In the 60s, there wasn't an Ivy League university that didn't endorse Communism. And so?
Also, correlation is not causation. I shouldn't have to tell you that.
On the one hand, you say it's too complex, on the other hand, you offer logical fallacies as to why it's conclusive.
Where I come from, that's called bullshit. YMMV.
So is drinking water, sleeping and living in general.
Smoking is associated with 100% mortality.
Not smoking is associated with 100% mortality.
In my previous post I clearly said that there is a correlation, not causation. If you have cancer and heart disease in your genes, you sit in front of a computer every day and you eat a giant rare steak every day, you're probably increasing your risk factors by X percent, as opposed to if replaced that steak with a salad. That's what all these studies are trying to say. If you think it's BS, it's your right, I don't.
Now, like I always say, everyone is different, and it's up to each and everyone of us to do their own split testing. I personally realized that every time I ate meat for dinner, I slept like shit, woke up exhausted and with high blood pressure. When I replaced it with fresh salmon or tuna, I slept like a baby.
You know, I view health a lot like SEO. We know the basic factors, and we know there is a certain degree of correlation between what we're doing and the results we're getting, but we can't say for sure that X caused Y.
Almost all of these red meat studies conveniently left out a key data point: how the animal was raised.
Since I have better things to do with my time, the tl;dr summary is: meat from grain-fed animals is positively linked with heart disease, but meat from pasture raised animals is perfectly healthy.
I agree, but that's also what I was saying earlier about Mark Sisson, he basically said that "any type of meat is healthier than any type of pizza". Think about that for a second, a slice of McDonald's BigMac meat is healthier than a fresh tomato & basil pizza from a 3 star Michelin restaurant in Napoli?