[Paper] Considering the nutritional benefits and health implications of red meat in the era of meatless initiatives - 2025 [Opinion]
TLDR - EAT MEAT
Driven by perceived health and environmental benefits, initiatives to remove red meat from recommended eating patterns are increasingly being implemented in United States institutions, including schools and hospitals. While these efforts aim to address important issues, they may inadvertently lead to unintended consequences, particularly regarding essential nutrient intake for certain populations. This perspective considers the nutritional value of red meat, examines its potential health benefits, and highlights nutritional risks when intake is reduced or eliminated. Red meat is a nutrient-dense food that provides highly bioavailable protein and several essential micronutrients often lacking in the diet, including iron, zinc, and vitamin B12. These nutrients can be limited or absent in many plant-source foods as well as in some animal-source foods. Red meat’s micronutrient profile is especially valuable for young children and women of reproductive age, including pregnant women. In addition, the protein density of red meat is beneficial for individuals managing obesity and older adults at risk of sarcopenia. Many epidemiological studies suggest potential associations between excessive red meat consumption and increased risk of certain chronic diseases, but this evidence does not conclusively implicate red meat in the development or progression of chronic disease. The nutritional and health implications of reducing red meat consumption must be balanced against the low certainty of evidence used to discourage red meat intake when making dietary recommendations.
consumers are routinely confronted with messages to not only reduce red meat intake below current consumption levels but to eliminate this whole food from their diets. The present perspective proposes that this messaging could cause more harm than good to public health if implemented in public policy or dietary guidelines. Individuals at risk for undernutrition and obesity may benefit from increased intake of key nutrients by eating animal-source foods, including red meat
Full Paper - https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2025.1525011
Even after taking money from cattle industry groups they still have this in it.
Maybe not the right propaganda for the carnivore sub.
Science needs funding. Funding is always aligned to what the research is about; Coca cola is hardly going to sponsor a "meat is good" paper, though they do provide money to try to prosecute doctors for providing nutrition advice to sick patients
If you've got a paper talking about meat, metabolic health, ketones, metabolism. I'll post it. Pro or con I'll post it. I won't agree with it probably, but we can talk about it. Do you have any suggestions? Actual papers you have read, my only requirement is you've already read the paper and are willing to discuss it
The point of this paper is to talk about the undue vilification of meat with weak and perhaps even doctored evidence. However, people can be healthy eating plants, it's not necessary but it is doable - I freely admit that. Carnivore is a tool, it's a tool people should be aware of, but not everybody has to use it.
Other articles posted here imply fiber is deleterious to a proper diet, something which is the nutritional equivalent of the flat earth. I'm sure I could post articles, but arguing over the basic science of nutrition seems less fun than goading said flat earthers into buying atomic clocks.
Fibre is tolerated by most people, but it's not necessary. I welcome your primary source indicating it is actually essential
I didn't say it was essential. I'm saying it's beneficial. But that sort of rhetorical reframing is the reason why posting here is unproductive.
Great, then we are in agreement. Fibre is not essential for human health, that is the zero-carb position. Why all the fuss?
Depends on the context - in a zero-carb diet (i.e. a proper diet) fibre just bulks up stools and diminishes nutrition from proper food (meat) so you would need to increase the meat consumed. In a high-carb diet fibre diminishes the impact of the carbs (which is a benefit i agree), and bulks up stools.
Why is it beneficial? Again, primary sources that you've read only, please.
I would encourage you to read the quote from this very article, in this very thread, in which a meat industry lobbyist says fiber is one of the elements of your diet that provide an undoubtible health benefit.
I have read the article and resent the implication of your comment. Please see rule 1. As a moderator of two communities yourself I expected better conduct from you :)
Here is, however, a good faith response:
The paper cites two textbooks in nutrition for this quote, both of which are unavailable to me. If you have indeed read these sources, I invite you to cite them here in full so we may discuss them. The introduction of a paper containing no studies about fibre is not a primary source of information about fibre, and is not generally considered adequate scientific evidence for a claim. "Undoubtible" is not a scientific term. The same statement applies to the conclusion of a scientific paper, which is generally the author's opinion.
For your future reference, c/carnivore is a community for the discussion of metabolic health and its related topics. We insist that you cite primary sources because systemic lack of rigour is how "nutrition science" is such a mess in the first place. If you do cite sources, please make sure to have read the papers beforehand. We'd also greatly prefer that you don't cite epidemiology. If you do cite epidemiology, please keep in mind Bradford Hill.
Lastly, you may be interested in some literature on fibre.
This is not a community for propaganda. It's a community for talking about metabolic health and a lifestyle that supports that. We have a scientific bent, and science progresses by being challenged. As Jet said, if you've got a paper you'd like to discuss that you've read, please post it.