I guess I need to stop eating red meat. (1 Viewer)

[Dago]

This "research" brought to you by the same school that took money from the sugar industry to put out a study vilifying fat and cholesterol intake that helped usher in all the ultra processed low fat products that pretty much all modern research says are far worse (such as butter vs margarine)

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

Ultra-Processed Foods Can Be Healthy if They’re Mostly Vegan, USDA Study Suggests

Are all ultra-processed foods bad? USDA study looks at how combining plant-based, processed foods such as instant oatmeal, canned beans, and dried fruit can be part of a healthy diet.

vegnews.com

I do not trust any government funded research at their own facility. They are all bought by food lobbyists. They can also say whatever they want about Beyond Meat. That stuff is disgusting, not healthy and I can say with 100% certainty that I will never knowingly eat that stuff again. Purina is probably better for us than Beyond Meat.

 

[Bayouboy]

Eggs were good, bad, good, bad and now they are ok. These studies make me yawn.

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

This "research" brought to you by the same school that took money from the sugar industry to put out a study vilifying fat and cholesterol intake that helped usher in all the ultra processed low fat products that pretty much all modern research says are far worse (such as butter vs margarine)

They've demonized the hell out of salt but yet sugar is in EVERYTHING.

 

[Cage1]

I hope more people buy into this and stop consuming red meat so the prices come down for those of us unconcerned.

It'll also be nice if people stop consuming red meat to stop obliterating the environment with livestock.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

It'll also be nice if people stop consuming red meat to stop obliterating the environment with livestock.

Regenerative beef rearing and crop farming is FAR better for the environment than large commercial monocropping of grains and corn. It's not even close to a comparison.

It's a red herring they like to use to demonize red meat. I would be all for removing large scale commercial production, but the huge conglomerates that lobby DC and big pharma that wants to keep treating a disease ridden populace that is primarily the fault of highly processed foods doesn't want that.

 

[LonghornSaint]

Funding for this type of research either comes from NIH or FDA (our tax money) or Big Industry (corporate). Generally I'll trust research data from NIH funded studies more than Big Industry.

A friend's lab here at yale was funded a few years ago by Pepsi Co. They were exploring health effects of some of the corporation's beverages. Their research revealed some really adverse effects. Pepsi was determined to minimize the impact of the research on their brand, so they sent in some lawyers and aides without advance notice to the lab space, unplugged and confiscated computers and backup drives with the data, and forbade the scientists to publish their results for at least 1 year. Needless to say their funding got yanked and some people (lab techs and post-docs) lost their jobs very unexpectedly.
When your funding comes from this type of source, you are way more under their thumb than if you get NIH money.

 

[Cage1]

Regenerative beef rearing and crop farming is FAR better for the environment than large commercial monocropping of grains and corn. It's not even close to a comparison.

It's a red herring they like to use to demonize red meat. I would be all for removing large scale commercial production, but the huge conglomerates that lobby DC and big pharma that wants to keep treating a disease ridden populace that is primarily the fault of highly processed foods doesn't want that.

1. I doubt it. But I haven't done the research, so fine.*

2. I'll bet most of that is going to feed the livestock that is obliterating the atmosphere.

Edit: Okay, I see the operative word there is "regenerative", which apparently is a tiny fraction of the meat industry. So, yes, I will agree that 1% of the meat industry is better for the environment than all the monocropping of grains and corn. That seems probable.

 

[JenningsTruckers]

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/health/red-meat-type-2-diabetes-risk-study-wellness/index.html

The true culprit of diabetes has been found. At least according to this study.

I had switched to eating mostly red meat and eggs 2 years ago and saw numerous health benefits, including lower A1C, lower triglycerides, cessation of GERD and GI issues and 60lbs of weight loss. But I guess it was all for nothing.

Not happening , for years almost everything is bad for you , at least that's what they want you to think . I don't believe a word of it .

 

[CapitalCitySaint]

Funding for this type of research either comes from NIH or FDA (our tax money) or Big Industry (corporate). Generally I'll trust research data from NIH funded studies more than Big Industry.

A friend's lab here at yale was funded a few years ago by Pepsi Co. They were exploring health effects of some of the corporation's beverages. Their research revealed some really adverse effects. Pepsi was determined to minimize the impact of the research on their brand, so they sent in some lawyers and aides without advance notice to the lab space, unplugged and confiscated computers and backup drives with the data, and forbade the scientists to publish their results for at least 1 year. Needless to say their funding got yanked and some people (lab techs and post-docs) lost their jobs very unexpectedly.
When your funding comes from this type of source, you are way more under their thumb than if you get NIH money.

Yep. I have a friend of a friend going through a Master's in Nurtrition (or some degree along those lines) and she basically said they are being taught the same thing. That government entities that are bought by BIG FOOD lobbyists and food corporations that fund research at academic labs (or do their own research) are not to be trusted. I work in research & development so I'm acutely aware of how these things work but I'm glad that the newer generation is being taught to be wary of data published/funded by these entities.

 

[Cage1]

Not happening , for years almost everything is bad for you , at least that's what they want you to think . I don't believe a word of it .

This is a form of association fallacy and is logically erroneous.

 

[SaintInBucLand]

This is a form of association fallacy and is logically erroneous.

Big pharma loves how easily swayed you are.

 

[Cage1]

Big pharma loves how easily swayed you are.

That's an ad hominem fallacy and is also logically flawed.

 

[Madmarsha]

It'll also be nice if people stop consuming red meat to stop obliterating the environment with livestock.

So what the environment needs is less animals?

 

[Cage1]

So what the environment needs is less animals?

People, pigs, and cattle? Yes. Unequivocally and unquestioningly, and there's no credible argument/data to the contrary.

Also, probably add feral cats to that mix. And almost every invasive species.