Who could’ve seen this coming?
Welp the science is settled yet again…don’t limit your red meat intake.
— xo (@sirensoIiIoquy) October 1, 2019
From today’s New York Times:
Eating less red meat may not make you healthier, new research finds, faulting nutrition studies. Many medical groups are keeping their guidelines.https://t.co/G6WcAr8vzn
— The New York Times (@nytimes) September 30, 2019
So, never mind?
Cutting back on red meat is standard medical advice to prevent cancer and heart disease — but a review of dozens of studies has concluded that the potential risk is low and evidence uncertain https://t.co/mLW2FGtw1f
— AFP news agency (@AFP) September 30, 2019
“Whiplash” puts it mildly, though:
Put your nutrition science neckbraces on…it's whiplash time! https://t.co/QYuNsKSMzC
— Robert Lustig MD (@RobertLustigMD) September 30, 2019
And the Harvard School of Public Health is very mad at this new study:
— Joe Weisenthal (@TheStalwart) October 1, 2019
- The publication of these studies and the meat guidelines in a major medical journal is unfortunate because following the new guidelines may potentially harm individuals’ health, public health, and planetary health. It may also harm the credibility of nutrition science and erode public trust in scientific research. In addition, it may lead to further misuse of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which could ultimately result in further confusion among the general public and health professionals.
- This is a prime example where one must look beyond the headlines and abstract conclusions. It is important for journalists, health professionals, and researchers to look beyond the sensational headlines and even the abstracts of the papers to verify the evidence behind the claims. It’s also crucial to understand that nutrition research is a long and evolving process, and therefore critical to look at the totality of the evidence.
This is what Harvard is disputing:
On red meat: "this is sure to be controversial"
5 systematic reviews, including 100's of studies, millions of participants, RCTs, show little evidence for adverse #cancer or cardiovascular outcomeshttps://t.co/mXzdjfz8yB@AnnalsofIM ★editorial- 6 papers@aaronecarroll @DrTiff_ pic.twitter.com/I2VMXyyRDx
— Eric Topol (@EricTopol) September 30, 2019
Keep this response from Harvard in mind when new research comes along on climate change and finds that spending trillions of dollars on the problem won’t change a thing.