The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
if we look at epidemic surrounding meat and longevity or meat and cardiovascular outcomes or meat and cancer in Eastern cultures specifically in Asia we see a very different picture than we do in the West in fact the people that eat the most meat in Asia live the longest they have the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease if we're looking at populations of men and then they have the lowest rates of cancer if we're looking at populations of women
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.
in Asia if you looking at all cause mortality in Asia the more meat you eat the lower your all cause mortality is you live longer in Asia if you eat more meat
but if you go to Asia more meat consumption is associated with lower rates of cancer and lower rates of heart disease
there's plenty of long-term evidence in asia that shows that meat is associated with better outcomes
that is why we see those associations with epidemiology and that is the danger epidemiology it's not really telling us about the meat per se it's telling us about the behaviors that go along with it