3 ms·
1) this is meta-anaylsis 2) "We found 24 eligible articles (median duration, 8 weeks)..." 3) "Total red meat consumption, for up to 16 weeks, does not affect
by chiefalchemist 4y ago
1) this is meta-anaylsis
2) "We found 24 eligible articles (median duration, 8 weeks)..."
3) "Total red meat consumption, for up to 16 weeks, does not affect changes in biomarkers of glycemic control or inflammation for adults free of, but at risk for, cardiometabolic disease..."
Median of 8 weeks, up to 16 weeks, even 16 weeks doesn't feel all that long. Isn't there a standard minimum length for dietary studies?
Otherwise, this feels like a conclusion the media and Big Ag will jump on, overlook the important details, and ultimately mislead the public (and likely plenty of dietary and medical professionals).
I wish the NIHs of the world were more aware how these things get manipulated once they're in the wild.
- aetherson 4y agoEight weeks seems like a long time for a diet change to affect basic biomarkers. We aren't talking about weight loss here. What's your theory for why a diet of red meat would require a 2-4 month lag before it started to affect inflammation and glycemic control?
- devonkim 4y agoMy own theory that’s a complete WAG is the trendy gut biome hypothesis
- mbppro 4y agoYep. The title of this thread is not the same as the title of the study. The OP of this thread (who seems to submit a lot of anti-vegetarian articles) has edited the title in a way that is misleading. But nothing unusual to see here - these kinds of posts tend to make the front page at least monthly.