61–70 of 227 posts
more diet silliness. look, this is the ultimate diet: - Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Mostly unprocessed. Nutrition science has come up with so many contradictory conclusions in the past decades.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You'd be surprised to know that there are some other stuff holding proteins that's not meat. Like fish or chickpeas, or lentils, or beans, or seeds, or buts, or broccoli...
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.
more diet silliness. look, this is the ultimate diet: - Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Mostly unprocessed. Nutrition science has come up with so many contradictory conclusions in the past decades.
I’m heavily biased due to abiding many plants and focusing on meats resolving much of my auto immune issues, but even something as simple as the above isn’t fully accurate.
In my non-scientific, subjective take, I think we’d find more evidence looking into genetic/ancestral links to diets. I know it’s not a new thought, but it may give insights into why some people just handle meat or plants far better than others.
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…
Personally this is one of the reasons I chose to go into software instead of statistics when I was a young math major. The idea that you could make a small mistake that invalidates all your work and you might not even know it until much later or even never always made me uncomfortable. With software I can write tests till my neuroticism has been placated
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 spea…
In the world where food is abundant and chronic disease caused by overconsumption of calorie dense foods is extremely prevalent, it’s worth re-examining meat as a staple food. This is not touching on our polluted world and meat’s role as bioamplifier of toxins in our foood chain, along with a bunch of other good reasons to re-examine our relationship to meat as a society
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 no…
This is ancient as the bible (the first murder, when the crop farmer murdered the animal farmer).
I don't know if anyone at Cargill has read the bible, but they are the largest ag company in the USA and raise livestock, food crops, and animal feed crops. They have over $100B in Global revenue each year.
more diet silliness. look, this is the ultimate diet: - Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Mostly unprocessed. Nutrition science has come up with so many contradictory conclusions in the past decades.
Why not start eating humans ? this would solve many issues at the same time. More nutritious and ecological than eating plants I suppose.
Not worth the social debate or the medical risk.
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…
I reckon that lack of a good theory is the by far best predictor for non-replicable results.