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

251–260 of 314 posts

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

#251

Post by coldtea »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #155
coldtea wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or that's a half-understood idea some push [1], mostly looking into first order effects, and unaware of the bigger picture (except from cherry-picking this or that pro-keto study, which are themselves a dime a dozen, like most nutrition studies are). [1] Nutrition in general, is at this point scientifically half-understood. Science has tons of things it still tries to understand and needs to explain on nutrition...

The process of converting fats to ketone bodies, and the body using those ketones as energy, is a well-understood process.

>The process of converting fats to ketone bodies, and the body using those ketones as energy, is a well-understood process.

Only at the high level and first order effects.

The idea that this is OK as a diet, and the tradeoffs long term, is a not-well understood process with tons of pro and con papers, as is most of nutrition science.

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

#253

Post by sleavey »

sparrc wrote: post #92
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…

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)?

'Old' in the sense that low carbohydrate, high fat diets have been known about for a century or more as a way to treat autism, and in the sense that there are studies from the middle of last century which replaced saturated fat in peoples' diets with seed oils which showed no benefit or even increased mortality. Some of these studies were botched or cherry picked their data to support a conclusion that saturated fat is bad for our health, but upon re-analysis have shown no such effect. See for example the Sydney [1] or Minnesota [2] heart studies. The confusing aspect with these studies is that frequently they show a decrease in cholesterol when switching to seed oils, and conclude that seed oils must be healthier than saturated fats, but it turns out that cholesterol levels have very little to do with overall health (sorry for the unsubstantiated claim - I don't have a good reference to hand, but I can look it up if you ask - usual caveats apply: I am not a doctor etc. etc.).

[1] https://www.fasebj.org/doi/abs/10.1096/fasebj.27.1_supplemen...

[2] https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

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

#254

Post by sleavey »

kortex wrote: post #139
sleavey wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

Interesting! Yes, possibly genes have some role here. Alternatively I've heard that your taste is affected by your body nutrient levels. A friend of mine found they could not taste zinc sulfate until they started supplementing it. Once they supplemented it, it tasted really bitter.

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

#255

Post by edejong »

zygimantasdev wrote: post #241
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" - can you elaborate? Do you mean mental health?

These are not my words. All I am arguing is that we should expect the simplest possible connection between nutrition and health. Although I do agree we should also understand the systematic effects of certain choices, we cannot make decisions if all these effects are aggregated haphazardly.

It would make sense if another study would combine the nutritional long-term effects, the societal costs, the availability of alternative sources of amino acids and other factors. Nevertheless, the conclusion: "Red meat consumption is unhealthy for individuals" should (imho) not consider the environmental effects. Principle of least astonishment.

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

#256

Post by scotty79 »

tomp wrote: post #246
scotty79 wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't the most red meat consumed also processed? Don't know. Just asking. If so it would make sense to use it in research.

Maybe? Probably most food consumed is processed... but the advice should then be, eat unprocessed food (salad, steak, fruit not fruit juice, ...) In addition, some ways of processing food are likely less harmful... e.g. pickling vegetables and drying meat (without using nitrites, such as certain traditional EU PDO meats like Prosciutto di Parma).

> but the advice should then be, eat unprocessed food

I think it was not so much to give advice as to answer the question.

Is that one thing that we are eating bad for us?

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

#257

Post by ses1984 »

asokoloski wrote: post #220
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.

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 (ide…

If I don't make a conscious effort to reduce my intake I can easily eat 5k calories a day of beans, potatoes, or rice.

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

#258

Post by ses1984 »

casefields wrote: post #238
scarejunba wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right drugs can kill your appetite and they're very effective and ensuring weight loss. For me, just caffeine can ensure I don't eat for the whole day and then I can still go climbing.

Throw in some Bronkaid and you have a proper EC stack. Be careful if you have family history of heart disease and especially if you have heart issues yourself. Also, like anything don't overdue it. And research the heck out of it first please.

I've done ec stack and I develop a tolerance to the appetite suppressive effects in a couple weeks, also I don't like how I feel on it. Two or cups of coffee per day is enough stim for me, more than that makes me feel awful.

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

#259

Post by circlefavshape »

nzzzz wrote: post #224
andrewf wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

There will never be explanations on "how paracetamol (the principal substance of tylenol) works" because.. it doesn't work. It doesn't fare better than placebo. https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/paracetamol-widely-used-in... At least, placebos don't harm the user. There's evidence paracetamol is harmful. https://ard.bmj.com/content/75/3/552 And dosages higher than 4g/day are known to destroy the liver. Paracetamol ov…

Looks to me like you're over-generalizing. From skimming that article it appears that paracetamol is ineffective against chronic page, not the headache/hangover that most people use it for

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

#260

Post by solatic »

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).

Maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss, but the question is whether it causes sustainable weight loss. If you lose weight, but are constantly hungry, irritable, suffer from headaches and lightheadedness, will you really succeed at keeping the weight off?

I'd argue that most people are more interested in sustainable weight loss (some exceptions, e.g. losing weight to fit into an outfit for a professionally photographed lifecycle event).

Post reply on HN