5 ms·
Disclosure: "This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association."
by ngoel36 5y ago
Disclosure: "This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association."
- viburnum 5y agoThis should be in the headline.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- Rantenki 5y agoI thought you were kidding, but I checked, and sure enough at the bottom: "This study was funded in part via an unrestricted research grant from the Beef Checkoff, through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The sponsor of the study had no role in the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report." Maybe not, but how likely is it that they'll continue funding more studies if you come back with results that don't support more beef consumption? Sorry, don't mean to be overly cynical, but <gestures around at basically everything>.
- chmod600 5y agoIf this were real science, it wouldn't matter because anyone could repro the results. But almost all of this nutritional "science" is just people in white coats messing with statistics and sounding authoritative. Goes for the "meat is good" camp and the "meat is bad" camp. (My personal belief is that only a very small amount of meat is good for your body, but having more meat is good for your brain.)
- generalizations 5y agoAs the paper described, all they did was pull available data from other studies. That's about as low a barrier to repro as you could wish - you could probably do it yourself.
- travoc 5y agoWho else is going to find a study that might show meat is good?
- marricks 5y agoA far more believable source would be a university studying causes of depression. Literally anyone else not profiting off meat would be more believable though.
- chmod600 5y agoUniversities are prone to fads and political correctness. Try publishing results that are unpopular in academic circles, and see how long your funding lasts. Sure, it would be more believable if they did. But they won't.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- micromacrofoot 5y agoWow, this should definitely be in the title. If it was: "National Cattlemen’s Beef Association funded study: Meat eaters suffer less depression, anxiety" It would not have made it to the front page.
- colordrops 5y agoIf you want to see what appears to be a training ground for beef industry propaganda, check out /r/AntiVegan on Reddit. The vitriol is overpowering. I simply quoted a contradictory statistic from a paper a mod posted themselves that supposedly showed that not eating meat is unhealthy, and got banned. https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiVegan/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AntiVegan/ It's wild to me how angry and threatened people get by a personal choice to not eat something.
- Sebb767 5y ago> It's wild to me how angry and threatened people get by a personal choice to not eat something. I think this is mostly a reaction because the other side gets very upset about people's choice to eat something. A bit of it is surely the usual joking around, but no one is particularly upset about my personal dislike of eating fish, for example.
- sova 5y agoWell that's all ya need to know now isn't it
- SavantIdiot 5y agoThat is absolutely hilarious. Thanks for pointing that out.