The article doesn’t specifically state it, but it does appear to indicate that the relationship is correlative and not due to direct causation. This makes sense and shouldn’t be surprising.
To that end, I think it’s probably a reasonable guess that people who specifically avoid red meat are people who are generally more intentional about their diet and eat healthier.
I’m not a doctor by any means, but I also struggle to imagine what the obvious mechanism would be. The fat may contribute to atherosclerosis, but that’s not diabetes. Red meat does tend to be prepared in ways that yield relatively high calories, so it could just be a matter of general obesity as well.
I’d really want to see a calorie-controlled study comparing chicken and red meat, but that’s logistically not remotely simple.
Edit: Actually reading the article, I see there’s apparently a link between the saturated fat and insulin resistance, but I still wonder to what extent that link simply comes from excessive calories and how problematic it is if your diet isn’t excessively caloric. I’m seeing that apparently around 86 percent of people with type 2 diabetes are overweight.
People that can afford to eat red meat at that rate are probably from western developed countries and they are likely to get diabetes for the lifestyle and the rest of their diet too. Co-occurrence doesn’t imply causation (“post hoc ergo propter hoc” logical fallacy) as stated in previous comments… Seems the usual mantra we’ve been reading for years in clickbait titles, always disproven afterwards. Medical recommendations for diet and RDAs don’t change.
This is a highly suspect conclusion, and is discredited by the lack of control for variables and comprehensive nutrient/lifestyle analysis in this study, and by study I mean the analysis of undefined questionnaires some people filled out over a period of three decades.
That is not science unless you stretch the definition until it screams
Oh, what are your problems with the methodology of the study?
The same as the other objections already made.
Uh huh.
Which are, in your top level comment?
Seems like a quality article considering it says “according to a new study.” and links the words “new study” back to the same article. Where’s the paper?
That’s typical sugar industry propaganda.
It doesn’t link to the study. At least two relevant-seeming links, both link to the same page you’re already on. Wut.
So have at least 3 servings then?
Jokes on them. I already have diabetes.
Probably not statistically significant at all…
I’m here for a good time, not a long time
Animal suffering is just too funny.
It can be
Buy local.
So I should eat 1.9 servings?
2.1
Don’t eat meat peasants, eat bugs, don’t question authority, accept mass surveillance, be addicted to social media.
Yea, but… bacon.
