The article doesn’t specifically state it, but it does appear to indicate that the relationship is correlative and not due to direct causation. This makes sense and shouldn’t be surprising.
To that end, I think it’s probably a reasonable guess that people who specifically avoid red meat are people who are generally more intentional about their diet and eat healthier.
I’m not a doctor by any means, but I also struggle to imagine what the obvious mechanism would be. The fat may contribute to atherosclerosis, but that’s not diabetes. Red meat does tend to be prepared in ways that yield relatively high calories, so it could just be a matter of general obesity as well.
I’d really want to see a calorie-controlled study comparing chicken and red meat, but that’s logistically not remotely simple.
Edit: Actually reading the article, I see there’s apparently a link between the saturated fat and insulin resistance, but I still wonder to what extent that link simply comes from excessive calories and how problematic it is if your diet isn’t excessively caloric. I’m seeing that apparently around 86 percent of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
People that can afford to eat red meat at that rate are probably from western developed countries and they are likely to get diabetes for the lifestyle and the rest of their diet too. Co-occurrence doesn’t imply causation (“post hoc ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy) as stated in previous comments… Seems the usual mantra we’ve been reading for years in clickbait titles, always disproven afterwards. Medical recommendations for diet and RDAs don’t change.
The finding aligns with all the science reviewed for the book How Not To Die. For details, see the summary video by the same doctor.
https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-best-diet-for-diabetes/
nutritionfacts is run by a quack
The guy links to so many controlled, double-blind experiments. It’s not like he is just making wild health claims out of nowhere. Why do you think he’s a quack?
he often misinterprets the study, or claims it shows the exact opposite of what the researchers concluded. you shouldn’t believe him just because he links to something: you need to read the actual literature and the body of work around it to understand the subject. he is an ideologue who will grasp onto any datapoint he can find that he believes supports his position.
This is a highly suspect conclusion, and is discredited by the lack of control for variables and comprehensive nutrient/lifestyle analysis in this study, and by study I mean the analysis of undefined questionnaires some people filled out over a period of three decades.
Not really, a lot of other science already pointed in the same direction.
The same hemisphere maybe, but not really the same direction.
That video rhetorically asks whether plant-based diets are healthier for type 2 diabetes than literally the unhealthiest meat-based diets in an unhealthy country. Their groundbreaking conclusion is yes.
Not really the same as saying that by virtue of questionnaires, without any qualifiers or controlled data, that eating two servings of red meat raises your risk of type 2 diabetes by 62%.
deleted by creator
That is not science unless you stretch the definition until it screams
Oh, what are your problems with the methodology of the study?
The same as the other objections already made.
Uh huh.
Which are, in your top level comment?
Removed by mod
Okinawans should be all dead in infancy, but somehow they are the longest living and healthiest people out there.
I think that’s not how statistics works.
Seems like a quality article considering it says “according to a new study.” and links the words “new study” back to the same article. Where’s the paper?
That’s typical sugar industry propaganda.
It doesn’t link to the study. At least two relevant-seeming links, both link to the same page you’re already on. Wut.
So have at least 3 servings then?
Jokes on them. I already have diabetes.
I’m here for a good time, not a long time
deleted by creator
Animal suffering is just too funny.
Buy local.
It can be
Let’s see this same study done with energy drinks 👀
What do energy drinks even contain that is harmful to you? Beyond just caffeine and sugar?
taurine
Taurine is an amino acid that exists basically everywhere and throughout our entire bodies. It is not harmful to consume. Many other foods have high quantities of taurine naturally.
How about in. combination to other ingredients? For example in combination with caffeine. There’s one study, ‘ENERGY DRINKS: WHY THE COMBINATION OF TAURINE AND CAFFEINE CAN BE BAD FOR THE HEART’, but I am not sure if it’s scientific enough.
I think the shitton of sugar is the main concern, actually
Sure, but that is by far not exclusive to energy drinks, that often have less sugar than typical sodas, even.
Typical sodas are also terrible for your health, though
Probably not statistically significant at all…
So I should eat 1.9 servings?
2.1
Yea, but… bacon.
Removed by mod
Someone better tell the USDA that then: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/meat/bacon-and-food-safety
Is bacon “red” meat? “Bacon” can only be made from pork bellies, which are red meat by definition. Pork is classified as “livestock,” and all livestock are considered “red meat.” Bacon can also be made from other species of livestock (e.g., beef) and poultry (e.g., turkey). These types of bacon products require a descriptive name such as, “Beef Bacon-Cured and Smoked Beef Plate” and “Turkey Bacon-Cured Turkey Thigh Meat.”
Interesting. In common parlance, people typically call all pork white meat.
The confusion has more to do with the VERY successful National Pork Board slogan of “Pork. The Other White Meat” than actual science.
Good breakdown here:
https://foodandnutrition.org/january-february-2013/color-confusion-identifying-red-meat-white-meat/
Don’t eat meat peasants, eat bugs, don’t question authority, accept mass surveillance, be addicted to social media.
