Research Round-Up
Red Meat and Dementia: Another great example of a Flawed Study
Another week, another misleading headline—this time suggesting that eating small amounts of processed red meat raises your risk of dementia.
This study again comes from the same Harvard research group that has been trying (unsuccessfully) to demonize red meat for years.
Thanks to independent nutritional researcher Dr. Zoë Harcombe, who has done a deep dive into the study and raised some serious red flags in this article.
The difference in meat intake between comparison groups was tiny (just a few grams), and the definitions were a mess: processed meat included hot dogs with buns and condiments, while unprocessed meat covered burgers with fries.
Unsurprisingly, the so-called meat eaters also smoked more, drank more, and exercised less.
Most notably, there was no association between unprocessed red meat and dementia, and raw incidence rates were actually lower in the highest meat intake group—before statistical adjustments.
This is a textbook case of nutritional epidemiology producing sensational headlines without solid evidence. It’s a reminder to view these studies with skepticism and stay grounded in ancestral patterns that have supported human health for millennia.
By now it should also raise some serious questions for everyone who tends to put organizations such as Harvard on a pedestal when it comes to scientific research.
Gone are the days when you can assume any of these organizations are the bastions of valid science. If you would like to learn more about the flaws of research and how to become a critical thinker, check out our extra recommended reading articles under Reading Resources here.
New study challenges conventional thinking about LDL cholesterol in keto diets
A first-of-its-kind prospective study recently published in JACC Advancestitled "Plaque Begets Plaque, ApoB Does Not" offers surprising insights into cholesterol, ketogenic diets, and heart health.
The researchers followed 100 lean, metabolically healthy people on ketogenic diets with significantly elevated LDL-C levels (median 237 mg/dL) and ApoB levels (median 178 mg/dL) for one year. Their findings challenge the conventional belief that elevated LDL-C and ApoB automatically increase cardiovascular risk.
After tracking coronary plaque progression using advanced imaging, they found that neither baseline ApoB levels nor changes in ApoB were associated with coronary plaque progression. What predicted plaque progression was simply having plaque at baseline.
This aligns with what Functional Practitioners have observed clinically for years – heart disease risk is highly context-dependent.
The impact of elevated cholesterol depends on your metabolic health status and the presence or absence of existing inflammation.
For those considering a ketogenic diet with concerns about cholesterol, these findings suggest that in metabolically healthy individuals, the risk assessment is more nuanced than simply looking at LDL numbers.
Balanced nutrition requires both animal and plant foods
We’ve been subjected for decades to dietary guidelines that are more aligned with the interests of Big Food than health.
However, a new dietary framework published by Frederic Leroy and his team noted that while humans can thrive on various dietary patterns, nutrient density often improves when animal-source foods constitute about one-fourth to one-third of caloric intake.
Below this threshold, deficiency risks increase considerably. Animal-source foods deliver high-quality protein, essential fatty acids, micronutrients (heme iron, zinc, vitamins D3, and B12), and bioactive compounds that are difficult or impossible to obtain from plants alone.
The paper also emphasizes the value of minimally processed foods while recognizing that some processing is necessary, especially for plant foods, to remove phytotoxins and improve nutrient bioavailability.
However, ultra-processed foods, which dominate many modern diets, should be minimized.
It’s really quite simple: maximize nutrient density while minimizing intake of processed foods.
Looking for a little help to optimize your diet? Check out our Practitioner Directory
Blocking the internet on smartphones is more effective than antidepresssants
A landmark randomized controlled trial published in PNAS Nexus found that blocking mobile internet on smartphones for just two weeks can significantly improve mental health, subjective well-being, and the ability to sustain attention.
The study used a smartphone application to block mobile internet access while still allowing calls and texts, as well as internet access through other devices such as computers.
The improvements in mental health were substantial – the effect on depression symptoms was larger than the meta-analytic effect of antidepressants and similar to that of cognitive behavioral therapy.
The change in objectively measured sustained attention ability was comparable to reversing about ten years of age-related decline. What explained these remarkable benefits?
When participants didn't have constant access to mobile internet, they spent more time socializing in person, exercising, and being in nature.
These findings provide compelling evidence that our constant connection to the online world may come at a significant cost to our cognitive functioning and emotional well-being, and suggest that digital minimalism could be a powerful approach for improving mental health.
The latest health research news from around the world, compiled by Lead Instructor and Program Director Leanne Scott, FNTP.
