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

231–240 of 281 posts

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

#231

Post by Spooky23 »

adtac wrote: post #48
kilroy_jones wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It feels like you missed the point of his post or you're just responding in bad faith.

No, I fully understand their nonsensical argument and my comment was constructive, although with a less serious approach. Things are called by whatever is convenient. If something is intended as a meat/dairy substitute, it is perfectly natural to draw similarity to the thing it is replacing. Nobody is going to call it "oats soaked in water and then blended to a consistency and taste that you can use in your tea". It'…

Hey you're passionate about the topic, fine with me.

Oat/Soy/Almond milk in most cases is a sugary flavored drink with a little less sugar than a soft drink. It's marketed with dubious health claims as a substitute, including paid placement on dairy shelves to imply that it is in fact a dairy product.

We call Coffeemate "non dairy creamer", Yoohoo a "chocolate flavored drink", SunnyD "orange drink", cut-up whitefish with red dye "imitation crab". Why should oat water be any different? Why is it important for the private equity people who own Oatly, or the Diamond Nuts people who own Califa, or Coke and Pepsi to market nut/oat based products as milk?

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

#232

Post by bookmarkable »

aquaticsunset wrote: post #161
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…

I think it has been figured out, it is just heavily lobbied against. In general, you have to flip normal. Every time I get my Butcherbox pasture raised beef out of the freezer, I'm aggravated they have to print "pasture raised"... that should be the standard, not the luxury brand. A few ideas off the cuff...

- Make food companies label non-organic food and say why they aren't organic, vs. making organic declare themselves, certify and therefore cost more. - Raise minimum grades on beef and poultry. Low grade meat is the only way to make large portions work economically. - Require food with meat ingredients to list what grade of meat is being used, hormone use, etc. - Disallow mixing of multiple animals in ground meat products... or at least cap it. Right now, fast food works because you can grind up hundreds of cattle at once.

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

#234

Post by galangalalgol »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #228
galangalalgol wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It is a risk, but it's still true that the Indian vegetarian diet will cover all major dietary needs. And while that's not the most ringing endorsement, it's more than you can say for cutting meat out of a diet that features a lot of meat.

How much dairy protein is in such a diet? A lot of the curries I enjoy have yogurt and I love the cheese and cream in palak and saag paneer. But those may not be normal dishes?

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

#235

Post by dennis_jeeves »

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…

>People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing.

Welcome to my world!. ( Not just HN really, it extends to most people on this planet)

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

#236

Post by jtdev »

ChrisRR wrote: post #212
jtdev wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Even if that were true, what kind of issue would that be if Bill Gates wanted people to get fewer easily preventable illnesses?

There’s zero hard evidence that red meat consumption leads to bad health outcomes. It’s all epidemiological fud.

Why are people so comfortable with billionaires telling them how to live?

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

#237

Post by jtdev »

ChrisRR wrote: post #230
ddorian43 wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hi…

No-one is forcing you to stop eating meat, and yes in fact I have a powerlifter vegan friend. You're clearly brimming with emotion, and you seem to have drawn your own conclusion that bill gates is forcing you to stop eating meat. I'll be honest, that's a new conspiracy theory that I've not heard. Why don't you think about it logically. What would Bill gates, a man who statistically only has 13 more years to live, ga…

Bill Gates thinks he's saving the world - presumably his ego and idea of a personal legacy are wrapped up in this.

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

#238

Post by Karawebnetwork »

bena wrote: post #137
skinkestek wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

As someone who cut meat out of her diet, I can attest to that.

On days when we have time to cook, we make good, healthy meals. However, unhealthy alternatives are always present and very tempting.

The curfew has been hard for me and I have resumed my bad habits. I ate plant-based burgers, non-dairy ice cream, cookies and cakes almost every day. Most fast-food restaurants near me will ship from apps and offer meat-free alternatives for the same price.

Plant-based food is not necessarily healthier. It is simply meat-free.

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

#239

Post by Karawebnetwork »

boatsie wrote: post #222

So, fat is bad. Carbs are bad. Meat is bad. Assuming you eat calories (ie leafy vegetables are not a large source of calories), what are you left with? Plant based low fat, low carb lean protein? Peanuts are high in fat. Beans are high in carbs. There’s like nothing you really should eat.

You should eat a diversified diet and with moderation. All of those are not necessarily bad. Take peanuts for example, they are a great tool to reach certain goals. But eating only peanuts every day would make you ill quickly.

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

#240

Post by 542354234235 »

jtdev wrote: post #94
navbaker wrote: post #86

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?

“Problematic” being the catch all term to throw out rather than make an actual claim. Was the study faulty? Was the funding clandestine or did they attempt to conceal it? Does the Gates foundation support meat reduction for ideological reasons, rather than evidence based ones? Is The Gates foundation an industry that has a vested interest in continuing that industry (like an oil company funding oil benefit studies), and if so, what “industry” is that? What would they stand to lose, or gain, from the outcome of this study? What would they stand to lose or gain from any study, when their goal seems to pretty clearly be based on using the best available evidence to inform their charity programs? Is there anything at all beyond a charity that focuses on evidence based programs funding research to help inform their programs?
Post reply on HN