Yes but what other factors where involved? Did these people lead otherwise healthy lives? I’m questioning the accuracy of the study as something like that just can’t keep track of all the factors involved. It would probably be easier to study something like this if you did it in mice as their lives spans are short enough you could control for all factors in their lives and get at least something closer to an accurate answer
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3483430/
"The available evidence indicates strong associations of processed meat consumption with incident CHD [coronary heart disease] and DM [diabetes mellitus], more modest associations of unprocessed red meat consumption with incident DM, and smaller or no associations of unprocessed red meat consumption with incident CHD."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/1134845
"Red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality. Substitution of other healthy protein sources for red meat is associated with a lower mortality risk."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27479196
"High animal protein intake was positively associated with cardiovascular mortality and high plant protein intake was inversely associated with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, especially among individuals with at least 1 lifestyle risk factor. Substitution of plant protein for animal protein, especially that from processed red meat, was associated with lower mortality, suggesting the importance of protein source."
I'll have to educate my self further so I'm better prepared for the next post. Thanks for the extra reading material.
Perhaps I’m cynical, but a government funded study holds no value to me, regardless of whether it attempts to prove or disprove a point.
Sure thing
(post is archived)