The standard objections apply:

- Correlation, not causation

- Self-reporting questionaire

- Not controlling for meat quality/sourcing (though at least they differentiate "processed meats")

What rebuttal?

> red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years

0.62% increase over 30 years is next to nothing, especially when you consider that many people have shit diet habits anyway.

I'd actually expect that to be higher than it is, just given that red meat has been vilified for 50+ years by public health officials.

I'm not sure if there's a name for the reverse of healthy user bias, but I like to think of it as blaming baseball for oral cancer, rather than the chewing tobacco common among players in the sport.

Those numbers are assuming 2 servings per week. How many meat eater limits themselves to that few of servings?

The numbers in the study are something like 2 servings meat, 3 chicken, 1.6 fish weekly.

Haven't looked at the original study, but from the article

>>>In terms of the actual difference eating 2 servings a week would make to an individual's baseline risk of CVD, the researchers calculated:

processed meat: you would increase your risk by 0.4% over 10 years, 1.02% over 20 years and 1.74% over 30 years

red meat: 0.17% over 10 years, 0.41% over 20 years and 0.62% over 30 years

poultry: 0.20% over 10 years, 0.54% over 20 years and 1.03% over 30 years

The way your body processes food during ketosis is so different from processing "traditional" diets that I hardly think it would be relevant enough to warrant a rebuttal.

I do like hearing Mark's opinions on such things though: https://www.marksdailyapple.com/what-does-the-who-report-mea...