The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring • Hacker News Board

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#51

Post by Fargren » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:20 PM UTC

HidyBush wrote: post #38

Fargren wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a vacuous argument. It's true for literally anything. an excessive consumption of water is bad, drinking the right amount of clean water is solely beneficial an excessive consumption of eggs is bad, eating the right amount of eggs is solely beneficial an excessive consumption of toxic sludge is bad, eating the right amount (0) of sludge is solely beneficial The question, of course, is what is the right amount…

This is such a disingenuous reply. We are not talking about cyanide here or some strange nutrient that you can overdose if you're not careful. A serving of whole grains every day (just read the back of the box if you're unsure what the quantities are) is solely beneficial for you and unless you have a medical condition you simply can't go wrong.

I was trying to be flippant, which is fun for me but obviously not very helpful, so let me rephrase my answer.

I agree there is a non-zero amount of grains that is healthy to consume, but your answer doesn't say anything about what that amount should be, and as such just states something that is pretty obvious. It would improve your answer a lot if you stated which quantities you are thinking of, and even more if you include sources.

From your original comment I honestly was not able to tell that your recommendation was to eat cereal daily in the amounts recommended by the back of the box.

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#52

Post by galangalalgol » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:21 PM UTC

BirAdam wrote: post #48

Ensorceled wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"grain fed" IS conventional as in "in accordance with general practice; customary", it isn't conventional as in "traditional". Conventional is a poor word choice for this usage. Buying grass raised beef is difficult or expensive in most of North America.

Expensive perhaps, but not that expensive. Difficult? It’s in every Kroger which is the largest grocer in the USA (afaicr), and it’s also in every Walmart. There’s a lot of beef and a lot of grass fed beef in the USA. If America simply stopped wasting so much food it would likely lower prices enough to make higher quality foods more affordable.

100% grass fed or "grass fed and grass finished" is a bit harder to find I think?

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#53

Post by onlyrealcuzzo » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:22 PM UTC

OrvalWintermute wrote: post #3

I have often wondered: A - Are meats unhealthy, or, is it the food fed (grains on a foodlot) to the animal that negatively influences the health profile? [1] B - If meats are so unhealthy, why are the bushmen superfit and incredibly healthy into old age despite having a significant amount of meat ~25% in their diet? [2] & [3] I recognize that some animals raised on healthy grass-fed diets may have health profiles mor…

> Are meats unhealthy, or, is it the food fed (grains on a foodlot) to the animal that negatively influences the health profile?

I think there's a difference between healthy food, okay food, and unhealthy food.

Something ultra processed, high in sugar, and low in other macro and micro nutrients is probably unhealthy.

I think "red meat" is unlikely to be very unhealthy - in the same way a Twinky is. But maybe pepperoni sticks aren't too far behind...

I'm not sure why so many people are convinced that red meat - in most of its forms - is one of the best foods you can possibly eat.

There's a mountain of evidence that a lot of vegetables are really good for you. There's not much counter evidence that they're really bad for you. On the flip side, there's not a lot of evidence that red meat is super healthy. And there is a decent amount of evidence that it isn't.

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#54

Post by ZeroGravitas » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:22 PM UTC

Ensorceled wrote: post #42

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The pro-meat lobby has a weird obsession with sugar. It's like the nuclear fans or anti-recycling groups that keep talking about how bad coal is. We know. We can eat less sugar and less meat. But the same places that published climate denial will attack any attempt to eat less meat or less sugar, probably pointing to the other one as the real villain. Note that a current controversy is about reducing the sugar limit…

> It's like the nuclear fans or anti-recycling groups that keep talking about how bad coal is. I'm confused, are you implying nuclear is bad and coal is good?

It's a False Dichotomy:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

If you can't argue well for your point, you talk about how bad something else is, with the implication that those are the only two options.

Coal is bad, worse than nuclear. But those are not the only two options.

