Feels like a 1940s ad for cigarettes now that we know red meat significantly increases risk of cardiovascular disease, breast and various gastrointestinal cancers, and type 2 diabetes.
Ya, I was just thinking this is a great example of a propaganda poster.
all ads are propaganda
Every company website is propaganda too.
Kind of a false equivalency there. The casual link between meat consumption and those diseases is much less clear than cigarettes and cancer. In fact, overconsumption of sugars is much more directly linked to type 2 diabetes than meat consumption, for example.
overconsumption of sugars is much more directly linked to type 2 diabetes than meat consumption
... Duh? Everyone knows that. You're talking about logical fallacies and then going on to an irrelevant whataboutism.
If you want to hide your head in the sand over unprocessed red meat "only" being a Group 2A carcinogen (processed meat is Group 1 and has been since 2015, meaning definitively causing cancer; in that sense, those hot dogs on the left are causally linked to cancer), be my guest. Doesn't change the reality that eating red meat for some strange reason I guess we'll never know significantly elevates risk for at least four of the leading causes of death in the developed world.
Edit: And if this is supposed to be some false dichotomy where eating meat is the lesser evil because anything else would risk diabetes from carbohydrate overconsumption, have I got some interesting news for you.
Interventional studies have shown that vegetarian diets, especially a vegan diet, are effective tools in glycemic control and that these diets control plasma glucose to a greater level than do control diets, including diets traditionally recommended for patients with diabetes
Guess the American Diabetes Association just hasn't seen this 1946 poster yet, or they'd understand.
Interventional studies have shown that vegetarian diets, especially a vegan diet, are effective tools in glycemic control and that these diets control plasma glucose to a greater level than do control diets, including diets traditionally recommended for patients with diabetes
Ah, yes, the good ol' oreo and potato chip diet.
I roll my eyes whenever any of these diet comparisons come up, because comparing a vegan diet to an omnivorous diet doesn't really take into account diet quality, which is likely a far more significant factor in health outcomes than what particular diet cult you join. An omnivore who exclusively gets all their food from the local organic farmer's market is going to have better health outcomes than the vegan with a pantry full of oreos. I don't even think organic food is any healthier for you - I just think that simply giving a shit about your health and acting on it will produce better health outcomes, and everything else is either genetic or negligible. Which accounts for some amount of the improved health outcomes for vegans and vegetarians - there is so much hype about how they are "healthy" diets that people who are already more inclined to care about their health choose to adopt these diets.
Like, should you eat a carnivore diet for the rest of your life? Probably not. But that doesnt mean that a grilled steak with a side of potatoes and broccoli is bad for you. It's fine. Assuming you eat a healthy diet and live a generally healthy life, maybe skipping meat would add on a year or two. Great, now you die at 82 instead of 80 - 2 more years of achey joints and incontinence while you rot in a nursing home, woohoo!
Personally, I'd rather just enjoy my life and die a little sooner.
I roll my eyes whenever any of these diet comparisons come up, because comparing a vegan diet to an omnivorous diet doesn’t really take into account diet quality, which is likely a far more significant factor in health outcomes than what particular diet cult you join. An omnivore who exclusively gets all their food from the local organic farmer’s market is going to have better health outcomes than the vegan with a pantry full of oreos.
[Paper] A case study of overfeeding 3 different diets - 2021
This is the only study, a stunt case study, I've found that actually does a serious comparison of different diet compositions. 5800 calories over feeding, 3 weeks, 3 month washout - vegan, low fat, keto
You might find it interesting
I actually read that study. And I seriously doubt that you did. I bet. You just glanced over the end result. Thought it aligned with your views, and called it a day.
It's probably the most meaningless study I've ever seen.
You cannot draw any meaningful conclusion from it at all. Mostly, because they used, one singular. Test subject.
I'll say that again. They used 1 person. That's it. No control group. No ethnical diversity among test subjects. Just one guy.
Just to point out how incredibly useless that is. When they do studies on various methods of working out. They use hundreds if not thousands of people. Men and women. And in these studies. You will see, that some individuals, lose muscle mass. They do the same thing as everyone else. 99% of participants gain muscle mass of various degrees, but 1% will lose muscle mass.
Imagine if your study was done, on just that 1 person that lost muscle mass. Are you going to conclude that lifting weights will result in negative gains?
It's genuinely so funny that their attitude is "A wall of meta-analyses? Is that all you have?" And then they post a single case study they haven't read like it's some kind of slam dunk.
It's pigeon chess when these morons show up.
I actually read that study. And I seriously doubt that you did. I bet. You just glanced over the end result. Thought it aligned with your views, and called it a day.
