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

31–40 of 314 posts

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

#31

Post by Mikeb85 »

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.

Meat is also very calorically dense. And I think the advice to eat plants means when they're still unprocessed. Vegetables in their unprocessed form have a good amount of nutrients with relatively few calories.

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

#32

Post by saagarjha »

chrisco255 wrote: post #28
tobylane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appli…

> Ruminant grass-fed meat is the best thing for the environment.

It's really not.

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

#33

Post by codr7 »

thrower123 wrote: post #13
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."

If you want to be fit, the best results I've had are to eat meat and vegetables, and not much else. Going fully vegetarian is just too joyless.

You need to eat animal corpses to feel happy? Could be worse, I guess.

It's perfectly possible to cook great food with and without meat and dairy.

But change is difficult, especially after clinging to this kind of BS for a while.

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

#34

Post by pazimzadeh »

machinelearning wrote: post #24
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 bl…

Cocaine is also a natural compound. So's cyanide. Pretty sure the 'invisible hand' demonized animal fats and promoted sugar, and now people are are starting to come to their senses.

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

#36

Post by saagarjha »

jumpman500 wrote: post #26
tobylane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What would?

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

#37

Post by syphilis2 »

sleavey wrote: post #4

I just figured out a weird trick to read the page on Firefox without the sign-in/register popover: open the page in reader mode and refresh. It seems the popover appears only after page loading has finished, before which the full article is available. Reader mode ignores JavaScript, so this works.

It's also possible to force reader mode, for sites where Firefox doesn't want to display the icon. Append this to the beginning of the url:

about:reader?url=

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

#38

Post by bpicolo »

chrisco255 wrote: post #28
tobylane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 appli…

Should we ignore the massive scale deforestation?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/02/revealed...

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

#39

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #34
machinelearning wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bl…

Cocaine is also a natural compound. So's cyanide. Pretty sure the 'invisible hand' demonized animal fats and promoted sugar, and now people are are starting to come to their senses.

Do you have a source showing that Cocaine is a natural compound?

Perhaps the invisible hand did demonize animal fats and promote sugar but how is that in any way related to my argument?

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

#40

Post by sleavey »

asdf21 wrote: post #21
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.

The thing that really irks me about seed oils is that humans find it difficult to taste when it's rancid. I wonder how many of the long shelf life products filled with sunflower oil are actually rancid, or how many fast food restaurants use oil long past its normal life without anyone being able to tell.
Post reply on HN