The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
as we know there are plenty of observational epidemiology studies tucán that that conflict with the idea that plant-based diets are the most valuable for humans I mean they're observational studies in Asia that I've spoken about before in which the people that eat the most meat the men that eat the most meat have the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease and the women that East most meat have the lowest rates of cancer
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
isn't it intriguing that in asian studies those who eat more meat have the lowest rates of heart disease and the lowest rates of cancer in men and women respectively
i've shown asian studies in you know a completely different culture a completely different paradigm that associates me with affluence showing that the people who eat the most need have the lowest rates of breast cancer in the case of women and the lowest rates of heart attacks in the case of men so in that situation you're saying okay how do we account for that how is it possible that meat in the united states is associated with negative outcomes and then in asia it's associated with positive outcomes probably because what we're seeing with this observational studies is more about lifestyle and associated compounding variables than it is about the meat or the vegetables