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

211–220 of 314 posts

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

#211

Post by nearbuy »

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…

One piece of advice that won't change: maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss. It's a basic property of physics that the extra energy used has to come from somewhere if don't eat enough to cover it.

Tracking your calorie deficit/surplus isn't the easiest method, but unlike fad diets, it's guaranteed to work (provided, of course, that you stick with it and count accurately).

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

#212

Post by jeremyw »

rmtech wrote: post #187
jeremyw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 met…

Got a reference for ioannidis on this topic specifically?

Sure, start with these. Good references, too.

Perspective: Limiting Dependence on Nonrandomized Studies and Improving Randomized Trials in Human Nutrition Research: Why and How https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/4/367/5055939

Implausible results in human nutrition research https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698

His most famous paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/jo...

Here's a talk on nutrition science methods, along with a specific audience moment with Walter Willet, former head of Harvard Nutrition dept, and advocate for his questionnaires. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTAbx4i8Dyg -- https://youtu.be/KTAbx4i8Dyg?t=23m40s

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

#213

Post by andrewf »

trappist wrote: post #200
jeremyw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 met…

I see this as an epistemological failure in nutrition that plagues other fields as well. We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism, and make very little use of it in nutrition, acting as though we can't draw logical conclusions from what we know about those things, or trust those conclusions, or at least use them to apply serious skepticism to the apparent implications of low-quality data. For mys…

We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism

I think the depth of knowledge is very uneven. We're not sure how Tylenol works. (Disclaimer: I work in software, not bioscience)

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

#214

Post by deegles »

nearbuy wrote: post #211
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…

One piece of advice that won't change: maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss. It's a basic property of physics that the extra energy used has to come from somewhere if don't eat enough to cover it. Tracking your calorie deficit/surplus isn't the easiest method, but unlike fad diets, it's guaranteed to work (provided, of course, that you stick with it and count accurately).

“Calorie counting doesn’t work for you because you’re not good enough at counting calories” frames the problem in a way impossible to disprove. Maybe people aren’t arguing that they’re breaking the laws of physics, but that they’re having trouble with estimating the caloric surplus in the first place.

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

#215

Post by CivBase »

nearbuy wrote: post #211
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…

One piece of advice that won't change: maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss. It's a basic property of physics that the extra energy used has to come from somewhere if don't eat enough to cover it. Tracking your calorie deficit/surplus isn't the easiest method, but unlike fad diets, it's guaranteed to work (provided, of course, that you stick with it and count accurately).

This.

I am currently in the process of loosing weight and the only thing I've bothered with is calories. No foods are off limits. I allow my self to eat more in accordance to the amount of exercise I do (which naturally incentivises me to exercise, but doesn't depend on it).

I wrote up some formulas to estimate my weight loss before committing to the diet. It's been three months and so far it has been accurate to the pound (accounting for natural dailyvfluxuations in weight).

I'm sure there is some value in monitoring carbs, starch, fats, sugars, and other things, but I can confirm that the simple calorie diet works very well. If all you're interested in is weight loss, I strongly recommend it.

IANANutritionist, but here's some extra tips I've found very useful:

- !ntx searches nutritionix.com for nutrition data on Duck Duck Go.

- Drinking a lot of zero calorie beverages helps aleviate hunger (I like Propel, Sprite Zero, and Dr. Zevia).

- Don't frett over being super accurate with your counting. Just don't cheat yourself and it will even out over time.

- If you're like me, a big portion of your diet is covered by a relatively small selection of meals. If you figure out the calories in those, it becomes much easier to plan meals and alter plans on the fly.

- If you breakdown a meal, it's often possible to make a small modification that significantly reduces its calorie count.

- Don't focus on eating traditional diet foods (eg salads and "superfoods"). If you focus on having a perfect diet, you might burn yourself out.

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

#216

Post by vlan0 »

arcticbull wrote: post #207
tobib wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that I am not a doctor, though, so take this information with the proper grain of salt. In moderation though, too much sodium is bad for you

Evidence does not appear to bear that out. "... a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure." [1] [1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-t...

Some people do have a sensitivity to salt. I am one of those people. Excessive salt does weird things to my body. My grandmother is the same way.

