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

Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 281 posts

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#121

Post by NoOneNew »

giantg2 wrote: post #90
NoOneNew wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti me…

If someone asked me to name a meat, chicken nuggets would not even come to mind.

Agreed, but it still gets classified as one in these studies. Thats my problem with all of this. Let's try something else. A teriyaki drenched piece of chicken breast doesn't have the same healthiness level of a garlic, carrot roasted chicken breast. One is slathered in sugar, the other isnt. Does it make sense to classify someone who dumps sugary BBQ sauce, ketchup and other condiments on their meats with the same person that, well, doesn't? A salt, pepper, garlic steak salad lunch does not equal a Whooper burger. Drowning the salad in a crappy dressing will though.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#122

Post by xphilter »

blfr wrote: post #67
simonsarris wrote: post #58

Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…

Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published. There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2]. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/... [2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters

That show is incredible. Thanks for sharing. There’s a corollary with Covid in there somewhere: “we’re taking this so seriously” (but then hanging out with friends etc, like that SNL skit).

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#123

Post by thaumasiotes »

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #83
simonsarris wrote: post #58

Almost all studies of this kind are extremely confounded because food survey data is close to universally bad. It is especially bad on this topic in the US and UK, because many people's idea of a serving of meat is actually closer to fried breaded bread, with condiment levels of meat on top. It would be crazy to lump those people in with the "steak and eggs for dinner 3 times a week" crowd, but they always are. Resul…

In a similar way, if you reduce your meat consumption by 80%, you're 80% of the way to the environmental benefits of a wholly vegan diet. Isn't it easier to convince someone to reduce their meat intake than to eliminate it completely?

Probably not.

My favorite trivia here is a study which documented that, of people who self-describe as "vegetarian", one third will admit to having eaten meat in the past one (1) week.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#124

Post by onebot »

giantg2 wrote: post #96
cageface wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it was sugar all along? Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof. Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your ris…

"The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity." Does it actually help avoid obesity? Many of the vegetarians I know are overweight or even obese.

I mean everyone has some anecdotal opinion. But there is cite-able research. To bring this full circle back to HN community, I wouldn't go start a company on my opinion alone, I would do customer development, user research, etc. to make sure my assumptions are valid.

https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(13)01113-1/abstrac...

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#125

Post by Shivetya »

pgt wrote: post #3

The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says: > Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for…

Well I am not so sure. First off they measure very little outside of meat consumption, the chart has a line for fruits/vegetables and grains, but this surely does not account for the whole diet. I want to see the consumption of processed foods and such combined with meats.

Ten percent are active smokers and the alcohol numbers look really high to someone like me who never drinks.

What I want to see are numbers where people with healthy habits who consume meat and their outcomes. This means no measurable smoking or drinking. When there are some truly adverse numbers associated with smoking and drinking it really needs to have those risk factors removed as much as possible to get good results.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#126

Post by jimbokun »

NoOneNew wrote: post #47
dagorenouf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...). What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy. These studies are quick to point to conclusio…

You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti me…

I don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind.

Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#127

Post by tashoecraft »

theNJR wrote: post #69
pachico wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy I think the documentary "the game changers" addresses precisely that.

That film was one big inaccurate extrapolation after another. One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/

Just as the documentary dramatized things, that rebuttal does the same. Taking small points in the movie, ie, the roman gladiator thing, and hype it up as if the movie made some grandiose claim about gladiators being the pinnacle of achievement.

The main argument that game changers proposes is a rebuttal to a long history of meat eaters and the meat industry claiming you need meat and dairy to be an athlete. That's false, and that's what the movie shows. There's also lots of benefits to eating a vegan diet and it showcases that as well.

The reason there aren't a lot of studies showcasing people who only eat grass fed beef that they killed themselves with cows they love is there simply isn't enough people doing that. Meat consumption leans drastically towards processed meats or bulk beef and chicken output. So naturally that's what these studies are targeting.

I believe you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients.

Just like how you can have an awful diet as a meat eater, you can have a awful diet as a vegan. It's not hard, just have white pasta with no vegetables and you have a carb dense vegan meal.

We don't need everyone to go vegan, but I think society would be better off if almost everyone (in America at least) believe they needed meat in the meal to feel full. We have an obsession with meat, but not in how it actually arrived to our plate, but in a don't ask don't tell philosophy. The general advice of "eat a lot of everything, mostly plants" is a good one and doesn't exclude meat and dairy, but it probably means to reduce your consumption. If you're someone who gets milk from your local farmer who also raises cows they have named and care for then you're probably fine, otherwise, don't think vegans are just crazy idiots, they may have a point.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#128

Post by onebot »

dagorenouf wrote: post #80
onebot wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along? I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause…

Fat stored in the body is the cause of heart disease, not fat consumption. Sugar is how you tell your body to store fat.

Sugar doesn't give you cholesterol. So how is cholesterol correlated to heart disease?

Fat storage, is for sure related to becoming overweight and the cause of many ailments.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#129

Post by hfsp »

qayxc wrote: post #74
hfsp wrote: post #41

Let's follow the money. Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site: "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority." Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.

I don't get the unhealthy obsession with "unelected" in some people. A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.…

You imbecile. Don't straw man me. No one is talking about qualifications.

Did you elect these bureaucrats? Did you consent to whatever it is they claim to be doing? Did your parents or grandparents?

I certainly did not and neither did my family.

Unlike monarchies, WHO and the like have NO skin in the game. If monarchs f it up, it is their and their family's life on the line. In democracies there are elections.

If these idiots are wrong, there is no recourse.

You can have fun being a feudal serf on the dystopian estate of pan-global class of bureaucrats.

"You will own nothing. And you will be happy." -World Economic Forum

This the type of BS you are egging on.

Re: Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people

#130

Post by scythe »

kritiko wrote: post #106
jtdev wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Studies like this are published for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is behind this study.

The study’s funding is included in the study: Funding This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192…

In fairness, he's not far off. The Wellcome Trust was established by a pharmaceutical magnate and is the fourth-richest charitable organization in the world, with an endowment of ~$40bn.
Post reply on HN