you need to avoid seed oils (PUFA's)

[t_spacemonkey]

@Gman: cooked white with skin. mashed. i think i take them off my list. I had less issues with baked sweet potatoes, but they did not feel good on GI either, just less bloated/foggy.
I focus on 'gym' carbs too. i'm not super informed in that carb science, but fructose has a slower muscle pathway then glucose is what I understand? would that matter if your stored are full? i have some pure dextrose powder as well, and tried it couple times, but just got massive sweet cravings all day after doing this. I go to gym at 7/8am so rice or any food isn't enticing. reading that a lot of fruit is 50/50 glucose/fructose, as honey, and I definitely feel a morning 50g of honey/maple is helping. with a load of creatine/l-carnitine.
tried oat meal as well....is this stuff awful lol on your system. funny thing is I am not ultra sensitive like Peterson etc, but since going red meat/fruit and feeling really good, everything else dampens my energy/well being. i even can handle white cane sugar and orange juice with no issues.
Seen all the carnivore podcasts, keto podcasts, did all of this. was hesitant for fruit for a long time 'cause carbs baaad'. but my blood results as in fasting insulin, glucose, TSH/T3 beg to differ. i never really felt good on keto (yeah and took those fucking electrolytes lol)
good luck

 

[Mastodont]

I think if one is insulin resistant, high protein high fat may not work so well.

Was just watching this vid where the girl talks about going from a high protein/ fat and low carb diet, to lowering her fats and increasing her carbs to around 150-200g/ day. I believe she went from getting a small amount of carbs from fruit and dairy only, to adding another serving of fruit, and adding in rice and potatoes. But what was interesting is that she reported that instead of waking up with energy, she started waking up feeling hungover, and needing around 3 hours to feel fully awake, after upping her carbs, even tho the extra carbs came from whole food sources. I’ll link the vid. She starts talking about it at 17:20 into the vid

This could support the idea of mixing carbs with high fat leads to more insulin hence brainfog, the mastering diabetes guys say its all about minimal fat to get optimal results with whole food high carb.

 

[Gman86]

I think if one is insulin resistant, high protein high fat may not work so well.


This could support the idea of mixing carbs with high fat leads to more insulin hence brainfog, the mastering diabetes guys say its all about minimal fat to get optimal results with whole food high carb.

Ya I would think that doing high fat and high carb at the same time is no no. The girl lowered her fats, and increased her carbs, u believe. I have to watch it again to make sure. But don’t think she was doing high fat and the 150-200g of carbs at the same time. Just think she does better in low carb, high fat/ high protein, and/ or the specific carb sources weren’t reacting in her body well (rice/ potatoes) I’ve heard a few other carnivore based people say they can add in fruit, honey and raw dairy, but don’t feel great when adding things like rice and potatoes. Paul Saladino is one. I can link a vid where he talks about experimenting with different carb sources and his reactions, if anyone is interested

And if a person is insulin resistant, the one thing they should do is eat a high fat/ high protein diet. Basically eat as close to the lion diet/ carnivore diet as they can. There’s no other faster/ better way to reverse insulin resistance. At least when it comes to food/ diet

 

[Gman86]

@Gman: cooked white with skin. mashed. i think i take them off my list. I had less issues with baked sweet potatoes, but they did not feel good on GI either, just less bloated/foggy.
I focus on 'gym' carbs too. i'm not super informed in that carb science, but fructose has a slower muscle pathway then glucose is what I understand? would that matter if your stored are full? i have some pure dextrose powder as well, and tried it couple times, but just got massive sweet cravings all day after doing this. I go to gym at 7/8am so rice or any food isn't enticing. reading that a lot of fruit is 50/50 glucose/fructose, as honey, and I definitely feel a morning 50g of honey/maple is helping. with a load of creatine/l-carnitine.
tried oat meal as well....is this stuff awful lol on your system. funny thing is I am not ultra sensitive like Peterson etc, but since going red meat/fruit and feeling really good, everything else dampens my energy/well being. i even can handle white cane sugar and orange juice with no issues.
Seen all the carnivore podcasts, keto podcasts, did all of this. was hesitant for fruit for a long time 'cause carbs baaad'. but my blood results as in fasting insulin, glucose, TSH/T3 beg to differ. i never really felt good on keto (yeah and took those fucking electrolytes lol)
good luck

First off, eating the skin of a potato isn’t smart. I learned that a while ago. So just an fyi there. When u ate sweet potato, did u also eat the skin?