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

#217

Post by machinelearning »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #199
machinelearning wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 we…

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8075769 "In-depth chromatographic analyses of illicit cocaine and its precursor, coca leaves. " At this point I can't tell if you're trolling or just can't handle disagreement. > And does that invalidate my point that some consumption of sugar is one way to keep the body functioning healthily That certainly wasn't your claim. The above is a very vague statement that no one would di…

>> "In-depth chromatographic analyses of illicit cocaine and its precursor, coca leaves."

...And your point is? Why do you get the impression that we disagree on this? I have already known this for many years.

>> "natural occurring" is in no way sufficient to suggest that a substance is healthy or not

This is not something I claimed at all. It is absurd to extrapolate this from my argument.

If you read closely, it was in the context of it being engineered for a dopamine spike, aka a drug. Maybe the argument could have been better stated by stating that moderate use of sugar typically equates to the same amount that is generally found in a diet consisting of natural, unprocessed and healthy foods.

I didn't think it would be possible to interpret the argument in such a non-nuanced and obtuse way, evidently I'm wrong.

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

#218

Post by o09rdk »

trappist wrote: post #200
jeremyw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 met…

I see this as an epistemological failure in nutrition that plagues other fields as well. We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism, and make very little use of it in nutrition, acting as though we can't draw logical conclusions from what we know about those things, or trust those conclusions, or at least use them to apply serious skepticism to the apparent implications of low-quality data. For mys…

Although I think that's reasonable at some level, I think there's dangers in it as well, in that I don't think we really know that much about metabolism or physiology in the grand scheme of things. Physiological and microbiological studies are plagued by confounds and unreplicability problems, for example, and even where it's not, our understanding is more meager than many think. Trying to tie population-level findings to physiology is great if it's possible, but I don't see it as necessary on either end, at least for awhile.

It wasn't that long ago that the role of microbiome was recognized, for example, and even now it's contentious. Conversely, scores of epidemiological findings have had nice physiological explanations that turned out to be much more complicated, like those involving saturated fat, cholesterol, and carbohydrates. DHA, omega fatty acids, etc. are similar. Physiology is complex enough that you can accommodate just about any finding.

To carry this a bit further, it can be problematic going in the other direction too, from physiology to populations. Some of the anti-sugar advocacy, for example, was rooted in lab studies that neglected the effect of fiber in digestion of fruit, so you had people advocating that whole fruit consumption be avoided based on incomplete understanding. It's hard to argue that unprocessed whole fruit is undesirable on the basis of observational nutrition studies. Someone looking at the wet lab data and advocating abandonment of whole fruits might have done well to look at those observational studies to see why different trends were occurring.

I'm not saying that tying one level to the other at some point isn't necessary. I just think one or the other level can't be dismissed out of hand just because things don't map onto each other initially. It's possible that one level provides clues that the other is missing; it's also possible to come up with plausible but wrong bridges between the two levels.

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

#219

Post by machinelearning »

whenchamenia wrote: post #206
machinelearning wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Glucose is not vital, you can run on ketones just fine. Quit with the dogma already.

Who ever said glucose is vital? It is another source of fuel that is well used by the body, some might argue more than ketones. The point is moderate use of sugar is healthy, not that its vital to use sugar.

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

#220

Post by asokoloski »

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.

As an alternative, check out a whole-food plant based diet. Many foods in the standard American diet (junk food like chips and sweets, meat, dairy, eggs, oils, even fish) are generally very calorie-dense -- you don't have to eat much of them to be over-eating calories, and eating an appropriate amount doesn't fill you up.

If you switch to getting your calories from whole grains, beans and legumes, potatoes, rice (ideally brown rice), fruit, etc, and don't add fat or oil when you cook, you can eat until you're full and still not gain weight. Nuts and seeds are the only whole plant food you may have to watch out for a bit -- the oil in them makes them relatively high-calorie.

The downside to this diet is that you'll probably have to do a lot of the cooking yourself at home, because virtually all the prepared food you can buy has had oil of some sort added to it. You can buy some things like pasta sauce, but you have to pay close attention to the nutrition label and try to get ones with minimal added oil. It takes a little while to get used to it, but it soon becomes pretty intuitive.

And of course, cutting out dairy and meat means that you'll want to supplement B12.

The upside is that this diet has health benefits (based on research, not just anecdotes) that go way beyond weight loss, though. Reduced risk of heart attack, stroke, diabetes, reduced fatigue, less pain from inflammatory conditions, less anxiety, better digestion, etc.

Although, the anecdotes are generally impressive and fun to read, so if you want those: https://www.forksoverknives.com/success-stories/#gs.6onygn

Post reply on HN