For many decades, food scientists have gone back and forth on what is good for you and what is not.
At one time eggs were bad for you, then they weren’t. Then egg yolks were bad for you, then they were good. One time butter was bad for you, now it isn’t (assuming you actually have good butter) and margarine was once good for you, and that has since changed.
This is the case for red meat as well. For years, it has been said that eating too much red meat and processed meats is one of the leading causes of heart disease and cancer.
Now, after a large study in which many researchers worked together, it is being said that this idea is not in fact based on good scientific facts.
According to the New York Times,
“The certainty of evidence for these risk reductions was low to very low,” said Bradley Johnston, an epidemiologist at Dalhousie University in Canada and leader of the group publishing the new research in the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The new analyses are among the largest such evaluations ever attempted and may influence future dietary recommendations. In many ways, they raise uncomfortable questions about dietary advice and nutritional research, and what sort of standards these studies should be held to.
Already they have been met with fierce criticism by public health researchers. The American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and other groups have savaged the findings and the journal that published them.
Americans are eating an average of 4.5 servings of red meat per week according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. To me, this suggests that most people are likely eating about 2 servings of red meat twice per week. One serving of red meat is about 3 ounces, so two servings in one day would be something along the lines of a medium-sized hamburger or a steak.
Also, consider this is factoring in people who are eating more vegetables against those who eat more meat. For example, if my wife eats a salad for dinner and I eat a 10 ounce steak, on “average” we just consumed 5 ounces per week even though she didn’t touch it, which I believe is likely the case many times. Or how often do you go out to eat and one of you will get a steak or a burger and the other gets chicken or fish or something other than red meat?
How often is ‘science’ swayed by THE INFLUX OF GOVERNMENT MONEY INTO STUDIES THAT SUPPORT ANY GIVEN IDEOLOGY?
I think if you eat all types of food in moderation you can maintain your weight and health. I don’t think you need to become a Vegan or a colossal meat eater, but just be moderate in your eating habits and you will be fine. I have done this and lost 25 pounds just by my intake of food like potatoes, fast foods, candy and other fattening foods. I have potatoes maybe 2 times a week and steak 2 times a week but have chicken, pork and also have at least one meal a week of just a big killer salad.
Executive summary of official reports for the last 100 years:
Whatever we said 5 years ago was BS.
Twitter won’t allow this article to be shared: “This request looks like it might be automated. To protect our users from spam and other malicious activity, we can’t complete this action right now. Please try again later.”
I did a lot of research on food products and found an lot of influence being thrown around to try to influence the outcome.
I remember reading about a number of dieticians who decided to take a real look at the diet required in the Bible. This study was done in the late 1990s/early 2000s. From the article about the study, which I have printed somewhere, they reported the Bible’s diet was in fact the healthiest and best diet a person could follow.
imho, 3oz of meat isnt a serving. i’m a basically normal human, used to be 5’8″ (but shrinking as we all do afte 35) and 160#. the problem is govt over reach telling us 3oz is a serving. even w/ everything else a person eats to ‘balance’ their meal, this leaves most people hungry. then of course they snack. which is worse?