In a cave?
Um, there are no wild cats in Australia.
There might be feral cats (domesticated moggies who get dumped in the bush) but you ain’t gonna catch one of those in the bush anyway. Far too wily and cunning. If you’re talking about desert-dwelling Aborigines, there’s not enough prey in the desert to sustain a growing population of ferals. IOW, cat-killing for food would be so rare as to be non-existent I’d think. Maybe Blake might chime in here and contradict me though. 
And re your first question, in traditional Aboriginal cultures, the women are responsible for catching the small game: lizards, goannas and shore-line crustacea and fish etc to keep their families fed while the men go hunting the 'roos…often for days at a time. The sexual division of labour has been well entrenched for millenia. 
It attempts to, maybe, but techniques like that will always end up amplifying noise, too, especially when the correlations are that high. So it’s going to be hard to be confident in whatever results you get.
Controlling for known confounders amplifies noise? Huh?
As in, if you had the data you’d really like to have, with all of the variables actually controlled except for the one you were studying, you’d have some amount of statistical noise. When you’re in the real world and you have data where the variables aren’t really controlled, you can use various techniques to remove the systematic error, and so get something like what you would get in the ideal case… but the noise is going to be larger.
Still not getting what you are saying.
That noise is what makes up the width of the 95% confidence intervals. If the result after controlling for known confounders is a 27% reduction with a 95% CI of 12 to 39% (as the risk reduction was in this study comparing the substitution of 1 serving a day of red meat with 1 serving a day of poultry) then we can say (barring an unidentified confounder) that we have 95% confidence that the actual reduction from that substitution is within that range.
Yes there can be unidentified confounders beyond the ones controlled for* and the fact that the subjects were all various sorts of health professionals might possibly limit its generality. Just because it is a larger n than the previous meta-analysis does not mean that it automatically should be defered to.
It is notable however that a subsequent meta-analysis concurrs with this study’s findings.
Still more recent meta-analysis of all-cause mortality still only finds a trend that does not hit statistical significance for increased unprocessed red meat consumption (whereas processed meat and all red meat is clearly a significant mortality risk).
It is very clear that increased processed meats (bacon, sausage, salami, etc.) consumption is associated with more all-cause mortality including cancer, strokes, heart disease, etc. Unprocessed meat less clear for all cause, although more strokes seems to be the case. And for a given level of protein in the diet that more coming from plant sources is associated with decreased mortality.
Seems like moderate consumption of unprocessed red meat as part of a broad diet that includes plant protein sources as well is prudent. IMHO.
*Body mass index (10 categories), cigarette smoking (never, past, current 1–14 cigarettes/d, current 14–25 cigarettes/d, current 25+ cigarettes/d), physical exercise (<3, 3–9, 9–18, 18–27, 27+ metabolic equivalents/wk), parental history of early myocardial infarction (age <60 y), menopausal status in women (premenopausal, postmenopausal with no history of hormone replacement, postmenopausal with history of hormone replacement, postmenopausal with current hormone replacement), multivitamin use (quintiles of y), vitamin E supplement use (yes/no), aspirin use at least once per wk (yes/no), total energy (quintiles of kcal), cereal fiber (quintiles of g/d), alcohol (quintiles of g/d), transfat (quintiles of g/d), fruit and vegetables (quintiles of servings/d), and other protein sources (quintiles of servings/d).
I’d just like to say that this thread does not really belong in General Questions. The subject of nutrition is a thousand miles from settled, it is hotly debated.
Therefore I feel that this thread should rightly be in IMHO or GD.
I just wanted to be on the record about it.
No subject is settled. On every subject, we just go by what the best available science says. Nutrition is no different in this regard.
Actually, it is its own special animal because it is so difficult-to-impossible to do meaningful controlled studies on living human beings, so the vast, vast majority of what people toss around about what is “linked” to what else is from about the weakest, most unreliable, messy source possible: self-reports. And that’s the next best thing to useless.
I am sorry to be contentious but that looks like unmitigated drivel to me. Humans are omnivores Humans are Omnivores -- The Vegetarian Resource Group we are adapted to eat just about anything we can get our hands on which may account for the fact thet, unlike giant pandas, we are not an endangered species.
Rabbit is a tasty and low fat/cholesterol alternative to chicken. The fact that it is freely (well - for the price of a shotgun cartridge) available makes it taste even better.
You miss the point, though. The point of the OP, as I read it, isn’t objectively why are pork and beef bad, but why does this particular pamphlet say that pork and beef are bad. That’s a history question with a specific answer, given and elaborated on. It’s not actually a nutrition or culinary question at all.
I would have interpreted the OP as asking if there was or is any plausable reason to avoid beef and pork that the pamphleteers could have picked up, the assumption being that they didn’t just make up the ban themselves but included it from elsewhere. What I’d be interested in knowing is how much beef and pork the average American was eating back when the first government suggestions to eat less were published.
My childhood memories are of eating beef at nearly every meal (I’m 58). But then my parents rented a meat locker from a local butcher and ordered beef by the quarter. They were very pleased with themselves over that bit of frugality.
That’s something I haven’t thought about in decades. I wonder if anyone rents meat lockers anymore.
Indeed, looked at that way, you are correct.
Indeed, while I appreciate the science of nutrition, I was really wondering what the social/historical reasons would be for considering beef/pork ‘unhealthy’. That’s generally been answered, with lots of other information.
Don’t know about meat lockers; many people (US) have a chest or upright freezer and will have halves/quarters of beef, deer, pork prepared and packaged as smaller quantities at a butcher or meat processor and stored for use over the next 6 months or so.
:snerk:
Moderator Note
Let’s keep the political jabs out of GQ (even if they are just linked).
No warning issued, but don’t do this again.