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

New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 314 posts

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#121

Post by throw_xyzyz »

bpodgursky wrote: post #99
ChristianBundy wrote: post #5

Actual paper: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-m... Harvard response: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...

The Harvard response undercuts itself by bringing up "environmental sustainability" It isn't wrong, but it seriously calls into question whether the aim of the recommendation against red meat purely accurate nutrition science or a broader agenda.

Don't get why you are being downvoted.

We need science to focus on the right questions. Otherwise it's ideology with a veneer of scientism on top of it.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#122

Post by moocow157 »

mijamo wrote: post #43
queercode wrote: post #29

How about "eat no meat regardless of nutritional value (unless absolutely necessary) because it's unethical to do so"?

Unethical for whom? It's not like ethics is universal.

Of course it is. If you mean by this to endorse moral relativism, then there is no further ethical conversation that can be had on this whatsoever.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#123

Post by pkghost »

someonehere wrote: post #115

I’m always skeptical when I see counter studies to businesses that have a strong financial foothold on certain industries. Case in point, did the meat industry have any weight in this study? Generally I feel through certain lobbying efforts theses types of industries will produce a counter study that gets enough backing to be read on the nightly news and now people go back to the way things were or are confused. Havi…

As if there are not other industries that benefit from meat being deemed unhealthy by science?

Non-expert perspective on this: I find it very difficult to believe that there is such a thing as too much meat (and easy to believe that too much bad quality meat is the root of the problem as commonly discussed), given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to support anything other than a ketogenic diet for most people most of the time.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#124

Post by aalleavitch »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #66
sleavey wrote: post #12

I guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.) is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high cholesterol and saturated fat. I'm l…

The body doesn't need carbohydrates to function. If you consume exclusively fats and protein (with very low levels of carbohydrates: less than 25g/day), the process of ketosis will kick in: your body will start converting fats to ketone bodies, specifically beta-hydroxy-butyrate, which as used as energy in the brain, heart, etc. instead of glucose.

Ketosis is a terrible process that your brain and body hates.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#125

Post by njarboe »

coldtea wrote: post #97
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The body doesn't need carbohydrates to function. If you consume exclusively fats and protein (with very low levels of carbohydrates: less than 25g/day), the process of ketosis will kick in: your body will start converting fats to ketone bodies, specifically beta-hydroxy-butyrate, which as used as energy in the brain, heart, etc. instead of glucose.

Or that's a half-understood idea some push [1], mostly looking into first order effects, and unaware of the bigger picture (except from cherry-picking this or that pro-keto study, which are themselves a dime a dozen, like most nutrition studies are). [1] Nutrition in general, is at this point scientifically half-understood. Science has tons of things it still tries to understand and needs to explain on nutrition...

One thing I think that people should be more aware of is that nutrition advice that has a small significance in large studies might be recommended for the general population by health officials, but could be something that is actually bad for you personally. It will be great if we can get a better understanding of nutrition for individual people based on their own genetics, body weight, lifestyle, etc.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#126

Post by lhl »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #27

It's complicated. Telling people who have been abstaining from eating red meat that it's ok to eat it might also be a bad idea. Humans lost the enzyme that converts Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc. Other animals have Neu5Gc, which can be incorporated into your own tissues and potentially be recognized as foreign. So if you haven't been exposed to animal products and you suddenly are, that could trigger auto-immunity. Oh and of cour…

For those not clicking through on the paper (it came up in discussion in one of my metabolomics groups the other day) the paper you cited shows that (previously unknown) that there would be microbiome adaptations that could mitigate previously theorized issues with meat consumption: "We found that a Neu5Gc-rich diet induces changes in the gut microbiota, with Bacteroidales and Clostridiales responding the most. ... Additionally, we verified that mouse and human sialidases were able to release Neu5Gc from red meat. The release of Neu5Gc from red meat using bacterial sialidases could reduce the risk of inflammatory diseases associated with red meat consumption, including colorectal cancer and atherosclerosis."

The human microbiome is very diverse and adaptable. It seems to be good at processing just about any evolutionarily available (eg, non ultra-processed) foods you give it: https://www.nature.com/articles/ismej2011212

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#127

Post by Fr0styMatt88 »

sleavey wrote: post #12

I guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.) is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high cholesterol and saturated fat. I'm l…

As someone trying to lose weight, all the conflicting advice out there is so frustrating. Should I eat ‘n’ times a day or just once? Is fasting good, or will it put me in ‘starvation mode’? Why is it that when I was young I didn’t even need to think about my food intake and stayed really, really lean? Do we have a set-point and if so, has mine gone up and am I going to be forever hungry if I want to get back to a sensible weight? Do antidepressants cause weight gain, or don’t they? Is there a way we can measure actual calories-in with a device?

Sorry, just needed to vent.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#128

Post by p10_user »

Fr0styMatt88 wrote: post #127
sleavey wrote: post #12

I guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.) is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high cholesterol and saturated fat. I'm l…

As someone trying to lose weight, all the conflicting advice out there is so frustrating. Should I eat ‘n’ times a day or just once? Is fasting good, or will it put me in ‘starvation mode’? Why is it that when I was young I didn’t even need to think about my food intake and stayed really, really lean? Do we have a set-point and if so, has mine gone up and am I going to be forever hungry if I want to get back to a sen…

You know you have to eat less. Counting your calories with a food journal is a very successful way to keep yourself accountable for how much you’re eating. Any special diet or strategy is making it more complicated than it is.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#129

Post by dahdum »

bpodgursky wrote: post #99
ChristianBundy wrote: post #5

Actual paper: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-m... Harvard response: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...

The Harvard response undercuts itself by bringing up "environmental sustainability" It isn't wrong, but it seriously calls into question whether the aim of the recommendation against red meat purely accurate nutrition science or a broader agenda.

That was my first thought too. Unless they’ve done research on the future health impacts of climate change, including it weakens their argument.

Re: New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat

#130

Post by p10_user »

sleavey wrote: post #79
inetknght wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I understand, Rancid just means it doesn't taste as good as it should but generally doesn't otherwise result in less-healthy or less-nutritious food. Am I incorrect?

I'm not an expert, but I think rancid oil is oxidised oil and thus acts like any oxidised chemical: it tries to steal an electron from somewhere else, including inside our bodies - "free radicals" - which can damage things like our DNA. There's also some link to how it can change the behaviour of proton gradients in our cells (I read about it a while ago in "The Vital Question" by Nick Lane) but I'm sketchy on the ex…

If it’s already oxidized it’s not trying to steal any electrons - the oxygen already has. Case in point - CO2 is the most oxidized form of carbon and is very low energy and nonreactive.
Post reply on HN