Feels like a 1940s ad for cigarettes now that we know red meat significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, breast and various gastrointestinal cancers, and type 2 diabetes.
Kind of a false equivalency there. The casual link between meat consumption and those diseases is much less clear than cigarettes and cancer. In fact, overconsumption of sugars is much more directly linked to type 2 diabetes than meat consumption, for example.
If you want to hide your head in the sand over unprocessed red meat “only” being a Group 2A carcinogen (processed meat is Group 1 and has been since 2015, meaning definitively causing cancer; in that sense, those hot dogs on the left are causally linked to cancer), be my guest. Doesn’t change the reality that eating red meat for some strange reason I guess we’ll never know significantly elevates risk for at least four of the leading causes of death in the developed world.
Edit: And if this is supposed to be some false dichotomy where eating meat is the lesser evil because anything else would risk diabetes from carbohydrate overconsumption, have I got some interesting news for you.
Interventional studies have shown that vegetarian diets, especially a vegan diet, are effective tools in glycemic control and that these diets control plasma glucose to a greater level than do control diets, including diets traditionally recommended for patients with diabetes
Guess the American Diabetes Association just hasn’t seen this 1946 poster yet, or they’d understand.
Interventional studies have shown that vegetarian diets, especially a vegan diet, are effective tools in glycemic control and that these diets control plasma glucose to a greater level than do control diets, including diets traditionally recommended for patients with diabetes
Ah, yes, the good ol’ oreo and potato chip diet.
I roll my eyes whenever any of these diet comparisons come up, because comparing a vegan diet to an omnivorous diet doesn’t really take into account diet quality, which is likely a far more significant factor in health outcomes than what particular diet cult you join. An omnivore who exclusively gets all their food from the local organic farmer’s market is going to have better health outcomes than the vegan with a pantry full of oreos. I don’t even think organic food is any healthier for you - I just think that simply giving a shit about your health and acting on it will produce better health outcomes, and everything else is either genetic or negligible. Which accounts for some amount of the improved health outcomes for vegans and vegetarians - there is so much hype about how they are “healthy” diets that people who are already more inclined to care about their health choose to adopt these diets.
Like, should you eat a carnivore diet for the rest of your life? Probably not. But that doesnt mean that a grilled steak with a side of potatoes and broccoli is bad for you. It’s fine. Assuming you eat a healthy diet and live a generally healthy life, maybe skipping meat would add on a year or two. Great, now you die at 82 instead of 80 - 2 more years of achey joints and incontinence while you rot in a nursing home, woohoo!
Personally, I’d rather just enjoy my life and die a little sooner.
I roll my eyes whenever any of these diet comparisons come up, because comparing a vegan diet to an omnivorous diet doesn’t really take into account diet quality, which is likely a far more significant factor in health outcomes than what particular diet cult you join. An omnivore who exclusively gets all their food from the local organic farmer’s market is going to have better health outcomes than the vegan with a pantry full of oreos.
This is the only study, a stunt case study, I’ve found that actually does a serious comparison of different diet compositions. 5800 calories over feeding, 3 weeks, 3 month washout - vegan, low fat, keto
I actually read that study. And I seriously doubt that you did. I bet. You just glanced over the end result. Thought it aligned with your views, and called it a day.
It’s probably the most meaningless study I’ve ever seen.
You cannot draw any meaningful conclusion from it at all. Mostly, because they used, one singular. Test subject.
I’ll say that again. They used 1 person. That’s it. No control group. No ethnical diversity among test subjects. Just one guy.
Just to point out how incredibly useless that is. When they do studies on various methods of working out. They use hundreds if not thousands of people. Men and women. And in these studies. You will see, that some individuals, lose muscle mass. They do the same thing as everyone else. 99% of participants gain muscle mass of various degrees, but 1% will lose muscle mass.
Imagine if your study was done, on just that 1 person that lost muscle mass. Are you going to conclude that lifting weights will result in negative gains?
I actually read that study. And I seriously doubt that you did. I bet. You just glanced over the end result. Thought it aligned with your views, and called it a day.
You actually READ the study? AND somehow missed my 500 word writeup on it? Or you read my writeup and thought I wrote it from pure imagination? Why not give grace to someone trying to have a dialog and extend the benefit of the doubt? Why the immediate hostility?
I’ll say that again. They used 1 person. That’s it. No control group. No ethnical diversity among test subjects. Just one guy.
Yes, that is what case study means. Also… i called it a stunt case study, but it is the only serious comparison of dietary composition I’ve seen.
