Originally Posted by
brawlo
Once you bring such an argument/hypothesis into the ring, you open the door to blow the whole cancer/animal meats thing out of the water. Cancer has literally a plethora of increased risk associations. Looking at one particular lifestyle trait is dangerous unless you look wholistically at the lifestyle of the test subjects. Increased cancer rates may well be tied to any number of other factors, while the subjects coincidentally ate meat. It's a slippery slope. Maybe those that make the lifestyle choice to not eat meat are therefore more acutely aware of other potential risk factors and so mitigate those as well, thus meaning they inadvertently associate lower cancer risk with their diet.
+1
Originally Posted by
brawlo
In the end, it's pretty well known that diets work by calorie restriction. That's pretty much it, stripped right down to the basics. The method by which this is done will dictate the success for the individual.
And then there's keto. Once I changed what kind of calories I was consuming and ate much more of them, I lost 25 lbs in a year that I had been trying to lose for two decades.