The US ranks at #30 out of 180 which is quite decent despite their huge consumption of animal and more importantly processed foods. The countries which are at the bottom are there not because they consume animal products but because they have poor living conditions and little to no health care available. Meanwhile Japan is at #1 and all kinds of meats including raw are a frequent part of their diet.
It just means that the population cancer rates in general just keep rising, and adopters of the paleo diet which is promoted as a meat-based health diet have even higher levels of certain cancer biomarkers.
The current science says that processed meat is a known carcinogen, and red meat a likely carcinogen. This
You keep repeating this all over this thread, but this is an academic journal specializing on animal agriculture (it says the same thing in the link). Besides, the OP should be discussed on its own.
What if the adopters of the paleo diet have turned to it because they are already suffering from a disease and it's the most popular healthy option?
While the animal products consumption per person has increased in the US, so have other factors such as stress, depression, loneliness, alcohol consumption and a sedentary lifestyle which all contribute to diseases. And if you pay close attention, the reduction of all these factors is what countries in the "blue zone" all have in common.
The level of the TMAO biomarker is higher in meat eaters especially paleo eaters, and lower in strict vegetarians.
Actually, strict vegetarians when fed meat won't even produce TMAO, because they don't have the gut bacteria that produces it as its a meat-eating bacteria.
Note that depression is also linked to food consumption and impaired gut health, which is linked to a diet heavy in animal products.
In the blue zones, clearly the biggest factor is the diet which is almost 100% plant based. There is this correlation between health and plant-based diets everywhere.
In the US for example, meat eaters have higher body weight than vegetarians, which have a higher body weight than strict vegetarians. Actually, strict vegetarians are the only ones of those groups that have a normal body weight.
> In the blue zones, clearly the biggest factor is the diet which is almost 100% plant based.
Clearly you are extremely biased and refuse to look at things in any other way but life doesn't revolve around "I eat animals or I don't".
Vegans aren't immune to cancer or heart diseases (they only have a small reduction of these in some studies) and they don't live 20-30-40-50 years longer than omnivores. And the reason vegans weigh less is because they're more aware of how much they eat compared to the mostly uneducated (in terms of nutrition) population.
Wrong. His data on BMI comes from Adventist study. Being healthy and taking care of their body is part of their religion so they are perfect study subject. Some eat everything, some eat fish and veggies, some eat veggies, eggs and milk and some eat only plants.
Of all of them - taking excercise, drugs, alcohol, smoking into account - vegans live the longest and have the most optimal weight.
> Eating more red meat under the Paleo diet paired with a lack of whole grains results in higher levels of a biomarker linked to heart disease
WITH A LACK OF WHOLE GRAINS. Does that mean that red meat is the cause or that the lack of a balanced diet is the cause?
> The places in the world that have the best health are the ones that eat fewer animal products.
Where's the evidence for that claim? If we look at the life expectancy for each country:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expe...
The US ranks at #30 out of 180 which is quite decent despite their huge consumption of animal and more importantly processed foods. The countries which are at the bottom are there not because they consume animal products but because they have poor living conditions and little to no health care available. Meanwhile Japan is at #1 and all kinds of meats including raw are a frequent part of their diet.