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 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.
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.