"This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition."
Both could be right. The original article states animal products and does not specifically say red meat like your article. It’s like an apples to multiple other fruit comparison.
It’s also not just about the animal meat (protein), fats are important as well.
so? if you do not eat animal products, you have to eat almost all oil or whole grain products...and the oil will wreak havoc on your intestinal tract and the whole grains will raise your blood sugar is you are diabetic or prediabetic
The difference is that a clinically recommended vegeterian diet would be rich in nutritive foods high in fiber. The recommendation wouldn’t just be to not eat meat and, like, eat all the processed sugary junk you want.
even so called healthy fiber rich veggie foods have lots of carbs and thus raise blood sugar levels for diabetics and pre-diabetics...cut the carbs to a minimum, eat meat and eggs and cheese and salad and oil, and blood sugar will stay at safe levels, even without medication, at least for prediabetics and most type 2 diabetics
It's more difficult, but it is possible. My mother was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and currently follows a vegetarian diet. With diet and exercise, her numbers (a1c, and blood glucose after eating) are now well within the normal range.
Her diet does seem quite restrictive to me, but it works.
> To claim that avoidance of animal products is required to prevent chronic disease is not supported by evidence, makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, and distracts policy makers from common-sense approaches to achieve adequate nutrition.
Makes enough sense to me. Ive been eating way less meat and feeling pretty good. But it's hard to muster the motivation to make that last push to no meat. Especially not with the existence of Taco Bell...
pure carnivory diet is delicious, if I have the wealth to do it full time I'd probably switch. Alas, I can only afford maybe 2 or 3 days before fasting and return back to grain-heavy diet.
This is not a scientific study in the slightest, yet the abstract and title are presented as such. That is why it was flagged
> This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition.
The title comes across kind of like click bait, and it presents itself as a study or review when it isn't
> This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition.
You have to read further down to know that it was someone assigned to argue this point of view - not that it was a study or review where someone looked at research and came to that conclusion. Reading the abstract and title did not give me the impression that someone was assigned to make that argument. Those are very different
An abstract is supposed to be a summary. Many people will read only an abstract since they think they are just getting a shorter version of something and stop there
38 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 94.8 ms ] thread"This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition."
:)
The actual title:
Children and adults should avoid consuming animal products to reduce risk for chronic disease: NO
You mean switching to a diet of twinkies won't reduce my risk of chronic disease?
It’s also not just about the animal meat (protein), fats are important as well.
It is possible to have a high protein vegetarian or vegan diet, although it does require planning and effort.
Low carb almost requires animal products until we can better synthesise the protein/fats needed.
Her diet does seem quite restrictive to me, but it works.
Makes enough sense to me. Ive been eating way less meat and feeling pretty good. But it's hard to muster the motivation to make that last push to no meat. Especially not with the existence of Taco Bell...
> This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition.
Still makes no sense?
Disclaimer: If this site could enlarge the character number in the "title" field, the full title would be there.
> This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition.
Since it's clearly described in the text exactly what the topic is about, is it not enough to read to understand what it is about?
And it has not a click-bait intent. It hit the character limit.