Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people • Hacker News Board

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

#201

Post by gnramires » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:15 PM UTC

norswap wrote: post #166

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 shou…

One problem some studies suffer is over-control of confounding variables, which excludes secondary causal relationships. For example, if you control for health of arteries, you will find that (insert bad food here) known culprits for heart disease stop causing heart disease -- which would seem absurd. That's because artery health and heart disease are correlated (in this case causally related), so when you control condition one on the other, any causes vanish (completely or partially).

In this case in particular they control for BMI. If eating less meat is helpful in lowering BMI, this effect isn't captured by this result. So you have to watch out for this when taking conclusions from a study or making decisions (if you already have a low BMI then you can trust the conclusions better).

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

#202

Post by kranner » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:16 PM UTC

nvilcins wrote: post #144

bena wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet - lots of highly processed grains (bread, pasta, and other fillers), sweets, desserts, sugary drinks (and other "regular" products with added sugars), and otherwise not too diverse of a diet. Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. Hence, the link between the veg* diet and cancer is not…

> Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case.

There are a lot of vegetarians in India on traditional diets that don't include highly processed foods with added sugar. I think it's safe to say that most Indians eat vegetarian food most of the time. Meat is just something most people in India can't afford everyday.

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

#203

Post by cageface » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:19 PM UTC

giantg2 wrote: post #96

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…

"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.

Plant based diets can be unhealthy if you eat a lot of processed foods. If you stick to unprocessed, whole plant foods you will lose weight.

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

#204

Post by albertgoeswoof » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:22 PM UTC

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…

Who's "they"?

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

#205

Post by galangalalgol » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:24 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #116

bboylen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Also applying diets from one genetic cluster in a different one from another climate is asking for trouble. I can process lactose fine, but many can't. Chickpeas and lentils I do not absorb well.

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

#206

Post by tasty_freeze » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:31 PM UTC

nvilcins wrote: post #144

bena wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet - lots of highly processed grains (bread, pasta, and other fillers), sweets, desserts, sugary drinks (and other "regular" products with added sugars), and otherwise not too diverse of a diet. Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. Hence, the link between the veg* diet and cancer is not…

> Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet

In my observations (I'm in the US) this statement is true of the majority of the population, including omnivores. 2/3 of the US didn't become overweight (1/3 obese) by being mindful of their diets.

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

#207

Post by tasty_freeze » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:37 PM UTC

ddorian43 wrote: post #169

user-the-name wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I deny it. I just disproved your assertion.

Bill Gates spends lots of his money trying to develop technologies such as clean burning stoves for developing countries, inexpensive toilets for the same, funding advanced nuclear technology. How is this shoving it down our throats?

Your single sentence is brimming with emotion: belittling him with the batman moniker, shoving it down our throats, whatever the fuck, scare quotes. HN has higher standards than this.

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

#208

Post by hntrader » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:41 PM UTC

jimbokun wrote: post #126

NoOneNew wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind. Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.

> Getting Hugh quality data

That's why we need large interventional studies instead of observational ones.

Observational studies are interesting and sometimes necessary (e.g. when there's ethical concerns about running an intervention such as with smoking), but it's just way too tricky to separate out the impact of confounders especially when the treatment effects are rather weak (e.g. with coffee or meat consumption).

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

#209

Post by User23 » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:44 PM UTC

thaumasiotes wrote: post #116

bboylen wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

In England eating beef has been a prestige marker for at least several hundred years[1]. A traditional diet of that type will be more than adequately healthy. What’s hard is getting over ancient superstitions about animals being reincarnated people and then rationalizing that it’s actually healthy for an omnivorous species to abandon eating meat.

Or maybe there’s no reason to believe that a diet that’s healthy for Indians is necessarily healthy for Europeans or vice versa.

[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6043908-beef-and-liberty

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

#210

Post by ddorian43 » Wed, Mar 03, 2021, 3:51 PM UTC

tasty_freeze wrote: post #207

ddorian43 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

I deny it. I just disproved your assertion. Bill Gates spends lots of his money trying to develop technologies such as clean burning stoves for developing countries, inexpensive toilets for the same, funding advanced nuclear technology. How is this shoving it down our throats? Your single sentence is brimming with emotion: belittling him with the batman moniker, shoving it down our throats, whatever the fuck, scare q…

He is doing it by force. Paying ads, paying politicians, paying experts, paying democratic party, insisting on vaccines, insisting on removing meat (have you seen healthy athletic vegans ? extremely rare).

You have to look at things that he wants to be applied by force, not things that he "generously creates and you can optionally use it".

If I want to eat meat and Bill wants to raise taxes on meat by force (using his billions so I pay higher taxes on meat) then I don't see this being a good thing for me.

If he makes cheap soy-lent so people can drink it and rest in peace, then it's ok by me. But he is forcing soy-lent to me too.