This is an opinion piece by an unknown author that references a lot of nutrition papers that are heavily controversial. For example their evidence for the claim

This is an opinion piece by an unknown author that references a lot of nutrition papers that are heavily controversial. For example their evidence for the claim that meat "isn't bad for you" is the very anecdotal following passage: > The International Agency for Research on Cancer’s 2015 claim that red meat is “probably carcinogenic” has never been substantiated. In fact, a subsequent risk assessment concluded that this is not the case. Epidemiological data has been unable to demonstrate a consistent causal link between red meat intake and disease. The author makes this statement as fact, but in the scientific community these claims are heavily debated. By the way, no where do they cite any references for meat being health promoting, despite the fact that the title reads "...steak may be good for you after all". I'm not saying their claims may not eventually prove to be true, but based on the totality of the evidence we definitely can not take this advice as scripture based on the state of science of today.