![]() ![]() ![]() That’s because the health impact of cutting back is either nonexistent or small, and the evidence of any harms is so weak, that it’d be misleading to suggest people should avoid meat for health reasons. The American Heart Association and the US government’s dietary guidelines panel have also long suggested curbing our meat habit for better health.īut the authors of the new studies argue that people can “continue their current consumption of both unprocessed red meat and processed meat,” meaning whatever amount they’re currently eating. Just four years ago, the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced that people should cut back on processed meats if they wanted to avoid certain types of cancer. Led by Dalhousie University epidemiologist Bradley Johnston, the authors, who hail from seven different countries, focused on the impact of red meat consumption on cancer, cardiovascular disease, and mortality, among other effects, as well as people’s values and preferences regarding red meat.īased on these studies, their conclusions - summarized in a new Annals clinical guideline - challenge the guidelines from just about every major national and international health group. Their five systematic reviews, published Monday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine, suggest there’s no health reason to eat less red meat - not even the bacon and salami we’ve been told for years to cut back on. A group of 14 researchers just set off a firestorm with a new series of studies that upends years of nutrition advice about meat. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |