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

Is beef tallow making a comeback?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 167 posts

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#151

Post by embedding-shape »

mattmaroon wrote: post #135
embedding-shape wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> to create lard. Which is is also delicous for fries. I'm afraid to ask but regardless: you use the lard as a replacement for oil when frying/cooking fries, or as like a condiment/sauce/something?

People have fried things in lard for millennia. You can certainly use it in some condiments like Schmalz, mayo, etc but it’s mostly used for cooking.

> People have fried things in lard for millennia

Yeah I bet, but with Americans you never know, I've seen people pour melted processed butter across popcorn, so when it comes to what Americans eat, I've learned to always ask rather than assume.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#152

Post by ninth_ant »

jalada wrote: post #109
ninth_ant wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lard is also solid at room temperature.

Depends on the room.

The melting points of tallow and lard are extremely similar (30-31 degrees), and are well above the common definitions of “room temperature” (20-22 degrees).

Yes this is biased towards English/American definitions of room temperature, but either they are both at room temperature or not.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#153

Post by 2358452 »

Geonode wrote: post #104
boringg wrote: post #93

Someone on this thread is able to speak to the argument that has been made about beef being specifically the animal meat to not eat due to its ability to raise inflammation in the system. I had one of the top level specialists say that people with high cholesterol should only eat beef once a year due to its ability to raise inflammation in the circulatory system. Wouldn't beef tallow be along the same line? It's seem…

You're gonna need some sources for those claims.

The link between cardiovascular disease and general consumption of animal products (in comparison with diets with reduced or zero animal products) is by now extremely well established I believe. I believe in this case meta-analyses and large studies should be very informative (although understanding root causes is also important). All cause mortality also observed to be reduced, although to a lesser degree.

Just from a cursory search, you can find tons of studies supporting this. It is not a controversial statement at all in scientific nutrition and medical fields.

Some studies:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11537864/

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33951994/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-30455-9

I think it's significant however that unhealthy plant based diets show increased mortality, so it's important to pay attention to what you eat in any case.

It's also worth keeping in mind conflicts of interest and cultural aspects. I think probably there are strong interests in the side of animal products, although this is partisan in the US (and surely there is some lobbying from the opposite direction as well). Also I think culturally there's strong preference for animal products, in particular meat and beef consumption, almost everywhere. Of course, science is supposed to be resistant to conflicts of interest (and it is usually mandatory to disclose funding conflicts of interest), but not all studies are the same. Those conflicts being mostly in the other direction give me additional confidence there isn't a strong bias from those sources.

Also I always like to mention you should supplement a plant based diet, with vitamin B12 and usually a few other vitamins.

---

Also, for the more literally minded, it's obviously not simply due to the atoms from your food source having come from animals most recently that they're unhealthy, so it's also obviously theoretically possible to produce healthy animal-based foods (if only by transmuting their atoms with nuclear reactions), it's the particular proteins, fats and other compounds typically found tend to interact in unhealthy ways with our system.

But that said it's also very significant (in favor of plants) that animals often suffer a lot in the production of those food products, and whether or not you consume them you have the responsibility to diminish their suffering.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#154

Post by boringg »

anon84873628 wrote: post #124
boringg wrote: post #93

Someone on this thread is able to speak to the argument that has been made about beef being specifically the animal meat to not eat due to its ability to raise inflammation in the system. I had one of the top level specialists say that people with high cholesterol should only eat beef once a year due to its ability to raise inflammation in the circulatory system. Wouldn't beef tallow be along the same line? It's seem…

"Meat" is lots of different proteins and other stuff that comprises muscle tissue. Rendered fat is mostly just triglycerides. Totally different chemical classes for your body to respond to.

Thanks for clarifying -- looked into it. Turns out tallow is all the worst parts for people with high cholesterol vs plant based oils.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#155

Post by Rendello »

reality_inspctr wrote: post #115
Rendello wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the difference is that tallow is solid at room temperature, so great for preservation. I was planning on making pemmican with it, but slicing, drying, and pulverizing hundreds of tiny strips of meat seemed like a lot of work. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suet https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pemmican

pemmican is pretty easy to make if you modify to a ground texture, grind the meat, and accept that it's not "traditional" and refrigerate it

I don't mind if it's not traditional – I'm not going to use bison after all ;) Though there were a variety of meats used. But ideally I'd have something I could take camping without refrigeration.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#156

Post by graemep »

wat10000 wrote: post #134
graemep wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the experts and the media are to blame. The public are presented with things that are weakly evidenced as scientifically proven. After all, the one study that says something is good or bad for you was published in a peer-reviewed journal and the university PR people blogged about it and the newspapers reported it uncritically. A lot of experts are very bad at differing between different levels of evidence and…

Experts are usually very good at differentiating between levels of evidence. The process of becoming an expert tends to thoroughly educate a person in just how little they actually know. The problem is that a bunch of talk about weak studies and probabilities and personal thoughts is not what grabs attention. The few overconfident loudmouths end up being the ones everybody hears from. And you don't even need to be an…

> Experts are usually very good at differentiating between levels of evidence. The process of becoming an expert tends to thoroughly educate a person in just how little they actually know.

