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

221–227 of 227 posts

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

#221

Post by trident5000 »

sweetheart wrote: post #190
trident5000 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protein is not all you get from meat. If you want to replace meat, fine. But dont act like its just a protein swap. For instance you're not getting creatine and all the amino acids from beans amongst other nutrition. I also dont really understand the full appeal as mono-cropping has devastated forests and animal species. And those harvesting machines kill many animals in the fields.

This is like a bingo card of bad arguments

And yet you have nothing of substance to say to retort anything mentioned

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

#222

Post by trident5000 »

kashunstva wrote: post #194
trident5000 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Protein is not all you get from meat. If you want to replace meat, fine. But dont act like its just a protein swap. For instance you're not getting creatine and all the amino acids from beans amongst other nutrition. I also dont really understand the full appeal as mono-cropping has devastated forests and animal species. And those harvesting machines kill many animals in the fields.

How does vegetarianism or veganism promote monoculture? I associate mono-cropping with production of animal feed and hyper-processed human feed, not with growing crops for vegans.

Do you think the food you eat is not grown in the ground or something?

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

#223

Post by TheRealPomax »

goethes_kind wrote: post #136
TheRealPomax wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, the last 100 years of scientific research, then? As long as science was done properly, the results are valid (even if the opinions on what those results mean may not be). And if "not enough science was done" to rigorously investigate the entire landscape, that's not a failing of those doing the science. It's not their job to perform years-long work for nothing, so someone's going to have to pay for it, and academ…

Point is, you don't actually know what science is out there, because there are many layers between you and "the science". So people who mess with the visible of science or for that matter with the funding so that the science might not even happen, can influence your perception of what is true.

So, again: how is that an even remotely recent phenomenon? That's literally been the case since we invented domain-specific scientific publications.

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

#225

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

watwut wrote: post #220
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meat has iron. They don't say to be vegan, they say to eat mostly plants.

If all you follow is eat "mostly plants, minimally processed" you are unlikely to eat enough meat to get enough iron. Especially if you are a woman. For the record, you can get enough iron with vegan diet too, but you need to set up food that way. My issue is not with specific vegan/vegetarian/meat diet. My issue is with "all you need to know is this thing" kind of slogans a out diet, that are not true. You need to k…

TIL about iron. Women are recommended 18mg of iron a day which equals 27oz of red meat. Pregnant women are recommended to have 27mg of iron, which requires a whopping 40oz of red meat. That sounds ridiculous- is anybody reaching these numbers naturally?

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

#226

Post by jokethrowaway »

cryptonector wrote: post #184
andy_ppp wrote: post #159

The 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 be…

I recently met several 'carnivores' who eat one to two pounds of meat every day, and only meat, dairy, fruit, honey, and water -- no other carbs, no sugar, no rice, no pasta, no bread, no wheat, no corn, no veggies(!) (apparently a lot of vegetables have something called "oxalates" and that's bad, though I know nothing about the topic), no alcohol, no nuts, no seeds, no seed oils, etc. They swear by it. I'd imagine t…

Carnivores are a fairly recent phenomenon. The studies linking meat to health issues were done on the McDonald's and coke population.

There is also zero commercial interest in pushing meat over carb filled diets.

Look inside any supermarket. It's literally 95% non-meat processed food with long expiry date, an easy manufacturing process and the added benefit of keeping people addicted and hungry.

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

#227

Post by librish »

Rury wrote: post #202
librish wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this argument. Why does what our ancestors did mean it's either healthy or unhealthy? We know these things are not healthy or unhealthy enough to meaningfully affect reproduction so there shouldn't be an evolutionary argument.

Well, first off, you seem to be confusing the concept of survival of the fittest and evolution, which are two separate things. Evolution is nothing but the genetic mutations we get and give to our offspring. And it's happening constantly, regardless of whether it meaningfully affected reproduction. It's just that over long periods of time, mutations which are well adapted to helping a species survive their environmen…

But during those millions of years we didn't have the meat diet alternatives we have now, so how can you assume that meat is better (or worse) than those?
Post reply on HN