this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
94 points (73.5% liked)

science

15014 readers
332 users here now

A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.

rule #1: be kind

<--- rules currently under construction, see current pinned post.

2024-11-11

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
all 45 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Telodzrum 73 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] markstos -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

nutritionfacts is run by a quack

[–] collinrs 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That is not science unless you stretch the definition until it screams

[–] [email protected] -4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Oh, what are your problems with the methodology of the study?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

The same as the other objections already made.

[–] WhiteHawk 18 points 1 year ago

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?

[–] Aux 18 points 1 year ago

That's typical sugar industry propaganda.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago

It doesn't link to the study. At least two relevant-seeming links, both link to the same page you're already on. Wut.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So have at least 3 servings then?

[–] Pasta4u 7 points 1 year ago

Jokes on them. I already have diabetes.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I'm here for a good time, not a long time

[–] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Animal suffering is just too funny.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago
[–] XbSuper 2 points 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Let's see this same study done with energy drinks 👀

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

What do energy drinks even contain that is harmful to you? Beyond just caffeine and sugar?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] WhiteHawk 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I think the shitton of sugar is the main concern, actually

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Sure, but that is by far not exclusive to energy drinks, that often have less sugar than typical sodas, even.

[–] WhiteHawk 0 points 1 year ago

Typical sodas are also terrible for your health, though

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

Probably not statistically significant at all...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So I should eat 1.9 servings?

[–] Aliendelarge 1 points 1 year ago
[–] paddirn -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] [email protected] -2 points 1 year ago

Don't eat meat peasants, eat bugs, don't question authority, accept mass surveillance, be addicted to social media.