• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Meat Ban

Scientists? "LOL"

The majority of nutrition 'scientists' are payroll statisticians analysing white noise and reaching predetermined outcomes.
 
A spokesperson for the American Cancer Society (ACS) likens the new advice to saying it's safe to ride a bike without a helmet, despite clear evidence of the risk.

Yet millions do precisely that every day without coming to harm despite the risk, the study does not say there is no risk but only a low risk and not enough of a risk to change your dietary habits sounds like a bit of the sour grapes from the establishment to me.
 
I cant work out how eating red meat increases our risk of type 2 diabetes. Meat is good for reversing type 2 diabetes.
 
lucylocket61 said:
I cant work out how eating red meat increases our risk of type 2 diabetes. Meat is good for reversing type 2 diabetes.
Click to expand...

That's because it doesn't increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. It's Jackanory. The whole idea is claptrap. A narrative pedalled by evolution-deniers who want the world to adopt the Garden of Eden diet.
 
JohnEGreen said:
A spokesperson for the American Cancer Society (ACS) likens the new advice to saying it's safe to ride a bike without a helmet, despite clear evidence of the risk.
Click to expand...

I think they might be conflating clear evidence with paid-for statistical mumbo jumbo
 
It would go a long way to prevent this type of claim and counter claim if the use of "relative risk" was banned. Just tell the public the actual risk and let them decide for themselves.
 
When I feel the need to take dietary advice from a advocate of the law I think I will choose Lady Hale...
 
Mr_Pot said:
It would go a long way to prevent this type of claim and counter claim if the use of "relative risk" was banned. Just tell the public the actual risk and let them decide for themselves.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and of course not making up the risk from weak and unreliable statistical 'evidence' in the first place would be a good start.
 
Jim Lahey said:
That's because it doesn't increase the risk of type 2 diabetes. It's Jackanory. The whole idea is claptrap. A narrative pedalled by evolution-deniers who want the world to adopt the Garden of Eden diet.
Click to expand...

The studies which say that meat consumption does increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes are based upon food surveys. Firstly they don't distinguish between prime cuts of meat and mechanically extracted meat in cheap meat pies. Secondly some of them only did a total of 3 surveys of their subjects with up to a 12 year gap.
Do you remember exactly what your weekly diet consisted of over the last 12 yrs? The vast majority of people will have no idea.
I have a pretty good idea because for over a decade I was eating high Carb Low Fat, Low meat (mainly veggie) then very recently after T2D I saw the light and switched around completely to Low Carb High Fat.

So a low meat (and particularly low red meat diet 'gave me T2D' - according to the standards of those studies.
But in this forum we can be pretty sure that it wasn't the low meat, it was what I ate instead of the meat - Carbs in large quantities including the infamous '5 a Day !
 
lucylocket61 said:
I cant work out how eating red meat increases our risk of type 2 diabetes. Meat is good for reversing type 2 diabetes.
Click to expand...
Was just reading something that claimed this. It stemmed from the fat that red meat has saturated fats, and the saturated fats raise blood lipids which cause insulin resistance leading to type 2. Not that I believe it but that’s the claim. Personally I think association is being mistaking symptom for for cause with lipids and diabetes
 

Well that dumb theory is easily disproved by finding a T2 with a meter and testing a Carb versus some Protein versus some Fat.
Surely nobody can deny that Carbs are the major problem for T2 Diabetics - even if they still believe that Saturated Fats cause high LDL (which they don't), which in turn causes heart disease (which it doesn't)!
 
Apart from meat as a protein not producing glucose, there is the small matter of choice & whether these environmental zealots are to be allowed to get away with dictating what we can eat. The mistake government has & continues to make is to fill the National Curriculum with their political agenda on the environment with the result that it is creating a generation of zealots who are embracing environmental issues like a religion with climate change as the central pillar of their belief.
 
Personally I have no issue with environmental concerns. I think it’s right we should be concerned. I just don’t think targeting meat is the way forward or particularly helpful, possibly harmful to the exact same cause.
 
I think most of us would care about the environment and support the green cause. The problem is that this has got mixed up with veganism. Eating greens isn't necessarily green. Just as fat doesn't make you fat. The anti meat and anti fat messages are two very harmful myths that are not backed by real science.
 
In the 1980's I said to David Owen that environmental issues should be given more priority his answer was Economy before Ecology my answer was without Ecology there is no Economy he thought we would have to agree to disagree on that I wonder if that's still his view haven't seen him for quite a while now.
 
Yes the eternal push for growth just uses up the worlds resources and damages the environment.
 
( You mean Dr David Owen of the Gang of 4? )

You are right John. I agree with you entirely.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…