[QUOTE=DarthFriendly;751779]Or maybe Gary Taubes is GOD![/QUOTE]
I thought that was Eric Clapton?
Printable View
[QUOTE=DarthFriendly;751779]Or maybe Gary Taubes is GOD![/QUOTE]
I thought that was Eric Clapton?
[url=http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/]Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science[/url]
[QUOTE=captaineight;751727] I've seen pictures of buffalos with a lot of fat in them, etc., posted by people trying to prove that our ancestors ate bucket-loads of saturated fats.[/QUOTE]But, don't herbivores fatten themselves up before winter sets in so that they have fat stores to help out when their food is much more scarce. Just a thought.
[QUOTE=activia;754104][url=http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/]Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science[/url][/QUOTE]
Including hamburger in the unprocessed side when a lot of those burgers would be fast food pretty much makes the study useless in assessing the effect of unprocessed red meat - that is awful science.
[QUOTE=activia;754104][url=http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/03/red-meat-mortality-the-usual-bad-science/]Red meat & mortality & the usual bad science[/url][/QUOTE]
Good rebuttal
[QUOTE=Dirlot;754141]Including hamburger in the unprocessed side when a lot of those burgers would be fast food pretty much makes the study useless in assessing the effect of unprocessed red meat - that is awful science.[/QUOTE]
Actually, in looking closer and reading Mark's lead article today - that alone is enough to debunk this article. If more meat = more fast food, and "fast food" wasn't even measured or controlled for, then the study is totally pointless and misleading.
[QUOTE=Dirlot;754141]Including hamburger in the unprocessed side when a lot of those burgers would be fast food pretty much makes the study useless in assessing the effect of unprocessed red meat - that is awful science.[/QUOTE]
That is a great point. I'd love (or hate :eek:) to see what else is in a fast food burger - not to mention what types of oils they are fried in. Now this is some debunking I can get behind!
Well, I don't think this thread will ever reach the trolling heights that cap'n'8 reached with is "Tauber" thread.
Ah, now there was some good old fashioned forum fun.
Studies that refute the original study.
[url=http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/179259.php]NFU Angered As New Evidence Reveals Link Between Red Meat And Cancer Was Flawed[/url]
[url=http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1435]Diet and health. What can you believe: or does bacon kill you?[/url]
This study has been done to death already. Even if it is true, its a 20% relative increase, not absolute. In other words if you have a 10% chance of getting cancer, if you eat red meat you now have an extra 2% (20% of 10%) chance of getting it.