lowest being the middle quintile (not statistically significant)….
…and in regards misery– vegetarians are 67& more likely to suffer from depression than meat eaters. https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/publications/vegetarian-diets-and-depressive-symptoms-among-men
Changes in premature deaths in Finland: successful long-term prevention of cardiovascular diseases
Same comment as before.
Effect of a diet high in vegetables, fruit, and nuts on serum lipids
Relationship Between a Plant-Based Dietary Portfolio and Cardiovascular Disease
Effects of cereal and vegetable fiber feeding on potential risk factors for colon cancer
Mediterranean, vegetarian and vegan diets . . . recommendations for lowering lipids
l enjoy this site as it is filled with many people whose understanding of climate and science is remarkable, but the resistance to the idea that a plant based diet is overall healthier than one that includes meat is astonishing to me. Yes, I agree eating meat is not a death sentence, but the evidence is pretty clear that eliminating processed foods is beneficial and so too is eliminating meat.
I had no idea how emotionally charged this issue has become.
What does processed foods and plain cooked meat have in common?
Association between vegetarian diets and cardiovascular risk factors in non-Hispanic white participants of the Adventist Health Study-2
Changes in premature deaths in Finland: successful long-term prevention of cardiovascular diseases
May I know why my posts are being disallowed?
It sounds like you are basically calling out data mining, which is incredibly popular as a panacea for all things. Which also happens to directly conflict with the scientific method and creates fertile ground for cherry picking, data manipulation.
Just another day at the academic ranch?
How often are the “experts” later proven wrong?
I spend most of my adult working life working as an auditor and fraud examiner. Some would say I was a trained skeptic. Looking back, it’s no wonder I became skeptical when I never once went on an audit/examination that I didn’t find significant problems.
One instance tops the list. I was leafing through a two-foot-high printout of government building repair and/or refurbishing estimates. After two pages it was clear that something was a bit off. It seems that almost 100% of the time work estimates and actual costs were the same.
This practice had been going on for a number of years and no one saw anything wrong with it. The problem was that some agencies were paying for other agencies’ repair and remodeling work. That was over 30 years ago.
Very simple explanation needed for the anti-meat diet folks. Where did primitive man get all the grains/fruit/roots. Prior to agriculture? They are all very seasonal at best. Animal products was the only abundant food source year round. Even in the tropics.