I’m not an expert on the way different sugars/ carbs are metabolized either, but I do know fructose mainly fills liver glycogen, and glucose mainly fills muscle glycogen. But ur right, honey and fruit are a mix of both. Different ratios depending on the fruit. I wouldn’t even mess with dextrose. I used to do it back in the day. But ur better off just pounding some honey/ maple syrup, like u’ve been doing

I would stay away from oatmeal. I would honestly stay away from all grains. I only consume white rice due to the convenience/ affordability/ it being a fairly benign carb source. Not beneficial really, other than the fact that it’s filling muscle glycogen. No real nutrition in it. Again, if I didn’t workout, I wouldn’t consume it. At least not regularly

Just to clarify, when u said that everything else dampens ur mood/ well being, and then mentioned white cane sugar and orange juice, were u saying that u can handle them no prob, or those two things dampen ur mood/ well being? And were u basically saying since going mainly carnivore, u react poorly to certain foods more than u did eating them when u weren’t doing a carnivore base? This is pretty common, if it’s the case. When u eat certain foods consistently, ur gut bacteria adjusts accordingly, and then when u introduce crap foods ur new gut bacteria isn’t used to, u can have negative reactions to those crap foods that u wouldn’t have had when u were eating crap foods more regularly. There’s pros and cons to everything in life, even eating healthy lol

And there’s so much wiggle room when it comes to being on a keto diet. U really have to eat animal based, as much as possible, to feel and function optimally. Just so much variability with what u can eat doing keto. So results are can vary drastically between different people doing it

So u mind sharing those labs that u referenced? I’d be curious to see where they’re at

 

[Cataceous]

Hormesis is a possible benefit to eating plants, however, consuming plants on a regular basis still might have more negatives than pros, when it comes to our overall health. It still wouldn’t make sense to me to voluntarily consume something that I know has known toxins in it that do damage to our bodies when consumed, no matter how small or large the insult may be. Purposely causing small insults to my body, on a regular basis, does not seem like an appealing/ intelligent approach, if optimal health is the goal.

Yes, just like when u eat processed fast food, ur not going to feel any immediate negative effects to ur health. Eating vegetables isn’t going to cause acute, or chronic “toxicity” in most people. Does that mean that consuming plants on a regular basis isn’t contributing to negative health issues? No. ...

For the nth time: The studies documenting favorable associations with greater consumption of plant-based foods are numerous and robust, and include longer time frames. The wordiness of your response does not strengthen a position that is basically anti-science.

 

[t_spacemonkey]

First off, eating the skin of a potato isn’t smart. I learned that a while ago. So just an fyi there. When u ate sweet potato, did u also eat the skin?

I’m not an expert on the way different sugars/ carbs are metabolized either, but I do know fructose mainly fills liver glycogen, and glucose mainly fills muscle glycogen. But ur right, honey and fruit are a mix of both. Different ratios depending on the fruit. I wouldn’t even mess with dextrose. I used to do it back in the day. But ur better off just pounding some honey/ maple syrup, like u’ve been doing

I would stay away from oatmeal. I would honestly stay away from all grains. I only consume white rice due to the convenience/ affordability/ it being a fairly benign carb source. Not beneficial really, other than the fact that it’s filling muscle glycogen. No real nutrition in it. Again, if I didn’t workout, I wouldn’t consume it. At least not regularly

