• Telodzrum@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    76
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year 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
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year 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
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        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.

        • collinrs@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            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.

  • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • Varyk@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The same hemisphere maybe, but not really the same direction.

        That video rhetorically asks whether plant-based diets are healthier for type 2 diabetes than literally the unhealthiest meat-based diets in an unhealthy country. Their groundbreaking conclusion is yes.

        Not really the same as saying that by virtue of questionnaires, without any qualifiers or controlled data, that eating two servings of red meat raises your risk of type 2 diabetes by 62%.

  • WhiteHawk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Okinawans should be all dead in infancy, but somehow they are the longest living and healthiest people out there.

  • amio@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    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.