Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 281 posts

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#91

Post by qayxc »

zpeti wrote: post #31

So, for someone who isn't good at reading scientific papers - if my BMI is low but I consume a lot of meat, how much worse is that than being vegetarian?

No one can say. It depends on many factors: your general health, age, genetic disposition, the composition of the rest of your diet, your general lifestyle (e.g. exercise, drug consumption, social status, mental health, ...).

If you are a homeless drug addict, being a vegan or vegetarian won't help improving your overall health. Likewise, being a well-off employed young individual in a stable and happy relationship who does regular health-checkups is more than enough to counter the daily 250g rare steak...

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#92

Post by toshk »

NoOneNew wrote: post #47
dagorenouf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…

You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti me…

I've looked into a few of the studies you mention a while back because of personal interest.

Most of the conclusions of large scale studies are not very solid and can often be dismissed with correlation is not causation. Your point is valid, but also very often popular health habits align with the view of what a healthy diet is in society. Therefore lower meat intake often is connected to more exercise, more sleep etc. Of course they often try to correct for it, but it still makes many of the conclusions debatable.

There is however one association that seems to hold up for red meat, whether that's a steak or a shitty burger, which is the connection between heme iron and certain form of cancers:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:tex....

But at the same time the effect is still very small and not well understood.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#93

Post by SCHiM »

onebot wrote: post #70
dagorenouf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…

>> These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along? I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause…

What is wrong was the immediate jump from "Fat in organs is the fat we eat from food". It seemed a natural and simple explanation at the time.

Now it appears it's not that clear. It's the excess of sugar in everything that overloads your bodies temporary stores of glycogen in the muscles and liver, which is then stored as fat, since your body can easily transform sugars into fats.

To see how that looks you can track the obesity numbers in US, the more "0%!" fat products are propped up with suger over the years, the larger the obesity crowd.

I don't think the final word is out yet, but the _cause_ of fat in your body, is not necessarily the fat that you eat.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#94

Post by jtdev »

navbaker wrote: post #86
jtdev wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh hey, look who funds Wellcome: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Gran...

Is there an insight we are supposed to gain from this connection?

"Epidemiological study supports assertions of those funding the study"

Does that not seem problematic to you?

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#95

Post by relativeadv »

ciceryadam wrote: post #28
relativeadv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I take processed meat to mean deli meats, bacon, and cured ham. Additives are one of the things that make them damaging. Is a filet mignon, ground beef, or chick thighs processed? Sure. But i don't think that is what we're talking about here.

Fresh meat can be processed by injecting it with water + various salts to bulk up the weight/volume by up to 15%. Depending on the legislature, it could be legally still considered fresh meat in some countries. See plumping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumping It's not just chickens, I've seen ground meat, and pork tenderloins in supermarkets with the same processed treatment.

Good point!

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#96

Post by giantg2 »

cageface wrote: post #62
dagorenouf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…

When it was sugar all along? Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof. Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your ris…

"The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity."

Does it actually help avoid obesity? Many of the vegetarians I know are overweight or even obese.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#97

Post by digitalsushi »

fr2null wrote: post #4

From my personal experience, people that eat less or no meat have a healthier lifestyle in general. I am wondering if that also plays a part in the results.

I wonder if the general avoidance of a specific food or ingredient is enough extra conscious effort to generally improve the baseline quality of what that individual is consuming.

Without resorting to an anecdote, my point is that it might simply be easier to accidentally eat healthier food when one has to abide by the contents of the packaging.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#98

Post by bookmarkable »

They'll keep coming after meat eating with every angle - health, ecology, economics, emotional appeals - but humans can live a long, healthy life with meat in their diet. That doesn't mean industrial burgers daily or portions that look like a carnival hot dog eating contest, but 4 to 6 oz of quality meat from animals is healthy.

I think the US especially would be far better served to appeal to people to reduce portion sizes rather than insist on industrialized plant based food. Minimally processed foods in smaller portions is far more sustainable and healthier than vegan radicalism and scientifically formulated plant-based edible substances.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#100

Post by [deleted] »

NoOneNew wrote: post #47
dagorenouf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…

You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti me…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN