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

Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 67 posts

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#51

Post by blue_devil »

sbooher wrote: post #20

If there is any information domain were it’s harder to figure out the real truth than current US politics, it’s “nutrition science”. As someone who actually tries to invest the time to check on sources and methods beyond the clickbait headlines, it’s really a mess. Poor scientific methods (observational studies), cherry-picking data to match a bias (Ancel Keys), conflicts of interest all over the place, etc. At a ver…

>>If there is any information domain were it’s harder to figure out the real truth than current US politics, it’s “nutrition science”

I recently dug out some original USDA documents from the 19th century to research[1] the origins of nutritional science in the US. W. O. Atwater, the guy who introduced things like Calories (equal to kcal), macros, and "dietetics" has had a huge impact on nutritional science, including modern food labelling and things like the simplified conversion of fat to 9 Calories/gram and protein/carbs to 4 Calories/gram. Atwater himself was very much influenced to introduce these to the American public by his German professors (he did a postdoc there), who were themselves looking into making nutrition "efficient - for cattle and humans alike.

I found the history quite fascinating, it gets to the "origins" of the idea of quantifying food.

[1]https://blog.jumpycatapp.com/calorie-counting-weight-loss-hi...

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#52

Post by dxbydt »

Key findings are here - https://bit.ly/2OqMoyD

At a 5% significance level, the hazard ratios posted there are clearly not significant. Most of them are reasonably close to 1.0 - so there is basically no difference in mortality between the control & treatment arm. Sample size is very large, n=48000.

The data he used is public & verifiable, so am not sure what digging into this person's private life has to do. Whether he is funded by meat industry or eats beef himself is as relevant as the color of his underwear.

In the study, he says "issues of animal welfare and potential environmental impact... is outside the scope. Related to this, we took an individual rather than a societal perspective."

Taking an individual perspective is imo the right thing to do. He further explicitly says if you are concerned about global warming etc. this study isn't about that. So he's being blunt & honest.

Those who are batting for the other team, like the opposing researchers & NYT etc. are questioning not the stats or the methodology but the fact that if you make public policy based on this, it will undoubtedly be bad for the environment. Which it will. But that's not the point of the study now, is it ? The researcher himself says it is not the point.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#53

Post by vfc1 »

belorn wrote: post #49
vfc1 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mutant animal meat raised in factory farms fed soy and corn and shot with antibiotics and hormones is not real food either, and that is 99% of the meat dairy and eggs out there. This is a straw man argument, because the perfect experiment will never be conducted. You would have to take 5000 people, put them in an island and feed them plant foods their whole life, collect blood and urine sample periodically to monitor…

> There are studies that show that certain populations are healthier than others, and we know what they eat. Going by the top 5 countries: wealth, high-quality healthcare, healthcare focusing on preventative care, strong personal safety and sense of wellbeing, strong community, siesta, favour walking and biking, reduce stress and improve mental wellbeing. If I recall the findings of one of the longest study ever done…

You can't reverse diabetes and heart disease with stress management, but its a well-documented scientific fact that a plant-based diet can do that.

By reversing, I mean stopping and reversing the progression of symptoms, not cure every single person completely with it.

This means clogged arteries (with cholesterol, not calcified arteries) start to open up, and diabetics reduce or get off their insulin completely in well-documented cases.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#54

Post by belorn »

vfc1 wrote: post #53
belorn wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are studies that show that certain populations are healthier than others, and we know what they eat. Going by the top 5 countries: wealth, high-quality healthcare, healthcare focusing on preventative care, strong personal safety and sense of wellbeing, strong community, siesta, favour walking and biking, reduce stress and improve mental wellbeing. If I recall the findings of one of the longest study ever done…

You can't reverse diabetes and heart disease with stress management, but its a well-documented scientific fact that a plant-based diet can do that. By reversing, I mean stopping and reversing the progression of symptoms, not cure every single person completely with it. This means clogged arteries (with cholesterol, not calcified arteries) start to open up, and diabetics reduce or get off their insulin completely in w…

Acute and chronic stress causes, among other things, increased risk for high blood pressure and holds key roles of inflammation and the immune system. Cortisol is even involved in increasing cholesterol. Stress management is a very real part of any heart disease recovery.

For diabetes: https://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/18/2/121 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1425110

Stress has a major effects on metabolic activity, weight gains, effects hormones and is generally a problem in managing glucose levels. Stress management a key part of diabetics health plan.

In general there is few things as deadly to a human as chronic stress and that is what a lot of studies in longevity shows.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#55

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

sbooher wrote: post #42
PerfectElement wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>For every warning statement on animal CO2 use, I can find a seemingly well done study on positive CO2 capture by regenerative farms (i.e. traditional farms before feed lots). It looks like you are actively looking for data that makes you feel good about your habits and suspending critical thinking. The amount of evidence for the negative impact of the animal industry on the environment is staggering.

