I have no data for this, so i'm just speculating wildly (and accepting this will be a unpopular conjecture):
Lemmas - Things I have data for
Metabolic dysfunction is endemic in the population (96% westerners)
Metabolic dysfunction impacts hormones, especially sex hormones
Aromatase happens at elevated levels in metabolically compromised people
This can manifest as man-boobs, love-handles, chin hair, etc
Metabolic dysfunction is principally caused by diet.
Speculation - Things I have no data for
There is probably some connection between sexuality and hormones
There is probably some connection between sexuality and life-long diets
This means there might be a interesting correlation you could discover. However, I don't think anyone would fund this type of research, or publish it - it would cause controversy needlessly.
Seeing a population prefer vegetables doesn't speak to cause and effect, it could be a cultural appreciation for being healthy and vegetables are mostly seen as healthy by most groups.
If we control people for the Standard American Diet (no sugar, no processed oils, no processed food) - they will do well regardless of the specific intervention. I have epidemiology that shows people do meat on higher red meat consumption... but it has the same problems.
There are populations where consumption of red meat isn't necessarily correlated with a unhealthy diet like hong kong, and the Mediterranean (yes, many people in the Mediterranean actually eat red meat).
Objectives: Nutritionally balanced diets that are abundant in essential nutrients are consistently linked to better mental health. Red meat is a nutrient-dense source of protein, iron, zinc, and vit-B12; however, its associations with cardiovascular disease and cancer have contributed to negative public perceptions. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate whether red meat could be integrated into a high healthy-eating-index(HEI, >80 scores) diet to improve nutrient adequacy without impacting diet quality, mental health, or microbiota composition.
Methods: This secondary analysis utilized data from the American Gut Project. Microbiota sequences were extracted and analyzed with QIIME2 on the high-performance computational cluster at South Dakota State University for taxonomic classification, diversity analysis, and microbiota community comparisons. A total of 4,915 adults were then stratified into four groups based on HEI scores and red meat consumption: high-HEI with red meat (HH-R), high-HEI without red meat (HH-NR), low-HEI with red meat (LH-R), and low-HEI without red meat (LH-NR).
Results: Participants consuming high-HEI diets maintained healthy BMI values, regardless of red meat intake. Protein intake was significantly higher among individuals consuming red meat (77.58±26.84g in HH-R and 80.74±35.8g in LH-R) compared to individuals not consuming red meat (67.35±26.85g in HH-NR and 62.99±29.56g in LH-NR, p< 0.001), while carbohydrate intake was lower in red meat groups. Total fat and saturated fat intake in the HH-R was within recommended limits. The inclusion of red meat also improved micronutrient adequacy, with the red meat group showing higher selenium, vit-B12, zinc, calcium, vit-D3, and choline. Higher HEI scores, irrespective of red meat consumption showed lower odds of depression (log odds= -2.22), PTSD (log odds= -3.80), and bipolar disorder (log odds= -5.903). With gut microbiota, OTU richness and Shannon diversity, were highest in the HH-R and lowest in the LH-NR. B. caccae (FDR= 0.003) and C. hathewayi (FDR< 0.001) was higher in HH-R, while B. adolescentis and B. eggerthii was higher in HH-NR (FDR< 0.001).
Conclusions: The inclusion of red meat in a high-HEI diet is associated with improved nutrient adequacy, mental health, and gut microbial diversity, with no observed adverse effects.
Funding Sources: National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
This fits into my current bias that red meat is not a problem, that carbohydrates and processed oils are problems associated with red meat consumption, this paper is accounting for that with the HEI (healthy eating index).
The full paper is not available... yet, so nothing really to analyze. Articles like this really shouldn't exist in the news... at least the author needs to read the real publication and not a abstract which is just opinion.
Yes, people with agendas fund science, the results speak for themselves, that is the purpose of science - publish reproducible results for others to replicate.
Right, so the paper using the cleerly model only showed one person reversing plaque, but the two new ai models which don't have a artificial floor, do show 30% plaque reversal. That's the second reference to the YouTube talk.
The interesting thing here, is this group of 100 people following a strict ketogenic diet, mostly carnivore, had imaging done at the beginning and the end of a year. So we can apply any models to it that we like, it's interesting that in 2/3 of the AI imaging models they show 30% of the people with plaque regression
The benefit of AI here is it makes it a quantitative analysis, assuming the AI model is stable. When we involve the humans to do scoring, there's always a question about consistency, and bias in the outcomes.
As far as I'm aware plaque regression is basically unheard of at all in any literature outside of case studies
Thank you! Identifying sockpuppet accounts took some doing, but it has been really a fun adventure. Here is my moderation policy if you want the details https://hackertalks.com/post/13655318
Thank you for your organic downvotes!
Actually its 30 sockpuppet identifications so far.
These didn't really get downvoted because the trigger words were avoided, and the communities are actively pruned of disinterested people, if you are looking for downvote brigading I could dig up examples for you
If all cause mortality is better shouldn't that be the takeaway?