Just to clarify, when u said that everything else dampens ur mood/ well being, and then mentioned white cane sugar and orange juice, were u saying that u can handle them no prob, or those two things dampen ur mood/ well being? And were u basically saying since going mainly carnivore, u react poorly to certain foods more than u did eating them when u weren’t doing a carnivore base? This is pretty common, if it’s the case. When u eat certain foods consistently, ur gut bacteria adjusts accordingly, and then when u introduce crap foods ur new gut bacteria isn’t used to, u can have negative reactions to those crap foods that u wouldn’t have had when u were eating crap foods more regularly. There’s pros and cons to everything in life, even eating healthy lol

And there’s so much wiggle room when it comes to being on a keto diet. U really have to eat animal based, as much as possible, to feel and function optimally. Just so much variability with what u can eat doing keto. So results are can vary drastically between different people doing it

So u mind sharing those labs that u referenced? I’d be curious to see where they’re at

yeah - i figured skin isn't good. sweet - no skin - maybe peeling makes a difference. i handle cane sugar well - up to a level. no problems whatsoever. and food wise - yeah, sensitive since started carnivore/fruit. or maybe when you feel like crap every day you don't notice it. sort of default state.
some labs below. rest is in range, T is high due to TRT not referencing. the most interesting has been IGF-1 for me, i 4x the level within 1-2y or so. started at 70 or so.
I agree on keto, has to be clean. my labs on keto were worse. higher a1c, insulin, TSH etc.

TSH

2.150

C-Reactive Protein, Quant

1

Triiodothyronine (T3), Free

4.5

High

T4,Free(Direct)

1.10

Insulin

5.1

Hemoglobin A1c

5.3

IGF-1

283

 

[Phil Goodman]

And here comes the “anti-science”/“trust the science”/“whaetever else you want to throw in to dismiss people with differing views”…tons of studies that are shared to show harm from red meat are terribly constructed, and doing a meta-analysis of poorly constructed studies doesn’t suddenly make them all better studies.

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study - Nature Medicine

Using the burden of proof analytical tool, a meta-analysis found weak or no evidence of associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and increased risk of six cardiometabolic disease and cancer outcomes.

www.nature.com

Sure there may be some negatives from eating meat, but there can be negatives from everything. Often times those studies don’t really parse out information adequately, and rely on surveys or other information gathering that isn’t as reliable. Meanwhile there are studies for things like PUFAs which clearly illustrate the exact mechanism at play that is causing inflammation. And yes, as noted earlier some inflammation can be a good thing…but at the same time chronic inflammation is just about the worst thing for a person and leads to tons of health problems.

I’d say another thing to consider is the bioavailability differences between meat and plants. People can things like spinach can replace red meat as a source of iron(just an example since iron is a common topic around here), but there are enormous differences between spinach and beef with regard to how much of the iron your body can actually acquire from the meal. To get iron from spinach similar to iron from a steak you’d have to eat a ton of spinach, which would result in more inflammation quite possibly.

I think both sides have some truth to them, and honestly a lot of results come down to the individual. Some people can tolerate very different levels of inflammation and people can have very different foods that cause inflammation. For example I may be able to eat something that will wreck another person, and vice versa. But overall, I’d say meat is generally one of the most well-tolerated food sources on the planet. I’d also say there’s a reason that humans for 100,000+ years risked life and limb on hunts that almost always failed just to try and get some meat instead of simply eating plants. And sure, I know you’re not saying meat should be avoided so I’m not trying to paint that picture. But it is becoming more and more of a narrative, especially with regard to red meat. But as highlighted above the risks are generally either outright lies or greatly exaggerated, while the inverse is true for plant-based diets. In those instances the benefits seem to be drastically overstated while the negatives are either downplayed or outright ignored.

 

[Gman86]

For the nth time: The studies documenting favorable associations with greater consumption of plant-based foods are numerous and robust, and include longer time frames. The wordiness of your response does not strengthen a position that is basically anti-science.

U do understand pretty much all studies involving food are extremely flawed, right? Most of them are just questionnaires where people answer questions about what they eat, and every participant eats different foods everyday. Just because a study’s conclusion says something, doesn’t make it fact.

