'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat • Hacker News Board

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#41

Post by ravenstine » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:10 PM UTC

brigandish wrote: post #32

ravenstine wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The standard of proof should be conducting actual science, not epidemiology or surveys. Epidemiology is good for some things, but as someone with an ongoing interest in health and especially metabolism, I don't believe epidemiology is very good at all for assessing what's optimal for human health unless the datapoints are overwhelming (ex. smokers have tar in their lungs that is rarely found in non smokers). Such evi…

> What meat eating has that other diets don't have is not just the phenotype of our digestive systems (being like that of other meat eaters), or archaeological evidence of our ancestors using sharp tools and arrows, but stable isotope testing of fossil evidence linking our recent ancestors to a substantial amount of meat eating for around 4 million years. How would that invalidate research showing, for example, a lin…

It wouldn't necessarily invalidate any research around a link to cancer. What it shows is that any link to cancer we currently have in regards to meat eating cannot be conclusive evidence that it's deleterious to such an extent that it is an unacceptable risk to the individual or the population as a whole. If humans developed to eat meat, that doesn't support the idea that red meat causing cancer (hypothetically speaking) is reason enough to avoid it. When people come from the perspective that humans are actually supposed to eat mostly plants, or that plants are generally good for us, or that meat is empty calories, the conclusion that follows from such studies is commonly "we should eat less meat." That is wrong. The idea that plants are better for humans and that meat is both devoid of nutrition and dangerous is by no means an uncommon viewpoint.

You are absolutely right about the cost-benefit balance in the case of cancer and red meat (or really in the consumption of anything). That's why it's important for people to understand our evolutionary past, even if it might seem peripheral to the cancer link itself. If we go into subjects like this with a flawed mindset, we'll get flawed results. If it was more commonly understood that meat isn't just tasty, non-nutritious, artery clogging filler food that greedy humans only recently started doing because slaughtering animals is fun, jumping to conclusions about red meat and cancer wouldn't be nearly as popular.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#42

Post by speeder » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:11 PM UTC

z9znz wrote: post #22

narrator wrote: post #7

I think any study that says eating meat is unhealthy has to have a much higher standard of proof because there is so much money floating around from environmental and animal rights activists to fund any scientist who is willing to make that case.

> so much money floating around from environmental and animal rights activists Forgive me if I fell for deadpan sarcasm... but you're joking, right? Commercial organizations who make money from the sale of environment (natural resources, such as petrolium, animals, crops) have orders of magnitude more money to spend to fund research than organizations which seek to protect those resources.

Crop-based corporations and Animal-based corporations tend to NOT be on same side.

This is ancient as the bible (the first murder, when the crop farmer murdered the animal farmer).

For example, one thing we now know, is that Coca-Cola (a crop-based company) bribed scientists to blame the obesity crisis on meat, and deflect it away from its own products.

So no, that person is not joking, animal rights activists are not fighting big-corpo only, they are ALSO helping big-corpo, they are just pawns in a chessboard that is too big for many of them realize they are pawns.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#43

Post by sonthonax » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:11 PM UTC

z9znz wrote: post #22

narrator wrote: post #7

I think any study that says eating meat is unhealthy has to have a much higher standard of proof because there is so much money floating around from environmental and animal rights activists to fund any scientist who is willing to make that case.

> so much money floating around from environmental and animal rights activists Forgive me if I fell for deadpan sarcasm... but you're joking, right? Commercial organizations who make money from the sale of environment (natural resources, such as petrolium, animals, crops) have orders of magnitude more money to spend to fund research than organizations which seek to protect those resources.

There’s plenty of money and plenty of ideological conviction to produce negative papers on animal products. It’s not like it’s a hard battle of numbers where the winner takes all in the battle for public opinion.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#44

Post by rgrieselhuber » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:11 PM UTC

gwerbret wrote: post #35

Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."

