Also red meat is a luxury and if you can eat it regularly that means you're doing well economically, that most likely correlates with good healthcare access and a higher level lifestyle, which very much is correlated with better mental health.
This is bit like saying people with expensive cars have less cavities. That doesn't mean driving a luxury car somehow benefits your teeth, its just if you can afford a $100k car, you probably can afford regular checkups and good teeth care.
I am bemused / irked / saddened by the state of nutritional science research. I am convinced that the classic "food pyramid" that was pushed for years was a bad idea, but now guidance on what to eat seems to have split into various warring factions.
Some say that we should severely limit or even avoid meat. Their words look correct on the surface, but I notice their science seems based on "meat" pretty generically. There doesn't seem to be any accounting for eating high end grass fed beef from an organic market vs. low-end beef from a gas station. Does it really make no difference?
Another faction recommends eating meat freely, with no distinction as to type or quality. Another insists on the highest grade meat but then also discourages dairy. Another recommends high quality meat and no vegetables.
I would think that it would be, by now, more straightforward to determine what really makes most sense to eat. I guess (nearly?) everyone seems to agree that adequate water is good and too much sugar isn't.
Surely this is just the link between financial well being (having enough money to spend on high quality food) and mental health? I guess "people with enough money to afford the food they want" isn't as catchy of a headline...
>Protein intake was significantly higher among individuals consuming red meat (77.58±26.84g in HH-R and 80.74±35.8g in LH-R) compared to individuals not consuming red meat (67.35±26.85g in HH-NR and 62.99±29.56g in LH-NR, p< 0.001), while carbohydrate intake was lower in red meat groups. Total fat and saturated fat intake in the HH-R was within recommended limits. The inclusion of red meat also improved micronutrient adequacy, with the red meat group showing higher selenium, vit-B12, zinc, calcium, vit-D3, and choline.
Readit News
Maybe true, but my instinct says probably not true. "High Quality Diet" is the reason. Maybe the "High Quality" by itself is enough :)
Plus they do not say how much meat, in very small quantities I could believe this, but eating pounds of beef a month, I really doubt it.
This is bit like saying people with expensive cars have less cavities. That doesn't mean driving a luxury car somehow benefits your teeth, its just if you can afford a $100k car, you probably can afford regular checkups and good teeth care.
"Smoking correlated with high rates of permanent and total relief of lung and various other cancers and maladies"
This scientific finding brought to you by Phillip Morris.
I am bemused / irked / saddened by the state of nutritional science research. I am convinced that the classic "food pyramid" that was pushed for years was a bad idea, but now guidance on what to eat seems to have split into various warring factions.
Some say that we should severely limit or even avoid meat. Their words look correct on the surface, but I notice their science seems based on "meat" pretty generically. There doesn't seem to be any accounting for eating high end grass fed beef from an organic market vs. low-end beef from a gas station. Does it really make no difference?
Another faction recommends eating meat freely, with no distinction as to type or quality. Another insists on the highest grade meat but then also discourages dairy. Another recommends high quality meat and no vegetables.
I would think that it would be, by now, more straightforward to determine what really makes most sense to eat. I guess (nearly?) everyone seems to agree that adequate water is good and too much sugar isn't.
Red meat or the study ?
As Paracelsus said about 500 years ago:
Source: See metabolicmind.org