LBNFat Buddha CBESeen plenty supporting it.
There is no science supporting the BHF guidelines, their beef with red meat comes from observational studies, which are not supposed to imply a causal relationship. The "evidence" is the same for Covid vaccines and car crashes.
These data suggest that COVID vaccine hesitancy is associated with significant increased risks of a traffic crash. An awareness of these risks might help to encourage more COVID vaccination
[www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]).
Nutrition epidemiology is as low as it can go, they don't even measure what people eat, how much exercise, sleep, illicit drug use (maybe a bacon breakfast is popular after a heavy night on the cocaine) etc, add to that the tiny effect sizes and inconsistent results. any one with any scientific sense should be able to safely throw out such research.
Are you a scientist?
newblueAre you a scientist?
Is this so you can go for the legs because you can't get to the ball?
The good thing about internet forums where users are anonymous, you have to respond to what the person is saying, rather than attack the person saying it.
Are you a scientist? Try responding to that instead of second guessing me.
newblueAre you a scientist? Try responding to that instead of second guessing me.
I prefer keeping my personal details private, it prevents ad hominem attacks (another known logical fallacy). It means now you have to respond to the tings I've said.
It’s plain for all to see that you are an intellectual, using phrases like ad hominem, there’s no point trying to hide it.
LBNnewblueAre you a scientist? Try responding to that instead of second guessing me.
I prefer keeping my personal details private, it prevents ad hominem attacks (another known logical fallacy). It means now you have to respond to the tings I've said.
😁 Jesus. Talk about precious.
It seems fair to ask at this point, given that you're disputing the advice of both the NHS and BHF, why you think these organisations would continue with that advice if it's incorrect. What is their motivation for doing so?
Secondly, is there any limit at all on the level of red meat that should be consumed - perhaps perhaps 100 gms, 200, 400?
I think these are fair questions.
Don't eat much and when you do make it grass fed organic
TheHeathMost of the books on this subject aren’t written by experts.
There’s books promoting the benefits of raspberry ketones, apple cider vinegar and all those other fads that don’t work. And, how do you find a book that’s right for you from the thousands published on weight loss.
What diets or fads do not work? Virtually any diet ever devised will work if you stick to it. Some diets are hard to stick with and some diets are unhealthy or even very unhealthy.
Mr DriscollIt seems fair to ask at this point
It's not fair at all, I've cited systematic reviews and meta analysis of RCTs which are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, where as opinions and position statements are at the bottom.
Mr DriscollSecondly, is there any limit at all on the level of red meat that should be consumed - perhaps perhaps 100 gms, 200, 400?
I see no reason to limit the amount of unprocessed red meat you eat.
LBNMr DriscollIt seems fair to ask at this point
It's not fair at all, I've cited systematic reviews and meta analysis of RCTs which are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, where as opinions and position statements are at the bottom.
Mr DriscollSecondly, is there any limit at all on the level of red meat that should be consumed - perhaps perhaps 100 gms, 200, 400?
I see no reason to limit the amount of unprocessed red meat you eat.
There are environmental concerns about farming of livestock for meat
There are concerns. But less if the animals are local.
El MayorLBNMr DriscollIt seems fair to ask at this point
It's not fair at all, I've cited systematic reviews and meta analysis of RCTs which are at the top of the hierarchy of evidence, where as opinions and position statements are at the bottom.
Mr DriscollSecondly, is there any limit at all on the level of red meat that should be consumed - perhaps perhaps 100 gms, 200, 400?
I see no reason to limit the amount of unprocessed red meat you eat.
There are environmental concerns about farming of livestock for meat
Yeah, I understand that, also ethics.
But I'll count myself out of both the ethics and environmental discussion, it got very heated last time.
The OP wanted to discuss nutrition.
Sigh. Ok, it's an unfair question. I'll still ask it though. Why is their advice contrary to the research findings you've provided.
There might be other explanations, but I can only think of a few.
Those providing advice to limit red meat intake dispute those findings, or find these inconclusive. Or, perhaps they are ignorant of these findings. Or (and im loathed to suggest this) there's some conspiracy going on.
If you don't want to express a view, that's fine- I'm out for now.