They know, and are clear about it with their peers but many are very bad at communicating it to the public. There are also experts who are overly attached to their pet theories, or biased, and communicate those things to the public as fact.There are experts who are patronising enough patronising enough to think its not even worth trying to explain things properly to the public.

> The problem is that a bunch of talk about weak studies and probabilities and personal thoughts is not what grabs attention. The few overconfident loudmouths end up being the ones everybody hears from. And you don't even need to be an expert, you just need to sound like one.

All true, Which is why I blame the media as well.

> If you're a nutrition scientist who really knows their stuff and knows how to talk to people so that they understand just what is really known and how well it's known, how in the world do you compete with someone like RFK Jr.?

Good question! The only real solution is better science education, and to keep on plugging away.The most harmful thing is the common perception that experts hand down the truth, rather than understanding the nature of scientific evidence.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#157

Post by pc86 »

Noaidi wrote: post #145
pc86 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fallacy of composition. It does not logically follow that given Palmitic acid is the most abundant SFA in the US diet (objectively true), and given the US diet directly leads to poor health outcomes (very likely but not proven at least not to the level of the prior claim), that Palmitic acid contributes to poor health outcomes. It's entirely possible Palmitic acid is great for you and if we had less we'd be doing eve…

I was replying to someone who was suing the fallacy of composition. But if you really want to talk about fallacies, why is no one talking about how genetics can determine who these fatty acids are good and bad for? making blanket recommendation for a specific food without knowing someones genetics and heritage is foolish. But do a search for nutritional genetics on HN....nothing.

> > Does Brad Marshall mention that Palmitic acid is the dominant fatty acid in tallow? And since Palmitic acid is the most abundant SFA in the U.S. diet, can we draw a conclusion that it may partially play a role in poor health outcomes?

I don't know the answer to question #1 but the answer to question #2 is "no, we cannot draw that conclusion" because of the fallacy of composition.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#158

Post by mattmaroon »

embedding-shape wrote: post #151
mattmaroon wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People have fried things in lard for millennia. You can certainly use it in some condiments like Schmalz, mayo, etc but it’s mostly used for cooking.

> People have fried things in lard for millennia Yeah I bet, but with Americans you never know, I've seen people pour melted processed butter across popcorn, so when it comes to what Americans eat, I've learned to always ask rather than assume.

Wait, there are people who don’t put butter on popcorn? You don’t know what you’re missing.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#159

Post by paulnpace »

sergiotapia wrote: post #106
paulnpace wrote: post #46

> relatively obscure cooking medium I guess I'm old now, because I remember when it was a big deal that McDonald's switched from using tallow.

Steak and shake have beef tallow fries. The best burgers too

Sadly, their fries come frozen and "pre-fried" in soybean oil, or at least that was being reported by the health nutters at the time of the announcement.

Re: Is beef tallow making a comeback?

#160

Post by fooker »

mbesto wrote: post #98
fooker wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I agree. Now, everyone trying to fix the medical establishment is immediately called an anti vaxxer, science denier, etc. At some point it was inevitable that we get someone who can shrug these labels off because they do not have a scientific reputation that can be killed with these labels. My point is, again, we are in this situation because sane attempts to fix things has not worked. To an extent that people w…

> everyone trying to fix the medical establishment is immediately called an anti vaxxer, science denier, etc. That's because the thought leaders who are fed up with the medical establishment are gaining traction by spreading anti-vax and science denial ideas and not calling out specific medical establishment (other than "big pharma is a boogie man!"). So, it's hard to take their position seriously (even though, I too…

That was not my point, of course antivaxxers and science deniers exist and should not be taken seriously.

I meant - the medical establishment is notorious for attacking every opposition, especially when it comes to policy, with those labels.

That guarantees scientists who stand to lose their careers won't bother trying to fix anything. That's how you get asshats like RFK Jr.

Post reply on HN