I think there is a big difference between “meat is good for you”, and “the risks of meat are low enough for us to not recommend you change your habits and routines.” The recommendations for people...
From these studies, the NutriRECS group concluded the following.
“The panel suggests that adults continue current unprocessed red meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence). Similarly, the panel suggests adults continue current processed meat consumption (weak recommendation, low-certainty evidence)”.
The group further explained that their recommendations indicate that they “believed that for the majority of individuals, the desirable effects (a potential lowered risk for cancer and cardiometabolic outcomes) associated with reducing meat consumption probably do not outweigh the undesirable effects (impact on quality of life, burden of modifying cultural and personal meal preparation and eating habits). The weak recommendation reflects the panel's awareness that values and preferences differ widely, and that as a result, a minority of … individuals fully informed about the risks would choose to reduce meat consumption”.
Importantly, the group added that, while their recommendations differ from that of other international guidelines, it could be argued that “ ... neither do they seriously challenge those recommendations”.
I think there is a big difference between “meat is good for you”, and “the risks of meat are low enough for us to not recommend you change your habits and routines.”
The recommendations for people to eat red meat were not based on how healthy it is, but “quality of life” and “cultural connection to food”. Which is fair enough, but it shouldn’t be thought of as health.
This is more of a tentative nod at the status quo than a recommendation for people to eat meat.
Indeed, this is not about recommending meat, at least not beyond it's standard nutritional value. It's about challenging the fad/hysteria of "meat causes cancer" exaggerations in the media,...
Indeed, this is not about recommending meat, at least not beyond it's standard nutritional value. It's about challenging the fad/hysteria of "meat causes cancer" exaggerations in the media, blogosphere etc.
Please refer to the previous article here: https://tildes.net/~health/i6m/scientist_who_discredited_meat_guidelines_didnt_report_past_food_industry_ties There's reason to question the validity of...
There's reason to question the validity of the meta-analysis and the accuracy of the statement of conclusions, not to mention the ethical standing of at least one researcher.
The study doesn't evaluate other health impacts - exposure to antibiotic resistant organisms arising from concentrated animal farming; pesticide, hormone and other undesirable chemical residues in meat; or environmental impacts of animal farming.
The reason I'm posting this Examine meta-review is because it is much more reliable than a news outlet, especially NYT. Examine actually employs doctors and researchers with expertise, namely in...
The reason I'm posting this Examine meta-review is because it is much more reliable than a news outlet, especially NYT. Examine actually employs doctors and researchers with expertise, namely in reviewing literature (see their main wiki-style entries). That NYT post is quite shallow in comparison.
I think there is a big difference between “meat is good for you”, and “the risks of meat are low enough for us to not recommend you change your habits and routines.”
The recommendations for people to eat red meat were not based on how healthy it is, but “quality of life” and “cultural connection to food”. Which is fair enough, but it shouldn’t be thought of as health.
This is more of a tentative nod at the status quo than a recommendation for people to eat meat.
Indeed, this is not about recommending meat, at least not beyond it's standard nutritional value. It's about challenging the fad/hysteria of "meat causes cancer" exaggerations in the media, blogosphere etc.
Please refer to the previous article here: https://tildes.net/~health/i6m/scientist_who_discredited_meat_guidelines_didnt_report_past_food_industry_ties
There's reason to question the validity of the meta-analysis and the accuracy of the statement of conclusions, not to mention the ethical standing of at least one researcher.
The study doesn't evaluate other health impacts - exposure to antibiotic resistant organisms arising from concentrated animal farming; pesticide, hormone and other undesirable chemical residues in meat; or environmental impacts of animal farming.
The reason I'm posting this Examine meta-review is because it is much more reliable than a news outlet, especially NYT. Examine actually employs doctors and researchers with expertise, namely in reviewing literature (see their main wiki-style entries). That NYT post is quite shallow in comparison.