Depends, do you want to make it or not? If you want to make it, it's a bad idea.

>>34903312
Explain.

You ain't cutting my red meat out your diet bitch
Now OPEN THE FUCK UP

do you really think it changes anything whether you eat red meat or not?

>>34903351
But what about the cancer studies?

>>34903367
do the studies increase your chance of getting cancer?
do the people who get cancer usually eat a lot of red meat?

>>34903367
Living causes cancer anon

>>34903367
they don't speak to red meat.

they speak to n-nitroso compounds formed when you eat nitrates (Avoid bacon, lunchmeats, sausages, and similar preserved meats)

they speak to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons formed in maillard reaction (this can be found in vegetables, chicken, essentially anything can be heated enough to where it artifices PAHs - it is usually a precursor to combustion)

as far as i read, none of the WHO's data said red meat itself is harmful.

just get real, fresh meat, and cook it in such a way a "crust" isn't formed (just add liquid, i prefer beer or wine)

>>34903380
>is all of academia able to distinguish a correlation from a causative link?
don't make yourself sound as scientifically illiterate as jason blaha.

it's embarassing

>>34903392
not true, but it certainly causes death

>>34903295
the World Health Organization DID NOT SAY red meat causes cancer.

they said "processed meat increases cancer risk"

completely different statements.

they hinted red meat "might" be carcinogenic, but there wasn't sufficient evidence for causation. also there is some argument that grass-fed with its omega-3 content isn't nearly as harmful as grain-fed.

clearly the risk is minimal, if people have been researching it since the 70s, and are still unsure as to whether it exists or not.

>>34903428
>cooking meat without maillard reaction
I refuse to do this.

>>34903428

>they don't speak to red meat.

They definitely do. One of the main causes of cancer investigated was the high levels of heme iron in meat. Another factor was neu5gc, an inflammatory molecule that accumulates in tumors, also inherent to red meat.

"Real, fresh meat" is still a hazard.

i'll eat red meat when i need higher calorie protein

90% of the time i'll stick with chicken and fish though

>>34903490

>they hinted red meat "might" be carcinogenic, but there wasn't sufficient evidence for causation.

It's listed as "probably carcinogenic," and in their investigation the mechanistic data was as strong for red meat as it was for processed meat, but the observational data had mixed results, though still mostly pointing to cancer.

>also there is some argument that grass-fed with its omega-3 content isn't nearly as harmful as grain-fed.

An argument made by people who sell grass fed beef and fad diets that rely on buzzwords like "grass fed" to make people ignore the cancer-causing, artery clogging reality of their food.

For people that care about real science

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412075

Basically they can say what effect every serving of red meat has on your mortality, with different red meats having different effects. Red meat consumption, in any amount, WILL increase your mortality.

But then again, so does drugs, alcohol and sketchy supplements.

At the end of the day, it's your call.