Gosh, I can't win with some people.
I've posted links to many many studies on this forum, and some keep insisting any of it is possible. If the study doesn't agree with the want to eat, they say it's worthless. "Correlation is not causation". Funny how there are more and more studies saying the same thing though? If their high-meat diet isn't affecting them, what is it then?
I post research showing causation, based on research in labs. People deny it saying it's a "rat not a human" or it's a "derivative of meat, not real meat". Then there's the info explaining how a high-meat/low-fiber diet results in undigested meat material rotting in one's colon, damaging the lining and setting one up for colon cancer or ulcerations. And there's tons of info out there on what saturated fat does in the body. And yet people cling to their bacon-double-cheeseburgers and justify it by saying Eskimos live on an all-meat diet so somehow it's ideal.
I post showing the relationship in real people (such as the objective improvement in health measures when meat/dairy intake drops) and it's denied because it could've been "something totally unrelated". I could tell you about my own personal cholesterol, bp, and fasting glucose numbers, considered 'ideal' for someone with my age & history, but some people apparently refuse to believe diet can do that.
We can't kidnap several hundred people, lock them in a room for years, and control every little thing they eat and do. Therefore, I guess we'll never have the kind of proof some people seem to be insisting on.