What's sad is I don't believe any of these research papers anymore. Both ways can be found good or bad. It's impossible to deal with.
They're meant to feed further research and bring prestige to the authors, not to help intellectuals hyperoptimize their longevity or whatever.
It's a widespread mistake, especially among intellectuals who take pride in being able to read jargon, but what you're calling "impossible to deal with" is actually just the outcome of trying to use things in a way they're not meant to be used.
If you really want guidance (you actually don't need much), either look to traditions if you're comfortable with that or turn to institutional guidelines if you want something that feels more evidence-based and modern. Neither of those is unassailable either, but at least then you're using things as intended. You'll have less grief and frustration that way.
Which is probably good for you.
"feels" is the right word here, unfortunately. Often, these are heavily out of date, influenced by power struggles inside the institutions and by external incentives, and get watered down by the need for generality and for avoiding liability. So the average person is left with very little to go by, which is why people either flock to study after study, choose "bro science" instead, or just stick to traditions even in places where they're not helpful.
This crusade against red meat is honestly tiring.
I subscribe to "eat a little bit of everything in moderation. Mostly what's available in nature and what someone in a farm or at home could produce. Be mindful of the total number of calories. Try not to burn or overcook food in general. Exercise a little bit most days. Don't neglect sleep."
(Which to me reads like a lot of common sense advice that my grandparents already knew and followed with no struggle)
Animal-free products from nut milks to meat alternatives are a growing industry, so clearly something is working without having to somehow do the impossible task of changing the government and doing it independent of popular opinion.
In particular, there are a number of political and religious factions opposed especially to red meat.
I lost my SO 6 years ago to a weird form of cancer that fed on her estrogen, so doctors tried to put her into menopause to stop its growth. That's hell on earth, like taking away the soul of a woman.
So for years every single cancer headline made me react, but after a while you get jaded because you never see them lead anywhere.
my father is currently dealing with male equivalent of this (prostate cancer) . Yea taking away a harmone is a slow and painful march to death. I don't wish this on anyone.
If you don't want to eat cute animals that's fine, I think you can be reasonably healthy eating a mostly vegetarian diet with some eggs and small fish. But complete veganism is slow death, I won't go there.
A simple Google search will tell you vegans actually have a longer life expectancy (among other health benefits). Although it's not totally clear why this is. So maybe the vegans who look like cancer patients to you are in fact old healthy vegans ;-)
Just walk into any significant veg(an) restaurant at a busy hour and look around you. You' might even find the opposite of what you are made to believe to be true.
But no matter what, I'm afraid you will convince yourself you don't have the obligation to adjust any corrupted views, but do the opposite because you can't handle the reality. And sadly you're far from alone.
And actually I get it. It's not easy to open your eyes and acknowledge your part in the (largely unnecessary) immense suffering we bring to billions of animals each year, and the destruction that comes with animal agriculture.
But please don't make it harder for the people who are trying to change things a bit, and stop spreading your made up stuff and ancient myths.
For me all this BS is the only actually difficult part of being a vegan.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've grown to understand the following:
My grandma, with whom I share a bunch of DNA, lived to be a healthy 100 and drank milk to the very end; which is why I'm probably going to do the same. The quality of that "datapoint" for me is (almost objectively) much higher than ANY study could ever produce?
- "Eat whole food, not too much, (maybe) mostly plants". Do some form of exercise for some time at least 5/7 days.
- Listen to your body and do what makes you feel best (e.g. types of foods, meal timing and # of meals per day, types of exercises and amounts). I really believe that people's bodies work differently enough that even excluding extreme cases, no one diet is best for everyone
- Genetics, some people are just unlucky or lucky
Also for cancer, 99% of things have increase your risk by some amount; including every food, because simply metabolizing causes chemical reactions which (when unlucky) cause cancer. The important things to watch out for are those which carry a very noticeable, substantial increase, like benzene and radiation; studies show that red meat and nitrites correlate with increased risk, but it's ambiguous how significant they are especially with the other correlated factors (like bad eating in general).
If it’s new in the last 10,000 years (the beginning of agriculture) we have at least some hope that the worst problems have been dealt with, although we do have lactose and gluten intolerance as counter examples.
If it’s new to the human diet in the last hundred years, maybe it’s fine, and maybe it isn’t. It has to pretty obviously kill you for people to notice.
Animals, fruit, and root vegetables have been in the human diet since before humans left Africa. That’s my rule of thumb.
The entire point of diet advice and nutritional science is trying to find out what "in moderation" means for different foods. The amount of donuts that is moderate and the amount of broccoli that is moderate are not equal.
the mixed results can be a sign that we don't understand something properly. there's nuance and depth adding noise to the results
it will only get better with more peer-reviewed studies and analysis
The next step up is a randomized controlled trial, but instead of choosing health outcomes they choose measurements of lab tests as their endpoints. Someone’s cholesterol went up or down by some small number. What did we learn? Nothing.
Unfortunately good research is outrageously expensive, so it doesn’t get done.
which is why so many of us just say "moderation and eat a varied diet". Once in a while science settles on something that is true for everyone, but real science is hard.