It is a conspiracy theory to associate commercial connections with scientific research and publications.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#45

Post by fennecfoxen » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:12 PM UTC

Tao3300 wrote: post #34

dale_glass wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Individual studies shouldn't be the primary focus. It shouldn't fall to every individual researcher to be fully accurate and honest. This is just not possible because people are imperfect, and have all the wrong incentives in many cases. What we need is a system designed to deal with this better. My suggestion would be greater incentives to the publication of negative results, and incentives to reproduce research. Cr…

> It shouldn't fall to every individual researcher to be fully... honest. Really? I don't know, "Don't be a fraud" might be a good Rule No. 1

It’s more that a system should not allow a single fraud to shape its understanding and its policy. Assume fraud exists.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#46

Post by Enginerrrd » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:15 PM UTC

dale_glass wrote: post #13

Mountain_Skies wrote: post #2

As the replication crisis grows, or we're simply becoming more aware of it, I do wonder how much of this is due to poorly aligned incentives causing researchers to error on the side of what will get the most attention versus researchers in general simply being sloppy. Much discussion has been had on what to do if it is the former but if it is the latter, what needs to change in the education process so studies are be…

Individual studies shouldn't be the primary focus. It shouldn't fall to every individual researcher to be fully accurate and honest. This is just not possible because people are imperfect, and have all the wrong incentives in many cases. What we need is a system designed to deal with this better. My suggestion would be greater incentives to the publication of negative results, and incentives to reproduce research. Cr…

Peronsally, IMO: you should submit methodology--including the data analysis and statistical tests you'll perform, to a journal before the study has been conducted. Then, they say yes or no and if yes you perform the study and as long as it is performed to the approved specifications, you get published.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#47

Post by gruez » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:16 PM UTC

gwerbret wrote: post #35

Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."

Should that matter much? Looking on their website it looks like they sell feeds for all sorts of animals, not just ones producing red meat. For most people, "not eating red meat" means eating pork/chicken not going vegan, so they don't stand to gain much from this study.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#48

Post by davikr » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #44

gwerbret wrote: post #35

Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."

It is a conspiracy theory to associate commercial connections with scientific research and publications.

It certainly is a conflict of interest which should be stated.

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#49

Post by surfpel » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

z9znz wrote: post #27

GenerocUsername wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except that eating meat is a common activity globally for all of human history... It would be like publishing a paper that says walking upright is harmful and then people start crab walking. Like yes you can explain many back problems with walking upright, but does that actually justify a different form of walking?

> eating meat is a common activity globally for all of human history... That's a very bold stroke, especially since most of human history is unwritten and not well understood. This topic is "red" meat. That does not include fish, insects, and other non-red meats. The human diet was historically highly dependent upon whatever was locally available until the last 100 years (or less). Also, the gut biomes of humans were…

This comment is ignorant of a lot of things.

> That's a very bold stroke, especially since most of human history is unwritten and not well understood.

You don’t need written records to determine the broad strokes of early human diets. That’s an archeological problem for biological anthropologist who in fact have determined that meat entered the human diet around the time our brains grew substantially in size. There’s also cave paintings showing hunting of large animals by early humans.

The very fact that humans universally (barring medical exception) even have the capacity to digest meat is already indicative of this.

> whatever was locally available until the last 100 years

Agriculture was not invented 100 years ago. This is off by at least 2 orders of magnitude. Cows and goats were also domesticated over a very long period of time.

Perhaps by “locally available” you meant “locally available by means of farming and herding because humans lived near those”?

Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

#50

Post by jimmygrapes » Mon, Sep 05, 2022, 4:17 PM UTC

gwerbret wrote: post #35

Of the lead author of this critical letter, the article says: "In her initial correspondence with The Lancet, Stanton declared that she was a part-time employee of Devenish Nutrition, an agricultural-technology and animal-feed company in which she also holds shares."

To me this suggests there is some motivation to do research on the subject, compared to someone who has no interest in the topic. At least disclosure of potential bias was acknowledged up front.