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.
there are many studies which do not show inflammatory effects of red meat in humans and this is what I use to kind of counter or counterpoint the vegan study didn't say okay if you believe that it's the removal of red meat or the removal of animal products that is causing the improvements in your studies then why does increasing red meat not elevate markers it's oxidative stress or inflammation in humans
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.
conversely i will show you now multiple studies that show that increasing amounts of red meat in the human diet lead to improved outcomes in inflammatory markers and many other markers in human health including diabetes etc
and it's very clear that including red meat in the human diet is not inflammatory anyone that says otherwise is is quoting studies that don't exist