The red meat good/bad thing has been going around for a while, again. This article explains alot of it, observing:

This isn’t as remarkable as it might sound, because this turnabout isn’t about new evidence. It’s about how the evidence is being interpreted, and the limits inherent to nutrition advice in the first place.

Actually, what has happened is that somebody did a metastudy and did not find any strong evidence that red meat is bad for you - and this after all these years of the nutrition experts saying just that. But that is science for you: we have a theory, test it, and may have to revise it. The theory about red meat has now been revised.

But not all are happy:

For Hu, it is enough. He thinks it’s inappropriate to apply the standards of drug trials or more rigorous science to nutrition; he also published an observational study concluding that red meat is bad for you just this summer. He is deeply invested in that line of thinking not being overturned.

He is supposed to be a scientist but elects to disregard scientific methods ... Which, of course, places him firmly in the same camp as, say, those who think acupuncture, chiropractic, or homeopathy work, in spite of all rigorous, clinical studies. It just works because I know it does. It just must.

But don't get me wrong: there are a lot of other - very good - reasons to cut back on or give up read meat.

But at least here is this:

While the precise downsides of bacon, for example, are unclear and possibly nonexistent, what is apparent is that we don’t really have enough evidence to consider it a bad food.

Tags: