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

111–120 of 227 posts

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

#111

Post by netmonk »

yboris wrote: post #33
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…

"Poorly aligned incentives" in the nutritional sciences is, as far as I can tell, mostly various food lobbies getting their product to look good. The reason there is "confusion" about whether many animal products are good or bad is because the corporations making billions of dollars off the product fund biased research. Consider looking at the research digests from a non-profit (that sells no products, has no ads, et…

How a non-profit pays for hosting website cost, writing report, and so on and so on… being a non-profit doesn’t mean you are tied to corporations and free of any conflict of interest. If you start looking carefully you will see that most non-profit org aren’t unbiased and honest. And since long time…

For instance this whole vegan trend is based on some radical religious opinion to control fertility and lower class reproduction by promoting a hormonal dysfonctionnal diet. All those from “official scientific paper” written by those religious fanatic few decades ago.

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

#112

Post by eska »

chasebank wrote: post #109
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.

I also went carnivore for a few months. Second week sucked because my gut bacteria offed themselves and new ones took a week to develop. Then I could digest food properly again. Eating high quality meet and using different spices made it exciting enough for me. I’ve since added some salad and nuts back into the diet

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

#113

Post by dvh »

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.

Are eggs healthy this year? I lost track...

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

#114

Post by ok123456 »

mrob wrote: post #103
ok123456 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, it's possible to mix and match at get close to a complete profile. But, this requires more accountability than people are willing to do with their own diets. People have a hard enough time not eating themselves into hyper-obesity, and now they have to factor in amino profiles verses just eating some red meat from time to time.

On the whole, I've met more unhealthy vegans and vegetarians than healthy ones.

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

#116

Post by throwaway2037 »

chasebank wrote: post #109
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.

This is a good post, and worthy of more study. My point: Your experience is both physical and mental. Both should be measured!

In some cultures, this diet is called "keto", which is basically a combo of low carb and high protein. How long did you last and what was the result?

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

#117

Post by pgwhalen »

FrenchAmerican wrote: post #39
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…

Despite his dubious past, the billionaire John Arnold has focused time and money to amend scientific research. I've read maybe 2 years ago about that endeavor and followed him on Twitter ; I found it quite interesting and original. For example, he offers researchers to save their initial data (before any screening) so that other researchers can check which cases were thrown out of the study. He also funded reproducti…

This is my first time learning about him and haven't been exposed to much more than the wikipedia article - what about his past is dubious?

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

#118

Post by samatman »

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…

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

On the contrary, there is so much evidence of hominids, including humans, hunting and eating large game, that we name eras in prehistory after the tools constructed to aid this pursuit.

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

#119

Post by hiptobecubic »

latchkey wrote: post #107
marcosdumay wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You could submit your proposal to other journals as well though

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

#120

Post by latexr »

netmonk wrote: post #108
Bancakes wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> I worship Darwin and let the vegans dying from malnutrition.

Please don’t be snarky.¹ Known athletes trivially disprove that claim.² ³

¹ https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

² https://www.mensjournal.com/sports/nate-diaz-and-other-vegan...

³ https://www.livekindly.com/vegan-athletes-swear-by-plants/

Post reply on HN