You actually READ the study? AND somehow missed my 500 word writeup on it? Or you read my writeup and thought I wrote it from pure imagination? Why not give grace to someone trying to have a dialog and extend the benefit of the doubt? Why the immediate hostility?
proof I read the case study
I’ll say that again. They used 1 person. That’s it. No control group. No ethnical diversity among test subjects. Just one guy.
Yes, that is what case study means. Also... i called it a stunt case study, but it is the only serious comparison of dietary composition I've seen.
Since you READ the study, how do you account for waist circumference reduction on a hypercaloric ketogenic diet? Do you not find it inline with the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity? After all, this is exactly how Diabulimia works
Since you READ the study, how do you account for waist circumference reduction on a hypercaloric ketogenic diet?
I don't know how to account for ANYTHING, in that "study". Since it was only done on one, singular, individual. The only thing we can learn from it. Is how this one person, personally, react to various diets while on a surplus caloric intake.
If you KNEW, it was only done on one singular individual, why the hell are you now calling it "the only serious comparison of dietary composition I've seen". The fact that the only participant is a singular individual, means that it's NOT a serious comparison. You're contradicting yourself because you're unable to keep up. Trying to link this and market it as something of value is incompetence at best and purposefully disingenuous at worst.
Like I already said. when studies on workout methods are performed, you will get ~1% of participants that lose muscle mass, while the remaining 99% gain muscle mass of various degrees. I sincerely hope, you can extrapolate on how useless performing a study on just a single person then is. For all you know. That person is in the 0.01 percentile of people that will react in extreme ways beyond the norm. And since you're not testing on anyone else. You have NOTHING to compare it to.
Do you not find it inline with the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity? After all, this is exactly how Diabulimia works
I can't find it, anything. It's one person. Do you not understand? It doesn't matter how "inline with XYZ model" you might think it is, or isn't. It's useless without a proper sample-size. Arguably useless without a control group to eliminate bias.
The study holds no merit. The methodology is extremely flawed, and you cannot use the data from this one person, to draw any conclusions on the general population.
The only thing we can learn from it. Is how this one person, personally, react to various diets while on a surplus caloric intake.
Agreed, case studies are curiosities that should be a catalyst for more formal research.
If you KNEW, it was only done on one singular individual, why the hell are you now calling it “the only serious comparison of dietary composition I’ve seen”.
A case study wouldn't get published if it covered a area already well published. The fact it exists means its in a novel area. I invite you to provide a better reference of a serious comparison of dietary composition. This case is novel in that its not epidemiology, its a intervention, it uses reasonable washouts, its the same individual on each course, and we know exactly what they were eating. Yes N=1, but you have to start somewhere.
You’re contradicting yourself because you’re unable to keep up. Trying to link this and market it as something of value is incompetence at best and purposefully disingenuous at worst.
You are making assumptions about my motivations which are not correct. The fact you haven't actually talked about the content of the study and are hyper focused on that it is a case study tells me your not actually interested in discussing the literature.
The methodology is extremely flawed, and you cannot use the data from this one person, to draw any conclusions on the general population.
Yes, I agree, because its a case study.
I don't even know what your position is on the literature, you have only established you don't find value in case studies.
You haven't even the grace to apologize for your demonstrably false accusations - At this point I think your just a argumentative misanthrope.
That was interesting. Thank you for sharing!
Any time! I'm on lemmy for the good ideas and conversations.
As someone who doesn't have a clear opinion on this yet, I love Lemmy because of you people. There are very few anonymous places where such productive and respectful discussions can be observed and it really helps a lot. You guys are awesome.
Don't care, didn't plan on living forever anyway.
You're welcome to do what you want. My comment wasn't trying to stop you from smoking.
Imagine saying "I work for the American Meat Institute".
I thought that was slightly humorous, but apparently they merged with others to become the "North American Meat Institute" in 2015... and theres a whole subsidiary that Im sure people have business cards spelling out: the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council... giggity.
gay porn company
I think they have an OnlyMans.
OnlyFranks
Maybe this would be harder to make fun of if they'd used much better cuts of meat in the poster.
This maybe fits in a boring dystopia.
They're all ground up, so I don't see how you could know what cuts were used.
I thought this was satire after looking at the state of those burgers.
What's wrong with the patties?
Nothing is wrong - it looks like a real food photo rather then the modern style of non-edible things made to look like some idealized concept of food.
I’m amazed. Maybe they only had one exposure left on the camera.
For sharing images of vintage magazine ads, fliers, promos, etc.
We're going to play it pretty loose with timeframe here so please don't get offended anyone :)