Most studies are either flawed, or corrupt. Sometimes both. Then u have cases where people purposely create fake studies. Obv this isn’t common, but it’s just an example of why studies aren’t the end all be all, when it comes to accurate information.

Plus, u don’t need studies to understand the science of things. So between understanding the science of something, analyzing real world results, and using critical thinking skills, you can learn how things work, even more than u can from strictly relying on studies.

At the end of the day, all that matters is what actually happens. Not what studies tell u should happen

A Portland State University Professor Made Up a Study of Dog-on-Dog Sexual Assault—and Got the Hoax Published

Peter Boghossian and his colleagues launched the satirical broadside at feminist theory and race-studies scholarship.

www.wweek.com

 

[Gman86]

And here comes the “anti-science”/“trust the science”/“whaetever else you want to throw in to dismiss people with differing views”…tons of studies that are shared to show harm from red meat are terribly constructed, and doing a meta-analysis of poorly constructed studies doesn’t suddenly make them all better studies.

Health effects associated with consumption of unprocessed red meat: a Burden of Proof study - Nature Medicine

Using the burden of proof analytical tool, a meta-analysis found weak or no evidence of associations between unprocessed red meat consumption and increased risk of six cardiometabolic disease and cancer outcomes.

www.nature.com

Sure there may be some negatives from eating meat, but there can be negatives from everything. Often times those studies don’t really parse out information adequately, and rely on surveys or other information gathering that isn’t as reliable. Meanwhile there are studies for things like PUFAs which clearly illustrate the exact mechanism at play that is causing inflammation. And yes, as noted earlier some inflammation can be a good thing…but at the same time chronic inflammation is just about the worst thing for a person and leads to tons of health problems.

I’d say another thing to consider is the bioavailability differences between meat and plants. People can things like spinach can replace red meat as a source of iron(just an example since iron is a common topic around here), but there are enormous differences between spinach and beef with regard to how much of the iron your body can actually acquire from the meal. To get iron from spinach similar to iron from a steak you’d have to eat a ton of spinach, which would result in more inflammation quite possibly.

I think both sides have some truth to them, and honestly a lot of results come down to the individual. Some people can tolerate very different levels of inflammation and people can have very different foods that cause inflammation. For example I may be able to eat something that will wreck another person, and vice versa. But overall, I’d say meat is generally one of the most well-tolerated food sources on the planet. I’d also say there’s a reason that humans for 100,000+ years risked life and limb on hunts that almost always failed just to try and get some meat instead of simply eating plants. And sure, I know you’re not saying meat should be avoided so I’m not trying to paint that picture. But it is becoming more and more of a narrative, especially with regard to red meat. But as highlighted above the risks are generally either outright lies or greatly exaggerated, while the inverse is true for plant-based diets. In those instances the benefits seem to be drastically overstated while the negatives are either downplayed or outright ignored.

Couldn’t have said it better myself. And idc about being agreed with, or having my thoughts on things reinforced. All I care about is what’s the truth/ facts. I’m only giving praise to this reply because it is exactly what I’ve found to be the truth as well. At least currently. Things are always changing, as we continue to learn. I don’t see any of this becoming false or less accurate or anything. Js that all we know we what we know currently. We obv can’t know things we haven’t learned yet, but I’m always open to changing my mind on things as new information comes in. I couldn’t care less about being right or not. Again, all I care about is what’s accurate/ the truth/ the facts. If eating shit was the healthiest thing for me, I would find some way to get it into my body lol. All I care about is what’s optimal. I have zero skin in this game/ ego. Sorry for the little tangent, needed to get that out for some reason lol

 

[Gman86]

I know this thread is about PUFAS, so don’t want to keep going on and on about an animal based diet and cholesterol, but just watched this quick vid, and it was really good. Plus, I know some people will only consider information that comes from studies, so hopefully this offers some info that they can appreciate, since this guy did a 5 year PHD on cholesterol and sex hormones, and references a study about cholesterol and all cause mortality, that had over 12 million participants

 

[Gman86]

yeah - i figured skin isn't good. sweet - no skin - maybe peeling makes a difference. i handle cane sugar well - up to a level. no problems whatsoever. and food wise - yeah, sensitive since started carnivore/fruit. or maybe when you feel like crap every day you don't notice it. sort of default state.
some labs below. rest is in range, T is high due to TRT not referencing. the most interesting has been IGF-1 for me, i 4x the level within 1-2y or so. started at 70 or so.
I agree on keto, has to be clean. my labs on keto were worse. higher a1c, insulin, TSH etc.

