3 ms·

Seriously? The "nutrition" industry is absolutely huge and banks off of the fact that we don't really know anything about diet, except that trans fats are bad,

Seriously? The "nutrition" industry is absolutely huge and banks off of the fact that we don't really know anything about diet, except that trans fats are bad, lots of refined sugar is bad, and folic acid is important for pregnant women. They point the finger at all manner of foods from red meats to fruits and everything in between, in order to sell supplements, fad diets, overpriced holistic/integrative medicine sessions, etc.

Ma8ee 6y ago
There’s a lot of trends and over interpreted small studies within popular nutrition science, but the basics are quite solid and quite simple: eat less, eat much more vegetables and fruit. There’s also solid evidence that too much red meat causes cancer.
- Pyramus 6y ago
  Exactly. Here is another point in case: Go to the website of whichever body governs nutrition in your country (or the WHO) and see what they recommend and why. There is no global conspiracy against red meat, it's simply our current scientific understanding.
  - TaupeRanger 6y ago
    No one said it's a conspiracy. It is clearly a misunderstanding of our actual knowledge, which is why we have studies that show everything from associations between red meat and cancer, no effects whatsoever between the two, and even reduction in some cancers from red meat consumption. That is standard across the entire field of nutrition epidemiology, but "nutritionists" and health "experts" rely on the fact that, if they cite a single study showing a cancer connection, people will eat it up and accept it as fact.
    - Pyramus 6y ago
      I'm not sure what your point is: Do you disagree that red meat is a carcinogen? The fact that we have studies that show the full spectrum of association is exactly what you would expect, and, assuming no biases, is a strong indication that it's not the most powerful carcinogen there is. I would even hypothesise that for most people simply eating more vegetables and greens is more beneficial than leaving out red meat and not changing vegetable intake. Also you are free to take as many risks as you want (mostly), and there are plenty of people smoking, drinking tons of soda etc.

Ma8ee 6y ago

There’s a lot of trends and over interpreted small studies within popular nutrition science, but the basics are quite solid and quite simple: eat less, eat much more vegetables and fruit. There’s also solid evidence that too much red meat causes cancer.

Pyramus 6y ago
Exactly. Here is another point in case: Go to the website of whichever body governs nutrition in your country (or the WHO) and see what they recommend and why. There is no global conspiracy against red meat, it's simply our current scientific understanding.
- TaupeRanger 6y ago
  No one said it's a conspiracy. It is clearly a misunderstanding of our actual knowledge, which is why we have studies that show everything from associations between red meat and cancer, no effects whatsoever between the two, and even reduction in some cancers from red meat consumption. That is standard across the entire field of nutrition epidemiology, but "nutritionists" and health "experts" rely on the fact that, if they cite a single study showing a cancer connection, people will eat it up and accept it as fact.
  - Pyramus 6y ago
    I'm not sure what your point is: Do you disagree that red meat is a carcinogen? The fact that we have studies that show the full spectrum of association is exactly what you would expect, and, assuming no biases, is a strong indication that it's not the most powerful carcinogen there is. I would even hypothesise that for most people simply eating more vegetables and greens is more beneficial than leaving out red meat and not changing vegetable intake. Also you are free to take as many risks as you want (mostly), and there are plenty of people smoking, drinking tons of soda etc.