The short answer is that we don't know. Refreshingly enough, this article seems to focus on that fact.<p>There are studies that say eating meat will give you cancer, or just kill you younger in general, but there are studies that show the opposite, and studies that show no correlation.<p>And pretty much all of these studies have issues, the biggest usually being, as the article says, that they're observational, based on a subject's ability to remember what they ate, how much they ate of it, and report that information correctly and truthfully.<p>The human body is massively complex, and we just don't know very much about how diet affects it. We know that eating a lower calorie diet helps you lose weight, and that's about the only thing we can prove with any kind of certainty.<p>Does a low-carb diet improve health outcomes? Or a vegan diet? We just don't know, and anyone that tells you they <i>do</i> know is either selling you something or, at best, telling you what worked <i>for them</i>.
I stopped eating meat 6 years ago. I miss it, but decided to try going veg-only + eggs/dairy and see how it impacted my life. If I found myself unable to keep up with my exercise routines (bicycling and sporadic weight work), I'd have stopped.<p>But it really didn't affect things, and I find myself unable to justify the cruelty of meat production.<p>One note: I did notice that it's tougher to control carb intake while eating veg, because meat is a great way to feel full without spiking blood sugar. When that's not an option and you're feeling like snacking, you're faced with a ton of unhealthy options. So I'm probably 10-15 lbs heavier than I would be if I ate meat.
> I find myself unable to justify the cruelty of meat production.<p>Would you eat meat from an outfit that convinced you it was raised without cruelty, right up to a pain and panic free slaughter? For say, a 20% premium?
Not making a comment on the veracity of the article, but the source is "Animal Frontiers", the journal of "The American Society of Animal Science (ASAS)" which is "a non-profit professional organization for the advancement of livestock, companion animals, exotic animals and meat science" [1]. They are not agnostic in the meat vs vegetarian debate.<p>[1] <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Animal_Science" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Animal_Sci...</a>
The one thing that I <i>know</i> eating meat (and/or other tyrosine sources) affects, is the switching frequency of tyrosine kinases in your cells. (Helpful mental model: some of your cellular organelles are finite-state machines. Tyrosine kinases trigger their state transitions.)<p>And I don’t <i>know</i> with the same level of certainty, but do believe, that this switching/state-transitioning in your cells is a major contributor to cellular senescence. Decreasing the switching frequency of tyrosine kinases in the body is, IIRC, being proposed as as both 1. a major reason that intermittent fasting increases lifespan, and 2. as a potential mechanism by which some aquatic species that live in extreme cold can live for hundreds of years.<p>It’d be nice to be able to turn this effect down, is what I’m saying. Sadly, it seems that doing so makes some things (like maintaining homeostasis during exercise) much harder. So there’s, maybe, a trade-off here: a longer life, but one constrained to only a part of the range of human activity. Interesting choice.
ive not heard of the journal "animal frontiers" before, but they seem to be partially funded by something called "american meat science" which, according to wikipedia, "represents the scientific advancement of meat production, including animal welfare, slaughterhouse operations, meat biochemistry and microbiology, and food safety." i'm not sure if that equates to a conflict of interest (is this just a lobby group with "science" in the name?) maybe somebody more knowledgeable can chime in.
Upon skim, the study appears to be about the relationship between meat consumption and colon cancer, not the more general question of what role it plays in a <i>healthy diet.</i><p>Everything I have ever read seems to indicate that people who are strict vegetarians, especially strict vegans, have trouble getting enough B vitamins. If you consume some animal products, such as seafood but not beef or chicken ("pescatarian"), this is not an issue.<p>I think there is an argument to be made that eating a low meat diet is generally wiser for most people. It's also easier on the earth -- which is a not insignificant detail these days, what with there being 7 billion people on the planet.
<i>It is likely that the association of red-meat consumption with colon cancer is explained either by an inability of epidemiology to detect such a small risk or by combinations of other factors..</i><p>Whoah.
Podcast with the author (Dr. David Klurfeld) discussing this subject: <a href="https://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-causing-cancer-bogus-vegetarian-scientists-and-balanced-nutrition" rel="nofollow">https://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-c...</a><p>Interesting report of his experience with WHO:<p>- He was on the World Health Organization working group to decide if meat causes cancer in 2015 with a bunch of vegetarians and vegans and says it was the most frustrating professional experience of his life<p>- There were 22 scientists - half of which were epidemiologists<p>- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18<p>- There was a group of people that were strongly against the vote<p>- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived