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

171–180 of 314 posts

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

#171

Post by Medicalidiot »

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…

All the fad diets, trendy diet suggestions, are bullshit. Cogent science has delineated what we should be eating: lots of vegetables(3-5 cups of carrots, peas, green beans, spinach), complex carbohydrates(think fiber, whole wheat), lean meats(fish and chicken), and unsaturated oils (olive oil). It doesn't matter if you eat them all at once, what matters is that you go after vegetables first then go after the rest. Sugar is the worst thing in the world and I'm waiting for the water shed moment where we realize that strong insulin responses are terrible for the body.

I could go on and on, but Hardvard my plate is the definite guide for what you should be eating. This is the non lobbyist, highly educated PhD take on what current science says we should eat.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/

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

#172

Post by debatem1 »

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.

The challenge is that diets that rely on how your body metabolizes certain foods inherently depend on a lot of details about your digestive and metabolic processes. Some of those things probably are very generalizable, but many of them will vary widely in how well they work depending on genetic factors, gut flora, and lifestyle.

By contrast, calorie counting requires only that you obey the laws of thermodynamics. At some level of reduced intake it will produce weight loss for literally anyone.

Having said that, if not eating carbs gets you there that's great-- I don't want to diminish anyone else's experience with weight loss. I just think more people should be up-front when talking about their new diet that any surprisingly easy way to lose weight is surprising because things don't normally work that way.

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

#173

Post by sparrc »

geggam wrote: post #140
sparrc wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

There are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things.

Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood.

There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.

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

#174

Post by cageface »

scottlocklin wrote: post #148
cageface wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

> the meat industry is engaged in an active disinformation campaign Come on man: citations needed. From where I am sitting, the "meat industry" is about as threatened by vegetarians as the brussel sprouts industry is by mcdonalds. Keto diets are presently quite popular and don't seem to do people much harm at least.

Major fast food chains are rolling out plant based burgers, backed by massive marketing campaigns. You bet the meat industry is threatened by this. If you’re really interested in learning more about this read the book Meatanomics:

https://meatonomics.com/

The typical keto diet is an improvement over the standard American diet loaded with junk but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other dietary options with better long term results and much smaller environmental impact.

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

#175

Post by jeremyw »

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...

Note, all of these studies use a low standard of evidence (food questionnaires and the like), and they generate low signal (barely registering positive/negative). Read John Ioannidis @ Stanford for why these methods should banned, and why nutritional research currently produces mostly irrelevant data.

Harvard, unfortunately, has doubled-down on this style of science.

It's not helpful that the press supports these methods, without skeptical commentary.

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

#176

Post by sparrc »

the_watcher wrote: post #143
sparrc wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this an 'old' idea? In this context isn't the 'old' idea that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for you? How does this hypothesis deal with the fact that vegans and vegetarians have lower levels of cardiovascular disease, lower blood cholesterol, and lower risk of diabetes (honest question, I'd assume that vegans and vegetarians generally eat much more carbs)?

If being a vegan/vegetarian is highly correlated with "cares about health," the types of carbs they consume would likely be different, they may be more likely to exercise, and they may be more likely to eat in moderation.

Lots of people say this to me but I've never seen evidence that it's true. In my experience most vegans don't do it for health reasons.

That being said I do agree that there are huge differences in types of carbs consumed....but that only goes to say that the problem isn't simply 'carbs', it's processed sugars.

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

#177

Post by geggam »

sparrc wrote: post #173
geggam wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things. Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood. There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.

>There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.

agreed

I will add that the food chain should remain natural. When I die I would get eaten except humans today pump their old body full of toxins and put it inside a coffin inside a concrete box.... This breaks the natural cycle.

Eat or be eaten ;)

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

#178

Post by gbear605 »

bitexploder wrote: post #146
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…

I am stepping in it a bit here, but I feel you should not be basing your diet on the China Study. It is pretty thoroughly discredit IMO. https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/385/ Eat lots of vegetables and emulate blue zone diets and life style. It’s the best we got for a blue print of healthy living.

Unfortunately, the blue zones diet has also been discredited, since those places where people seemed to live longer turned out to mostly just be where records were inaccurate decades ago.

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

#179

Post by copperx »

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…

I was really frustrated for a few years asking the same questions. It comes down to this: most health outcomes are achieved by eating less and getting slim if you're overweight (cancer, type 2 diabetes, fatty liver risks decrease). Eat significantly less. Like about 1/2 to 1/3 of what you're eating now. The food that you consume then becomes largely irrelevant (just avoid fried stuff, red meat, and processed meat as much as possible -- the things that have shown conclusively to be carcinogenic).

If you're worried about nutrition, take a dive on PubMed and you'll see that many research studies show, for some reason, less risk of cancer for people with nutrient deficiencies.

> Is fasting good, or will it put me in ‘starvation mode’?

Starvation mode is what you want if you're overweight. Many diets urge you to exercise or to eat often to keep a fast metabolism. But if you want to live longer, you WANT your metabolism to be slow, not fast. That will require you to keep a low-calorie intake for the rest of your life. Fortunately, your hunger pangs will go away after about 5-10 weeks and undereating will actually become a problem.

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

#180

Post by scottlocklin »

cageface wrote: post #174
scottlocklin wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the meat industry is engaged in an active disinformation campaign Come on man: citations needed. From where I am sitting, the "meat industry" is about as threatened by vegetarians as the brussel sprouts industry is by mcdonalds. Keto diets are presently quite popular and don't seem to do people much harm at least.

Major fast food chains are rolling out plant based burgers, backed by massive marketing campaigns. You bet the meat industry is threatened by this. If you’re really interested in learning more about this read the book Meatanomics: https://meatonomics.com/ The typical keto diet is an improvement over the standard American diet loaded with junk but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other dietary options with better long t…

That isn't really much of a citation; it's an assertion, and the thing you link me to is ... not a citation either: it's some kind of vegetarian propaganda.

I don't care about factory farming or the "personal dignity" of cows; I just want to know why you think there is a "meat industry" engaged in disinformation programs. From the looks of this link, you may be projecting.

FWIIW I barely eat red meat when I'm in America; mostly game meats. No horse in this race, but if you know something I don't about nefarious meat conspiracies, you should link people to it.

Post reply on HN