TSH

2.150

C-Reactive Protein, Quant

1

Triiodothyronine (T3), Free

4.5

High

T4,Free(Direct)

1.10

Insulin

5.1

Hemoglobin A1c

5.3

IGF-1

283

Ya I think is a mix of probably not realizing how crappy u feel until u feel better, as well as ur gut bacteria adjusting to things ur regularly eating now (healthy foods) and not being able to process crap foods as good as it could when the person was consuming them more regularly. Anthony Chaffee talks about this fairly frequently. He talks about the fact that now that he’s carnivore, he feels amazing and better than he has in his whole life, but the downside is that if he cheats, it affects him way worse and for a lot longer than when he was eating not so great foods regularly. He justifies that the pros of feeling amazing all the time outweigh the negatives of feeling so crappy when he cheats, which is very rarely.

 

[Cataceous]

U do understand pretty much all studies involving food are extremely flawed, right? Most of them are just questionnaires where people answer questions about what they eat, and every participant eats different foods everyday. Just because a study’s conclusion says something, doesn’t make it fact.

Most studies are either flawed, or corrupt. Sometimes both. Then u have cases where people purposely create fake studies. Obv this isn’t common, but it’s just an example of why studies aren’t the end all be all, when it comes to accurate information.
...

You continue to make my case. I await your evidence of this vast conspiracy that favors increased consumption of plant-based foods. Are you going to defame the authors of the interventional studies too? These studies aren't as long-term but they still point to improved outcomes when plant-based food intake is increased.

..
At the end of the day, all that matters is what actually happens. Not what studies tell u should happen
...

Except that without studies you may have no idea what actually happens. The world is way too complex to make sweeping pronouncements based on nothing more than a few anecdotes.

 

[Jim Marlowe]

You continue to make my case. I await your evidence of this vast conspiracy that favors increased consumption of plant-based foods. Are you going to defame the authors of the interventional studies too? These studies aren't as long-term but they still point to improved outcomes when plant-based food intake is increased.


Except that without studies you may have no idea what actually happens. The world is way too complex to make sweeping pronouncements based on nothing more than a few anecdotes.

You don't think there is a political, climate-based initiative to get people to eat a plant-based diet? That seems like sophistry to me. A person can't consume any mainstream news without being inundated with propaganda about the dangers of eating animals. Here's an example of the propaganda wrapped up in "science." The food system and climate change: are plant-based diets becoming unhealthy and less environmentally sustainable? | Proceedings of the Nutrition Society | Cambridge Core

 

[Mastodont]

I know this thread is about PUFAS, so don’t want to keep going on and on about an animal based diet and cholesterol, but just watched this quick vid, and it was really good. Plus, I know some people will only consider information that comes from studies, so hopefully this offers some info that they can appreciate, since this guy did a 5 year PHD on cholesterol and sex hormones, and references a study about cholesterol and all cause mortality, that had over 12 million participants

On the other hand, young people generally have what mainstream medicine calls healthy cholesterol and their hormones are on point.

 

[Phil Goodman]

You continue to make my case. I await your evidence of this vast conspiracy that favors increased consumption of plant-based foods. Are you going to defame the authors of the interventional studies too? These studies aren't as long-term but they still point to improved outcomes when plant-based food intake is increased.


Except that without studies you may have no idea what actually happens. The world is way too complex to make sweeping pronouncements based on nothing more than a few anecdotes.

