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

281–290 of 314 posts

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

#281

Post by Falling3 »

jumpman500 wrote: post #279
Falling3 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ent…

> 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.

I don't disagree with any of that except that encouraging diets amounts to "Dividing ourselves into good and bad group". It's also not an actual counterargument. I also happen to think economics and technology will be the drivers that push plant-based diets to the majority.

> One incorrect purchase or vacation by a vegan washes away a life time of good choices.

You're either minimizing the impact of diet or vacation like a Captain Planet villain.

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

#282

Post by Falling3 »

geggam wrote: post #280
Falling3 wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try.

You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.

And Granny was wrong.

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

#283

Post by brodouevencode »

kup0 wrote: post #275

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…

Well stated. It's political in many ways, and at least for me that makes it a turn off.

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

#284

Post by geggam »

Falling3 wrote: post #282
geggam wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a norma…

>As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try.

Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence.

>You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a normative one.

Plants and animals are food for humans. This is a factual statement.

>And Granny was wrong.

The older I get the less I believe that. Would be an interesting experiment to put someone in an RV trailer with a cow, plenty of water and no food in an area they couldn't leave. Come back in a month and see what they thought about animal rights.

People are too separated from their food supplies aka have it too good.

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

#285

Post by gwern »

gyuserbti wrote: post #198
gwern wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Among the five published systematic reviews, three meta-analyses basically confirmed previous findings on red meat and negative health effects. The sheer chutzpah of handwaving away the only paper that matters - the one meta-analyzing the randomized experiments - by counting a bunch of different confounded correlational approaches as each equal in value to it. Here is the only sentence you need to read: https://ann…

Experiments have problems too. Let's say you successfuly blind people in a nutrition study (is this possible?). Randomized. How do you ensure they're following protocol? For how long? And who is adhering? How do you know you're manipulating what you think? Experiments introduce control at the expense of generalizability, and some types of experiments more so than others. Observational studies aren't perfect but they…

> Let's say you successfuly blind people in a nutrition study (is this possible?)

What blinding do you need for all-cause mortality? Do you think people are lying on the form where the coroner says they are dead?

> How do you ensure they're following protocol? For how long? And who is adhering? How do you know you're manipulating what you think?

Every single problem here is far, far, far worse for all those observational studies you cite.

> Observational studies aren't perfect but they do have advantages

Their only advantages are that they make it cheap and easy to get the wrong answer precisely and churn out lots of papers and meta-analyses. Fortunately, here we have the more expensive, hard, but correct results. Guess what the second set of results say?

> We have plenty of experiments in animals for example and those arent much more interpretable, at least in nutrition.

Indeed. Because most nutrition research, especially the ones based on correlational results, are wrong. That's why the randomized experiments aren't 'interpretable': because the theories are wrong. You will indeed have trouble "interpreting" the results which keep showing all the theories are wrong. This is a feature, not a bug.

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

#286

Post by Falling3 »

geggam wrote: post #284
Falling3 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. You still haven't actually addressed anything I've said and declaring animals and plants are food is a descriptive statement, not a norma…

>As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. >You still haven't actually ad…

> Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence.

Human law is relevant to the whether we grant humans rights, the idea that which you took issue with. "Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one. The pearl clutching really doesn't get us anywhere.

> Plants and animals are food for humans. This is a factual statement.

It is. I said exactly that. Humans are also food for humans. That's another factual statement. But you can't conflate descriptive and normative statements, which you seem bent on doing.

> Would be an interesting experiment to put someone in an RV trailer with a cow, plenty of water and no food in an area they couldn't leave. Come back in a month and see what they thought about animal rights.

You could perform the same experiment with two humans - or we could look at instances like the Donner party. What people do in extreme situations to prevent their deaths is interesting, but it's not an argument for what you should do on a daily basis outside of such a situation.

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

#287

Post by geggam »

Falling3 wrote: post #286
geggam wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>As a practical matter, of course we grant humans rights. If you're speaking philosophically, you would have to make the case that there is some morally relevant difference between humans and non-humans. I have yet to see anyone make a compelling case for that, but feel free to try. Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. >You still haven't actually ad…

> Interesting how you assume you can dismiss thousands of years of human law / natural law in one sentence. Human law is relevant to the whether we grant humans rights, the idea that which you took issue with. "Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one. The pearl clutching really doesn't get us anywhere. > Plants and a…

>"Natural law" isn't an argument for really anything. I'm not sure what you think I'm dismissing, but if you have an argument to make, make one.

Natural law is where humans get rights (they are born with them), also the foundation of modern civilization.

> What people do in extreme situations to prevent their deaths is interesting, but it's not an argument for what you should do on a daily basis outside of such a situation.

What people do to survive is eat. What they eat is the entire subject you are arguing.

Glad to see we agree humans eat everything. Now can you quit pretending animals have some right to not be eaten ?

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

#288

Post by jumpman500 »

Falling3 wrote: post #281
jumpman500 wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ent…

> 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. I don't disagree with any of that except that encouraging diets amounts to "Dividing ourselves into good and bad group". It's also not an a…

> I don't disagree with any of that except that encouraging diets amounts to "Dividing ourselves into good and bad group". It's also not an actual counterargument. I also happen to think economics and technology will be the drivers that push plant-based diets to the majority.

Sure but it could also make meat intensive diets have less of a carbon footprint. Once you start preaching that certain lifestyles are better at stopping climate change than others, I feel you're effectively judging which life styles are good or bad for the world. You're right it's jumping to a conclusion that people are making moral judgments on others... but I don't think it's that big a stretch.

I really don't think it makes sense to address climate change at an individual level. Most people have little to no control over how they live their lives. Even if they did, it'd be an enormous ask to have everyone understand their carbon footprint due to supply chain complexity.

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

#289

Post by sparrc »

remarkEon wrote: post #248
sparrc wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>excepting breastmilk of course Seems to be a ... rather glaring exception.

how? vegans believe using animal products is wrong because there is no possible way to get consent from the animals. Breastmilk has 100% consent from the mother providing the milk.

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

#290

Post by sparrc »

geggam wrote: post #268
sparrc wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The food chain is not a scientific concept, it's useful for teaching children and for Disney movies but it's probably time for you to evolve your reasoning.

Its also useful for communicating to people on the internet. You seem to grasp the concept so its a success.

I grasp the concept in the sense that I grasp that it is a fallacy put forward by someone who either hasn't fully thought through the concept, or is being intellectually dishonest.
Post reply on HN