94
submitted 11 months ago by CAVOK@lemmy.world to c/science@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Telodzrum@lemmy.world 73 points 11 months ago

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.

[-] BraveSirZaphod@kbin.social 20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

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.

[-] DieguiTux8623@feddit.it 10 points 11 months 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@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago

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/

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 11 months ago

nutritionfacts is run by a quack

[-] collinrs@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

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?

[-] commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months 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.

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

science

14503 readers
514 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS