I just received an email talking arguing eggs are not bad for diabetes, and possibly good. To justify its position it referred to a study performed at The University of Eastern Finland, and published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition studied the diets of men aged 42 to 60, and followed them for 20 years on average to find out if they developed Diabetes. The study concluded that people who ate an average of 4 eggs per week had a 37% lower risk of developing type 2 Diabetes compared to people that only ate 1 egg per week.
It is important to understand what is going on here. Firstly we must ask when someone reduces their egg intake what do they replace it with? If they replaced it with broccoli, that might lead to one outcome. If they replaced it with meat sausages that could lead to a dramatically different outcome. Clearly we need to know what the participants chose as their alternative. Without that information the study is arguably useless.
Secondly if someone has a high fat intake, some of which is egg, then we might need to know whether reducing egg intake is sufficient to make a substantial difference. This report argues that reducing from four eggs to one is insufficient. Can we conclude from that that eggs are safe? I would argue we need soo much more info about the dietary habits of the participants.
Now if we compare the result to a low fat diet that contains no eggs, no meat products what will the outcome be then?
All this research shows is that the Hegsted equation holds true. And that is the bottom line for me.
Written by
andyswarbs
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Hi Simba, the design goal of this study seems very similar to the one I posted at the top. It has the same design flaws, in that it ensures people on the low-egg diet maintain similar macronutrient levels as those on the high-egg diet. So the study is actually saying that if you replace high-eggs with low-eggs+animal meats there is not much change. Great surprise!
(Note the study did permit participants to eat legumes instead of animal products. But the study, by design, did not track legume vs animal meat intake. And anyway my guess is most people would choose meat as their macronutrient top up.)
This is exactly what I might expect from a study which was supported by a research grant from the Australian Egg Corporation (see Notes.) And yet this study still supports the Hegsted equation.
Agree with you. Eggs were advised to be eaten only 3 times a day in the Uk. Then there was change of health policy. I don't think a world without eggs may be harmful. Having found food intolerances to dairy, eggs, multi grain, and banana, living without eggs has not affected me. My health has improved since removing eggs. I used to get pain after eating a hard boiled egg, but really liked them. When I cut out all those foods IBS improved. My diabetes improved too and was able to lower my blood sugar, and weight. I am now within normal limits but still have to watch carbs and hidden sugar, in tonics and low calorie drinks using sweeteners which convert to sugar in the liver. Hope you find the right answer for your health needs - there is always information refuting one theory.
• in reply to
I think we can get by in a world without eggs, but then we can also get by in a world without broccoli. Though both are a very good and healthy source of food.
I have a few food intolerances so I don't eat that food. But others around me eat that food and do very well on it. So what does that tell you.
There are some people who seem to Think we should not be eating eggs and meat, simply because they don't like it themselves. What does that tell you.
This is similar to the carb study posted the other day - we don't have enough information on the wider diets to allow us to make an informed conclusion. We have to be wary of all studies that imply correlation means causation.
I remember hearing about a study that linked health conditions to your star sign once, just as an attempt to show how easy it can be to find a link when you're looking for one.
You are absolutely right that there is a nutritional study to support every outcome possible. That's why, as TAD argues, we need to qualify studies according to a hierarchy. This means giving more weight to some and less importance to others. This is the only way to sort out the bad from the good. TAD laid out some really good advice on this. There are lots of very useful web resources that can help one learn to prioritise which studies are better. For example, if a powerful lobbying group (such as the egg industry) is funding a study then that study, at the very least, needs closer scrutiny for industry bias.
The finnish study did not as far as I can ascertain have egg industry funding. However it did have the same basic design as the DIABEGG study.
They can also run many, many of these studies and can choose which ones to publish. The ones that don't turn out the way they want them to are never seen.
So far as I can tell though, the egg study and the carb study had the same method of data collection? 19,000 participants, a 20-ish year period (I'm thinking it was probably the same data pool, but they just focussed on a different aspect of their diet/health relationship).
I'm not really putting much faith in either, but we were told to sit up and listen to the carb study, but to dismiss the egg study for being poor science?
There is no such thing as perfect research. That carb study was not the best, by any stretch of the imagination. It is a matter of looking at collective evidence, which is why meta-analyses generally have more weight. Though of course these even meta-analyses can be skewed by design, eg being selective in studies they collate to remove unfavourable studies.
Here is an hour long video which talks about there are companies who set themselves up to run nutritional studies for organisations that want favourable results to their foodstuff. youtube.com/watch?v=aCZY8m0...
My mum actually did a few food based research projects, so I'm aware who pays for them. They're quite expensive to run though, so realistically you're not going to do it, unless you have a vested interest.
In a curry study, they were seeking research to drive sales of spice mixes, but the research wasn't as conclusive as they'd have liked. The reason the study didn't go mainstream was nothing to do with a cover up, it just wasn't headline worthy.
I agree with your assessment (for once ). The observation doesn't tell us anything about the relationship between diabetes and eggs per se. All we can infer is that Finnish people who don't eat eggs are slightly more likely to get diabetes - but that may be because people who don't eat eggs can't afford them and are subsisting on sliced white bread and margarine. Seems a bit unlikely in Finland, but the point is there are various ways you can dice it.
I'm afraid the "Hegsted equation" is something he pulled out of his hat, though; that was the golden age of nutritional BS, when you could publish pretty much anything and be hailed as a genius. It's been disproven by hundreds of experiments (often inadvertently - for example it turns out that some saturated fatty acids raise blood cholesterol more than others). The theory just refuses to die, rather like LCHF adherents
I'm a newly diagnosed with diabetes a year and a half ago. I even took a class on it and researched it. Carbs are the real enemy, eggs only have about 2 grams of carbs because of the egg white part. The protein that is offered is the Good part, just don't go overboard eating them, 2 a day is acceptable.
I don't think anyone seriously suggests there's a limit on eggs anymore. Most governments have quietly deleted their 1- or 2-a-day recommendations because there was never any scientific basis for it. Personally, I find six eggs a day is about as much as I'd ever want to eat anyway (three is my average) so the "rules" are pretty much superfluous.
Don't forget the fat, which is the other good bit! As a diabetic, your main source of energy is fat (humans can't use protein very effectively for energy - we're omnivores, not hypercarnivores).
Frankly, the ADA are full of it. There are numerous studies showing that their recommended diet (based largely on carbs) is at best useless for diabetics, and in most cases is likely to lead to a progressive worsening and a lifetime dependence on drugs. The cynic might suggest that this is the intended outcome ...
But yeah, trusting your gut is something that we've all been talked out of over the years (in favour of calorie-counting and whatnot) when in reality it works pretty well.
You sound Bitter,? What is the alternative? Paul McCartneys deceased Wife Linda tried alternative treatment and eating vegetarian and with All his money she still died from breast cancer. Do do you Not try anything? Your playing Russian Roulette with your Health, if you get it Wrong? There's No turning Back...No one has a consistent answer? So who do you Believe? That's where your Gut comes in?
Not sure what you're saying. I'm (a) basically agreeing with you that carbs are best avoided if you're diabetic and (b) pointing out that the information put out by the ADA has been shown to be wrong. Their position is in direct conflict with known biochemistry.
I'm not bitter. I'm angry that people who ought to know better are telling lies.
I don't "believe" anything as such. I try to find out as much as possible about how my body works, so I can determine who's talking nonsense (which turns out to be 90% of the nutrition establishment) and who isn't.
What I'm trying to say is that No one knows for sure? People are trying different things hoping it will work? That feeling is coming from within. I have a friend who's Always trying to give me alternative items. They DON'T WORK, she had the nerve to get annoyed with me when I tell her that. I Truly believe it's a money thing with her. I'm not so easily Manipulated. Thank God I didn't pay for it, she very convincing, but I'm on a Fixed income, insurance companies won't pay for that kind of stuff.
There's a guy at my work, who eats 6 eggs, scrambled, as an afternoon snack... I will report back if he has a heart attack, in the meantime I'll stay a bit incredulous how much he eats!
I tend to eat a lot of eggs when we have a lot of manual work lined up on the farm. I generally eat a big breakfast of eggs and bacon and work right through the day with no lunch break. I'll then have another 2-3 eggs when I'm done. But that's fairly unusual.
I definitely think body builder - he eats the typical gym goers lunch: chicken breast with broccoli and cauliflower. They aim for 1g of protein per lb of body weight (so I guess about 180g?)
There is a definite problem with very-high-protein diets (risk of acute kidney failure) but AFAIK that only happens at the extreme fringes - people who are eating vast amounts of protein + steroids to utilize it.
Yes, a guy at an old job had kidney failure as a result of his high protein diet. I think at the moment, the concern is high protein from protein shakes though, which is why so many are switching to food sources.
It is quite an excessive amount - I wonder if it's been backed by actual research, or if someone just came up with a rule-of-thumb that caught on.
It's a rule of thumb. There is actually some research on it: as with most things, it's a case of diminishing returns. Once you get above 1g/kg, additional protein in the diet isn't used effectively. In other words, 2.5g/kg doesn't give you 2.5 times the effect on muscle growth relative to 1g/kg, or anything close to it ... unless you are also taking steroids.
Unfortunately they're all obsessed with 1g/lb, so they'll be getting 2.2x the amount that benefits them in that case. It's a widely spread "fact" in the body building world though, they're just full of people who state something assertively enough, that it takes off. Much like the 80:20 (80% diet, 20% exercise) rule someone came up with once.
So right! Too much sodium can upset your kidneys too. Some people won't accept that blood pressure can rise from excess salt. Resulting fluid retention can add to weight gain. White table salt is not as good as sea salt, but there are debates about plastic getting into sea salt, so rock salt seems a better option. A bit off the subject of eggs.
I think it's really easy to overlook how much salt we consume in our diets, before we add any extra too.
I've learned recently that sea salt is quite poor in iodine, and the fact so many are switching to it, is leading to a rise in iodine deficiency, which then leads to other health problems. I'm not sure how rock salt rates on the iodine scale, but it see!s sea salt is not as great as we first though.
There are no indicators on how much iodine is in sea salt - so it must be an assumption if there is little iodine in it. We don't have iodised salt in our diet like in the US. There might be some online but it is not usual to have iodised salt to help iodine levels. I tried an experiment dosing myself with foods high in iodine, such as fish, in salmon. cod, haddock and fish paste, drinking milk, and eating meat. Iodine is added to animal feed, and will therefore be present in cow's milk. I had a large goitre which now has reduced so much after raising my iodine in foods, that I can only attribute this to changing my diet. Since then I have found I have dairy intolerance to lactose and wheat - so the fish paste with added wheat, was upsetting my gut. One step forward and two steps back!
Not so much an option for me: I was allergic to milk as a kid, and the idea of drinking a glass of the stuff is pretty weird now (i don't think many people can grow to like drinking something that made them sick once). I do eat some fish, but not enough for the GDA iodine needs, so I'm trying seaweed to see if that's any good. It takes some getting used to, but, it's not too bad!
in Health Topics gives info on arachidonic acid found in eggs and poultry.
According to a Japanese study, the amount of arachidonic in one egg is enough to raise elevate levels.
Our bodies produce this nutrient but an excess can cause inflammation in the body and brain. Egg contains omega 6 fatty acids involved in the body's
inflammatory response.
It can play a part in cancer asthma inflammatory bowel disease rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune disorders such as diabetes according to Micheal Gregor M.D. FACLM . He has made a video titled
Inflammatory Remarks about Arachidonic acid.
High protein diets when homocysteine levels are raised may play a part in heart disease. Every one is different so you may live on eggs until you are 100 with no ill effects.
It's usually a fairly safe bet that a website with "facts" in its name is mostly full of rubbish, just like countries with "democratic" in their names tend to be dictatorships...
The main problem with proxy measurements (in this case arachidonic acid) is that nobody is entirely sure what real-world outcomes they correspond to, if any.
Cholesterol is a typical example of an inappropriate proxy: while the health authorities take it as a given that high total cholesterol = impending heart disease, no such relationship actually exists. It's a fiction, yet millions of $ are spent on measuring correlations with this or that dietary substance vs. blood cholesterol (up or down) as if it means something important.
The videos by Micheal Greger MD might be interesting. He has a blog and an evidence based eating guide. Some research is out of date , too low numbers of people in study, coming from one country. Genetic profiles of people may differ
from one country of origin to another. Some countries such as China have a lower incidence of diabetes, than westerners.
Michael Greger is one of the internet's biggest frauds, IMHO. He cherry-picks research that appears to support his point of view and then misrepresents the findings. He gets away with this because scientific literacy in the general population is poor, so his followers don't have the intellectual toolkit to spot what he's up to.
China has a low rate of diabetes because they don't (traditionally) eat the horrible snacks and manufactured foods that people do in the West. This is changing fast ... as is their rate of diabetes.
TAD, show me just one piece of research that shows egg reverses heart disease. The fact is there is only one diet that has been shown to reverse heart disease.
How can one cherry pick when there is only one diet proven in peer-reviewed research to be successful in reversing the greatest dietary killer.
You might not agree with the research - that's your choice. But to suggest Dr Greger is somehow cherry picking is complete nonsense.
I never suggested eggs can reverse heart disease. Merely that they're harmless.
I don't understand why we have to assume that every food item that humans have ever eaten is terribly bad for you unless it's been cleared by the nutrition police.
Vegan diets do not reverse or control heart disease. Vegans (as a broad group) die slightly less often of heart disease, but all-cause mortality is roughly the same as any other group. This is a pretty consistent result across many studies. Your specific variant of veganism probably does have a better record in that regard ... but so do all other low-GI diets, including high-fat diets. As Hidden mentioned, there's a very rough correlation between a country's typical fat intake and mortality: a positive one.
As for Greger, we've been through this before so I'll try to keep it brief. You can't "agree" or "disagree" with research as such. The data is what it is. What I'm disputing is Greger's interpretation of it. His shtick is to take some mundane observation - such as that eating fat raises cholesterol (which it does, predictably enough, since your body has to transport that fat around inside lipoproteins) - and then inflates that into some wild hypothesis about "how not to die". That the correlation between blood TC and CVD is essentially zero doesn't bother him at all.
"Cherry picking" has a precise meaning in science. It means selectively referring to research that supports (or appears to support) your hypothesis, while completely ignoring everything that refutes it. Refutation is the core of scientific progress: if an experiment contradicts your position, then you must either (a) demonstrate that the experiment doesn't show what it purports to show or (b) reformulate your hypothesis.
Please show me where one diet only can reverse heart disease.
Perhaps you mean that by avoiding some foods it will help from making it worse.
A bit like dairy making mucus thicker, but was not the cause for the infection.
Chicken soup is well known to help recovery if you have a cold or fever, do you mean something like that?
• in reply to
I can only say that my diabetes linked to high BP and weight problems and peripheral neuropathy, improved by cutting out grain foods, and using protein to supplement a green vegetable diet. I have lost weight. I did try a ketone diet but, felt unwell. My blood cholesterol levels went too high though I cut down carbs and sugar levels. I was eating too much cheese and fat. Some people have a predisposition to hardening of the arteries, which is caused by plaques of calcium narrowing the arteries. By eating foods such as kale, blue berries, raspberries, black currants, orange juice, to name some, it can help arterial health, and coronary heart disease. Having tests for cholesterol, and homocysteine, might be useful.
Good stuff andy. That sounds like a proper study. Although I'm afraid it's a case of "results do not support conclusions", as usual. Unfortunately I can't find the full document, so there's very little to comment on.
Experimental design
- "These patients took cholesterol-lowering drugs and followed a diet that derived no more than 10% of its calories from fat" is just the mainstream treatment. If Esselstyn has a diet that works, then clearly this is not the correct description, because it fails to distinguish it from one that doesn't work.
- If you have a multi-intervention study (drugs+diet) you have no way of knowing which intervention had the desired result. Was it the statins, or was it the diet? It was pretty obviously the statins having the cholesterol-lowering result because that's what they do, very effectively. And the fact that they survived? Who knows?
Results
Lesion analysis by percent stenosis showed that of 25 lesions, 11 regressed and 14 remained stable. Mean arterial stenosis decreased from 53.4% to 46.2% (estimated decrease = 7%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.3 to 10.7, P < .05). Analysis by minimal lumen diameter of 25 lesions found that 6 regressed, 14 remained stable, and 5 progressed. Mean lumen diameter increased from 1.3 mm to 1.4 mm (estimated increase = 0.08 mm; 95% CI, -0.06 to 0.22, P = NS).
