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

101–110 of 314 posts

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

#101

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #87
machinelearning wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm not sure what comment you're referring to, but you said "Refined sugar is nothing but sucrose, a natural compound found in plants and fruits" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21119863 You're the one who mentioned refined sugar. Nowhere have I said that any amount of sugar is bad. On the other hand, the parts of fruit that are beneficial are not the fructose (which is even worse for you than sucrose, which I a…

1. Re-read the comment you quoted and you'll see what comment I'm referring to.

2. If you need a source to prove that table sugar is sucrose here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_sugar

3. Finally, you're close to understanding my point (and what I presume is the orignal commenter's).

As far as we know, a moderate amount of refined sugar is not bad once in a while since it helps to increase blood glucose levels like any other source of sugar. (I'm intentionally disregarding the insulin spiking aspect of it here since I've already addressed that in a previous comment.) The fact that you and various other are against moderate sugar consumption (the original commenter's claim), shows how brainwashed the masses are.

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

#102

Post by sparrc »

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…

It's more like David vs. Goliath. The food industry has MUCH more money than any animal rights advocacy group.

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

#103

Post by pazimzadeh »

machinelearning wrote: post #84
pazimzadeh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/artic…

A wikipedia article is your notion of scientific literature? lol Anyways, I did read it and if you don't realize by now, my questions are rhetorical since you don't seem to have a strong logical foundation. >> Is consuming refined sugar vital for the healthy functioning of the human body? This is what I'm referring to as strawmanning my argument. Surely this is true of sugar in general and while I was referring to re…

I didn't think you needed my help to follow the trail of citations, but here you are. I'm sure you're going to dive right into these:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075769, https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42756923.pdf

Sugar does not have to be consumed. Your body can convert protein into glucose. Your microbiota can convert fiber in short-chain fatty acids that feed your cells. You can also function without sugar (look up the ketone diet).

Maybe you should be more precise and not expect others to read your mind.

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

#104

Post by odessacubbage »

losteric wrote: post #53
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…

How much keto/carno red meat is raised in such an idyllic settings? Most red meat is factory-raised and fed tons of those artificially fertilized/pest-controlled grains, belching massive amounts of methane before getting trucked around the country - toxic for the environment. Environmentally friendly meat does exist, by some definitions, but those locally-raised antibiotic-free grass-fed pasture-raised free-range sus…

just buy an ethically raised cow/bison etc and freeze it. i've been living off the same 1/2 cow since probably 2014 or so.

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

#105

Post by odessacubbage »

queercode wrote: post #58
mijamo wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unethical for whom? It's not like ethics is universal.

I'd say unethical for everyone. This isn't even just an "animal rights" debate. It's also a debate about the impact that eating meat has on the environment. There's way too many "eat less meat" articles to list, but here's one: https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-meat/ Sure, it's a bit of a jump from "eat less meat" to "eat no meat", but the trend is there.

how about instead of eat less meat, eat less shitty meat and cook more? in all likelihood, you'll save money and feel better.

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

#106

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #103
machinelearning wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A wikipedia article is your notion of scientific literature? lol Anyways, I did read it and if you don't realize by now, my questions are rhetorical since you don't seem to have a strong logical foundation. >> Is consuming refined sugar vital for the healthy functioning of the human body? This is what I'm referring to as strawmanning my argument. Surely this is true of sugar in general and while I was referring to re…

I didn't think you needed my help to follow the trail of citations, but here you are. I'm sure you're going to dive right into these: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075769 , https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42756923.pdf Sugar does not have to be consumed. Your body can convert protein into glucose. Your microbiota can convert fiber in short-chain fatty acids that feed your cells. You can also function without s…

You seem very confused as to what the argument is.

Sigh...just think about it a little more carefully before responding. Did I ever make the argument that sugar is never produced endogenously? And does that invalidate my point that some consumption of sugar is one way to keep the body functioning healthily?

I don't have a doctorate but I'm very comfortable with reading academic articles - your condescension is not welcome here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075769 Discusses the various impurities illicit cocaine contains. What is the purpose of citing this exactly? This is so far related from the original argument.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/42756923.pdf Breaks down the various alkaloids in cocaine leaves and is unrelated to what your point is.

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

#107

Post by oh_sigh »

cageface wrote: post #90

Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers. This is just meat industry damage control. The Harvard rebuttal lays out the issues pretty well. Just like big tobacco and big oil, they just need to sow enough confusion around the facts to make people give up and stop paying attention.

One would expect a cattle lobbying group to support hopeful studies which support their worldview. I think it is premature to write this off merely for that fact, just like it would be to write off a study which came to the opposite conclusion if it was funded by a soy growers association.

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

#109

Post by dang »

cageface wrote: post #90

Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers. This is just meat industry damage control. The Harvard rebuttal lays out the issues pretty well. Just like big tobacco and big oil, they just need to sow enough confusion around the facts to make people give up and stop paying attention.

That person isn't an author of the study, presumably just someone the NYT asked to comment. The article says about this study: "The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding."

I think it's fair to say that "This is just meat industry damage control" breaks the HN guideline: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#110

Post by tebs1200 »

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 you like people to pitch as an alternative effective action?

It's something that most people can look at immediately. You eat every day so what you eat does have a relatively large impact on your personal carbon footprint. It's also something people can do that doesn't have to cost them a cent.

Post reply on HN