I haven't seen a lot, health-wise, that suggests coffee is detrimental. Environmentally it's a harder sell every year with climate change and the number of coffee drinkers still yet to peak, but the economics will counter that soon enough.

[–] Ledericas@lemm.ee 0 points 15 hours ago

i read an old study that caffiene, had a affect against blood sugar, probably due to its diuretic effects.

[–] RagingRobot@lemmy.world 4 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

A study of studies? That's interesting. I wonder how often that happens? I should do a study about it. A study of studies about studies.

[–] paris@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

A review of studies is a meta-analysis. What you're describing is a meta-meta-analysis, which is also a thing! Here's one I found from a cursory search..

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 4 points 15 hours ago

Alt text: Life goal #29 is to get enough of them rejected that I can publish a comparative analysis of the rejection letters.

[–] sfled@lemm.ee 8 points 1 day ago

Also, RoundUp is so safe you can drink it!

https://youtu.be/QWM_PgnoAtA?t=26

The cognitive dissonance...

[–] PanArab@lemm.ee 13 points 1 day ago (16 children)

Is it dosage related or is any amount of red meat bad? And by red meat is it beef in particular or does it also include lambs and camels?

[–] Robust_Mirror@aussie.zone 19 points 1 day ago (1 children)

From a health perspective you can simplify it to mammals = red meat. Birds, fish, reptiles, insects etc = not red meat.

And yeah it's dosage based. Generally speaking you want to stay under 350g (by cooked weight) red meat a week. More than 500g a week is when it starts to be consistently linked with higher health risks. If you want to be really technical it could be said 0g is better than 350g, but in this range the increased risk tends to be near insignificant.

[–] Kyre@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

I'll preface this by saying I didn't read the article, nor did I read any of the studies and underlying methodology so it has probably been addressed and corrected for but like a few of the other commentors have mentioned, by measuring it based upon consumption of a single item, it would be hard to see if it really just showed an indicator of overall consumption as opposed to a singular food being the cause.

Lets say one of our sample respondents consume 350g of red meat on average in a week and that consisted of approximately 10% of their diet (by weight). Compare that to a person who had 350g of red meat on average in a week and it consisted of approximately 5% of their diet (by weight). This would be an Extreme example but the second person is literally consuming twice the amount of food (by mass).

load more comments (15 replies)

[–] MehBlah@lemmy.world 8 points 1 day ago

No shit. Nice someone did the study so they could get there.

[–] melsaskca@lemmy.ca 9 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I've had my team of "experts in the obvious" work on this for one and a half minutes and they came to the same conclusion. This is a human greed business issue, not a science one.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments