Anecdotes are the data that lead to further investigation. It would be nice to know what, if anything, is different about those data points who smoke yet still live into their 90s. If it's due to lifestyle factors, maybe there are practices that smokers would be able to adopt even while they're unsuccessful at quitting.
Also class 2A carcinogens are simply a class of things that probably increases your chance of cancer. That doesn't mean it gives you a huge chance of cancer most of the time the increased risk is trivial.
To give some context red meat is on the same list as:
Hairdresser or barber (occupational exposure as a)
Shift work that involves circadian disruption
Very hot beverages (more than 65℃)
High-temperature frying, emissions from
Household combustion of biomass fuel (primarily wood), indoor emissions from
"On the other hand, any form of protein is likely to be effective, it concludes, not merely high-protein shakes and supplements. Beef, chicken, yogurt and even protein from peas or quinoa could help us to build larger and stronger muscles."
That's really the part you took issue with? That's a list of protein examples, not "it's first source of protein." It even says "any form of protein is likely to be effective."
Fake HN outrage?
It goes on to say "On the other hand and conveniently, any type of and time for protein was fine. The gains were similar if people downed their protein immediately after a workout or in the hours earlier or later, and it made no difference if the protein was solid or liquid, soy, beef, vegan or any other."
Anecdotes are not facts. Cholesterol and most fats are still generally bad for you, it's not so black and white, it never is or was. It's not an excuse to stuff yourself with cheeseburgers.
My grandparents lived well into their 90s. All you have to do is eat well and try to be active from time to time.
But there is a growing weightlifting movement with a healthy marketing budget...