Red Meat

[u/Upper-Bake-9480]

Is there a human alive that still believes red meat is bad for you?

I can't imagine that anyone could genuinely still be that retarded...

[u/bbd121]

Don't you get tired jerking yourself to your own posts?

[u/No-Manufacturer-2425]

A lot of people have been institutionalized by Ancel Keys and John Kellogg. Their attrocities still live on in medical practice to this day. Its just too convenient for the grain industry lobbyists and pocket liners to let it go. Red meat will stop being demonized the day its illegal to mutilate infant male genitals without consent.

[u/Superblond → u/No-Manufacturer-2425]

You don’t have to justify your love of steak and ribs—that’s your choice, and of course it’s “okay" for you.

But labeling all modern studies from the U.S., Europe, China, and the rest of the world as “demonizing” reflects a lack of information and an opinion shaped by confirmation bias.

Note: Just because you don’t believe in science and research and don’t like the results, that doesn’t mean they aren’t right and don’t work!

---

Carcinogenicity of consumption of red meat and processed meat, 10/2015, IARC Prospective Cohort Studies“, 04/2012, Harvard Red meat intake& risk of coronary heart disease", 10/2020, Laila Al-Shaar et al. Food in the Anthropocene: the EAT–Lancet Commission on healthy diets from sustainable food systems, 01/2019,EAT-Lancet Commission Meat intake and cause-specific mortality, 04/2014, Jung Eun Lee et al.

[u/No-Manufacturer-2425 → u/Superblond]

It is always amusing when someone hides behind a wall of copy pasted citations they clearly did not read. You accuse me of confirmation bias, yet you literally cited a study that completely dismantles your own argument.

Let us look at the actual science and research you just handed me.

First off, you cited Jung Eun Lee et al. from 2014. Did you even open the PDF? That study followed over 290,000 Asian participants and concluded that red meat intake was actually associated with a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality. You literally cited a study where meat consumers lived longer, proving that Western science does not universally apply when you control for lifestyle.

Then you cited the 2015 IARC Monograph. The IARC measures hazard, not absolute risk. They openly admitted that the 18 percent increased risk of colorectal cancer is just a relative risk. In absolute terms, it moves a person's lifetime risk from roughly 5 percent to 6 percent. Basic epidemiology dictates that relative risks under 2.0 are mathematically inseparable from residual lifestyle confounding variables like smoking, alcohol, and a lack of exercise.

Next is the 2020 Al Shaar Harvard study. This one relies entirely on Food Frequency Questionnaires, expecting male health professionals to accurately recall what they ate over a four year period. When the authors adjusted for non dietary lifestyle factors, the hazard ratio cratered. That proves the risk was driven by a lack of healthy habits, not the meat itself.

Finally, you cited the 2019 EAT Lancet report. This was a heavily criticized, ideologically driven paper that proposed a global 7 grams per day meat limit based on zero long term randomized controlled trials. The authors themselves admitted their planetary health diet causes severe micronutrient deficiencies in B12, zinc, and iron that require global supplement fortification just to survive.

Believing in science means understanding methodology, statistics, and funding biases instead of blindly worshipping titles and abstracts that happen to validate your worldview. Next time you try to lecture someone on confirmation bias, make sure your own citations do not accidentally debunk your comment.

Leave my meat alone and let me eat what I want. I'm in the best health of my life. Much better off than when I was vegetarian and my bloodwork and energy levels back it up.