Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 314 posts

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#21

Post by asdf21 »

sleavey wrote: post #12

I guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.) is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high cholesterol and saturated fat. I'm l…

I've known this for years, and own a restaurant that serves all of our fried food cooked in beef tallow rather than seed oils.

Everyone loves the taste of the food, I guess our fries ruin other chains for people.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#24

Post by machinelearning »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #9

I expect sugar will turn out to be good for your brain (in moderation) and increase your IQ.

Yea it is quite interesting how the 'invisible hand' seems to have branded sugar as a 'drug, akin to cocaine' since it signals dopamine in the brain. Refined sugar is nothing but sucrose, a natural compound found in plants and fruits. Surely not all dopamine signalling is bad, just bad/prolonged signalling.

Sure, it does cause an insulin spike that causes insulin resistance in the long term but in selective use of blood sugar spiking lies its utility.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#25

Post by electriclove »

nostromo wrote: post #18
giarc wrote: post #2

I agree that dietary research needs to continue but I think the back and forth about what to eat (saturated vs non saturated, no salt vs salt ok etc) needs to slow down. I think the best advice is that by Michael Pollan "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."

I get that there's too much back-and-forth on diet advice -- but I also don't see why we should throw out the scientific method and go all-in on a journalist's non-scitentific advice. Besides, bread and sugar are made from plants and they'll make you fat. A lot of people would lose weight eating more animal products including eggs, milk, butter, cheese, and meat.

With his definition, things like bread and sugar wouldn't count as food so they would fail the first rule.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#26

Post by jumpman500 »

tobylane wrote: post #10
chrisco255 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to the contrary, and agree with Amber Heard, "Eat meat. Not too little. Mostly fat." http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht... But ultimately what we should all agree on is: eat less processed foods, less sugar, don't overeat, fasting is cool, exercise often.

I’d like to see lower carbon cost become an important goal of keto dieters. Eggs, fish, etc count for keto as I understand it. I don’t like the fetishisation of red meat.

I'd like people to stop pitching diets as a way to fix climate change. It makes people take global warming less seriously and it won't help enough to matter.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#27

Post by pazimzadeh »

It's complicated. Telling people who have been abstaining from eating red meat that it's ok to eat it might also be a bad idea.

Humans lost the enzyme that converts Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc. Other animals have Neu5Gc, which can be incorporated into your own tissues and potentially be recognized as foreign. So if you haven't been exposed to animal products and you suddenly are, that could trigger auto-immunity. Oh and of course, the gut microbiota has a role in regulating all of this. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-019-0564-9)

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#28

Post by chrisco255 »

tobylane wrote: post #10
chrisco255 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to the contrary, and agree with Amber Heard, "Eat meat. Not too little. Mostly fat." http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht... But ultimately what we should all agree on is: eat less processed foods, less sugar, don't overeat, fasting is cool, exercise often.

I’d like to see lower carbon cost become an important goal of keto dieters. Eggs, fish, etc count for keto as I understand it. I don’t like the fetishisation of red meat.

Ruminant grass-fed meat is the best thing for the environment. It requires no pesticides, no herbicides, and the manure their bodies produce act as fertilizer and cause grasslands to expand and sequester carbon. Meanwhile, wildlife can actually live on a pasture. Rabbits, squirrels, birds, tons of insects, snakes, even coyotes. Wheat, corn and soy fields by contrast require artificial fertilization, insecticide application, rodent poison to protect crops, and harvesters also kill small mammals.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#30

Post by gduplessy »

tobylane wrote: post #10
chrisco255 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think to the contrary, and agree with Amber Heard, "Eat meat. Not too little. Mostly fat." http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht... But ultimately what we should all agree on is: eat less processed foods, less sugar, don't overeat, fasting is cool, exercise often.

I’d like to see lower carbon cost become an important goal of keto dieters. Eggs, fish, etc count for keto as I understand it. I don’t like the fetishisation of red meat.

Good thing I don't have to listen to you.
Post reply on HN