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

271–280 of 314 posts

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

#271

Post by blaser-waffle »

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.

Seconded. When I used to cut weight for HS and college wrestling it was considerably easier to plan around fast food and pre-packaged options. Those aren't always awesome choices, but they're highly consistent and I can get accurate counts as to how much calories/protein/fiber/fat/carbs I've had.

Doesn't mean I was eating it 3 meals a day, mind you; still mostly brown rice, broc, and chicken breasts. But I could plan around a lunch at Wendy's, while the local steak house was a crapshoot.

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

#272

Post by Falling3 »

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.

> 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.

It's certainly not facetious (not sure if you're looking for another word here?) and laughable that it's a threat to your life. AR activists look to people to grant non-humans rights based on their interests - the same as we do with humans, but not the same rights. And to be honest, almost every single person I've ever spoken to holds the exact same moral beliefs as any vegan, but are unwilling to consistently apply those beliefs to their actions.

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

That's not relevant to this discussion unless you're talking to someone who thinks consuming any life is immoral. Sounds like you're arguing a straw man.

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

#273

Post by Falling3 »

nostromo wrote: post #56
saagarjha wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What would?

Fewer children.

That's absolute nonsense. We don't have a population problem. We have a resource use problem where the wealthiest humans use incredibly disproportionate amounts of resources. Fewer children will not fix this problem.

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

#274

Post by Falling3 »

jumpman500 wrote: post #26
tobylane wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d like to see lower carbon cost become an important goal of keto dieters. Eggs, fish, etc count for keto as I understand it. I don’t like the fetishisation of red meat.

I'd like people to stop pitching diets as a way to fix climate change. It makes people take global warming less seriously and it won't help enough to matter.

It can't be the only change, but diet is one of the biggest individual contributors to our C02 output. It should absolutely be part of the conversation.

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

#275

Post by kup0 »

The HN comments section on any nutrition article sort-of seems to provide its own microcosm of the problem...

No one remotely agrees on the data found so far. A hundred different anecdotes all contradict one another about how to lose weight or eat healthy.

It's a pretty sad and frustrating state that nutrition research is in, honestly. Sugar is bad and then it's okay. Saturated fat is terrible but it's fine. All red meat is bad. No wait, just processed red meat. Too much sodium is dangerous, wait no it's fine for most people, even some with high BP. Counting calories always works, except when it doesn't. Low carb is magic except when it's not.

Yikes.

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

#276

Post by geggam »

Falling3 wrote: post #272
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.

> 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. It's certainly not facetious (not sure if you're looking for another word here?) and laughable that it's a threat to your life. AR activists look to people to grant non-humans rights based on their interests - the same as we do with humans, but not the same rights. A…

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

>That's not relevant to this discussion unless you're talking to someone who thinks consuming any life is immoral. Sounds like you're arguing a straw man.

But it is relevant. You would elevate animals above plants.

If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything.

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

#277

Post by Falling3 »

geggam wrote: post #276
Falling3 wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's certainly not facetious (not sure if you're looking for another word here?) and laughable that it's a threat to your life. AR activists look to people to grant non-humans rights based on their interests - the same as we do with humans, but not the same rights. A…

>All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. >That's not relevant to this discussion unless you're talking to someone who thinks consuming any life is immoral. Sounds like you're arguing a straw man. But it is relevant. You would elevate animals above plants. If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything.

> If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything.

That's another straw man. I could reply in the exact same way to you wanting to give rights to humans. Your argument for granting rights to humans is not based on the fact that we're alive and neither is the Animal Rights argument. You understand that - right? There is literally no one arguing that we should grant rights to animals on the basis on them being alive.

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

#278

Post by theferalrobot »

nzzzz wrote: post #236
theferalrobot wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to support anything other than a ketogenic diet Evolution takes a long time and most of the ancestors in human history were near vegetarian with a very low percentage of calories coming from non-vegetarian sources. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancest...

> most of the ancestors in human history were near vegetarian An extremely disingenuous statement not backed in any manner in the article outside of paragraphs like these >But the truth is, for most of the last twenty million years of the evolution of our bodies, through most of the big changes, we were eating fruit, nuts, leaves and the occasional bit of insect, frog, bird or mouse. That goes beyond "human history"…

You provided only conjecture - I provided a source and here are more sources including a study explaining why the trendy paleo diatribes are not backed by scientific evidence:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0159

https://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14674

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

#279

Post by jumpman500 »

Falling3 wrote: post #274
jumpman500 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like people to stop pitching diets as a way to fix climate change. It makes people take global warming less seriously and it won't help enough to matter.

It can't be the only change, but diet is one of the biggest individual contributors to our C02 output. It should absolutely be part of the conversation.

There's nothing a single individual can do to stop global warming. We need radical technological innovation to get out of this mess. Everyone needs to be encouraged to participate. Dividing ourselves into good and bad group over diets and lifestyles is waste of everyone's time.

One incorrect purchase or vacation by a vegan washes away a life time of good choices. It's not enough to matter and you'll never get the entire world on board without an inquisition force.

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

#280

Post by geggam »

Falling3 wrote: post #277
geggam wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. >That's not relevant to this discussion unless you're talking to someone who thinks consuming any life is immoral. Sounds like you're arguing a straw man. But it is relevant. You would elevate animals above plants. If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything.

> If you want to give rights to things with life give it to everything. That's another straw man. I could reply in the exact same way to you wanting to give rights to humans. Your argument for granting rights to humans is not based on the fact that we're alive and neither is the Animal Rights argument. You understand that - right? There is literally no one arguing that we should grant rights to animals on the basis o…

Humans have rights, you dont grant them rights.

Animals and plants do not have rights. You dont have the power to grant them rights.

Animals and plants are food.

Granny was right when she said people have it too good. Folks look around for things to do instead of just enjoying what they have.

Post reply on HN