Thanks for the explanation, but that's the wrong explanation. Those are not "diabetes-related health issues", those are the description of diabetes. It's like asking the burning man if he's suffering from fire-related issues.

Experimental studies show the opposite. For example, the Bellevue all-meat trial shows the subjects maintained good health in spite of eating only meat, mostly red meat. Sure, there was only two subjects in that experiment, but an experiment of n=1 beats an observation of n=xx any day of the week. I mean, if red meat does cause diabetes, then eating tons of red meat for a year would certainly reveal some effect. That experiment contradicts the very essence of the hypothesis about red meat and diabetes.


Now we're getting somewhere. Processed meats contain sugars and other refined carbs like wheat and corn. Meat does not contain those things. It follows that if the true association comes from the refined carbs which are usually eaten in conjunction with meat (burger and hot dog buns for example), then eating processed meat will show a stronger association.

I mean goddamnit, we're just amateur analysts and we can figure out that most meat we eat is usually eaten with loads of carbs. Why doesn't the article mention that association? Bias.

Euh, rant over.