[shlant]

> If you have normal organic meat there is no problem at all

Source?

Because all of this seems to show otherwise:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23306319

http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j1957

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/85/2/518.full

http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/can...

> Likely we have been eating meat from the beginning of our existance

Just because we have evolved eating meat, doesn't necessarily mean it is the most optimal. Appeal to Nature.

> The problem is that the anti meat lobby like peta or sugar-bread industry want us to buy more of their products

What "products" is PETA selling??? I have a lot of qualms with PETA, but I have never seen them vindicated in this way...

> Keto is a really good healthy diet its just that requires that you educate yourself

You seem to be really invested in the diet. Maybe you have some bias?

[nightski]

Look, you can be on a ketogenic diet and not eat meat at all. I eat a few ounces a day. I could easily not eat any at all and still maintain a high fat ketogenic diet, but I enjoy the flavor.

I also have read plenty of studies that contradict the ones above. I'm not saying they are necessarily wrong. But I find medical statistical studies very hard to interpret because they don't control for all the factors and the data is not super reliable. Often the conclusions seem excessive given the data that is actually there.

[shlant]

> Look, you can be on a ketogenic diet and not eat meat at all.

For sure, but I doubt most people doing Keto are eating very little to no meat.

> I find medical statistical studies very hard to interpret because they don't control for all the factors and the data is not super reliable

Ok so you are suggesting we throw out all studies because they may or may not control for all the variables? That seems like a zero sum proposition that is a bit overkill. Of course there are some studies that are less rigorously controlled than others, but to conclude that no studies can be trusted because "medical statistical studies very hard to interpret" and "the data is not super reliable" just seems like an excuse to ignore what is very compelling evidence.

[nightski]

Of course I don't want to throw the studies out. I'm suggesting the conclusions are too strong and not necessarily justified.

[thesz]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4944490/?report...

Also please read China Study critiques. They are good at dismantling "red meat is bad" point of view.

[shlant]

1. The study you referenced included 28 participants and utilized food frequency questionnaires. Maybe you have something more substantial? Because that is pretty weak on multiple levels.

2. Nobody is referencing the China Study here. It is also 12 years old. Not sure what critiques you are referring to (as you didn't reference any), but I highly doubt they would discredit the information I referenced just because they have to do with "dismantling" the "red meat is bad point of view."

Here is yet another huge meta analysis of the correlation between red meat and Type 2 Diabetes published just 2 years ago:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Yoona_Kim5/publication/...