"NS" means "not statistically significant". Statistical significance is a very low bar to jump: all you have to show is that your result probably wasn't coincidence. P<0.05 means there was less than a 1-in-20 chance of the result being due to chance. The CI tells you that the actual value has a 95% chance of being anywhere from 3.3% decrease to 10.7%. Whichever way you dice it, 7% doesn't sound like a clinically significant result to me, especially given the unchanged measurement for mean lumen [inside cross-section] diameter.
Ah, but, you say: what about this:
"Among the 11 remaining patients after 10 years, six continued the diet and had no further coronary events, whereas the five dropouts who resumed their prestudy diet reported 10 coronary events."
That's a genuine result, of course. In fact it's a better measurement than all the statistical flimflam. But can they run up the stairs? Are they still overweight? Do they report side effects from the drugs? And if the diet works so well, why aren't they off the drugs? Personally, I doubt the drugs had any positive effect because no other experiment has shown that they do. But this experiment fails to separate that effect, if there is one.
Conclusions
If he were an honest man, he might have reported thusly: my patients stopped eating junk food, took some mainstream drugs, and stepped a few inches away from death's door. This hardly supports the banner headline "arrest and reverse coronary artery disease". In fact I'm surprised anyone agreed to publish it with that title.
You might be interested in a more recent experiment, here:
The measurements here are incredibly vague, and it makes you wonder why he didn't collect a bit more data, but at least he has plenty of subjects, and he did measure hard endpoints, which is something most nutrition studies don't bother with.
Just as a reminder: I agree with you that a plant-based diet is the basis of a healthy diet for most people, but it is nutritionally-deficient by itself. Fat is a critical macronutrient, and reducing or eliminating it only does you harm.
TAD said, "Just as a reminder: I agree with you that a plant-based diet is the basis of a healthy diet for most people, but it is nutritionally-deficient by itself. Fat is a critical macronutrient, and reducing or eliminating it only does you harm."
How much fat should be in a diet? I mean I don't eliminate fat. I eliminate refined oils such as olive, coconut in the same way I avoid processed foods. I certainly would never buy a "reduced fat" product, such as yoghurt. Generally these are highly processed with additives to replace the fat and so to be avoided. I eat some nuts and seeds. For example my morning porridge has a good amount of ground flaxseed in it, extremely high in o3s. I particularly keep my o6 intake down because, for someone with arthritis maintaining a ratio of o3/o6 at around 2:1 research shows is ideal. I don't eat meats, partly because they contain transfats, but also because they are heavy on o6.
• in reply to
Eating eggs don't seem to have any negative effect on me. I don't have diabetes but i do have two of the health issues you just mentioned.
Granted I don't eat eggs everyday. But when I do its normally 4 or 5 in a omelette or scrambled with milk and butter.
• in reply to
There are a range of foods which can raise homocysteine including peanut butter and poultry. People may not be aware it might affect their health. It is shown from research that homocysteine levels are raised compared to non diabetics who do not appear to have raised levels. I loved eggs - but alas - can't eat them now.
homocysteine is manufactured by your body for its own inscrutable purposes, so if circulating homocysteine is high, it's a safe assumption that circumstances require it to be high.
It's a common view these days that our bodies are a malfunctioning heap of biochemical mistakes that need continual intervention from doctors to keep them working. While this might keep the doctors working, it makes no sense either from an evolutionary point of view, or from known biochemistry. Mostly, bodies know what they're doing. It's quite hard to break them.
Since eggs are a popular food for most omnivores, it seems very unlikely that they're dangerous. Choline is an essential nutrient, so again it seems unlikely that it's harmful. Unfortunately, making nonsensical and unfounded assertions is pretty much what nutrition "science" specialises in these days.
I am not an omnivore - eggs do contain omega 6 fatty acids which if eaten to excess may affect homocysteine levels. Not every one will have these side effects but for the few that do then information may be relevant. May be The Mayo Clinic and Medscape would agree with you? Government websites do corroborate that homocysteine markers are linked to coronary artery disease - so who are we to challenge scientific information? Would you challenge specialists in celiac disease who have found eggs and dairy can damage people's guts, due to autoimmune responses? Would you challenge people for going lactase free when they find they are lactase intolerant? Unfounded assertions are not the basis for any legitimate research - so guess your research must be inconclusive.
