If you take a within-category metric and try to selectively apply it across food groups then of course you will get weird results. Is a broad-band metric more useful? I'm not sure. There are meal replacement products (shakes, bars, etc.) but besides those I think you need to break down your diet into at least a few food groups - protein, vegetables, etc. Just taking a random selection of items will probably be deficient in some important nutrients.
It is like arguing the top amateur football club is better than the worst pro team.
Go to a nice burger restaurant (Red Cow in Minneapolis: I'm dreaming of you) and the ground beef could be ribeye or another really nice cut. Supermarket ground beef is usually a cheaper cut though.
Love both btw, but processing the meat in this fashion does make it easier to have too much saturated fat in a meal. I won't argue if beef saturated fat is good/bad, but it does contain more calories. Excess calories is what most people usually have problems with.
Also yes, I know if you cut the carbs out that you eat along with a burger it's easier to reduce the amount of carbohydrate intake/total calories. Don't want this to turn into a carnivore/low-carb diet argument. Just pointing out meat processing in this single specific case.
Usually across many cows, which can be problematic wrt pathogens. Similarly, ground beef is not like steak in that more of it might have been exposed to pathogens during processing. That's why it's important to cook ground beef all the way through whereas steak can be very rare as long as the outside is properly seared. Nutritionally, however, they're much closer.
However, the amount of change and the efficiency of the diet shocked me.
> After all, anyone can just ignore Tufts’ findings, because they’re obviously crazy. But in the field of public health this is precisely the kind of work that matters. Studies like this are what lead to the last half century’s famously misguided dietary guidelines, which have coincided with the sickest Americans our nation has ever seen.
It's appalling that we allow the people who came with the food pyramid to keep sprouting nonsense than can be disproved so easily. It's not just about wasting million, but the fact that bad science tantamount to misinformation has a government backing or public health seal that'll cause people to act on the obviously bad advice!
It's even more shocking that some countries like in the EU are trying to shame meat eating for global warming related reasons: at least there's a plausible link, even if I'd suggest prioritizing health over other concerns like agricultural subsidies, carbs lobbying groups and the weather.
But cheerios and lucky charm over steak FOR HEALTH REASONS? Nope.
for anyone who has gone carnivore for more than a month you know how ridiculous this is. They as medical professionals know it as well. So why the disconnect, why the effort to misinform?
If tomorrow everyone switched to meat or nothing. There wouldnt be enough meat to feed the world. A very significant portion of the world would end up in the nothing category.
You make the effort beyond doing nothing and intentionally misinform because convincing people to eat plants is good for the economy.
The amount of money trash food companies make is miniscule compared to overall damage to the US economy.
The sheer incompetence of this whole ordeal is really hard to stomach.
Clearly the fact that the US has so many diabetic and overweight citizens has nothing to do with being the largest per-capita consumers of meat and everything to do with not eating more meat