No, I actually think it's a large negative impact today, but rather than just accepting that's the way it is, I wonder why. Why is the US food system geared toward mass-scale industrial feed lots? What could be changed? On a trip to Ireland I never saw a ruminant in a feed lot, only on pasture, and they were slaughtered 1-2 years after our cattle. Why? Tax policy? Are other countries just not as smart as we are?

Hmmm

https://www.agriland.ie/farming-news/revealed-factory-feedlo...

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#56

Post by coldtea »

dxbydt wrote: post #52

Key findings are here - https://bit.ly/2OqMoyD At a 5% significance level, the hazard ratios posted there are clearly not significant. Most of them are reasonably close to 1.0 - so there is basically no difference in mortality between the control & treatment arm. Sample size is very large, n=48000. The data he used is public & verifiable, so am not sure what digging into this person's private life has to do. Whether…

>The data he used is public & verifiable, so am not sure what digging into this person's private life has to do. Whether he is funded by meat industry or eats beef himself is as relevant as the color of his underwear.

First, it's a matter of principle.

Second, there are 1000 ways to slice and dice and present findings the way you want, even if the data are "public & verifiable".

Heck, you can spin things even if the processing you did is reproducible and freely available (e.g. as a script) AND the results are against your bias -- in the wording and tone of your paper.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#57

Post by vfc1 »

belorn wrote: post #54
vfc1 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't reverse diabetes and heart disease with stress management, but its a well-documented scientific fact that a plant-based diet can do that. By reversing, I mean stopping and reversing the progression of symptoms, not cure every single person completely with it. This means clogged arteries (with cholesterol, not calcified arteries) start to open up, and diabetics reduce or get off their insulin completely in w…

Acute and chronic stress causes, among other things, increased risk for high blood pressure and holds key roles of inflammation and the immune system. Cortisol is even involved in increasing cholesterol. Stress management is a very real part of any heart disease recovery. For diabetes: https://spectrum.diabetesjournals.org/content/18/2/121 and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1425110 Stress has a major effects on…

Look I'm not saying that stress does not play any role at all, but obviously the main cause is diet.

I mean put people on Yoga classes and don't change their diet and see what happens.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#58

Post by brokenkebab »

elif wrote: post #14
brokenkebab wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The wording you used for your example is purposely unwieldy, but even so it would be still logically valid. It's perfectly valid as well to say that it obfuscates a particular point you are trying to make. However, as humans tend to have different priorities, and values a wording you prefer may be validly presented as obfuscating points other people see as more important.

It is a perfectly reasonable example. Both are individual decisions one makes for individual safety considerations. Introducing society-wide multipliers makes it harder for an individual to make decisions based upon the data. When I get in a car, I am not buckling up for society. When I invest food, I am not making a decision for society. Unless you believe the primary function of this research is to inform policy de…

I'm sure your intentions are good, but what I wrote is that any logically/mathematically truthful statement is, well, true. The fact that it emphasizes this, or that side of the argument doesn't make it false, and its value is in the eye of beholder, because proper desicions are based on cost/benefits assessment where both costs, and benefits differ between people/societies/tribes/whatever.

And what you offer me to discuss in response is that your position in your particular example is certainly right.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#59

Post by Merrill »

learc83 wrote: post #25
Merrill wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The main problem in the US with food is not the type, quality, or purity -- it's the quantity. https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html >The prevalence of obesity was 39.8% and affected about 93.3 million of US adults in 2015~2016.

That's technically correct but it misses the whole picture. For an extreme example--it's a lot easier to gain weight if you regularly stop by the convience store and pick up cookies, chips and a bottle of coke for dinner than if you cook lean chicken and roast vegetables. Sure you could eat a similar calorie portion of both.

The more common scenario is for the cookies, chips and coke to come from the respective aisle-long displays at the supermarket. Ready to eat frozen meals tend to be high calorie as well.

As for eating out, fast food is bad, but fast casual is worse. All you can eat shrimp at Red Lobster, the pasta cabonara with chicken at Cheesecake Factory (~2300 calories) and your personal pie at the pizza place put on more weight than convenience store snacks. Plus a few beers or glasses of wine, a margarita or two -- pretty soon it adds up.

Re: Scientist Who Discredited Meat Guidelines Didn’t Report Past Food Industry Ties

#60

Post by iron0013 »

dxbydt wrote: post #52

Key findings are here - https://bit.ly/2OqMoyD At a 5% significance level, the hazard ratios posted there are clearly not significant. Most of them are reasonably close to 1.0 - so there is basically no difference in mortality between the control & treatment arm. Sample size is very large, n=48000. The data he used is public & verifiable, so am not sure what digging into this person's private life has to do. Whether…

Recognizing a failure to disclose a conflict of interest is not “digging into this person's private life“
Post reply on HN