Red Meat Safer to Eat Than We Thought

I mean, not necessarily - always full of caveats, but I thought the nutrition interested folks might these developments interesting. If anything it highlights the difficulty I think we have all seen in studying nutrition and trying to understand the results of nutrition studies on our individual lives.

(summary being - eating red meat is not as harmful as was previously thought)

To me it’s like the whole eat margarine not butter argument.

Only for researchers to back track and say actually butter is better.

The list goes on in terms of what has been good or bad or just not as good/bad as thought eggs, avocados, broccoli, pizza…okay maybe not pizza

I mean, I don’t think it’s fair to reach the cynical conclusion that nothing is true.

The fact that they are challenging each other and trying to argue towards some sort of consensus is how we reach a reliable stable consensus in science. I wouldn’t take the health of that process (scientists publicly disagreeing with each other) as a sign of a flaw., usually the problem is that preliminary findings are over reported, exaggerated or lay-people make unintended conclusions.


I know it’s confirmation bias, but the more nutrition is researched, the more it seems to come back to there are no “bad” food groups*, and it’s about a balanced diet.

The nytimes article mentions proponents of high protein diets being happy, but last year there was properly researched science that said that you can’t get enough fibre from a diet that excludes cereals. Everything in moderation!

*there’s a whole different argument/ debate about how food is produced, however.

1 Like

Not cynical at all and I agree 100% with the above

And the above.

I will admit that all the studies over the years have at least had huge numbers of people looking at their diets which can’t be a bad thing.

1 Like

Yeh, from what I’ve read, most people are way under daily fiber recommendations and I try to get as much as possible. That’s probably the one dietary prescription I think lots of people would argue is solid and usually common across idealized diets.

But, hey, screw it. Let’s all go on the Carnivore Diet…

I think the really interesting thing about that was that basically it wasn’t possible to hit the reports recommended fibre targets just on fruit and veg. When I looked at it at the time, I would be way under without cereals, and I’d consider myself pretty good at consuming fresh fruit and veg.

Everything in moderation.

Except bacon. You give me bacon and it’s getting eaten.


It’s a bit ironic when you think about it - one of the characteristics of humans is our ability to live on a very wide variety of diets, from meat-only to vegetables-only to whatever. And here we are, consistently trying to find the diet that makes us live best.


The summary should be “Scientists try to apply an inappropriate research standard outside their area of expertise and get headlines.”


I know your post is a bit tongue in cheek - but curious about avocados and broccoli - were those ever thought of as bad?

I eat very little grains in my daily diet with most of my fiber coming from avocado, fruits, and vegetables. What are the specific recommendations for fiber intake you’re referencing? Curious if I’m way under as it hasn’t been something I track

I totally agree!!!

Briefly there was some hooha about avos being high in fat and fat must be bad and broccoli was a super food, then it wasn’t.


It was a WHO study, published in the lancet I believe. Anyway, here’s an article from time of publication…


30-40g a day seems very easily achievable with my current diet, no need to add additional cereals

Fruits and veggies in my diet for today: avocados x2 = 18g, beets 2g, apple 3g, pear 4g, plumcot 2g, salad 3g, broccoli 2g, kale 6g, yogurt 4g, blueberries 1g, tomato 3g, V8 3g

I’m no nutrition expert so this is just an FYI with regards to greens as I just stumbled upon this and I was unsure to reduce my spinach intake (which I assumed to be positive)…

And specifically referring to three greens - quote:
“As you’ll see in the next video, Kidney Stones and Spinach, Chard, & Beet Greens: Don’t Eat Too Much,anyone can overdo the three high-oxalate greens—spinach, beet greens, and Swiss chard. So, for anyone doing cups of greens a day (as you should!), better to choose any of the other greens, such as kale, collards, or arugula.”

Thanks for the info - I’m way under on that as I’m only eating spinach from that list

I would agree…if a person is already healthy.

An unbalanced diet may be required if someone is outside the bell curve of “healthy” (disease, condition, etc) and trying to get back in; they may require severe input to reach stability.

Or, if a person is trying to accomplish something which puts them outside the bell curve of “healthy”, such as running 100 mile ultra-marathons or lifting 800 lbs or racing a bike for 6 hours a day.

That said, and few if anyone is going to be able to do this, but I believe it’s far more important to know thy self first before taking stock in any type of diet. That’s to say, find out first what is good for your individual body and genetics. For example, someone might be allergic to fish, or be a hyper-responder to cholesterol, etc.



FWIW, cooked spinach is supposedly “healthier” than raw spinach.

As well, eat a variety of whole, cut, raw, and cooked veggies as they all have different chemical profiles.