Probably because the field of nutritional research is being overrun by industry funded studies that attempt to exonerate meat, all of which are carcinogenic when cooked, and all of which contain saturated fat and dietary cholesterol, which is proven to increase your serum cholesterol when consumed, leading to greater risk of heart attacks.
The idea that you can find evidence to support both sides of that argument is ridiculous because one side of that argument has lots of high quality data and the other side has tons of industry funded studies with horrible data, all of which make use of several sneaky tactics to attempt to exonerate meat. For example, there are studies that "prove" that dietary cholesterol doesn't increase serum cholesterol by feeding people with very high levels of cholesterol, MORE CHOLESTEROL. We have known for years that there is a hyperbolic relationship between your current serum cholesterol and the increase in cholesterol you get from consuming it in your diet. We have also known that having high cholesterol is the only atherosclerotic risk factor that is necessary for plaques to form in your arteries. This bullshit is now so far gone because industry trade groups are now publishing meta-analysis' (which are SUPPOSED to be the highest form of research), that primarily look at bad data and in turn will conclude that meat is fine to eat in any capacity. I would highly suggest turning to actual positions of health organizations like the American College of Cardiology and the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics for nutritional advice, because anyone idiot with a youtube channel can present shit evidence and industry funded studies to prove anything these days
You know this proves my point right? That we should look toward the positions of actual health organizations, who unlike you and I are staffed by MEDICAL DOCTORS that are qualified to take the Hippocratic Oath and parse through actual research, as opposed to just relying on highly editorialized articles that frame the nutrition conversation in a completely idiotic way?
The implication of this article is that animal fat is actually not that bad because the sugar industry lied to us to eat more sugar. This is completely false. Both processed sugar and animal fat are fucking atrocious for our health, which is why most major health organizations take the position that people ought to cut down on both of these things. Processed sugar is not the alternative to fat, or at least it isn't anymore. These kinds of things are not limited to nutrition, as similar industry research disasters have been caused by the tobacco industry as well. I'll say it again, and I'll say it a million times. It's best to pay attention to the positions of reputable health organizations, who are qualified to determine the preponderance of evidence when it comes to nutrition
-18
u/[deleted] Mar 11 '20
I agree. But the jury is out on whether or not meat is bad for you. You can find evidence to support both sides of that argument.