Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat

thetimes.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 227 posts

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

#101

Post by endtime »

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…

Prediction markets are an interesting alternative solution. If people can make money by correctly predicting the outcomes of experiments, and you have a way to prevent profit-driven bias impacting outcomes (e.g. independent experiment designers and performers, and the performers can't participate in the market but maybe get a cut of the transaction fees so that more "interesting" experiments get performed), then you get a pretty different research dynamic.

(I am paraphrasing Eliezer Yuskowsky here, specifically a small part of his NSFW and frankly weird collaborative fiction Mad Investor Chaos.)

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

#102

Post by Oarch »

jefftk wrote: post #69
Silverback_VII wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not start eating humans ? this would solve many issues at the same time. More nutritious and ecological than eating plants I suppose.

The world death rate is about 8 per 1000 people per year. If there are 50 pounds of edible meat on a body, then human deaths could supply 0.001 pounds per living person. This is also low-quality gamy meat because the average age of death among people is incredibly high for meat animals. Enacting worldwide cannibalism for humans would provide as much additional meat as spending one tenth of a cent per person annually…

I enjoyed reading this way too much.

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

#103

Post by mrob »

ok123456 wrote: post #87
tecleandor wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

All the ones you listed have an incomplete amino acid profile, and are not sufficient for optimal long term health.

Fortunately, it is possible to eat more than one foodstuff. Grains and beans is the classic combo. Grains are lacking in lysine, and beans are lacking in methionine, but together they make a complete protein. You don't even need to eat them in the same meal.

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

#105

Post by marcosdumay »

latchkey wrote: post #78
Enginerrrd wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wouldn't that just put the journals in control of what studies get performed (as well as what gets published)? Seems weird to give all that power to the journals.

Well, they are already in control of what studies get published, what isn't much different.

I do think they shouldn't control that, but it's a deeper change, for a different gain.

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

#106

Post by marcosdumay »

endtime wrote: post #101
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…

Prediction markets are an interesting alternative solution. If people can make money by correctly predicting the outcomes of experiments, and you have a way to prevent profit-driven bias impacting outcomes (e.g. independent experiment designers and performers, and the performers can't participate in the market but maybe get a cut of the transaction fees so that more "interesting" experiments get performed), then you…

If prediction markets could help, we wouldn't need science.

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

#107

Post by latchkey »

marcosdumay wrote: post #105
latchkey wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that just put the journals in control of what studies get performed (as well as what gets published)? Seems weird to give all that power to the journals.

Well, they are already in control of what studies get published, what isn't much different. I do think they shouldn't control that, but it's a deeper change, for a different gain.

It is a lot different because if the study isn't published in one journal, it could always be published in another. In this situation, the study wouldn't be done at all until a journal agreed to publish it.

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

#108

Post by netmonk »

Bancakes wrote: post #84
tecleandor wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Yes and you only need two dishes of it to get a chicken breast's worth.

The main issue here is the bioavailability of those proteins when digesting. red meat is 100% digested and bioavailable for all amino acid that are required for life. Bio availability of protein in plant is far lower, and doesn’t cover the full amino-acid profile.

But well, I worship Darwin and let the vegans dying from malnutrition.

Latest story is that mother getting life sentence after killing her baby with vegan diet.

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

#109

Post by chasebank »

endisneigh wrote: post #57

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 tend to agree, however, it does strike me as odd that when I went on carnivore diet for a couple months, it was the best I had ever felt in my life. First week was awesome, every week after that was a chore. It’s just really boring.

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

#110

Post by pca006132 »

contravariant wrote: post #70
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…

It has probably been a mistake to have so many articles that are effectively "We measured A and its value suggests the following theory" rather than "To test theory B we measured A and found it did(n't) agree" I reckon that lack of a good theory is the by far best predictor for non-replicable results.

I think there are several issues with this. In these fields, theories (not so fundamental ones) may not be very useful, in contrast with fields like Mathematics or Physics where a hypothesis may lead to a lot of other theoretical results. For example, if material A has property X, there will be a lot of applications for it, but this hypothesis cannot be used as a foundation for other theoretical research. As a result, it is not useful to just state a hypothesis: you have to verify it as well, and negative results are not really valued because it means nothing to others if you rejected something they don't care about.
Post reply on HN