How I got the idea that you're making way too big an issue of things is three pages of posts that read like this: "This is bullsh¡t, I should be able to eat whatever I want, and these dopes are telling me I have to go vegetarian. I'll tell you, too many vegetables make me more uncomfortable, and less healthy, I reckon." This is essentially how you have been framing this issue. You've painted it as if the researchers have given you an ultimatum; either stop eating meat entirely, or you will die. This was what was implied in your major complaint in your first post, even before anyone mentioned veganism or vegetarianism. Unfortunately for this stance, we both know that's not really what the article you copied here was saying. Its message was, "Eat red meat less often, and when you do have it, the following advice should be considered, if you want to be healthy."
If you want to eat red meat three meals a day, that's fine. I'm just saying don't moan about the nanny state when people stop to tell you that your diet might not be the healthiest. If I were eating fish and chips three meals a day, and refused to eat anything else, it wouldn't be a sign that the nanny state is creeping into my life if scientists publish a paper saying, "Hey guys, I know you won't believe this, but fish and chips for every meal can mess up your heart." It would be a sign that I were deliberately choosing a crappy diet that was terrible for my health.
I don't look at this as discouraging human enjoyment. It's educating people. There's this notion called harm reduction. For some reason you're willing to apply it to tobacco, but you completely disregard it when it comes to the types of meat you eat. You create a false dichotomy, and since your first post, you've painted this study's recommendations as an all or nothing proposal. It isn't such a thing at all. Replace your beef with something else a couple nights a week, and you're still eating meat while falling in line with the study's recommendations for how to be more healthy. If you're unwilling to do such a thing, that doesn't mean the study is the result of nanny-like idiots. If anything, it indicates you have very narrow tastes in what you like, and you're unwilling to attempt to change this. That's hardly their fault.
Edit: Also, if you're concerned about this simply being some gimmicky health fad, why not just look up the paper in question? If this study were published in a peer-reviewed journal, didn't contain any methodological flaws, and had a reasonably large sample size to insure it was actually statistically meaningful, I'd look at such a study as being legitimate science. You can argue with science if you want, but unless you can disprove it, you're just going to look like a dope. It's not infallible, but it's certainly more reliable than your, "I know lots of folks who ate tons of red meat during WWII rationing, and lived on into old age while being very healthy." anecdotes. If it fails to meet any of these criteria, I'd understand considering it suspect.
If you want to eat red meat three meals a day, that's fine. I'm just saying don't moan about the nanny state when people stop to tell you that your diet might not be the healthiest. If I were eating fish and chips three meals a day, and refused to eat anything else, it wouldn't be a sign that the nanny state is creeping into my life if scientists publish a paper saying, "Hey guys, I know you won't believe this, but fish and chips for every meal can mess up your heart." It would be a sign that I were deliberately choosing a crappy diet that was terrible for my health.
I don't look at this as discouraging human enjoyment. It's educating people. There's this notion called harm reduction. For some reason you're willing to apply it to tobacco, but you completely disregard it when it comes to the types of meat you eat. You create a false dichotomy, and since your first post, you've painted this study's recommendations as an all or nothing proposal. It isn't such a thing at all. Replace your beef with something else a couple nights a week, and you're still eating meat while falling in line with the study's recommendations for how to be more healthy. If you're unwilling to do such a thing, that doesn't mean the study is the result of nanny-like idiots. If anything, it indicates you have very narrow tastes in what you like, and you're unwilling to attempt to change this. That's hardly their fault.
Edit: Also, if you're concerned about this simply being some gimmicky health fad, why not just look up the paper in question? If this study were published in a peer-reviewed journal, didn't contain any methodological flaws, and had a reasonably large sample size to insure it was actually statistically meaningful, I'd look at such a study as being legitimate science. You can argue with science if you want, but unless you can disprove it, you're just going to look like a dope. It's not infallible, but it's certainly more reliable than your, "I know lots of folks who ate tons of red meat during WWII rationing, and lived on into old age while being very healthy." anecdotes. If it fails to meet any of these criteria, I'd understand considering it suspect.
I'm aware of all the vegan side of things though.
Comment