I already posted above to highlight how many of the studies that conclude the negative effects of meat are greatly flawed. Sure, you could just chalk it up to bad science and not some conspiracy, but when there are studies as ridiculous as this:

Study Confirms Link Between Red Meat and Diabetes Risk

The findings support the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlight the importance of alternative sources of protein, according to the researchers.

www.medscape.com

Then it’s hard to just brush off as bad science. And you also have to look at articles or studies like these:

Awareness of and reactions to health and environmental harms of red meat among parents in the United States

Evidence of the health and environmental harms of red meat is growing, yet little is known about which harms may be most impactful to include in meat reduction messages. This study examined which harms consumers are most aware of and which most discourage ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Meat consumption: Which are the current global risks? A review of recent (2010–2020) evidences

Meat consumption has been increasing since the 1960s, but especially from the 1980s decade to today. Although meat means an important source of nutrients, it is also evident that a great consumption of this source of proteins has also a negative environmental ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Why Is Eating Meat Bad for the Environment and Climate Change

Meat consumption is contributing to the accelerating climate crisis.

sentientmedia.org

Eating Less Red Meat Is Something Individuals Can Do to Help the Climate Crisis

Our climate problem is big, but a person’s diet change can make an impact

www.scientificamerican.com

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/06/health/lab-grown-meat-pros-cons-life-itself-wellness-scn/index.html

https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2018/12/08/beef-industry-price-pkg-paton-walsh-special-report-vpx.cnn

I could list literally hundreds of articles or studies which show the obvious agenda to push people away from meat(particularly beef) consumption. And we have seen this type of activity before, so it’s not some crazy idea. This is one of the most harmful actions carried out in our countries history, and it involves paying scientists to come up with poorly constructed(and that’s putting it nicely) dietary studies.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat

 

[Gman86]

You continue to make my case. I await your evidence of this vast conspiracy that favors increased consumption of plant-based foods. Are you going to defame the authors of the interventional studies too? These studies aren't as long-term but they still point to improved outcomes when plant-based food intake is increased.


Except that without studies you may have no idea what actually happens. The world is way too complex to make sweeping pronouncements based on nothing more than a few anecdotes.

What are u talking about? Without studies we may have no idea what actually happens? That makes no sense. When it comes to cardiovascular disease, we don’t need studies to understand outcomes. U can simply do a number of diagnostic tests, to assess cardiovascular function, such as:

Checking blood pressure
Checking pulse rate
Checking oxygen saturation
Checking respirations
Doing an electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG)
Doing an echocardiogram (ultrasound)
Having an exercise/ stress test done
Doing nuclear imaging
Having magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) done
Having computed tomography (CT scan) done
Having holter monitoring done
Having a thallium scan (myocardial perfusion scintigraphy) done
Having a coronary angiogram done

Then u have many labs that u can get done that can assess cardiovascular function, as well. Such as:

Checking ur hdl to triglyceride ratio
Checking ur HbA1c
Checking fasting blood sugar
Checking fasting insulin levels
Checking C-reactive protein (to test for overall inflammation)

To say that we need studies to understand exactly what’s going on is such a silly statement. If someone lacked critical thinking skills/ common sense, then ya, I can see study conclusions being the only way that person can understand things. Basically needing to be told exactly how things work. But for others that have common sense, and have critical thinking skills, it’s very easy to understand what’s going on with things, without needing studies to tell them. Again, studies have their place, obviously, but to rely mostly on studies, to make conclusions, and not consider anecdotal experiences/ real world results, diagnostic testing, lab results, as valid information, in regards to making conclusions, is an extremely poor/ ignorant/ short sighted approach, and ur always going to be way behind the times, in regards to any subject, using that approach. As evidenced by how behind the times u are, in regards to diet and optimal health. Referencing studies showing favorable outcomes with a vegetarian/ vegan diet, in regards to cardiovascular disease, and optimal overall health, is what people were spouting about 10-15 years ago. Obviously some people still believe being vegan/ vegetarian, is an optimal approach to health, but more and more people are realizing every day, that this is the opposite of what u want to do, if optimal health is the goal. Eventually being vegan/ vegetarian will be an extremely rare thing. It’s just how technology works. Information spreads like wild fire now, especially with every generation being brought up more and and more with technology. The kids nowadays soak up information at rates we couldn’t even fathom when we were children growing up. So the truth is coming to light at faster and faster rates. So for people that are up on current science/ info, when it comes to diet and optimal health, it’s hard not to laugh, when people still think being vegetarian/ vegan is an optimal approach to overall health, and keeping their cardiovascular disease risk as low as possible. Just because that type of thinking is so antiquated at this point

