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

161–170 of 281 posts

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

#161

Post by aquaticsunset »

bookmarkable wrote: post #98

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 portio…

If you can figure out how to successfully market and sell "Eat less, eat quality" to American consumers while maintaining food supplier revenue growth, you'll solve a lot of problems.

My personal opinion is that we're so growth and value oriented - and that's fundamentally incompatible with a healthy diet.

Look at CostCo! They have an amazing amount of fresh, healthy meats and vegetables. But you're still walking out of that store with a twelve-pack of fish and the barrel of cheese puffs you saw on the way out. The majority of Americans simply lack the self control. The food production companies know this and take full advantage of it.

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

#162

Post by brigandish »

dagorenouf wrote: post #78
cageface wrote: post #62

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?

I thought vegetarians were famous for eating lots of beans and tofu. Is this no longer part of the stereotype?

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

#163

Post by ketamine__ »

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…

From the Austrian food survey study:

> Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption

Wouldn't you say lower BMI is healthier?

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

#164

Post by ddorian43 »

bena wrote: post #113
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…

Try reading a book about carnivore diet. It's the complete opposite of the bone-breaking with no muscle-mass vegan diet, maybe it has some type of truth in it ;).

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

#165

Post by analog31 »

eptcyka wrote: post #13
pedro-guimaraes wrote: post #5

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?

Yes, in the US. But a large (possibly dominant) fraction of food consumption in the US is via prepared food purchased in stores, or from restaurants. To use raw meat, you have to know how to store and prepare it yourself.

If you know how to cook, you can tell what it is, just by looking at it.

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

#166

Post by norswap »

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…

To be honest, the abstract says:

> and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)

> higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations

The numbers in the abstract should control for BMI (but not adiposity, i.e. bodyfat percentage). They're probably also too high.

To clarify: I'm 100% in agreement with you. I think meat gets a bad rap for bad reasons (one of them being bad science). I just wanted to point out this study did some effort (even if they could have done more) and that does deserve to be said.

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

#167

Post by Broken_Hippo »

dagorenouf wrote: post #39
pgt wrote: 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…

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…

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.

If this is the case, you are also more likely to be financially comfortable as this is an expensive diet. It just isn't possible if you are poor enough, but plenty of vegetarian meals based on beans, rice/grain, and vegetables are.

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

#168

Post by Spivak »

uxcolumbo wrote: post #155
Spivak wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Correct, animal welfare in factory farms is already at an diabolical level. You just have to ask yourself why AG-GAG laws exist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag

Right which is why I don’t buy the argument that we can’t reduce people’s meat intake because then meat producers will be forced I tell you to treat their animals worse.

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

#169

Post by ddorian43 »

user-the-name wrote: post #119
navbaker wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Conspiracy theorists have a real thing about Bill Gates.

You can't deny that Bill has completely lost it trying to become public batman by force and shove whatever the fuck he wants into our throats by using his money "for our good".

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

#170

Post by thisisnico »

ketamine__ wrote: post #163
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…

From the Austrian food survey study: > Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption Wouldn't you say lower BMI is healthier?

I would say that the vegetarian diet says more about the person than the diet itself.
Post reply on HN