Wed, Feb-05-20, 10:21
|
|
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
|
|
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
|
|
Well, maybe we're just 3 percent deader. That does leave most of us free to post here.
Quote:
Results Among the 29 682 participants (mean [SD] age at baseline, 53.7 [15.7] years; 13 168 [44.4%] men; and 9101 [30.7%] self-identified as non-white), 6963 incident CVD events and 8875 all-cause deaths were adjudicated during a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 19.0 (14.1-23.7) years.
|
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/ja...bstract/2759737
I don't know why we'd bother being upset here, almost no reason to explain the findings as due to other things that might have been eaten with the meat etc. The difference is so weak anyways, even if it were true, the odds of benefiting from avoiding meat are so low, who cares?
Quote:
Ms Arielle;
Just a rehash of the JAMA article. Bad research to lump together real meats and processed meats, organic and conventional meats...
|
I don't think there's any real reason not to lump organic and conventional meat together, I don't think there's much difference in the effect on health. I think either one could probably be harmful or helpful--not because they're bad or good in and of themselves, but because when the overall dietary pattern is poor, any food might be overconsumed and contribute to poor health. No need to throw conventional meat under the bus in favour of organic or grassfed when it hasn't been established that there's anything wrong with it, at least health-wise.
|