Now Here’s Some Serious Red Meat

Now here is someone who takes no chances when it comes to ensuring sufficient meat consumption:

Here’s a stomach-churning feat: A woman from Arizona devoured not one, but two 72-ounce steak dinners in about an hour at the Big Texan Steak Ranch in Amarillo.

The woman, identified as professional competitive eater Miki Sudo, posted a short video on Instagram of her polishing off that second steak. She’s won the women’s title for six straight years at the famous Nathan’s Hot Dog Eating Contest.

I have to confess that I was tempted to try the Big Texan 72-ounce challenge (your steak dinner is free if you eat the whole thing—and the sides—in an hour) the last time I drove across the country on I-40 back in 2004.

Meanwhile, as I am sure you have heard, the climatistas want to take our cheeseburgers away, which is why they must take our guns away first, because what unarmed person is going to surrender their cheeseburgers or rib-eyes?

There is of course the usual propaganda campaign going on to the effect that red meat is as bad for you as vaping or watching televised Democratic Party primary debates, so we need to consult the science, as they like to hector us. From Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition:

Should Dietary Guidelines Recommend Low Red Meat Intake?

If you’re in a hurry, I’ll give you the answer now: No.

Here’s some of the copy from the article:

Mainstream dietary recommendations now commonly advise people to minimize the intake of red meat for health and environmental reasons. Most recently, a major report issued by the EAT-Lancet Commission recommended a planetary reference diet mostly based on plants and with no or very low (14 g/d) consumption of red meat. We argue that claims about the health dangers of red meat are not only improbable in the light of our evolutionary history, they are far from being supported by robust scientific evidence.

Annnnd skip to the end:


Although meat has been a central component of the diet of our lineage for millions of years, some nutrition authorities—who often have close connections to animal rights activists or other forms of ideological vegetarianism, such as Seventh-Day Adventism. The global influence of the Seventh-day Adventist Church on diet—are promoting the view that meat causes a host of health problems and has no redeeming value. We contend that a large part of the case against meat is based on cherry-picked evidence and low-quality observational studies. The bald claim that red meat is an “unhealthy food” is wildly unsupported.

Settled science. Now, if only we could figure out a way to argue that Chik fil-A was behind the anti-red mean campaign, we could sit back and watch liberal heads explode. Oh, wait, we can sit back and watch that already.

Notice: All comments are subject to moderation. Our comments are intended to be a forum for civil discourse bearing on the subject under discussion. Commenters who stray beyond the bounds of civility or employ what we deem gratuitous vulgarity in a comment — including, but not limited to, “s***,” “f***,” “a*******,” or one of their many variants — will be banned without further notice in the sole discretion of the site moderator.