Not suppose to eat more than 10 ounces of red meat a week. That means two decks of cards worth of red meat. I wonder how many people are going to argue with me about this over here..
It's bad for you... Risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer is correlated with high consumption of red meat.
It's bad for you... Risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer is correlated with high consumption of red meat.
I know "red meat" is a broad category but red meat is red meat.. I'm not sure where they came up with specifically red meat but it is what it is.You should look up what that word means in a dictionary.
Also, "red meat" is a VERY broad category.
I know "red meat" is a broad category but red meat is red meat.. I'm not sure where they came up with specifically red meat but it is what it is.
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!I know "red meat" is a broad category but red meat is red meat.. I'm not sure where they came up with specifically red meat but it is what it is.
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!
How about you actually read the articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject first and then if you have any conclusions you can post them here in the confidence that you can back up your arguments with precise, well-written articles of well-conducted studies instead of stumbling into here with no backup and a statement so vague you could sail a supertanker through it?
Ooh! Ooh! Ooh! I have an idea!
How about you actually read the articles published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject first and then if you have any conclusions you can post them here in the confidence that you can back up your arguments with precise, well-written articles of well-conducted studies instead of stumbling into here with no backup and a statement so vague you could sail a supertanker through it?
Uh... what? I'm not sure I understand your reply.
Now look, I'm guessing this is the study you are referring to: Meat Intake and Mortality. It was big on the news, but if you actually read the study or any critiques of it (such as this one and this one), you'd realize how many flaws there are. Here are a few key issues:
1. Correlation does not equal causation. The study, which is based on (notoriously inaccurate) self reported food intake surveys, determined only that a higher intake of red meat was associated with an increased rate of CVD and cancer. This is a VERY VERY long way from showing that red meat actually causes either of those diseases.
2. Even the correlation seems particularly weak in this study as they did not try to account for a TON of very important variables that are WELL known to affect CVD and cancer rates. These include the intake of fruits/vegetables (it was noted that the highest meat group had the lowest antioxidant intake!) and carbohydrate intake. And, even more importantly, this gem directly from the study itself: "subjects who consumed more red meat tended to be married, more likely of non-Hispanic white ethnicity, more likely a current smoker, have a higher body mass index, and have a higher daily intake of energy, total fat, and saturated fat, and they tended to have lower education and physical activity levels and lower fruit, vegetable, fiber, and vitamin supplement intakes." Ummmm. Since just about any & all of those factors could easily account for the different rates of disease, I think this largely makes the results of this study null & void.
3. As SC pointed out, not all "red meat" is the same. In this study, the "red meat" included "bacon, beef, cold cuts, ham, hamburger, hotdogs, liver, pork, sausage, steak, and meats in foods such as pizza, chili, lasagna, and stew." I don't know about you, but I consider there to be a world of difference between a filet mignon and a hot dog, but this study doesn't.
inflate it to sidewall. everyone knows this...
Indeed.
Its fleabag, guys. Ignore it.
I heard you're actually supposed eat a minimum of 10 ounces of red meat daily.