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

201–210 of 314 posts

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

#201

Post by porknubbins »

philipkglass wrote: post #113
chrisco255 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ruminant grass-fed meat is the best thing for the environment. It requires no pesticides, no herbicides, and the manure their bodies produce act as fertilizer and cause grasslands to expand and sequester carbon. Meanwhile, wildlife can actually live on a pasture. Rabbits, squirrels, birds, tons of insects, snakes, even coyotes. Wheat, corn and soy fields by contrast require artificial fertilization, insecticide appli…

This says that American beef production will be upwards of 27 billion pounds this year: https://beef2live.com/story-beef-production-year-0-107550 If American beef production went to 100% grass-fed beef, no feedlots, how much beef could be produced domestically? Do you have any sources handy? Where I live, grass-fed beef is significantly more expensive than generic beef that presumably encountered a feedlot at some po…

I asked a grass fed cattle rancher that question and he just said thats a hard question, but also grain fed will always be cheaper because they use a breed that can about grow twice as fast/large. I doubt those steers could get the same calorie intake from grass feeding. Which is a separate question from “if we used all land available for cattle grazing how much grass fed beef would we max out at”? I suspect not near the level of demand for beef unless we also took back huge areas of crops and forest.

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

#202

Post by scottlocklin »

cageface wrote: post #189
scottlocklin wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't really much of a citation; it's an assertion, and the thing you link me to is ... not a citation either: it's some kind of vegetarian propaganda. I don't care about factory farming or the "personal dignity" of cows; I just want to know why you think there is a "meat industry" engaged in disinformation programs. From the looks of this link, you may be projecting. FWIIW I barely eat red meat when I'm in Amer…

There are so many industry funded studies with conclusions contrary to mainstream wisdom I hardly know where to start. This article lists several, just as an example: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marta-zaraska-big-meat-a... Also the statement that you don’t care about factory farming is a pretty appalling disregard for the suffering of intelligent animals.

It's an interesting article if true, though written by an anti-meat activist[1], which is even less useful than nutrition studies sponsored by the pork board.

Feel free to be appalled; most normal people don't care about the "suffering of cows" either.

[1] Marta Zaraska, author of Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession with Meat.

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

#203

Post by whenchamenia »

munk-a wrote: post #20
galangalalgol wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As long as we don't call corn syrup or bleached wheat flour plants, sounds good.

No sorry, you're thinking of the great American vegetable of ketchup.

Pickled tomato syrup?

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

#204

Post by whenchamenia »

thrower123 wrote: post #133
dragontamer wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USDA only updates their dietary guidelines every 5 years. Its simple, specific, and well researched advice. So I like to share it with people who are interested in living healthier. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/ Yes, the food pyramid is dead, and there are other changes that come and go through the years. The issue is that "eat your veggies" is so boring it won't make any news. ----------- > A…

Anything that skirts near advocating anything other than vegetarianism tends to be unpopular. Few things bring out such zealotry as food choices. In a world that is largely out of control, it is something that people can take control of, and they often twine that choice around their very identity.

Deciding what needs to be popular stinks of authortarianism. Price in the external costs and let people decide for themselves.

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

#205

Post by whenchamenia »

pazimzadeh wrote: post #44
differentView wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide link to any such research? Even ones funded by the sugar industry?

Not quite the same thing, but glucose is the main source of energy for the brain. It's just that refined sugar is usually not how you get your glucose. But sure, eating sugar might give you a temporary boost in IQ - before the crash. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/

Its only the main source when available. Ketones work fine in its absence, and glucose is not required.

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

#206

Post by whenchamenia »

machinelearning wrote: post #75
pazimzadeh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DMT is. Should we consume DMT in the same way we consume sugar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N,N-Dimethyltryptamine

Has DMT been shown to be vital for the healthy functioning of the human body? And does it necessarily have to be consumed to have ample levels in the body? I won't comment on your loaded phrasing of "the same way we consume sugar", but I think its obvious you're trying really hard to strawman my argument.

Glucose is not vital, you can run on ketones just fine. Quit with the dogma already.

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

#207

Post by arcticbull »

tobib wrote: post #186
sgdpk wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the most compelling evidence I've seen seems to confirm the weight set-point (or set-interval) theory. A good book that summarizes main results is Sandra Aamodt's "Why diets don't work". That's not to say weight loss is impossible. If you're overeating as a habit you may be keeping your weight above your set-point. Learning to "listen" to hunger cues may then bring your weight down. It happened to me 2…

> Note that I am not a doctor, though, so take this information with the proper grain of salt. In moderation though, too much sodium is bad for you

Evidence does not appear to bear that out. "... a meta-analysis of seven studies involving a total of 6,250 subjects in the American Journal of Hypertension found no strong evidence that cutting salt intake reduces the risk for heart attacks, strokes or death in people with normal or high blood pressure." [1]

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-time-to-end-t...

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

#208

Post by scarejunba »

ses1984 wrote: post #131
p10_user wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some of us find it incredibly hard, almost impossible, to just eat less. Also some would argue that keeping a food journal and measuring every calorie you eat is far more complicated than special diets like "don't eat carbs" which are successful for some people without measuring or recording anything.

The right drugs can kill your appetite and they're very effective and ensuring weight loss. For me, just caffeine can ensure I don't eat for the whole day and then I can still go climbing.

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

#209

Post by whenchamenia »

merpnderp wrote: post #164
p10_user wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People who say that you have to eat less must have never met someone on the keto diet. Your body just doesn’t store the fat when you’re not eating carbs.

While fats satiate you faster, and people tend to lose weight, I have absolutely gained plenty of weight on a keto diet. Please dont spread BS. Keto is awesome but it isnt magic.

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

#210

Post by TrinaryWorksToo »

tomp wrote: post #134
koboll wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first three grey Q&A boxes on the Harvard response are a pretty devastating rebuttal to the paper. To summarize: - 3 of the 5 meta-analyses reviewed support the consensus on red meat's health dangers - The other 2 are irrelevant and shouldn't have been considered at all - The paper handwaves away the conclusions of the 3 by raising reliability issues that could be applied to any meta-analysis of nutrition, since…

Don't all 3 of those conflate red and processed meat? Not very sciency...

And there's a big difference too! We know nitrites aren't good for us, and can make meat red. But not all meat contains nitrites.
Post reply on HN