Some reportedly do better with low carb and avoiding industrial seed oils.
If it's processed one, sure, like most (ultra) processed food.
If you are about to say red meat, you are misinformed like everybody else that has repeated the same nonsense for the past 3 decades about red meat, cholesterol, etc. So I wouldn't be quick to blame sponsored and biased papers, when even laymen like you and I keep parroting the same unscientific dogmas they have heard over the years, which keep being disproved.
Red meat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol is not unhealthy per se. Cholesterol is a simple metric that is often misinterpreted by GP and has a complete different meaning whether you are eating a lot of carbohydrates and sugar with red meat, or not.
In fact, recent studies seem to show that higher LDL levels (you know, the bad one) are correlated with longevity. Go figure. Scientifically, we still have no clue. Then add lobbying and ideology on top. This is how you get modern dietary science.
I usually skip dietary posts on this forum because the same misinformation, whether it's because of parroting or pushing a certain anti-meat agenda, is readily found upvoted to the top. At this point arguing with people about diet is starting to feel quixotic.
Thinking on it, diet trends really are the “TikTok challenges” of old.
It may well have -- but through the placebo effect, making it useless for others.
This is from Wikipedia. References are to solid science. Not to YouTube influencers.
Especially when you use a quote which conveniently puts red and processed meat in the same basket to reach their conclusion.
I'll let you have this one, because as I said, it is quixotic trying to restore some kind of objectivity or educated discussion on dietary matters.
Even under the anthropological point of view, red meat which has sustained humanity for hundred of thousands of years, to "cause cancer" smells like biased nonsense from a mile away. I guess during the last ice age, when herbivores roamed the earth freely and in abundant numbers, the opportunist scavenger Homo Sapiens was eating chicken breast and leafy vegetables.
You would be a lot more convincing if you actually cited some papers.
The panelists on that channel are all doctors and scientists, with as many papers, science and citations you want. I'm not saying they are not biased, but here I am presenting my sources, which are not a sentence from Wikipedia or repeating Pollan's tired quote.
Yet some would want you to believe Big Meat or Big Keto is actually a thing behind doctors trying to reverse their patients' diabetes or atherosclerosis through the reduction of carbohydrates and the increase of natural, unprocessed foods, such as vegetables, animal meat and fats.
How is this line of argument any better than biased studies?
Humans smoked tobacco for thousands of years too, or are you going to argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer either?
Also, humans used to walk dozens of miles a day. Humans used to not be 40% obese. Humans used to never eat refined sugar.
Lots of things have changed. And even if red meat didn't cause cancer in prehistory, cattle and pigs are raised differently now, and human dietary and mobility patterns are completely different today than even 100 years ago.
None of this is strong evidence for anything.
Trying to determine truth in metabolic science is super hard, and yes there are studies that point in all directions on basically any intervention. So people are understandably very wary of "well, let's toss all that out and start from some other first principles that happen to support my preexisting beliefs" like the "anthropological point of view" you describe.
Not all studies are equally bad, but basically all arguments about historical nutrition have so many confounds that they tell us very little about cause and effect, and a lot about priors (or "bias" as you refer to it elsewhere).
While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease.
Jury's still out on red meat; I was not "about to say" anything I didn't say.
It is published in the proper articles section of the journal. If it was as opinion piece, it would probably be under the "Perspectives" section.
> Each issue of Animal Frontiers will consist of a series of invited, peer-reviewed articles that present several international perspectives on the status of a high-impact, timely, global issue in animal agriculture. The articles will be in the form of discussion or position articles that will add to the scientific reviews and original articles published in the journals of the four science societies (Animal, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Animal Science, Translational Animal Science, and Meat and Muscle Biology).
Note "articles will be in the form of discussion or position articles".
Unfortunately, the scientific jury is still out about meat consumption from a nutritional standpoint---it's clearly not required, and certain types of meat we're pretty sure are harmful, but consumed carefully there may well be benefits from the non-harmful types. In any case, effect sizes are likely to be small at the population level, or we'd have discovered something major by now.
The upshot? Try changing your meat consumption patterns and see how you feel -- if you feel better, consider making the change permanent!
[1]: https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/General_Instructions#