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

161–170 of 314 posts

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

#161

Post by noelsusman »

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…

The science is mostly fine, it's just a really difficult problem to solve. The fact that "Meat is bad, no it's good" is what enters the public consciousness is more a failure of the media than science.

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

#162

Post by [deleted] »

ses1984 wrote: post #131
p10_user wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#163

Post by newnewpdro »

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.

You don't have to eat less, if by less you mean by volume.

When I go 100% raw unprocessed vegetarian for weeks at a time, I'm eating so much plain lettuce and fruits/vegetables by volume my jaw has to adapt.

It's very effective at controlling weight in my experience FWIW, while still eating huge volumes of food.

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

#164

Post by merpnderp »

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.

People who say that you have to eat less must have never met someone on the keto diet. Your body just doesn’t store the fat when you’re not eating carbs.

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

#165

Post by hrktb »

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.

This is a rabbit hole where any actual advice needs to be prefaced with pages worth of what else you are doing on the side.

There are countless of people who instead of eating less move to higher protein diets and exercice more, while doing many many more small adjustments that make it work for them.

Some can eat dramatically less while keeping roughly the same level of everyday activity, while for other it will become hell on earth and put so much stress on them that they will rebound very hard after losing only a small amounts.

I personaly think any advice that is summed up in a sentence or two should be seen as some proverbial saying and be considered applicable only after reaching the same conclusion by ourself.

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

#166

Post by humble_engineer »

bpodgursky wrote: post #99
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 Harvard response undercuts itself by bringing up "environmental sustainability" It isn't wrong, but it seriously calls into question whether the aim of the recommendation against red meat purely accurate nutrition science or a broader agenda.

Its absolutely ridiculous that people are down voting you. I'm not eating bugs.

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

#167

Post by humble_engineer »

edejong wrote: post #77

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 appl…

"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health"

This is not how science works.

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

#168

Post by bittercynic »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #150
ses1984 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not sure why you are getting downvoted. Counting calories is fairly simple if you are eating fast food or out of packages. I found it to be a huge pain in the ass when eating whole foods.

That's an unfortunate alignment, because those foods that are packaged and marked with calorie counts are the very ones that are more likely to leave you wanting to eat more calories than you need.

Whole foods are harder to get an accurate count for, but seem to leave me feeling full after consuming a more reasonable number of calories.

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

#169

Post by fucking_tragedy »

asdf21 wrote: post #73
fucking_tragedy wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I haven't watched it in a few months, but salmon farming happens in net-enclosed partitions of natural bodies of water that are polluted with industrial waste. Pesticides are sprayed directly into the farms in order to combat disease. The pollution from the farms themselves makes the situation even worse as time goes on.

Here's a resource[1] for anyone who is curious but doesn't want to sit through a YouTube video.

[1] https://livingoceans.org/initiatives/salmon-farming

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

#170

Post by travisp »

dczot wrote: post #147
someonehere wrote: post #115

I’m always skeptical when I see counter studies to businesses that have a strong financial foothold on certain industries. Case in point, did the meat industry have any weight in this study? Generally I feel through certain lobbying efforts theses types of industries will produce a counter study that gets enough backing to be read on the nightly news and now people go back to the way things were or are confused. Havi…

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

That’s hugely misleading. Allison was not part of the research team and didn’t have anything to do with this work, he was just quoted in the article. The article says:

“ The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding.”

Post reply on HN