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

111–120 of 281 posts

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

#111

Post by [deleted] »

qayxc wrote: post #74
hfsp wrote: post #41

Let's follow the money. Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site: "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority." Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.

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.…

[deleted]

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

#112

Post by notact »

adtac wrote: post #73
notact wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you actually use peanut butter as a substitute for butter?

It has a similar consistency and it's uses are sometimes similar to butter in that it can be spread on a slice of bread.

It sounds like maybe you are aware of how silly your argument is now: the fact that these happen to arbitrarily share a common word in English, does not make them a substitute for each other. If you still don't understand, you should try sautéing some shallots in peanut butter.

Edit: this is clearly different from a company marketing a product alternative, such as margarine (for butter) or Impossible Burgers (for ground beef).

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

#113

Post by bena »

simonsarris wrote: post #58

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…

The bit about a vegetarian diet being associated with a higher incidence of cancer is kind of jarring to me. As I've always heard that leaning more towards whole/raw foods and more vegetables were better for avoiding cancer.

Now that may be because of your top point, most of the meat consumed in the US is processed in some way. I think the biggest culprit of meat-related cancer (?) is preserved meats.

I don't know. I just wanted to admit to being a little shocked at the whole vegetarian/cancer link. You often hear the opposite of that.

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

#114

Post by gruez »

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…

>free range is always best

Source?

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

#116

Post by thaumasiotes »

bboylen wrote: post #102
simonsarris wrote: post #58

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…

Vegetarianism has been a (mandatory!) prestige marker in India for at least several hundred years; a traditional diet of that type will be adequately healthy[1]. What's hard is cutting meat out of a meat-based diet. You can't expect to just intuit how to fill the holes it leaves.

[1] As with all traditional practices, partial adoption may result in loss of any amount of the benefit, including amounts greater than 100%.

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

#117

Post by boldslogan »

nathanasmith wrote: post #89
boldslogan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link to the part of Wellcome being against meat consumption? They look like a charity about vaccination or such? I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption: https://wellcome.org/about-us

The page on the site with the specific quote by GP is here: https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/people-and-projects/grant... You may already realize this but if you type site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority." into Google you'll find it.

thanks, didn't know that.

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

#118

Post by Spivak »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #61
Spooky23 wrote: post #14

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…

So if factory farms reduce or disappear - animal welfare will get worse? I don't quite follow.

I think the argument is that if you squeeze the meat industry they’re going to get even more desperate to cut costs at the expense of the animal’s welfare.

I don’t really buy it.

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

#119

Post by user-the-name »

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?

Conspiracy theorists have a real thing about Bill Gates.

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

#120

Post by scythe »

hvidgaard wrote: post #44
vitus wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. The WHO recommendations are based on extensive research linking red meat consumption to increased risk of colorectal cancer. This article explores the association of meat consumption with various non-cancer conditions. (background section describes that in more detail)

It's it the searing that contains the problematic components and not so much the red meat in and of itself?

It's at least partially the iron, particularly bioavailable iron. Cancer cells need lots of iron. It's also the very same nutrient that motivates you to eat red meat in the first place. Chicken and fish contain less heme iron and don't contribute to colorectal cancer.

What I wonder is if adding heme iron to fake meat cf. Impossible Burger would reproduce the same effect.

Post reply on HN