New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat • Hacker News Board

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

#221

Post by vlan0 » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:42 AM UTC

deegles wrote: post #214

nearbuy wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One piece of advice that won't change: maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss. It's a basic property of physics that the extra energy used has to come from somewhere if don't eat enough to cover it. Tracking your calorie deficit/surplus isn't the easiest method, but unlike fad diets, it's guaranteed to work (provided, of course, that you stick with it and count accurately).

“Calorie counting doesn’t work for you because you’re not good enough at counting calories” frames the problem in a way impossible to disprove. Maybe people aren’t arguing that they’re breaking the laws of physics, but that they’re having trouble with estimating the caloric surplus in the first place.

Maybe, but that’s more of an excuse than a true reason. It means their methodology for determining caloric content is flawed and they aren’t turning the right knobs to find accuracy. At which point they should work with a nutritionist.

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

#222

Post by o09rdk » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:43 AM UTC

jeremyw wrote: post #212

rmtech wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Got a reference for ioannidis on this topic specifically?

Sure, start with these. Good references, too. Perspective: Limiting Dependence on Nonrandomized Studies and Improving Randomized Trials in Human Nutrition Research: Why and How https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/4/367/5055939 Implausible results in human nutrition research https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698 His most famous paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org…

After reading the BMJ piece I wondered if any study strategy would satisfy Ioannidis, to be honest. I came away from it feeling like his calls to eliminate observational studies and smaller randomized trials are misleading in that he seems to believe that all realistic studies should be eliminated.

He seems to be in favor of large randomized-controlled comprehensive diet protocols, for example, where many aspects of diets are manipulated simultaneously. He dismisses them too, though, for very good reasons. Given that there were additional reasons to be skeptical of such studies he didn't mention, I was left wondering if his pleas for study designs should be heeded very much (as opposed to his criticism of specific flaws). I love his work, but am wondering if it's best approached as worst-case criticism rather than an inspiration for what to do.

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

#223

Post by asokoloski » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:45 AM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #151

aalleavitch wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The converse, too many carbs -- leads to diabetes, the number 1 preventible condition in western societies, which is probably a more terrible process that your body also hates.

This is a common source of confusion, but carbohydrate intolerance is a symptom of diabetes, not a cause. Diabetics that go on Keto diets are still diabetic. If you give them a piece of toast, their blood sugar goes through the roof. It's like that joke about going to the doctor and saying "It hurts when I do this" and the doctor says "Well, don't do that anymore".

On the other hand, eating a whole-food plant based diet can actually reverse type 2 diabetes. People stabilize their blood sugar even while eating things like whole wheat bread, potatoes, rice and fruit, and generally have to have their insulin reduced and then eliminated to avoid hypoglycemia.

There is a theory gaining traction that insulin resistance is caused by fat in our muscle cells that somehow blocks the activity of insulin. So eating a very low-fat diet allows this fat to clear out, allowing insulin to work again, so you can eat carbs without your blood sugar spiking.

The fat in muscle cells is called "intramyocellular lipids". We know that it's associated with insulin resistance, the only debate is whether it's the cause or the effect, or if something else is causing both. Based on what I've read, I subscribe to the theory that it's the cause.

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

#224

Post by nzzzz » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

andrewf wrote: post #213

trappist wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as an epistemological failure in nutrition that plagues other fields as well. We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism, and make very little use of it in nutrition, acting as though we can't draw logical conclusions from what we know about those things, or trust those conclusions, or at least use them to apply serious skepticism to the apparent implications of low-quality data. For mys…

We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism I think the depth of knowledge is very uneven. We're not sure how Tylenol works. (Disclaimer: I work in software, not bioscience)

There will never be explanations on "how paracetamol (the principal substance of tylenol) works" because.. it doesn't work. It doesn't fare better than placebo. https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/paracetamol-widely-used-in...

At least, placebos don't harm the user. There's evidence paracetamol is harmful. https://ard.bmj.com/content/75/3/552

And dosages higher than 4g/day are known to destroy the liver. Paracetamol overdose is one of the most painful way to kill yourself. Its abuse being freely sold over the counter makes it the number one cause of liver failure in the US and UK. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403265/

>Paracetamol’s toxicity is also the single biggest cause of acute liver failure in the United States. Cases have been rising for six years, according to a study published in December (Hepatology 2005;42:1364-72). By 2003, the drug accounted for just over half the cases of acute liver failure, and about half of these cases were the result of unintentional overdose.

It boggles the mind the substance has not been put under harsher control yet.

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

#225

Post by trappist » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 2:51 AM UTC

andrewf wrote: post #213

trappist wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this as an epistemological failure in nutrition that plagues other fields as well. We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism, and make very little use of it in nutrition, acting as though we can't draw logical conclusions from what we know about those things, or trust those conclusions, or at least use them to apply serious skepticism to the apparent implications of low-quality data. For mys…

We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism I think the depth of knowledge is very uneven. We're not sure how Tylenol works. (Disclaimer: I work in software, not bioscience)

That's medicine, where the use of much better techniques are feasible and appropriate than in nutrition. What I'm saying isn't true of all fields. I'd put nutrition and economics near the top of the list, and medicine much further down.

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

#226

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:05 AM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #151

aalleavitch wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The converse, too many carbs -- leads to diabetes, the number 1 preventible condition in western societies, which is probably a more terrible process that your body also hates.

[deleted]

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

#227

Post by WomanCanCode » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:12 AM UTC

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.

I think this is an important distinction. If something should be unhealthy for consumption then it has to be because of ingesting it and not because of how it will impact the market or environment.

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

#228

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:13 AM UTC

vlan0 wrote: post #216

arcticbull wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Some people do have a sensitivity to salt. I am one of those people. Excessive salt does weird things to my body. My grandmother is the same way.

[deleted]

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

#229

Post by dnhz » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:15 AM UTC

p10_user wrote: post #130

sleavey wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on the chemical. CO2 is not electrophilic, but something like an aldehyde, typically biochemically formed by oxidation, is electrophilic and reactive. The body biochemically oxidizes ethanol to acetaldehyde, whose reactivity gives it carcinogenic properties. Toxic aldehydes formed when fats degrade include acrolein and malondialdehyde: "Malondialdehyde results from lipid peroxidation of polyunsaturated fatty acids."

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acetaldehyde 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malondialdehyde

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

#230

Post by arcticbull » Tue, Oct 01, 2019, 3:18 AM UTC

vlan0 wrote: post #216

arcticbull wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Some people do have a sensitivity to salt. I am one of those people. Excessive salt does weird things to my body. My grandmother is the same way.

Some people have a sensitivity to basically anything you can point to, I was hoping to provide some general advice that salt isn’t nearly as harmful as we’ve been led to believe.