> Нe database did not contain sufficient information to separate effects of “pure meat” from meat products that may contain other nutrients.
That line alone summarises why this is yet another flawed epidemiological study in nutrition. Most "meat eater" diets consist mainly of "plants". Grouping stuff together like this in nutrition is absolutely ridiculous and is why this area of science is so unbelievably broken, asides from the extreme reliance on epidemiology.
The average hamburger is mostly plants and contains tons of sugar from the sauces and such. So of course, if you measure a bunch of "meat eaters" which includes the average person who eats a bunch of hamburgers, the distinction between them consuming sugar and meat is nonexistent. Be it direct cane sugar or close to sugar in the form of the high gyclemic index bun in which it is placed.
That line alone summarises why this is yet another flawed epidemiological study in nutrition. Most "meat eater" diets consist mainly of "plants". Grouping stuff together like this in nutrition is absolutely ridiculous and is why this area of science is so unbelievably broken, asides from the extreme reliance on epidemiology.
The average hamburger is mostly plants and contains tons of sugar from the sauces and such. So of course, if you measure a bunch of "meat eaters" which includes the average person who eats a bunch of hamburgers, the distinction between them consuming sugar and meat is nonexistent. Be it direct cane sugar or close to sugar in the form of the high gyclemic index bun in which it is placed.