And when comparing something that uses energy, like recycling, it's not a fair assumption for electric powered things to assume they are using the least efficient method possible, it's just deceptive. Like judging EVs as if the grid was 100% coal. Because even if it was, which it isn't, it won't be for long.

Similarly, added sugar is worse than meat in pretty much every way. Doesn't logically follow that people should eat more meat. It's a type of pass-the-buck whatabout-ism.

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#55

Post by galangalalgol » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

Gatsky wrote: post #26

germi55 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Carnivorous animals have higher rates of death from cancer" Say hello to Crocodiles :) https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(21)02697-9

The study I cited was of mammals. We aren't going to learn anything useful from the lifestyle of cold-blooded reptiles. For one, their metabolic rate is much lower.

Likewise comparing ourselves to obligate carnivores, or obligate herbivores is also less useful. Ideally you'd want omnivores that for one reason or another excluded meat from the diet, or did not. Right?

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#56

Post by BirAdam » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:30 PM UTC

galangalalgol wrote: post #52

BirAdam wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Expensive perhaps, but not that expensive. Difficult? It’s in every Kroger which is the largest grocer in the USA (afaicr), and it’s also in every Walmart. There’s a lot of beef and a lot of grass fed beef in the USA. If America simply stopped wasting so much food it would likely lower prices enough to make higher quality foods more affordable.

100% grass fed or "grass fed and grass finished" is a bit harder to find I think?

What is grass finished?

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#57

Post by denton-scratch » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:31 PM UTC

I presume "red herring" is a joke?

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#58

Post by denton-scratch » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:40 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #33

oifjsidjf wrote: post #24

>> Mozaffarian discloses in the ATVB paper that he receives funding from Barilla, the world’s largest pasta company—which clearly stands to benefit if meat is sidelined off the dinner plate. (Barilla has invested heavily in nutrition researchers and in promoting the idea that meat as bad for the climate). Follow the money.

Big Pasta are in on the climate change hoax too? You cant trust anyone. I was going to quote this exact section, as I felt it was one of the few areas where they let their "we just want real science" mask slip and revealed their consistent "pro-meat" stance.

What's this got to do with climate change? I thought it was about diet and CVD.

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#59

Post by mypastself » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:40 PM UTC

anonimo37 wrote: post #19

I wonder how many of these studies become self-fulfilling prophecies. Imagine the following scenario. A study claiming red meat is harmful is widely reported in the mainstream media. After reading about this study, health conscious people cut back on red meat while people who don't look after their health continue to eat the same quantity red meat. As a result of these changes, studies conducted years later find a st…

I’m having trouble locating it at the moment, but an article was shared here a few months ago that suggested something similar happened with health and dietary fat, back when it was still considered harmful. The correlation gradually disappeared after enough studies debunked the causality hypothesis.

Re: The Latest Study on Red Meat and Heart Disease: A Red Herring

#60

Post by galangalalgol » Sat, Aug 06, 2022, 1:42 PM UTC

BirAdam wrote: post #56

galangalalgol wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

100% grass fed or "grass fed and grass finished" is a bit harder to find I think?

What is grass finished?

Finishing beef is what happens in the feedlot at the end to fatten them up. "grass fed" beef has in the past occasionally meant beef that fed on pasture all its life until it got to the feedlot where they stuffed it full of grain until it was well marbled. Grass finished means they only ate grass in the feedlot too. 100% grass fed has similar implications. You can pretty much tell. If the fat from the meat has a chartreuse tinge instead of off white, if after rendering it has a lower melting point, and if it tastes more like a neutral vegetable oil than a rich and creamy bacon grease, then its probably all grass.

Edit: neutral is perhaps a bit harsh, its subtle and pleasant, it only compliments the meat's flavor, not drives it. Grain fed fat is like an ice cream sunday in comparison. Lots of flavor and so rich. Its like something that has so much sugar in it, it almost makes your mouth burn.