Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

301–310 of 314 posts

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

#301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ketosis is a terrible process that your brain and body hates.

Why is it terrible? What evidence is there that your brain _hates_ it? From what I understand, there is evidence that the brain may function better deriving energy from ketones, and ketosis may be neuroprotective: https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/mind-guest-blog/the-fat...

Well your brain only does it when you’re starved for glucose, for one. If your brain operated better off of ketones it’s hard to imagine why it would preferentially operate off of glucose when it’s available.

But also, have you done it? It feels awful.

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

#302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Thanks for the link, that's a very thorough meta-analysis. My thoughts are: what the hell do I know? :)

The meta-analysis results are very confusing: low salt intake is associated with a relative risk of cardiac death, but moderate and high salt intake is associated with a relative risk of stroke death. Now what?

Some of the studies analysed controlled for various groups, e.g. with high BMI, or, indeed, with previous CVD. Some followed patients up for 10 or more years, some had 10,000 or more subjects, some had more or less than 60% male subjects- and all these factors seem to have afffected outcomes.

So perhaps a tentative conclusion should be that salt intake doesn't have a significant effect on healthy individuals, but it does seem to affect those with underlying conditions.

The question is- how do you know what underlying conditions you have, given that our interest in the study is probably to decide how much we should cut back on our salt consumption as individuals, according to dietary advice from basically all major health bodies, etc.

Well, I have a single data point on this. A relative of mine recently found out she has kidney disease. The news came out of the blue. She had a blood test for something unrelated and there was a worying signal. She was referred to a nephrologist, had an ultrasound to check the state of her kidney and discovered that she's missing one kidney from birth. It turns out that people with a single kidney from birth have an increased risk to develop kidney disease, higher than people who lose a kidney later in life, who in turn have a higher risk than the general population. It seems also that my relative's liberal salt consumption (until now) has played a role in her developing kidney disease, because the most likely course of events is that her blood pressure was elevated, which damaged her kidney, which raised her blood pressure, which further damaged her kidney, etc.

Like I say, this came out of the blue. Kidney disease is like that: it sneaks up on you, when you don't expect it. My relative was lucky to find out before she found herself on a hospital bed, strapped to a dialysis machine, but others have not been so lucky.

This whole affair made me realise I have no idea what might be going on in my body, that may affect me very suddendly a few years down the line. Perhaps I have some underlying condition I don't know of, myself. Maybe I'll find, when I'm older, that I have a high blood pressure and that I need to take medication, and cut back on salt, to control it.

Current guidelines are to limit salt intake and those are based on numerous studies carried out over many years, and, I think, clinical experience. Perhaps there were confounding factors not controlled for, in those studies- like high BMI, previous CVD, smoking (!) etc etc. But, if those confounding factors caused a significant jump in the relative risk for things that can easily kill anyone, then maybe the message is that there are many things that can increase the risk from high salt intake- and that many people are affected by those things. In which case the wise thing is to not assume that you can eat as much salt as you want, and that you have to be a little bit careful with it, now, so you that don't have to make huge, very difficult changes, later.

My relative has had to cut back entirely on the salt that she eats: no cheese, no cured meats, no eating out unless she can be entirely sure the food she eats is unsalted (which means steak and fries pretty much every time, because there's nothing else that most restaurants can guarantee is salt-free). That is a big pain in the ass, and she might have been able to avoid it if she had been more careful earlier on.

For the record- I'm suggesting everyone should do as I say, not as I do. I salt my food liberally, still. Incorrigible :)

Edit: On the other hand, you can always monitor your blood pressure. If you're eating "too much salt" that's how you'd find out. But, who monitors their blood pressure when without a good reason?

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

#303
post #16

I expect sugar will turn out to be good for your brain (in moderation) and increase your IQ.

Nah, sadly... sugar is crap all the way down - but it tastes delicious. I just wish we could get some regulations banning it and salt as a flavour enhancer in partially prepared food products like frozen stuff and the pre-made components.

Sugar? Maybe. Salt? Why?

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

#304
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.

Just wanted to make sure you realized its not possible for animals to not consent or consent. So this idea you can decide for them means I can too.

As a note :

A large solar storm taking out the grid would show you how close we are to losing the comfortable society, or one of many other similar events. There isnt a city in this country that would be able to handle the loss of electricity for a week let alone a month.

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

#305
post #4

I just figured out a weird trick to read the page on Firefox without the sign-in/register popover: open the page in reader mode and refresh. It seems the popover appears only after page loading has finished, before which the full article is available. Reader mode ignores JavaScript, so this works.

It's also possible to force reader mode, for sites where Firefox doesn't want to display the icon. Append this to the beginning of the url: about:reader?url=

You are my hero.

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

#306
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eating meat if your survival depends on it (not that that's ever likely to happen) is fully acceptable in the defintion of veganism. See https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism

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

#307
post #304
post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just wanted to make sure you realized its not possible for animals to not consent or consent. So this idea you can decide for them means I can too. As a note : A large solar storm taking out the grid would show you how close we are to losing the comfortable society, or one of many other similar events. There isnt a city in this country that would be able to handle the loss of electricity for a week let alone a month.

If an entire city lost power then the first food to spoil would be the meat. I suppose you could hunt squirrels and other small city-dwelling animals but they're not likely to last very long if millions of people suddenly turned to that.

What food doesn't require electricity to keep? Oats, wheat, beans, lentils, potatoes, rice, apples, pears, onions, etc. Notice a trend? It's all vegan food. Good luck :)

So tell me again how exactly eating meat is preparing you for survival in the (SUPER LIKELY) event of a mass power-outage and food shortage?

This is all a moot point anyways, because veganism is about not using animals "as far as is possible and practicable", so eating animals if your survival depends on it is actually fully acceptable in the definition on veganism (see https://www.vegansociety.com/go-vegan/definition-veganism)

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

#308
post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of people say this to me but I've never seen evidence that it's true. In my experience most vegans don't do it for health reasons. That being said I do agree that there are huge differences in types of carbs consumed....but that only goes to say that the problem isn't simply 'carbs', it's processed sugars.

I have never seen a vegan who is what I would consider "fit" - and my standard is not necessarily an elite athlete, but, let's say, "able to handle themselves in a bar fight". Frankly a lot of them look rather sickly. I have however met a lot of people who are Paleo or Carnivore who are in incredible shape. I'm inclined to believe that at least some of this is cultural - Paleo/Carnivore folks tend to be more strict a…

It is tempting to think that your diet is what makes you fit, but that's just an excuse. I'm fit because I exercise intensely every day. Whether I'm eating beans or steak doesn't change that.

I've only heard this idea from people who aren't in shape obsessing over all the details of the body except for the one that matters: having the discipline to exercise.

It's like debating whether you should have celery or its close cousin, rhubarb, while skipping your daily run.

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

#309
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…

Just like how we know that pushups work, we know that eating moderate amounts of whole foods works. But arguments don't start over that so our attentions shift to the zany opinionated bullshit.

Kind of like how it's more fun to argue about min/max exercise equipment and routines than actually do the damn exercise.

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

#310
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…

Great posts in this thread, thanks.
Post reply on HN