>> homocysteine markers are linked to coronary artery disease
So what? Lots of things will change when you have coronary artery disease: your body will attempt to compensate for the damage, often in ways that are very hard to understand. It doesn't mean raised homocysteine is in the causative pathway, and it doesn't imply that artificially reducing homocysteine has any effect on heart disease. We've been down that blind alley with cholesterol: reducing cholesterol with pills has no effect on heart disease.
Consider: if you do a lot of exercise and eat more protein, your circulating creatinine will increase somewhat. This is because your body is making a lot of active repairs to your muscles. Now, under other circumstances, raised creatinine indicates impaired kidney function. Does this mean we should all stop exercising?
The field of nutrition is populated by a large number of people who weren't smart enough to be doctors; back in the old days, they would have been relegated to a BS degree like media studies. Today, they're allowed to be Nutritionists. This is a massive problem, because to understand nutrition, you have to know everything a doctor knows about human metabolism, plus some more stuff besides. Thus we have a whole bunch of papers flooding the journals which jump to silly conclusions because neither the authors, nor their supervisors, nor the reviewers have even the most basic grasp of human biology.
Don't know what drugs target homocysteine levels. However am sure there are research papers on how lowering homocysteine levels can help prevent heart disease. Thank you for encouragement to following another research lead. Some doctors have biology degrees, and some are chemists or PHD researchers who may not be a medical doctors but have awesome mathematical, biology and scientific qualifications. Some of us may research but do not have the full information to show how the body works,to process some foods, or complete knowledge on the human and micro biome and genetic patterns which lead to hereditary disease or autoimmune disease. In a study of a group from one country such as Finland, we still do not know how this population may have resistance to some disease, or how many different types of food they eat and how often which can lead to inconclusive results. An older study may have so many variables, which are undefined, they cannot give a complete picture or accurate results.
As you say - snacking might not help if you are weight watching but if you have an apple, or some low carb snack with protein such as cottage cheese, or meat or fish paste then it might help increase metabolism. I used to eat rye crispbread, as a base, but now only eat oat biscuits as have a multi grain allergy which affects my gut. Am sure sometimes we are eating healthy foods but many diabetics may eat some foods to compensate for lack of sugar, but eat dairy sugar lactase, and fructose instead. The mistake I made was to think that drugs for type 2 will lower blood sugar - in fact you have to cut back on carbs and sugar the same way. As the drugs made me ill I had no alternative to change my diet.
If many studies ask a large enough and diverse population over many years and all come up with similar answers then to ignore the overall conclusion increasingly becomes untenable.
The fact is there is little other way of doing such research. If you know of a better way please let everyone know.
The court in this instance is the collection as a whole of nutritional scientists. Studies that are not have had to be retracted, for example the one behind the headlines butter is back was shown by a statistics expert to have, dare I say, a fraudulent design. At the very least this study stands head and shoulders above that one.
You have said that it wouldn't be ethically to have a controlled study as it would be inflicting harm to give people something that would damage their health.
Have you thought of all the different types of diets that people are on already.
Am sure there will be lots of vegans that would be eager to volunteer and lots of guys on LCHF diet to would volunteer. Put me down for the well proven Mediterranean diet.
I am ofcourse putting my faith in you that you have a proven diet that if I get hart disease it will reverse it back to normal.
Thanks, but it would be more helpful if you just tell me what you think it is. Or just give us your opinion on what you think of the videos you put on.
As with SImba above, sometimes it is better to read the article/watch the video without commentary. Then people can form their own judgement, especially for an article that was both comprehensive and authoritative.
Within that article, "Dr. Rosalind Coleman, a professor of nutrition and pediatrics at the University of North Carolina, offered broader advice.
“The main message for the public is not to select a single type of food as ‘bad’ or ‘good’ but to evaluate your total diet in terms of variety and amount. ""
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
). The observation doesn't tell us anything about the relationship between diabetes and eggs per se. All we can infer is that Finnish people who don't eat eggs are slightly more likely to get diabetes - but that may be because people who don't eat eggs can't afford them and are subsisting on sliced white bread and margarine. Seems a bit unlikely in Finland, but the point is there are various ways you can dice it.
To egg, or not to egg - that is the question
Mark Hyman: The Problems with Nutrition Science
Is red meat killing you
