[sinemetu11]

Did the author even read the abstract let alone the paper?

> We also found that while risk for the six outcomes in our analysis combined was minimized at 0 g unprocessed red meat intake per day, the 95% uncertainty interval that incorporated between-study heterogeneity was very wide: from 0–200 g d−1. While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations.

Doesn't sound like it particularly slams years of shoddy research.

[Terretta]

> Did the author even read the abstract let alone the paper?

The author has a different purpose in publishing as evidenced in the well crafted headline, as correlated with ratio of commenters here engaging on that headline w/o reading the abstract.

[pessimizer]

> While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations.

Is this not a slam?

[OJFord]

Oh, but you won't believe what happened next.

[mritchie712]

I did a good bit of research and experimentation on diet. Tons of conflicting studies. I just eat things that don't make me feel bad after eating them and hope for the best.

[hinkley]

> it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations.

So you're saying there's a chance...