If you MUST read it, go here. But come right back, ok? I'll wait, and then tell you why that "study" is a complete piece of bullshit, in words even a simpleton could understand.
WHY THE STUDY IS WRONG:
1) It's based not on a double-blind, controlled trial, but on SURVEYS. From people, who are notorious at lying when it comes to food intake, especially when they're people in the health profession who (supposedly) know what foods are healthy and which ones are not. These surveys also rely on people's memories to be accurate. My husband can't even remember what he ate for lunch two days ago. 'Nuff said, right?
2) They lump hamburgers (as in, fast-food hamburgers) in with unprocessed meat. Yeah, right. Have you ever looked at the ingredients list of a frozen hamburger? Soy, MSG, salt, more MSG, filler, dubious source of beef, and likely more salt. Yeah. Unprocessed. So how can they compare apples to oranges here and say that unprocessed meat is unhealthy, if they're including processed meat in with the unprocessed meat? They can't.
3) They don't look at healthy sources of meat. Like pastured, grass-fed cows, pastured chickens, nitrate-free bacon, etc. They don't consider that most meat consumed is full of antibiotics, steroids, and comes from sick, unhappy animals who never see the sun, let alone eat species-appropriate diets. Of course that shit causes disease! I'm not arguing that. But how do we know that the meat the participants ate was what caused disease, when they're also eating fast food, enormous quantities of grains (as suggested by the FDA, of course), etc? We can't.
There are many more points I could lay out here as to why this "study" is garbage. But I think you get the point, right? If you'd like to read a more in-depth analysis of why it sucks, Mark's Daily Apple has a good one.
I'll just keep eating my grass-fed, pastured beef, m'kay?
Speaking of, this is what I had for dinner:
Salisbury Steak, beets with pastured butter, and cauliflower whipped with more butter. MMMM.
No comments:
Post a Comment