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

131–140 of 314 posts

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

#131

Post by ses1984 »

p10_user wrote: post #128
Fr0styMatt88 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone trying to lose weight, all the conflicting advice out there is so frustrating. Should I eat ‘n’ times a day or just once? Is fasting good, or will it put me in ‘starvation mode’? Why is it that when I was young I didn’t even need to think about my food intake and stayed really, really lean? Do we have a set-point and if so, has mine gone up and am I going to be forever hungry if I want to get back to a sen…

You know you have to eat less. Counting your calories with a food journal is a very successful way to keep yourself accountable for how much you’re eating. Any special diet or strategy is making it more complicated than it is.

Some of us find it incredibly hard, almost impossible, to just eat less.

Also some would argue that keeping a food journal and measuring every calorie you eat is far more complicated than special diets like "don't eat carbs" which are successful for some people without measuring or recording anything.

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

#132

Post by ryacko »

Fr0styMatt88 wrote: post #127
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…

As someone trying to lose weight, all the conflicting advice out there is so frustrating. Should I eat ‘n’ times a day or just once? Is fasting good, or will it put me in ‘starvation mode’? Why is it that when I was young I didn’t even need to think about my food intake and stayed really, really lean? Do we have a set-point and if so, has mine gone up and am I going to be forever hungry if I want to get back to a sen…

Eat slowly until you feel satisfied. No single person has the same metabolism, and only processed food has exact measures of nutrition that can be measured.

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

#133

Post by thrower123 »

dragontamer wrote: post #11
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."

USDA only updates their dietary guidelines every 5 years. Its simple, specific, and well researched advice. So I like to share it with people who are interested in living healthier. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/ Yes, the food pyramid is dead, and there are other changes that come and go through the years. The issue is that "eat your veggies" is so boring it won't make any news. ----------- > A…

Anything that skirts near advocating anything other than vegetarianism tends to be unpopular.

Few things bring out such zealotry as food choices. In a world that is largely out of control, it is something that people can take control of, and they often twine that choice around their very identity.

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

#134

Post by tomp »

koboll wrote: post #91
ChristianBundy wrote: post #5

Actual paper: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-m... Harvard response: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...

The first three grey Q&A boxes on the Harvard response are a pretty devastating rebuttal to the paper. To summarize: - 3 of the 5 meta-analyses reviewed support the consensus on red meat's health dangers - The other 2 are irrelevant and shouldn't have been considered at all - The paper handwaves away the conclusions of the 3 by raising reliability issues that could be applied to any meta-analysis of nutrition, since…

Don't all 3 of those conflate red and processed meat? Not very sciency...

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

#135

Post by hi5eyes »

droithomme wrote: post #112

I avoided all red meat for decades and ended up with extremely poor health with multiple problems. Not too long ago I saw this insane article about some author's daughter who had severe lifelong immune diseases and after years of experimentation, found that eating absolutely nothing but steaks, water, and vodka, cured all her problems. There was also commentary by nutritionists and scientists saying she was wrong and…

forcing people to eat in a way that doesnt suit their body is insanity. fuck the fads

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

#136

Post by cageface »

dang wrote: post #109
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 comm…

Fair enough. I thought it was worth mentioning since the meat industry is engaged in an active disinformation campaign.

As others have said, the Harvard rebuttal itself gets into the details. I'll link it again here:

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...

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

#137

Post by sparrc »

geggam wrote: post #119
sparrc wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. I find this to be a minimum facetious at maximum a threat to my life.

> All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form.

Does it? What about vegetarian and vegans animals? (including some humans)

> Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans.

It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds.

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

#138

Post by bigtex »

droithomme wrote: post #112

I avoided all red meat for decades and ended up with extremely poor health with multiple problems. Not too long ago I saw this insane article about some author's daughter who had severe lifelong immune diseases and after years of experimentation, found that eating absolutely nothing but steaks, water, and vodka, cured all her problems. There was also commentary by nutritionists and scientists saying she was wrong and…

You are probably referring to Mikala Peterson, Jordan Peterson's daughter.

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

#139

Post by kortex »

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.

Might be one of those genetic things, or conditioned response. I'm extremely sensitive to the oxidized oil note. But my partner doesn't really notice it until it's gag-inducing to me. E.g. I can't eat mixed nuts if they have been opened more than a few days (regardless of how well re-sealed)

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

#140

Post by geggam »

sparrc wrote: post #137
geggam wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. I find this to be a minimum facetious at maximum a threat to my life.

> All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Does it? What about vegetarian and vegans animals? (including some humans) > Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds.

Are you saying plant life isnt life ?

https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209

>It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds.

My belief is I am healthier eating animals. Burden is on you to prove me wrong.

Post reply on HN