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

71–80 of 314 posts

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

#71

Post by jackfoxy »

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.

McDonald's used to fry fries in beef tallow, but caved to the settled health science of the day in 1983.

Here's the recipe to fry your own. https://grannysvitalvittles.com/stovetop-beef-tallow-french-...

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

#72

Post by njarboe »

Retric wrote: post #6

What an odd headline/article. Clearly, common food types are not going to be extremely harmful, so the magnitude of impact from dietary advice is never going to be extreme. Red Meat is still showing up as harmful in these studies, which is why it’s advice and not say a ban etc. At best this reads like spin from the cattle industry. Unless I am missing something?

About half was through the article:

"Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers."

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

#73

Post by asdf21 »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #46
asdf21 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope farmed fish has a low carbon cost because I'm not trying to poison myself with mercury.

Farmed salmon is often high in mercury[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsbtit20DLo

Sheesh, how does that even happen? Does Hg just spontaneously appear?

Sorry, can't watch video at work.

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

#74

Post by asdf21 »

jackfoxy wrote: post #71
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.

McDonald's used to fry fries in beef tallow, but caved to the settled health science of the day in 1983. Here's the recipe to fry your own. https://grannysvitalvittles.com/stovetop-beef-tallow-french-...

Yep, we tell people that all the time.

We do our fries like McDonalds did in the fifties.

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

#75

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #62
machinelearning wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Has DMT been shown to be vital for the healthy functioning of the human body? And does it necessarily have to be consumed to have ample levels in the body? I won't comment on your loaded phrasing of "the same way we consume sugar", but I think its obvious you're trying really hard to strawman my argument.

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

#76

Post by pazimzadeh »

machinelearning wrote: post #61
pazimzadeh wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How did I contradict myself - I pointed out to you that cocaine is a naturally occurring compound, which it is.

"Cocaine is not a naturally occurring compound but one generated through a synthetic process specifically to inhibit re-uptake of certain neurotransmitters"

No, cocaine is extracted from coca leaves, it is not synthesized. Refined sugar is also extracted from plants - same thing.

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

#77

Post by edejong »

Harvard Response: "The panel declared “considerations of environmental impact” out of the scope of their recommendations. This is a missed opportunity because climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual health."

My response: should we apply this to other topics as well? Pimp the efficiency of renewables compared with carbon-based? Up the effectivity of hydrogen-based energy distribution? Lift the results of a study promoting working from home?

Two words come to mind: Occam's razor.

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

#78

Post by pazimzadeh »

machinelearning wrote: post #75
pazimzadeh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Has DMT been shown to be vital for the healthy functioning of the human body? And does it necessarily have to be consumed to have ample levels in the body? I won't comment on your loaded phrasing of "the same way we consume sugar", but I think its obvious you're trying really hard to strawman my argument.

I think you are either unwilling or unable to read the scientific literature (which I've conveniently linked for you).

None of what you are saying is correct. You do not need to consume refined sugar to have "ample levels" in your body.

Is consuming refined sugar vital for the healthy functioning of the human body?

FYI, it's not 100% clear whether humans produce DMT but it's highly likely https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45812-w.

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

#79

Post by sleavey »

inetknght wrote: post #65
sleavey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I'm not an expert, but I think rancid oil is oxidised oil and thus acts like any oxidised chemical: it tries to steal an electron from somewhere else, including inside our bodies - "free radicals" - which can damage things like our DNA. There's also some link to how it can change the behaviour of proton gradients in our cells (I read about it a while ago in "The Vital Question" by Nick Lane) but I'm sketchy on the exact details.

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

#80

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #76
machinelearning wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

How did I contradict myself - I pointed out to you that cocaine is a naturally occurring compound, which it is. "Cocaine is not a naturally occurring compound but one generated through a synthetic process specifically to inhibit re-uptake of certain neurotransmitters" No, cocaine is extracted from coca leaves, it is not synthesized. Refined sugar is also extracted from plants - same thing.

You are commenting on an older version of what I commented. I had already corrected that before your comment.

I do know that cocaine alkaloids are extracted from plants. Sugar is not necessarily extracted from plants. Its not the same thing. You can simply eat 1-2 servings of most fruit to get the same amount of sugar as a can of soda. It doesn't have to be potent to be found in nature.

Still, I don't see where your argument is going, we're arguing about the moderate use of sugar. The incans chewed on coca leaves and it seemed to enhance their long distance endurance. Are you arguing that any amount of sugar is de facto bad?

Post reply on HN