I'm not gonna debate you dude, I truly don't care about this enough.
There is no problem. Populations that consistently eat red meat do not live as long as blue zone populations (east Asia, the Mediterranean, USA adventists). It’s just the facts. Do with that information what you’d like.
40% of Americans are obese. Do you think that possibly skews the outcome metric you're using?
Also, the amount of (red) meat that these obese Americans eat in one sitting is 4-5x the portions served in Europe.
The outcome metric in this case is longest live populations in the world. Correct, you don’t find obese centenarians. You also don’t see centenarian populations that feature red meat as a dietary staple. In fact, as East Asians and the Mediterranean shift away from the cultural diets to adopt more meat heavy western diet, their longevity craters with it. Coincidence?
There’s that, as well as how much of the meat consumption is generational. Older generations that grew up eating less meat will skew the statistics relative to the current generations that are heavy meat eaters.
Great, you’ve demonstrated that you cannot read:
Nice try, though.
Which goes along with organic grass fed beef as nature intended is far better than the beef from grain fed cows that can't move inside a pen barely big enough for them to move and that never see the light of day.
That analogy is kind of a stretch. Trans fats and olive oil are drastically different chemically.
LMAO, you are incredible. Given I was paraphrasing from memory I think I did damn good. I only went back and grabbed your post when you said I lied. Given what we were debating in that previous thread, I would say I was accurate. But okay, you don't like my paraphrasing. Let's use your version. Please help me to help you demonstrate that you give credible information by producing receipts/ research, anything proving, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing.” If you can't do that maybe just attach your credentials and qualifications. Don't become distracted by my words and comeback with more pretentious nonsense. Let's focus on your words, “Calcification of atherosclerotic plaques is a good thing." Dude, you seem smart but it's difficult to have a healthy debate when you only speak in platitudes while you try to force feed your "my way or the highway wisdom." If you're not going to produce a white paper or something, and you're not going to admit you were wrong, at least admit you could have worded it different.
Its called Narcissism, highly disagreeable even if you are right. Its either their way or nobodies. Doesnt know what he is talking about and cant do much then protect his fragile ego from the nonsense
Diagram below is helpful:
Thank you again for wasting our time with the another graph you thought to be helpful and made on women? What kind of woman are we talking about, low class, middle class, upper class. What kind of red meat did they consume over time? What kind of diet did they pursue overall? Was it highly processed red meat with thousand additives and ingredients or rather natural with none of them and preferably grass fed? I think I dont have to remind you that you are victim of the conformation bias. The studies arent reliable as the ones who are up to date, the studies you attached above are falsifiable to the standards that are up to date. All studies must be falsifiable..
Absolutely, how you feel when you eat certain foods should tell a lot how healthy it is for YOU.
Try reading it.
I have confirmation bias with respect to red meat? That's interesting. I don't have dog in the fight. You are the one arguing for exceptions to the data. Every cancer and cardiovascular agency advises against eating a lot of red meat. The longest living humans in the longest living regions of the world.. do not feature red meat as a dietary staple.
How scientific. Fat people feel good drinking soda and eating ice cream.
You are, just contact any good scientist and he will tell you the same. This is science 101.
