Umm meatsisters, our response?
>>75735238I already have accepted that I will - at some point in the future - die, so I don't give a fuck. Certain things I will enjoy as they bring enjoyment to my life. If I die 2 years before I would had I lived like an ascetic monk, then so fucking be it
>all-cause mortality riskWhat the fuck is that supposed to mean?
>>75735250Likelihood of death, due to whatever. To use this measure they don't need to have established that the experimental manipulation or object of interest is the reason for death. They just look at how many people died in each group.
>>75735250It includes accidents, medical error, respiratory infections and what not. Mostly crapshoot numbers.
>>75735267That sounds incredibly circumstantial and unbelievably stupid. You can't just say "if you eat/drink/do this you're more likely to die" and not specify what the fuck you're going to die from. That's like saying "Smoking increases your of dying because...it just does, okay?"
>>75735278>It includes accidents, medical error, respiratory infections and what not. Mostly crapshoot numbers.So basically these studies are saying that if you eat red meat you're more likely to die from getting a piano dropped on your head, or getting accidentally prescribed the wrong medication by Doctor Johnny McBong. Got it. I'm so glad scientists are here to tell us these amazing truths.
>>75735283I'm not defending OP's post or the research behind it, but all-cause mortality is still a reasonably useful metric. If study after study is showing that doing this particular thing will greatly increase your chance of death, it is still something to consider. With a large enough sample, it is unlikely to be something silly like all people in one group getting hit by a car.
>>75735278>>75735288This is cope. If consistently in all humans your chance of dying goes up when eating red meat, then it is because of red meat
>>75735288More or less.There's was diffent data sets like 12 years ago that put vegans in the highest all cause mortality bracket, routine meat eaters in the middle and seldom meat eaters in the lowest. It's gonna go back and forth forever this is just lying with numbers when they find a dataset that favors what they're shilling
>>75735238>responseTldr
>>75735238>he's afraid of a few PAHs and HAs giving him GI cancer if it's overcooked>he doesn't even take bromelain supplementsif he's so smart and biohacked, why he's so obsessed with studies on normies?
>>75735343
>>75735290>it is unlikely to be something silly like all people in one group getting hit by a carWithout controlling for covariant factors you walk into the red wine problem. "People who drink red wine live longer, there must be something in it!"Yeah, it's the price of the bottle filtering poorfags
>>75735443Resveratrol, that's the word you're looking for. It's the subject of some research scams but also has real bioactivities. Many other wines made from shit other than grapes have other polyphenol compounds that also have various bioactivities.
>>75735238Im not reading all that crap.Summarize it in 10 words or less.
>>75735460This just in, fruits and veggies may be healthy for you, thanks science
>>75735480Venmo vampire dude has a poor understanding of statistics and uses it to justify being a faggy vegan
>>75735443That's a fair point but once you identify potential mediating variables they can usually be studied. Like if red wine can be explained by wealth, you can do a 2 x 2 design with wealth and red wine consumption to test that. It's still a good starting point for that kind of thinking, though.If there is something mediating red meat and all-cause mortality then that can be teased out. In this case, though, the trick that's usually pulled in nutrition studies is to have a dysfunctional starting point. Mr Death-Warmed-Up on twitter has talked about processed meat as being worse, but does that mean that 'red meat' was defined independently of 'processed red meat'? Or was condition 1 'processed red meat + unprocessed red meat' and condition 2 was 'processed red meat'? They usually pull at least one trick like that in these studies
>>75735238nothing really made the cut in his diet lolhe eats pills (ultra processed food) and that will send him to an early grave
>>75735238His only goal is to live as long as possible.Mine is to get muscles, lose fat and eat food I enjoy.
>>75735647he will achieve the opposite
>>75735290People who eat red meat more often could just do dangerous shit more often on average
>>75735290>is still a reasonably useful metricobservational study is literally worthlessbryan is retarded
>>75735661Observational study is useful if it's being applied to specific drugs, since the observation pool is smaller and dosages are more strictly controlled so it's easier to identify whether or not the drug is responsible for heightened mortality rates.Using it on something as widespread as red meat, where your only real way to measure how much is being consumed is by asking people how many burgers they eat and just guesstimating off of there, is indeed fucking retarded.
>>75735238"High red meat consumption" on a cohort of Amerisharts just means that those people eat burgers at McDonald's twice a day.Show me a study involving people who eat organic, unprocessed, grass-fed beef and liver on a regular basis, then we can talk.
>>75735238damn that's crazy but I'm just gonna keep eating red meat
That's cool and all, but did this faggot post his physique or is he just as useless as average /fit/ fad diet spamming schizo?
>>75735238This guy is a faggot Enough
>>75735250100% of meat eaters will eventually die, so clean up your diet chud
>>75735343Nonsense. Roughly 16 women have sucked my dick. Only one of them have died. Roughly 110 billion people have ever lived and roughly 102 billion of them have died, and only 1 of them have ever sucked my dick.Thus sucking my dick greatly reduces mortality chances.
