3 ms·
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 y
by 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 agoI'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 agoThose numbers are assuming 2 servings per week. How many meat eater limits themselves to that few of servings?
- ricardobeat 7y agoThe numbers in the study are something like 2 servings meat, 3 chicken, 1.6 fish weekly.
- mudsnail 7y agoHaven'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