5 ms·

The main point here is that observational studies are much less reliable than mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement. The genetic variabilit

The main point here is that observational studies are much less reliable than mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement. The genetic variability of baseline cholesterol levels is so high that it can drown out the effect of diet in cross-sectional observational studies. Meta-analyses of observational studies are the easiest kind of nutrition study to skew in the direction of the conclusions you want. What's worse, "studies" like these are used as excuse for people to adopt diets very high in saturated fat and animal protein which are not only disastrous for the environment and animal welfare, but have also been shown to be the absolutely worst diets in terms of overall mortality risk: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/controlling-protein-intake-may-be-key-to-longevity https://www.elsevier.com/connect/controlling-protein-intake-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/

pakitan 9y ago
> mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement I believe that's the fancy terminology for "We fed people with substance X and blood marker Y went up", correct me if I'm wrong. How is that in any way reliable unless it's proven that elevated blood marker Y causes CVD? It's only reliable if you want to prove that food X causes elevated Y. Also, I find it amusing that you're deriding observational studies, yet the study you're quoting is observational. And a big problem with a study like this is that it wouldn't discern between a high-protein diet consisting of bacon/sausages and one consisting of grass-fed beef. Processed meat contains all kind of shit, it's a major staple in people's diets and it's not surprising to me at all if people eating that have more health problems.
- cageface 9y ago
  Observational studies are inferior, it's true, but how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Of course the elephant in the room is that it's ecologically impossible to feed the Earth's population a diet high in animal protein so even if you have convinced yourself it's healthier it's really not an option for the long term. One would also hope that the monstrous cruelty of industrial animal agriculture would factor into your considerations at least a little bit.
  - pakitan 9y ago
    > how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Simple, lock lots of people in a building, feed them the same thing for 50 years and then measure :) That's impossible, of course, which is why I try to take all these studies, no matter what the type, no matter which side of the argument they are on, with a monstrous grain of salt. When trying to find the perfect diet, I think it's better to look into the diet of our ancestors and to refer to the works of Dr. Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. What they did might not be considered technically "science" because it's not peer-reviewed, doesn't have confidence intervals, mortality rates and whatnot but I consider it much more valuable as they spent years on the field studying people's diets and their health, not sitting in a comfy chair measuring blood cholesterol levels. Inuit lived practically on very fatty meat only. One can only imagine their LDL. Why weren't they dropping dead of cancer, diabetes and heart attacks at 30 years of age? Dr. Price says that in all his travels he didn't come upon a group that thrived on plant food only. If I remember correctly there was a community in the Swiss Alps that lived exclusively on wholegrain rye bread, cheese + some meat once a week and they were very healthy. That's was the diet closest to vegan that he described. Of course, these days with all the nutrition science advancements, with the addition of supplements, it's may be possible to thrive as vegan but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig. And yes, I'm well aware that feeding everyone animal protein is not sustainable in any way but that doesn't have much to do with the discussion whether animal protein is bad for your health or not. Given the problems with modern agriculture, it's questionable whether the Earth can sustain 9 billion vegans in the long term either. I try to take into account the cruelty of industrial farming when choosing my food, at least to certain extent. However, you need to note that the very fact of my existence means hundreds/thousands of critters are being killed. From ecological point of view, the best option would be for me to kill myself, not become a vegan. I just have to draw the line somewhere.
    - cageface 9y ago
      Th Inuit actually do have a fairly high rate of CVD. The idea that they live long healthy lives on an all meat diet is wrong: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fish-tale/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fis... IMO all creatures have a right to fight for their survival, including killing and eating meat if necessary. But humans don’t have to so why should we?

pakitan 9y ago

> mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement I believe that's the fancy terminology for "We fed people with substance X and blood marker Y went up", correct me if I'm wrong. How is that in any way reliable unless it's proven that elevated blood marker Y causes CVD? It's only reliable if you want to prove that food X causes elevated Y. Also, I find it amusing that you're deriding observational studies, yet the study you're quoting is observational. And a big problem with a study like this is that it wouldn't discern between a high-protein diet consisting of bacon/sausages and one consisting of grass-fed beef. Processed meat contains all kind of shit, it's a major staple in people's diets and it's not surprising to me at all if people eating that have more health problems.

cageface 9y ago
Observational studies are inferior, it's true, but how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Of course the elephant in the room is that it's ecologically impossible to feed the Earth's population a diet high in animal protein so even if you have convinced yourself it's healthier it's really not an option for the long term. One would also hope that the monstrous cruelty of industrial animal agriculture would factor into your considerations at least a little bit.
- pakitan 9y ago
  > how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Simple, lock lots of people in a building, feed them the same thing for 50 years and then measure :) That's impossible, of course, which is why I try to take all these studies, no matter what the type, no matter which side of the argument they are on, with a monstrous grain of salt. When trying to find the perfect diet, I think it's better to look into the diet of our ancestors and to refer to the works of Dr. Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. What they did might not be considered technically "science" because it's not peer-reviewed, doesn't have confidence intervals, mortality rates and whatnot but I consider it much more valuable as they spent years on the field studying people's diets and their health, not sitting in a comfy chair measuring blood cholesterol levels. Inuit lived practically on very fatty meat only. One can only imagine their LDL. Why weren't they dropping dead of cancer, diabetes and heart attacks at 30 years of age? Dr. Price says that in all his travels he didn't come upon a group that thrived on plant food only. If I remember correctly there was a community in the Swiss Alps that lived exclusively on wholegrain rye bread, cheese + some meat once a week and they were very healthy. That's was the diet closest to vegan that he described. Of course, these days with all the nutrition science advancements, with the addition of supplements, it's may be possible to thrive as vegan but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig. And yes, I'm well aware that feeding everyone animal protein is not sustainable in any way but that doesn't have much to do with the discussion whether animal protein is bad for your health or not. Given the problems with modern agriculture, it's questionable whether the Earth can sustain 9 billion vegans in the long term either. I try to take into account the cruelty of industrial farming when choosing my food, at least to certain extent. However, you need to note that the very fact of my existence means hundreds/thousands of critters are being killed. From ecological point of view, the best option would be for me to kill myself, not become a vegan. I just have to draw the line somewhere.
  - cageface 9y ago
    Th Inuit actually do have a fairly high rate of CVD. The idea that they live long healthy lives on an all meat diet is wrong: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fish-tale/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/omega-3s-and-the-eskimo-fis... IMO all creatures have a right to fight for their survival, including killing and eating meat if necessary. But humans don’t have to so why should we?