Ugh… Assholes. Everyone has them, but you use yours to type. Apart for being impressed at how much practice that must have taken you, really: stop defecating on the world with your words, shitheels.
Feels like a 1940s ad for cigarettes now that we know red meat significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, breast and various gastrointestinal cancers, and type 2 diabetes.
Ya, I was just thinking this is a great example of a propaganda poster.
all ads are propaganda
Every company website is propaganda too.
Kind of a false equivalency there. The casual link between meat consumption and those diseases is much less clear than cigarettes and cancer. In fact, overconsumption of sugars is much more directly linked to type 2 diabetes than meat consumption, for example.
… Duh? Everyone knows that. You’re talking about logical fallacies and then going on to an irrelevant whataboutism.
If you want to hide your head in the sand over unprocessed red meat “only” being a Group 2A carcinogen (processed meat is Group 1 and has been since 2015, meaning definitively causing cancer; in that sense, those hot dogs on the left are causally linked to cancer), be my guest. Doesn’t change the reality that eating red meat for some strange reason I guess we’ll never know significantly elevates risk for at least four of the leading causes of death in the developed world.
Edit: And if this is supposed to be some false dichotomy where eating meat is the lesser evil because anything else would risk diabetes from carbohydrate overconsumption, have I got some interesting news for you.
Guess the American Diabetes Association just hasn’t seen this 1946 poster yet, or they’d understand.
Ah, yes, the good ol’ oreo and potato chip diet.
I roll my eyes whenever any of these diet comparisons come up, because comparing a vegan diet to an omnivorous diet doesn’t really take into account diet quality, which is likely a far more significant factor in health outcomes than what particular diet cult you join. An omnivore who exclusively gets all their food from the local organic farmer’s market is going to have better health outcomes than the vegan with a pantry full of oreos. I don’t even think organic food is any healthier for you - I just think that simply giving a shit about your health and acting on it will produce better health outcomes, and everything else is either genetic or negligible. Which accounts for some amount of the improved health outcomes for vegans and vegetarians - there is so much hype about how they are “healthy” diets that people who are already more inclined to care about their health choose to adopt these diets.
Like, should you eat a carnivore diet for the rest of your life? Probably not. But that doesnt mean that a grilled steak with a side of potatoes and broccoli is bad for you. It’s fine. Assuming you eat a healthy diet and live a generally healthy life, maybe skipping meat would add on a year or two. Great, now you die at 82 instead of 80 - 2 more years of achey joints and incontinence while you rot in a nursing home, woohoo!
Personally, I’d rather just enjoy my life and die a little sooner.
[Paper] A case study of overfeeding 3 different diets - 2021
This is the only study, a stunt case study, I’ve found that actually does a serious comparison of different diet compositions. 5800 calories over feeding, 3 weeks, 3 month washout - vegan, low fat, keto
You might find it interesting
I actually read that study. And I seriously doubt that you did. I bet. You just glanced over the end result. Thought it aligned with your views, and called it a day.
It’s probably the most meaningless study I’ve ever seen.
You cannot draw any meaningful conclusion from it at all. Mostly, because they used, one singular. Test subject.
I’ll say that again. They used 1 person. That’s it. No control group. No ethnical diversity among test subjects. Just one guy.
Just to point out how incredibly useless that is. When they do studies on various methods of working out. They use hundreds if not thousands of people. Men and women. And in these studies. You will see, that some individuals, lose muscle mass. They do the same thing as everyone else. 99% of participants gain muscle mass of various degrees, but 1% will lose muscle mass.
Imagine if your study was done, on just that 1 person that lost muscle mass. Are you going to conclude that lifting weights will result in negative gains?
You actually READ the study? AND somehow missed my 500 word writeup on it? Or you read my writeup and thought I wrote it from pure imagination? Why not give grace to someone trying to have a dialog and extend the benefit of the doubt? Why the immediate hostility?
Yes, that is what case study means. Also… i called it a stunt case study, but it is the only serious comparison of dietary composition I’ve seen.
Ugh… vegans. Worse than Mormons
What the fuck is this response
Ugh… Assholes. Everyone has them, but you use yours to type. Apart for being impressed at how much practice that must have taken you, really: stop defecating on the world with your words, shitheels.
I’m sorry. I’ll try to make your claims about health less disingenuous going forward.
Notice how he didn’t actually address the point you made, just threw a wall of weak epidemiology and appeal to authority about a different subject.
deleted by creator
Don’t care, didn’t plan on living forever anyway.
You’re welcome to do what you want. My comment wasn’t trying to stop you from smoking.