Joke's on them. I never stopped eating red meat :)
'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
151–160 of 227 posts
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#152Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also the quantity and dietary proportion of meat consumed has changed significantly. People may have eaten meat long ago, but it wasn't the staple nor a daily part of the meal for most people.
You don’t mention any time period there, but I assume you mean since the invention of agriculture. At least in temperate zones, people could not have survived on plant sources most of the year until agriculture.
Non-plant protein was probably consumed by almost every pre-historic human. Indeed the quantities were probably lower, but for those societies that consumed insects it could be quite high.
Crickets, grasshoppers, and many other insects have incredibly high protein/mass ratios and are readily available.
I have zero interest in consuming those forms, but I also 99% avoid any animal proteins. If a prime rib steak falls on my plate, however, I will not send it away!
But the agricultural revolution itself is probably one of man's greatest mistakes. It concentrated people, caused greatly increased population growth, ruined lands, created things to fight over, etc.
Pre-agriculture was likely a better natural global balance.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#153Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
My comment wasn't long. I explain the "red" meat point just below that line which you have highlighted.
Indeed humans have probably always consumed some form of animal protein. But there's a lot more going on than just buying cheap ground beef from the supermarket as we can do now for very little cost.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#154Earlier quoted context omitted.
> On the whole, I've met more unhealthy vegans and vegetarians than healthy ones. How do you know the diet of everyone you meet? How are you assessing the health of your acquaintances? > People have a hard enough time Are things not worth doing because they are difficult? Exercising is pretty inconvenient - doesn't mean we should give up on it.
Quoted post unavailable.
> Vegans always make sure to tell you.
How do you know this? Hint, you can't. And you didn't answer how you are assessing people's health.
> Yes people should be accountable to themselves for their diet
So we are in agreement
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#155Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Not sure if properties of materials is the best example, those tend to have some theory behind them that, if not explains, at least defines the property and its consequences. If one research team measures the stiffness of a material it's easy enough to make a test that replicates their result. Medical research in particular seems to suffer a lot from papers where something has been measured with no supporting theory…
It makes sense to me to first collect small amounts of data, only then formulate theories and only then verify those with larger experiments. Especially when experiments are expensive.
It does not make sense to act like small studies are proof of anything the way people like to use those studies on the internet. It is wrong that researchers are effectively punished for reproduction, verification etc. But the existence of small data collection studies on itself is not wrong.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#156Every PhD student should, in order to obtain PhD, not only do his original research but reproduce another published result. This will make PhD harder to get, so PhD’s will become more valuable (and more vetted), and we will have people verify published studies.
> Every PhD student should, in order to obtain PhD, not only do his original research but reproduce another published result Speaking for my own PhD (now around 25 years ago): it's hard enough getting one's own damned work to reproduce, never mind the work of a complete stranger.
I think that's the point
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#157Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, it doesn't. That's the kind of attitude that ignores perfectly good science that proves something you don't like just because you didn't like the authors or what they stand for. What drives the science is irrelevant in the question of whether it's still science. As long as the data and methodology are sound, science was done. It's when either or both are compromised in order to make false claims that something ce…
If that was true there would not be any need to declare funding. Let's be real, everyone is funding their own agenda. If some scientist finds some effect that helps a corp or an activist group further their own mission, they get funding. The finding might still be totally valid, but the visibility of the science and in particular the visibility of the science to the right people (legislators) can still be influenced…
Who cares if someone is funding their own agenda if it provides real results? The problem isn't the funding, it's the results.
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#158more 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.
A modest proposal
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#159The classic problem with self reporting food questionnaires is recall of the correct information. If anyone here knows accurately how many cups of ribs they had in the last year, (unless zero) you might as well just invent a random number.
I have no idea how you would even follow someone's diet closely enough to be even 50% accurate and for how long? Until someone is dead. Nobody is doing accurate research on this because it would cost too much and consequently the "science" that is done is meaningless.
Peter Attia makes some interesting suggestions on how to improve things (from David Allison's work) here [1].
[1] https://peterattiamd.com/nutritional-epidemiology-abolition-...
Re: 'Serious errors' in research linking deaths to red meat
#160Every PhD student should, in order to obtain PhD, not only do his original research but reproduce another published result. This will make PhD harder to get, so PhD’s will become more valuable (and more vetted), and we will have people verify published studies.
I'll one-up this idea!
So for each publication, you'd need to provide two serious attempts of reproducing other published results. You would make the reproductions yourself, but also anyone else could do them for you (here's where PhD students come in), but once used for a publication, they'd be "spent tokens". (No, I'm not going to even mention NFT. ..wait a minute, crap..)
From here it would follow that eventually all results would be reproduced (or failed to do so), until we eventually run out of results to reproduce and would need to shift the burden from two reproductions down to one—probably go from 2 to 1 in some stochastic manner. (Maybe also similar number of serious peer reviews of such reproductions would be required to keep the system running.)
Maybe we could make a new currency out of this. Actually, it sort of automatically does that by itself. I foresee no issues in this whatsover.