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

61–70 of 314 posts

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

#61

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #54
machinelearning wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Cocaine is found in coca leaves. "The pharmacologically active ingredient of coca is the cocaine alkaloid, which is found in the amount of about 0.3 to 1.5%, averaging 0.8%" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca Can you clarify what your argument is?

1. So you just contradicted yourself. Cocaine is not a naturally occurring compound but one extracted through a synthetic process specifically to inhibit re-uptake of certain neurotransmitters.

2. On the other hand, sugars have a very important purpose in the body and is present in fruits/vegetables.

3. Like my comment states, prolonged abuse of sugars certainly have negative effects, but as evident from the comment chain, people argue that any and all use of sugar is bad. That's the kind of coarse thinking that I think is harmful.

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

#62

Post by pazimzadeh »

machinelearning wrote: post #50
saagarjha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> a natural compound found in plants and fruits So is cyanide and ricin.

Is cyanide/ricin used by the body for energy and/or ubiquitous in nature?

DMT is. Should we consume DMT in the same way we consume sugar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine

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

#63

Post by Merrill »

tlarkworthy wrote: post #9

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

Glucose is the main source of energy for the brain. So corn syrup, the Karo kind, being pure glucose produced by depolymerizing corn starch, is fine for the brain.

High fructose corn syrup, made by enzymatic conversion of about half the glucose to fructose, or cane sugar, which is a disaccharide consisting of paired molecules of glucose and fuctose, are not so fine. The fructose has to be processed by the liver before it can be used.

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

#64

Post by chrisco255 »

jschwartzi wrote: post #59
chrisco255 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The best thing for the environment is not cutting down forests to replace them with grasslands. I just got back from Maui where this was standard practice for hundreds of years, and in fact one of the neighboring islands(Kaho'olawe) no longer catches rain because the ruminant grass-fed beef cattle that were ranched on that island ate all of the vegetation year after year resulting in massive erosion of the topsoil. W…

That's in environments where forests exist. I would agree with you there. In the U.S. the Great Plains were not forests in any recent millenia. I'm comparing corn and soy fields to grasslands.

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

#65

Post by inetknght »

sleavey wrote: post #40
asdf21 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As far as I understand, Rancid just means it doesn't taste as good as it should but generally doesn't otherwise result in less-healthy or less-nutritious food. Am I incorrect?

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

#66

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

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…

The body doesn't need carbohydrates to function. If you consume exclusively fats and protein (with very low levels of carbohydrates: less than 25g/day), the process of ketosis will kick in: your body will start converting fats to ketone bodies, specifically beta-hydroxy-butyrate, which as used as energy in the brain, heart, etc. instead of glucose.

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

#67

Post by vonmoltke »

narrator wrote: post #15

Diet science is the most pathetically politicized "science" next to economics. On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. On another side you've got the rich radical environmental and animal rights activists wanting everyone to go Vegan and giving out grants to scientists to get their results. It's just a clusterf k of politics going b…

> On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results.

The worst part is, that's not really "one" side. Many of those groups are actively fighting each other, particularly now that organic foods, supplements, and superfood-of-the-week are big business.

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

#68

Post by lotsofpulp »

narrator wrote: post #15

Diet science is the most pathetically politicized "science" next to economics. On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. On another side you've got the rich radical environmental and animal rights activists wanting everyone to go Vegan and giving out grants to scientists to get their results. It's just a clusterf k of politics going b…

I think a large part of it is that regardless of the politics behind it or who is funding it, doing a proper scientific experiment is impossible with our current tools due to the complexity of the human body, food, and issues with control groups and accurate data.

In this type of scenario, I would expect frequent changes in what is considered “true” and I would consider that a good sign assuming the proper procedures are resulting in iterative improvements to our field of knowledge.

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

#69

Post by saagarjha »

sleavey wrote: post #40
asdf21 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you can’t tell, why does it matter whether it’s rancid or not?

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

#70

Post by queercode »

F-0X wrote: post #45
queercode wrote: post #29

How about "eat no meat regardless of nutritional value (unless absolutely necessary) because it's unethical to do so"?

Because it is not objectively unethical.

Nothing is "objectively unethical". That doesn't mean conversations about ethics can't and don't take place.
Post reply on HN