Watch this vid from 35:15 - 36:00 mins. He explains what I’m talking about when it comes to how the optimal way to approach data/ learning

 

[Gman86]

On the other hand, young people generally have what mainstream medicine calls healthy cholesterol and their hormones are on point.

First off, have u looked at young people’s labs lately? Young men are having low testosterone issues in their late teens, and very commonly in their early twenties nowadays. Obv that’s a generalization, but it’s definitely evident that people in general are having hormone imbalances at much younger ages than in previous generations

And what does mainstream medicine consider “healthy cholesterol levels”? And what do most young people’s cholesterol levels look like?

Not trying to argue with u, just curious what ur basing ur statements on

 

[Cataceous]

You don't think there is a political, climate-based initiative to get people to eat a plant-based diet? That seems like sophistry to me. A person can't consume any mainstream news without being inundated with propaganda about the dangers of eating animals. Here's an example of the propaganda wrapped up in "science." The food system and climate change: are plant-based diets becoming unhealthy and less environmentally sustainable? | Proceedings of the Nutrition Society | Cambridge Core

You're straying farther afield here; this is not the thread, or even the forum, for a debate on climate change. Let's stick to the studies on the health effects of plant- and animal-based foods. Now if you can provide evidence that the results of large studies and meta-analyses on this topic have been influenced by politics then that is fair game.

Your cited study makes at least one point that I assume we'll agree on, which is that displacing meat with plant-based junk food is unlikely to be helpful.

I already posted above to highlight how many of the studies that conclude the negative effects of meat are greatly flawed. Sure, you could just chalk it up to bad science and not some conspiracy, but when there are studies as ridiculous as this:

Study Confirms Link Between Red Meat and Diabetes Risk

The findings support the current dietary recommendations of limiting consumption of red meat and highlight the importance of alternative sources of protein, according to the researchers.

www.medscape.com

...

List your specific criticisms of this study. A couple to get you started: Yes, it's observational, and there is an indication that eating more meat correlates with less concern about one's health. We'll have to dig further into the study to see if this potential source of bias was accounted for.

The statements about veering into climate change apply to you too.

 

[t_spacemonkey]

You don't think there is a political, climate-based initiative to get people to eat a plant-based diet? That seems like sophistry to me. A person can't consume any mainstream news without being inundated with propaganda about the dangers of eating animals. Here's an example of the propaganda wrapped up in "science." The food system and climate change: are plant-based diets becoming unhealthy and less environmentally sustainable? | Proceedings of the Nutrition Society | Cambridge Core

there is definitely an agenda. this is hardly a conspiracy. cow farts boil the oceans stuff. hard to say why this is pushed, don't want to stray too far here. but the recent news some minneapolis sports stadium switching to vegan foods only, is probably not because they do care about your health.
so while those agendas have strong forces driving them, we can only assume that anti-meat studies and propaganda going to ramp up. hence a lot of those nutritional studies can not be trusted, for many reasons, adherence, conflict of interest, un accounted factors, and even things like emotional health of the participants, which is a HUGE factor in ones physical health, but completely ignored by western medicine.

 

[Cataceous]

What are u talking about? Without studies we may have no idea what actually happens? That makes no sense. When it comes to cardiovascular disease, we don’t need studies to understand outcomes. U can simply do a number of diagnostic tests, to assess cardiovascular function, such as:
...

If you think that determining relationships in complex systems is as simple as taking a few measurements then we have nothing further to discuss.