5 ms·

I'm looking forward to the keto rebuttal.

lukifer 7y ago
The standard objections apply: - Correlation, not causation - Self-reporting questionaire - Not controlling for meat quality/sourcing (though at least they differentiate "processed meats")
Mikeb85 7y ago
What rebuttal? > red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years 0.62% increase over 30 years is next to nothing, especially when you consider that many people have shit diet habits anyway.
- rhinoceraptor 7y ago
  I'd actually expect that to be higher than it is, just given that red meat has been vilified for 50+ years by public health officials. I'm not sure if there's a name for the reverse of healthy user bias, but I like to think of it as blaming baseball for oral cancer, rather than the chewing tobacco common among players in the sport.
- mudsnail 7y ago
  Those numbers are assuming 2 servings per week. How many meat eater limits themselves to that few of servings?
  - ricardobeat 7y ago
    The numbers in the study are something like 2 servings meat, 3 chicken, 1.6 fish weekly.
    - mudsnail 7y ago
      Haven't looked at the original study, but from the article >>>In terms of the actual difference eating 2 servings a week would make to an individual's baseline risk of CVD, the researchers calculated: processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02% over 20 years and 1.74% over 30 years red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years poultry: 0.20% over 10 years, 0.54% over 20 years and 1.03% over 30 years
elhudy 7y ago
The way your body processes food during ketosis is so different from processing "traditional" diets that I hardly think it would be relevant enough to warrant a rebuttal. I do like hearing Mark's opinions on such things though: https://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mean-for-your-meat-eating-habit/ https://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mea...
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

The standard objections apply: - Correlation, not causation - Self-reporting questionaire - Not controlling for meat quality/sourcing (though at least they differentiate "processed meats")

Mikeb85 7y ago

What rebuttal? > red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years 0.62% increase over 30 years is next to nothing, especially when you consider that many people have shit diet habits anyway.

rhinoceraptor 7y ago
I'd actually expect that to be higher than it is, just given that red meat has been vilified for 50+ years by public health officials. I'm not sure if there's a name for the reverse of healthy user bias, but I like to think of it as blaming baseball for oral cancer, rather than the chewing tobacco common among players in the sport.
mudsnail 7y ago
Those numbers are assuming 2 servings per week. How many meat eater limits themselves to that few of servings?
- ricardobeat 7y ago
  The numbers in the study are something like 2 servings meat, 3 chicken, 1.6 fish weekly.
  - mudsnail 7y ago
    Haven't looked at the original study, but from the article >>>In terms of the actual difference eating 2 servings a week would make to an individual's baseline risk of CVD, the researchers calculated: processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02% over 20 years and 1.74% over 30 years red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years poultry: 0.20% over 10 years, 0.54% over 20 years and 1.03% over 30 years

elhudy 7y ago

The way your body processes food during ketosis is so different from processing "traditional" diets that I hardly think it would be relevant enough to warrant a rebuttal. I do like hearing Mark's opinions on such things though: https://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mean-for-your-meat-eating-habit/ https://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mea...

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]