Originally Posted by
Fat Boy
It's hard to comment on 'many, many' studies, but the ones that I've seen all have the same approach. They start out with the assumption that meat/protein/whatever is bad and then come up with an epidemiological study that finds a correlation. Correlation _is not_ causation. Correlation means that this might be an area to investigate. If you haven't come up with any sort of causation or mechanism in which A is connected to B, you've really done very little.
The fact that these studies make no distinction in the type of protein that you're eating shows the absurdity. There is a difference between eating a can of 'potted meat' or a wild caught salmon fillet. There is a difference between eating a Jack-in-the-Box taco or a grass-fed beef steak. Ignoring these differences is what makes these studies useless. Remember the Harvard study a couple years ago? They way they did their questionnaire if you ate a pizza that had pepperoni on it, then all the calories of that pizza were considered 'red meat'. Well, how close to reality is that? Not very.
I'm going to return to my fall-back. The less any food is processed while still being able to be consumed, the better it is for you.
I can't defend the design of all studies, but I think the scientific method generally works. I don't believe that these studies cherry pick the data to prove the preconceived notions of the researchers. And every scientist understands the difference between correlation and causation. Articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals specifically note potential shortcomings with the data and study design and suggest approaches for future research. They try to identify confounding factors and control for them. I've read a lot of peer-reviewed scientific literature in my life. Have you?