Rule of thumb: if the presented findings are not in the (commercial, political) interest of the sponsor, they are probably correct. If they do agree though, they are probably false or at least misleading.
this post was submitted on 21 May 2025
517 points (98.0% liked)
science
18649 readers
687 users here now
A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
rule #1: be kind
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Also, RoundUp is so safe you can drink it!
https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=26
The cognitive dissonance...
My father gave up red meat and soda around 2002. My dad's clone, my uncle didn't give up anything. Yes they are clones, I sequenced them myself. Since then my dad has always been at least 20lbs heavier than my uncle despite having almost identical activity levels since they had similar jobs and shared hobbies for most of the time. Now 23 years later my dad has heart congestive heart failure and a torn meniscus in his knee while my uncle has a perfect heart but has needed both knees replaced. I think the biggest difference is definitely the sugar because my uncle tends to drink diet soda and my dad fruit juice, tea and coffee.
One time a vegan saw me accidentally swallow a bug. They got super violent and tried killing me with their birkenstocks. Luckily they cried so hard they had an aneurysm right then and there. Everyone, cows chickens and humans, clapped at my bravery. The CEO of Tyson saw this and made me his protege and sole heir. Eat meat and avoid fruit juice guys, it worked for me.
No shit. Nice someone did the study so they could get there.
I've had my team of "experts in the obvious" work on this for one and a half minutes and they came to the same conclusion. This is a human greed business issue, not a science one.
Cool, can you show how big the effect is, based on your team's efforts? And what the distribution of values is, based on sponsor?
Is it dosage related or is any amount of red meat bad? And by red meat is it beef in particular or does it also include lambs and camels?
From a health perspective you can simplify it to mammals = red meat. Birds, fish, reptiles, insects etc = not red meat.
And yeah it's dosage based. Generally speaking you want to stay under 350g (by cooked weight) red meat a week. More than 500g a week is when it starts to be consistently linked with higher health risks. If you want to be really technical it could be said 0g is better than 350g, but in this range the increased risk tends to be near insignificant.
I'll preface this by saying I didn't read the article, nor did I read any of the studies and underlying methodology so it has probably been addressed and corrected for but like a few of the other commentors have mentioned, by measuring it based upon consumption of a single item, it would be hard to see if it really just showed an indicator of overall consumption as opposed to a singular food being the cause.
Lets say one of our sample respondents consume 350g of red meat on average in a week and that consisted of approximately 10% of their diet (by weight). Compare that to a person who had 350g of red meat on average in a week and it consisted of approximately 5% of their diet (by weight). This would be an Extreme example but the second person is literally consuming twice the amount of food (by mass).
load more comments
(12 replies)
no shit? hmmm
view more: next ›