Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

291–300 of 314 posts

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

#291
post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry this just made me lol, lookup "gamechangers" and watch the trailer.

I’ll pass, thanks. I have enough evidence, anecdotal and from my physician and from experience, that a plant-only diet would be extremely unhealthy for me. I’ll stick to my steaks.

neat. good argument. anecdotal evidence is not evidence btw.

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

#292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wa…

You asked me for a source proving that cocaine is a natural compound, and once provided with one you still thought it was synthesized and not extracted from coca leaves. But now you're telling me you knew all along.

I now realize you don't quite pass the Turing test but honestly it was close, hats off to the programmers.

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

#293
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Can you find a vegan who can show proof animals are capable of giving consent after giving the situation considerable thought ?

Survival instinct is not allowed since you wont allow humans survival instinct to eat everything and anything to be part of the situation.

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

#294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The relative amounts of sodium and potassium in blood regulate blood pressure. Too much sodium can increase blood pressure and high blood pressure is a major cause of cardiovascular disease. This is a well-understood process with much data to back it up and it will take a lot more than one meta-analysis of 6k people to provide evidence against it. Note also a common mistake of studies that test correlations between a…

Thanks for your helpful framework for evaluating these kinds of things! Any thoughts on this meta-analysis that covered dose-response relationships over 16 studies and 205,000 people and found basically that too little salt leads to cardiac death risk, and too much salt leads to potential increased stroke mortality. [1]

[1] https://bmccardiovascdisord.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11...

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

#295
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…

Yeah that's a terrible response. Of course it's out-of-scope, just like someone's pro-vegetarian paper should have "considerations of the impact to American cattle farmers" out-of-scope. It's just not what the paper's about, and trying to use that as a rebuttal speaks to the weakness of Harvard's response.

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

#296
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…

Agreed, it's pretty ridiculous. At the same time, you need to look at yourself and make sure you don't fall into the analysis paralysis trap: it's not as complicated as it seems, despite the fountain of garbage information about edge cases and insignificant tweaks. Eat real food (processed food is bad), not too much (caloric deficit = weight loss), mostly plants (but not only plants, humans are omnivores for a reason). Basically everything else doesn't matter at all: it's not worth tracking your prai alkalinity because it might give you an extra 1% rate of weight loss or whatever the current fad is.

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

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The converse, too many carbs -- leads to diabetes, the number 1 preventible condition in western societies, which is probably a more terrible process that your body also hates.

This is a common source of confusion, but carbohydrate intolerance is a symptom of diabetes, not a cause. Diabetics that go on Keto diets are still diabetic. If you give them a piece of toast, their blood sugar goes through the roof. It's like that joke about going to the doctor and saying "It hurts when I do this" and the doctor says "Well, don't do that anymore". On the other hand, eating a whole-food plant based d…

Being overweight or obese is the cause of 90-95% of cases of Type 2 Diabetes. https://www.webmd.com/diabetes/diabetes-causes#1

Being overweight usually is tied to overconsumption of calories. Most people don't consume too much fat or protein: it's just difficult to eat a jar of crisco or an entire ham. However, in western cultures, overconsumption of calories is largely associated with highly processed, sugary foods. Chips, soda, snacks, etc.

I will concede that's not the reason for everyone who is overweight, but for many, it is the case. It's predominantly too many carbohydrates.

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

#299
post #293
post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can you find a vegan who can show proof animals are capable of giving consent after giving the situation considerable thought ? Survival instinct is not allowed since you wont allow humans survival instinct to eat everything and anything to be part of the situation.

I said the opposite, animals are _not_ able to give consent. If you misspoke I don't really know what to say, you think that it's possible for a cow to give a human consent to take their child and milk?

And stop kidding yourself about this being about some sort of primal "survival instinct". We live in a modern and comfortable society where a Canadian can buy cheap tropical fruits in January.

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

#300
post #299
post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you find a vegan who can show proof animals are capable of giving consent after giving the situation considerable thought ? Survival instinct is not allowed since you wont allow humans survival instinct to eat everything and anything to be part of the situation.

I said the opposite, animals are _not_ able to give consent. If you misspoke I don't really know what to say, you think that it's possible for a cow to give a human consent to take their child and milk? And stop kidding yourself about this being about some sort of primal "survival instinct". We live in a modern and comfortable society where a Canadian can buy cheap tropical fruits in January.

>We live in a modern and comfortable society

A good way to ensure that we never survive if this changes is to insist that animals are required to give "consent", whatever that means.

Post reply on HN