Live data from Hacker News

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

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

131–140 of 281 posts

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

#131

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…

In a similar way, if you reduce your meat consumption by 80%, you're 80% of the way to the environmental benefits of a wholly vegan diet. Isn't it easier to convince someone to reduce their meat intake than to eliminate it completely?

80% of "sometimes" or "not every day" is still "sometimes" and "not every day".

People have no clue about how frequently they eat meat. Since vegan and vegetarian diet are gaining traction, everyone is pretending they're being careful and eating less meat than before, yet the global meat consumption is still increasing.

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

#132
post #27

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…

Wait till you find out how the peanut butter industry has fooled you for years! How dare they call it butter? Or hamburgers, which contain no ham?! Surely at least coconut milk is real milk right?

> Or hamburgers, which contain no ham?!

Why would they? Do frankfurters contain frank? Do danishes contain da?

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

#133

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.

If they disappear, of course they won't be an issue anymore.

But I'm assuming he means that with a reduced demand for meat, it would mean that factory farms are going to have to find ways to reduce costs. And they're already doing their best to operate at the bare minimum. So any cost cutting measures will come at the expense of animal welfare.

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

#134

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…

> Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?

Big salads? Fiber tends to make you feel full.

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

#135

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…

Its not just the meat, people eating fast food tend to eat some of the other foods and worse the sugar laden drinks.

We really need to focus on how much sugar is in our foods both naturally occurring but most importantly in processed foods that are everywhere.

I have always operated under the idea that if you only use the produce, meat, and dairy, departments of a grocery store you can do a lot to improve your health. The largess of our society is that we have so many food options that are very easily consumed that many tend towards over consumption; as in no preparation required

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

#136
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That film was one big inaccurate extrapolation after another. One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/

Just as the documentary dramatized things, that rebuttal does the same. Taking small points in the movie, ie, the roman gladiator thing, and hype it up as if the movie made some grandiose claim about gladiators being the pinnacle of achievement. The main argument that game changers proposes is a rebuttal to a long history of meat eaters and the meat industry claiming you need meat and dairy to be an athlete. That's f…

> you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients.

Let’s sing this from the rooftops. I deeply agree.

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

#137
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.

It is a general thing. Back when being atheist was a tough choice and being some kind of religious was the default choice I think there was more thoughtful people in the atheist camp. Today as the tides turn one finds that the same annoying thoughtless people are atheists if that is the default. Im the same way it doesn't surprise me at all that one find some of the healthiest people are vegerarians (or mostly meat),…

You already do. Oreos are technically vegan. Margarine is already a plant-based butter substitute.

The Impossible Whopper is no better or worse for you than a regular Whopper by any metric.

It is pretty easy to be a fat vegetarian today.

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

#138
post #76

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…

Its just not about the diet but also lifestyle matters(exercise ,teetotaler,profession) . I am surprised why these studies do not involve that as an index ?

This one does:

> In Model 1, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for race, Townsend deprivation index [20], education, employment, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity, and in women, we additionally adjusted for menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive pill use, and parity. In Model 2, we further adjusted for total fruit and vegetable intake, cereal fibre intake score (calculated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of bread and breakfast cereal by the fibre content of these foods [21]), oily fish intake, and non-oily fish intake. For Model 3, we added adjustment for body mass index (BMI).

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

#139

I'm just gonna say it: epidemiological studies suck and we need something better. Humans and their lives are just too multi-variate, even with nearly ~500k people in a study. All you end up with are correlations – I've basically never seen a study like this that manages to demonstrate causality convincingly.

The gold standard to establish causation is the 2x blind random placebo-controlled study. There are many of them assessing various types of foods, from meat to lychee to soy and everything in between. Many biomarkers in the body can be studied such as stress hormones, markers of inflammation, lipid panels, arterial wall thickness, etc. If you poke around on youtube, you can find smart people presenting this research! Most of them are health influencers. Personally, I follow Drs. Gregor, Rhonda Patrick, Fung, Mike Hetzel Thoms Delauer and the rest of this particular cohort. They all have their separate biases and areas of interest, such as fasting, muscle gain, veganism, grass-fed beef, ketosis, etc, but if you find the intersection of their work, you'll have an excellent idea what is good and bad for you and how much you can get away with!

To distill two of the most valuable things I've learned:

1. The Mediterranean diet seems to be the healthiest and closest to the Western and American diets, although its actual form has some key differences from the received wisdom. In particular, its pasta is a whole-grain variety and the fish consumption is less than once per day.

2. Most people are not fat-adapted and their bodies do a poor job of metabolizing fat! Typically this requires fasting or other forms of intermittent ketosis to get the body producing fat-burning enzymes. This is likely the source of a lot of conflicting info on fat. It's perfectly excellent for you - if you are fat-adapted, you will use it for energy and won't experience 3pm brainfog. But if you're not, it will very quickly create adipose tissue (body fat!) that continuously emits cytokines (poison) that sabotage your health.

3. Stress alters our metabolism for the worse! Since so many of us are stressed we're not performing proper digestion and not getting the right benefits from what we eat! Breathing exercises, etc. can help improve this.

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

#140

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…

This.

Also, let's take a look at the regions of the world that live longer. What do we find? Regions of the world that, in almost all cases, consume less red/white meat, sugar and fats comparatively. These populations almost universally eat more plant based food. Look at places like Japan, Singapore, Monaco. Is it just food? No. Stress, access to healthcare and other things also compound into the results. But you can almost guarantee where you find old, lucid individuals you're not finding fast food, junk food, highly processed food and stress.

Is red and white meat akin to smoking? No. But overconsumption of something that doesn't provide many essential vitamins, minerals, and fibers doesn't positively increase overall health.

Post reply on HN