In the United States, some people eat too much red meat and they should eat less; some people eat too much carbohydrates, and they should also exercise restraint; and some people eat too much fat, and the same recommendations apply to them.

　　 The statement that a nutrient is the chief culprit endangering the health of all people is becoming more and more difficult to justify.

　　Like other "bad things" in the food war, the warnings for eating red meat have greatly exceeded the actual need.

　　 Americans today are basically more overweight and obese than they used to be, and we undoubtedly eat more meat than before. However, in the past ten years or so, our red meat consumption has actually been gradually decreasing. However, this has not caused a significant decrease in the obesity rate, and no experts believe that it is the cause of the reduction in cardiovascular deaths.

　　Similarly, the report also shows that the amount of fruits and vegetables we consume today is significantly more than a few decades ago. We also ate more cereals and sweeteners.

　　 This is the real problem: our calorie intake exceeds the actual requirement. However, in most discussions about diet, we try to blame a certain class of nutrients. Moreover, we also tend to put a big hat of "eating too much" on everyone.

　　 I have seen a lot of people hold a study last year and said that the study found that the increase in protein intake is associated with a significant increase in the mortality rate of all diseases and death from cancer or diabetes . However, after carefully reading the literature, I found that it was quite another story.

　　This is a cohort study in which researchers followed up participants through the American Health and Nutrition Survey. The study found that when considering all participants over the age of 50, protein intake was not related to any of all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease mortality, and cancer mortality. The study did find a statistically significant correlation between protein intake and diabetes mortality, but the researchers cautioned that due to the small number of people included in the analysis, any results derived from it should be treated with caution.

　　 And the terrible conclusion in the penultimate paragraph above is just the result of a subgroup analysis that only looked at participants aged 50 to 65. If you change the survey to participants over 65 years of age, you will find the opposite. High protein intake is associated with lower all-cause mortality and cancer-specific mortality. If you believe this study provides evidence that red meat should be eaten less, then we should also recommend that people over 65 eat more meat—obviously no one does.

　　In addition, this study defines members of the "high protein" group as: At least 20% of the total calories in the diet come from protein. Considering that the USDA recommends that the calories Americans obtain from protein should account for 10% to 35% of the calories needed, 20% can not actually be considered high.

　　If I were allowed to pick it myself, I could also find a 2013 study, which used the same Nhanes data, but came to the opposite conclusion: meat consumption and mortality Not relevant.

　　However, we should not deliberately choose. A 2013 meta-analysis of meat diet studies included the above categories. The analysis found that the all-cause mortality rate of members of the highest group increased by 29% compared with the group with the lowest consumption of red meat, but this The increase was mainly caused by processed meats such as bacon, salami or salami.

There is only so much epidemiological evidence that we can tell us. As I said before, such research may be flawed. A typical systematic review in 2012 is the best evidence: this review shows that almost all of our foods are associated with higher and lower cancer incidence.

　　 Therefore, we need to conduct randomized controlled trials to really find the answer to the question. Such an experiment does exist, but it is about blood lipid levels such as cholesterol and triglycerides. A meta-analysis reviewed eight trials and found that eating beef did not significantly change cholesterol or triglyceride levels compared to eating poultry and fish.

　　 However, all of this ignores a more important point-what is the "too much" standard. The people in the highest red meat consumption group consumed one or two servings of red meat per day, while the people in the lowest group consumed only about two servings per week. If you eat several servings of red meat every day, then yes, you need to control it. But I bet most of the people who are reading this article will not eat so much. If you consume one or two servings of red meat per week, the most likely situation is that everything is normal for your body.

　　health warning has changed our eating habits greatly. Americans consume less red meat today than at any time since the 1970s. People did not ignore the doctor''s advice. We have also made a little progress in eating vegetables. But our consumption of carbohydrates such as grains and sugar has been rising. To some extent, it can be said that this is the consequence of our obsession with not eating fat and red meat.

　　We still consume too many calories, but we just changed a way. The most sensible approach is to eat less in excess of what we eat in a balanced manner.

　　The study compared both individual diets and three major diets: low-carbohydrate diets (such as the Atkins diet [Atkins]), and moderate macronutrient diets (such as Weight Watcher) and low-fat diet (such as Ornish diet) were compared. All dietary regimens reduced calorie intake, and they all caused the participants to lose weight after six months and continue to lose weight over the next six months (but the weight loss was smaller). There is no obvious advantage or disadvantage between them.

　　What does this give us? The diet plan you are most likely to stick to is the best diet plan—the best lessons in the world may be nothing more than this. Blame poor health on a specific nutrient, and claim that other people''s eating habits are wrong, so there is no benefit in doing so. Obviously, anyone doing this at any time is unfounded.