Harvard Has Been Anti-Meat for 30+ Years—Why?

From Nina Teicholz's public SubStack, free to share. Thorough, detailed article, often focused on Walter Willet' career in supporting the anti-red meat stance.

https://open.substack.com/pub/unset...tm_medium=email

I just read this. It's utter nonsense. 'Nuff said.

My husband just recently got his blood sugar to go from 160 - 170 down to 105 - 115 by ditching most carbs. And trust, me, I eat a TON of red meat (no diabetes or high blood glucose here), so HE also eats a ton of red meat. His health and my health are improving day by day.

The media does not help, to say the least.

Nina did a thorough take-down of the anti-red meat studies, influence of donations from vegetarian supporters, etc.
She must be exhausted from repeating this information ever since her book was published in 2015.

This line made me almost laugh - if I wasn't so appalled by how stupid it makes the writer sound:




Hot dogs come in all kinds of meat - pork, chicken, turkey, beef, or a combination of two or more meats. It's increasingly difficult to find all beef hot dogs, which is the only legitimately RED meat in that list. Most hot dogs are made from some combination of meats (with fats), plus salts, usually with some sugars added, and sometimes a grain binder component.

Then there's the issue of the nitrites/nitrates used to preserve them, except the "no nitrates" ones that have celery derivative in them that is a natural nitrate.

But the thing that really made me laugh at how incredibly stupid it sounds is that hot dogs are a very poor source of protein. At most, the standard hot dog will have the equivalent of one ounce of protein in it. Hardly the same as a 4 oz hamburger, which has... Surprise - 4 oz of protein, approximately the same as a 4 oz chicken breast, or 4 oz pork chop.

I could give up the hot dogs easily - I rarely eat them anyway (but always bunless), because they're just not satiating, unless you eat enough of them to get a decent amount of protein.

But how many people eat more than one hot dog in order to get enough protein? A lot of people rely on the bun and some relish/slaw/sauerkraut/condiments to help fill the stomach, because one hot dog all by itself certainly isn't going to fill the stomach.

And how many carbs is that big fluffy hot dog bun providing? 15? 20? 30? More? The bigger the bun (to provide a little more filling of the stomach - and hold more of those toppings), the more carbs.

And yet it's that tiny little bit of red meat protein in your 1 oz hot dog that's the problem. (assuming your hot dog has any red meat in it at all)

The leaps of logic go beyond all sense of reason.

And these are essentially lies, because we can't draw any conclusions from "Remember what you ate this last year" questionnaires

I just finished being a subject in a supplement study (NIH-funded). Twice I was asked to provide a detailed list of what I ate the previous day. I found it much harder than I expected.

Exactly - unless you keep a constant food diary of every single thing you eat, or eat the exact same thing on the same day of the week every single week, it's hard to recall what you ate the day before, much less a month's or a year's worth of food.

"Red meat" is from ruminants. Eating grass eaters is how I get a full spectrum of amino acids and a surprising amount of nutrition that gets along with my digestive system.

It's possible that autoimmune patients (since I agree with Dr Terry Wahls that it's all one disease, presenting in different ways) have a special affinity for red meat. So many of them, like me, see an inflammatory flare squenched in record time. By eating only red meat, salt, and water for a period of time.

For instance, it's a great source of postassium, a nutrient people are chronically short of. They aren't eating ENOUGH red meat, and they need it without the batter/bread wrapper.

I also appreciated Nina's pointing out there is nothing but his own belief system and financial rewards distorting the data.

IF we actually look at the science, as science writers do, we know there's nothing there.

But now, Willett has his name on a new paper questioning the US Dietary guidelines re starchy carbs. Tip-toing to a reversal on % of carbs??

https://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=485680

This is a great interview with Dr Zoë Harcombe:

Thank for the links, Demi. It was a good interview. Walt Willett strikes again. He must be getting ready to have a new book published. I would expect to see it in the fiction or fantasy category.

They do have to tiptoe with the changes because then they don't have to admit they were wrong all along.

We've pretty much known for years that when they do these food studies, they blame red meat/eggs/bacon/etc for every ill.

But when Zoe questioned him about why everything was listed on the food questionnaire EXCEPT starches/grains and sugars...

When anyone who is even thinking with a half a dim lightbulb knows that starch and sugar are the primary components of the SAD diet....

Especially in conjunction with the "unprocessed red meat" called hamburgers...

And his brilliant answer was "we didn't have room for that on the questionnaire"



Another 2-3 food items: Starches/grains and sugar.

But THEY DIDN'T HAVE ROOM for any more items on the list!

Richard Feinman in his book "The World Turned Upside Down” called nutritional science an oxymoron. Zoe Harcombe demonstrates how true this is.