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

261–270 of 314 posts

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

#261

Post by timbit42 »

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 way to eat less is to reduce carbs and increase healthy fats. Carbs spike your blood sugar, which your body then works at removing, causing a sugar crash a couple of hours later where you are hungry, which is why people snack between meals. If you avoid carbs, you avoid the sugar spike and crash. Instead of carbs, eat healthy fats. Fats don't spike your sugar and they keep you satiated for hours on end. Keep your protein at a normal level. Protein increases blood sugar some but not enough to cause a sugar spike and crash and make you hungry.

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

#262

Post by timbit42 »

whenchamenia wrote: post #209
merpnderp wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's because keto isn't really a weight loss diet. It can be, but it was designed to reduce seizures in people with epilepsy. It's a healthy diet with the side effect of reducing weight if calories are reduced. It is popular as a way to lose weight because the fats keep you satiated for hours, reducing hunger and the feeling of needing to eat. Also, the reduction of carbs reduces the blood sugar spike and the subsequent sugar crash later that makes you feel hungry.

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

#263

Post by merpnderp »

whenchamenia wrote: post #209
merpnderp wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It isn't BS as I've lost a considerable amount of weight in a very short time on it, eating nothing but vegetables and meat. Usually eating (far) over 1,000 calories per meal, dripping tons of butter on literally everything, 3x a day, going from 223lbs to 180lbs in 3 months.

I know nearly a dozen people at work who've lost as much or more weight than me, eating like I did. In fact you're the first person I've ever heard of gaining weight on keto, on or off the internet.

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

#264

Post by [deleted] »

nearbuy wrote: post #211
Fr0styMatt88 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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).

[deleted]

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

#265

Post by [deleted] »

coldtea wrote: post #251
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of converting fats to ketone bodies, and the body using those ketones as energy, is a well-understood process.

> The process of converting fats to ketone bodies, and the body using those ketones as energy, is a well-understood process. Only at the high level and first order effects. The idea that this is OK as a diet, and the tradeoffs long term, is a not-well understood process with tons of pro and con papers, as is most of nutrition science.

[deleted]

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

#266

Post by [deleted] »

asokoloski wrote: post #223
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 d…

[deleted]

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

#267

Post by Talyen42 »

gyuserbti wrote: post #194
jeremyw wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note, all of these studies use a low standard of evidence (food questionnaires and the like), and they generate low signal (barely registering positive/negative). Read John Ioannidis @ Stanford for why these methods should banned, and why nutritional research currently produces mostly irrelevant data. Harvard, unfortunately, has doubled-down on this style of science. It's not helpful that the press supports these met…

I have a lot of respect for Ioannadis but also find it reprehensible to talk about banning or otherwise forbidding large classes of research. Science only progresses when unfettered; prohibitions never help. If a study is flawed, address the flaws. More information might not help, but it never hurts. These flawed studies exist for a reason -- ideal studies are usually the stuff of fantasy.

The current system is absolutely prohibiting good science from being done, through incentive structures on the faculty tenure/review process weighing heavily towards frequency/quantity of published material. faculty review processes are mostly new to the last 10-20 years ("accountability" suddenly became a thing in academia), as the quantity of published material has gone up by orders of magnitude more than the number of researchers.

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

#268

Post by geggam »

sparrc wrote: post #244
geggam wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want. agreed I will add that the food chain should remain natural. When I die I would get eaten except humans today pump their old body full of toxins and put it inside a coffin inside a concrete box.... This breaks the natural cycle. Eat or be eaten ;)

The food chain is not a scientific concept, it's useful for teaching children and for Disney movies but it's probably time for you to evolve your reasoning.

Its also useful for communicating to people on the internet. You seem to grasp the concept so its a success.

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

#270

Post by blaser-waffle »

solatic wrote: post #260
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).

Maintaining a calorie deficit causes weight loss, but the question is whether it causes sustainable weight loss. If you lose weight, but are constantly hungry, irritable, suffer from headaches and lightheadedness, will you really succeed at keeping the weight off? I'd argue that most people are more interested in sustainable weight loss (some exceptions, e.g. losing weight to fit into an outfit for a professionally p…

There is caloric deficit and there is starvation. If you're getting headaches and lightheadedness you're short too many calories, or have some serious blood sugar issues.
Post reply on HN