Live data from Hacker News

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

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

101–110 of 281 posts

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

#101
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even find unprocessed meat these days?

You can just buy cuts of meat at any grocery store in most western countries, can you not?

Definitely true in the EU and most of Europe in general.

Not sure about other parts of the world, though.

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

#102

Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…

Thanks for the info.

It is apparent to me from living life that meat is a big part of a healthy diet. But it can be frustrating seeing studies such as this one come out and not knowing what to believe.

I recently started dating a vegetarian and am really realizing how much harder it is to eat a healthy vegetarian diet. Since no one actually wants to eat nothing but greens / veggies all day, many of her meals are carb heavy to fill up, with little protein. I'm not saying you can't be a healthy vegetarian - but it's harder. There are no good meal analogues for something like grilled chicken with a sweet potato/veggies on the side.

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

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meatless is the new “low fat” boogieman. Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc. All of the “problems” with meat are market issues. Animal welfare issues are due to industrial farming practices, which will get worse if the industry declines. Land use and environmental issues…

> Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc. > The “solutions” of fake substitutes are PR driven narratives. I think you are looking for a conspiracy where there is none. Those newer alternative meat products are not the basis of a healthy plant-based diet - they are treats tha…

I would love to have the time to dig into those numbers, but for now I'm going to take the sources "Plant Based News" and "The Sentience Institute" with a big grain of salt.

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

#104
post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get the unhealthy obsession with "unelected" in some people. A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.…

> A proper mediocracy While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".

Indeed I did - thanks for the correction!

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

#105
post #81

Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…

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

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but the Wellcome Trust is a large organization with an endowment worth tens of billions of dollars and a variety of funding sources. Your link shows a number of moderately sized grants for mostly infectious disease projects.

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

#106
post #72
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published. There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters

Studies like this are published for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is behind this study.

The study’s funding is included in the study:

Funding

This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].

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

#108
post #3

The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…

Sugars are far verse than meet, and for some reasons in the UK, it is an ingredient of most processed foods. (even the salty ones like cans, ready meals, pastries, pasta, sometimes they are sweetening salads...)

I guess sugar does not create CO2 while it grows so (it binds Carbon), so political idea is to create a narrative that will decrease usage of meat/dairy. But even if we all stop eating meat/dairy sheer number of people and population growth will again create CO2 emission in some other way.

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

#109
post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It might be if the Gates Foundation had funded the study.

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...

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

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Just replying to your last point: sugar and carbohydrates make you fat more than anything else. To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight. Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken? If…

Eating more calories than you burn make you overweight. Not the type of calorie. This has been proven (wish I could find the research paper) and was funded by Gary Taubes' research group.

Refined sugar and carbs are high in calories and low in nutrients. If you eat 2000 (or appropriate for you expenditure) calories of brocoli, you ain't getting overweight.

Additionally, most people are addicted to sugar and refined carbs. Half the problem with diets is getting over that. It is likely the problem defined as satiety--but really just cravings.

We are just starting to get more Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials on diets and such. Will never be perfect, but there is just not enough highly controlled research as it is very hard to implement. But I think with keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, all fighting to claim to be most healthiest diet, there are folks starting to put money into researching them on equal footing. So we will see.

I think to summarize Michael Pollan, eat whole food, not too much and mostly plants is probably a good bet on healthy diet.

Post reply on HN