7 ms·

What is the role of meat in a healthy diet?

40 points by sridca 7y ago

sridca 7y ago
Podcast with the author (Dr. David Klurfeld) discussing this subject: https://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-causing-cancer-bogus-vegetarian-scientists-and-balanced-nutrition https://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-c... Interesting report of his experience with WHO: - He was on the World Health Organization working group to decide if meat causes cancer in 2015 with a bunch of vegetarians and vegans and says it was the most frustrating professional experience of his life - There were 22 scientists - half of which were epidemiologists - They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18 - There was a group of people that were strongly against the vote - He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived
- simplemts 7y ago
  I'd recommend the book "How to not Die". Here are some takeaways: "Which foods contain the most cholesterol? Eggs, fish, chicken, and red meat all earn the red light..." "As for saturated fat, desserts, dairy, and snack foods are all designated as red light, with eggs, chicken, fish, and red meat getting the yellow light. Most of the saturated fat in the American diet comes from cheese (8.5%), pizza (5.9%), grain-based desserts (5.8%), dairy desserts (5.6%), and chicken (5.5%)." "Salt levels are highest in lunch meat and snack foods, which both get a red light." "...The more plant-based we get, apparently, the better." Conclusion: Meat is bad, ultra processed foods are bad, and plant based diets are healthiest. Based on your comment alone, sounds like both Dr. Klurfeld and the WHO scientists are biased, whereas that book provides references to each and every claim that has science backing it. It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods. Book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d... https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/02/15/what-are-the-best-and-worst-foods/ https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/02/15/what-are-the-best-and-...
  - eMSF 7y ago
    >It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods. You say that like dietary cholesterol, sodium and saturated fats were bad for us. (They're not.)
  - aiphex 7y ago
    This book was the catalyst to me going vegan a few years ago. It was easier than I expected. I can't really say that I feel much different. I like the idea that my cholesterol level will likely never be an issue. I'm loving beyond burgers, because something I missed before was a proper burger.
  - theNJR 7y ago
    Cholesterol is not bad for you. You need it to live, that’s why your body makes it. Eating cholesterol has very little impact on the cholesterol levels in your body. Salt is also not bad for you.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - theNewMicrosoft 7y ago
    >I'd recommend the book "How to not Die". I'm sorry but Michael Greger, M.D., author of the said book, is a nutrition quack. https://twitter.com/nutrition_facts/status/1047260078552899584 https://twitter.com/nutrition_facts/status/10472600785528995...
  - mkohlmyr 7y ago
    I am no expert but just on the face of it I would take any book that thinks eggs and fish are bad for you (other than in obscene quantities) with more than a few grains of salt.
  - keymone 7y ago
    Except neither “cholesterol” nor saturated fats nor salt are “bad” for your health.
- bilbo0s 7y ago
  This is what was so frustrating to me about working in medical research. >- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18... I hate this, it happens all the time. Basically, say, 20 studies, which each reference other studies. Group all the references, remove the duplicates, add 20, and BAM! 800 studies! What's worse, if you take the time to read through the studies, related papers, and data, you'll find ridiculousness. Circles of "peer reviewers", who clearly either never read the papers they reviewed, or are not as good at advanced math as I am. (I choose to believe they never even read the papers, because I'm not the smartest guy in the world.) Data that doesn't match conclusions. Oftentimes you won't find a single replication of a given study. And on and on and on. It was hard out there for a pimp. >- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived .. I can guarantee you this happened. Having said that though, it's important to remember in situations like the ones the podcast describes, that people have their minds made up "for" and "against". Believe it or not, it's a lot like liberals and conservatives in that, they don't really care what the data says, they're going to do whatever ridiculous thing they want to do in any case. Which frustrated me to no end. I mean, in politics, OK, that's the way things work. Fine. But in science? I was just like, man, what are you people doing?
rongenre 7y ago
I stopped eating meat 6 years ago. I miss it, but decided to try going veg-only + eggs/dairy and see how it impacted my life. If I found myself unable to keep up with my exercise routines (bicycling and sporadic weight work), I'd have stopped. But it really didn't affect things, and I find myself unable to justify the cruelty of meat production. One note: I did notice that it's tougher to control carb intake while eating veg, because meat is a great way to feel full without spiking blood sugar. When that's not an option and you're feeling like snacking, you're faced with a ton of unhealthy options. So I'm probably 10-15 lbs heavier than I would be if I ate meat.
- Accacin 7y ago
  Not sure what you mean by unhealthy snack options? There are loads, I tend to eat nuts and fruit, hummus, fruit, etc. I'm not sure where you are, but there are some lovely snack bars in the UK called 'nakd' that are cold pressed fruit bars in a variety of flavours that often do the trick when I want to snack. If I'm not wanting any of the former, crisps are always a way for me to feel full quickly though they're hardly a 'healthy' option. Most supermarkets even do ranges of Vegan cookies and other snacks now too!
  - hammock 7y ago
    >there are some lovely snack bars in the UK called 'nakd' that are cold pressed fruit bars We have these in the US too, they are called Lara bars and RX Bars.
    - theNJR 7y ago
      Also know as candy bars!
      - hammock 7y ago
        Better than the typical candy bar. More similar to a serving of dried fruit & nut trail mix.
hirundo 7y ago
> I find myself unable to justify the cruelty of meat production. Would you eat meat from an outfit that convinced you it was raised without cruelty, right up to a pain and panic free slaughter? For say, a 20% premium?
- spoovy 7y ago
  I definitely would. You can buy chickens for £2.50 each in ASDA which is less than a pint of beer in my local pub. Something not right about that.
- Brushfire 7y ago
  Yes. And do. And so do millions of people. The market is there, but the mechanism is not -- because to trust that the animals are not abused, you must know about the farm, which breaks traditional supply chains where a chicken is a chicken. I've often wondered if a single-source brand could arise where they simply print a QR code on the package that would let you track the meat from its source and review living conditions (video, photos, etc). Its just a matter of historical record, so its feasible if you're willing to install the technology in the farm. There are independent auditors to assess farm quality for organic, etc -- why not also employ them for cruelty practices.
- simonask 7y ago
  Most people who have the means to do so probably would. However, the killing in itself is very difficult to defend at all, in my opinion. You very quickly run into some sketchy philosophical dead-ends, such as for example the notion that human life fundamentally has some kind of divine right to make decisions of life and death over lesser lifeforms.
  - sauwan 7y ago
    >divine right to make decisions of life and death over lesser lifeforms Are plants not lesser lifeforms? I ask this as someone who does not eat factory farmed meat and buys nearly all organic produce, from local farms if possible. But I just don't find this argument compelling. It's not our "divine right", it's just a survival mechanism for our species. There are other much more compelling arguments for avoiding meat consumption.
thomascgalvin 7y ago
The short answer is that we don't know. Refreshingly enough, this article seems to focus on that fact. There are studies that say eating meat will give you cancer, or just kill you younger in general, but there are studies that show the opposite, and studies that show no correlation. And pretty much all of these studies have issues, the biggest usually being, as the article says, that they're observational, based on a subject's ability to remember what they ate, how much they ate of it, and report that information correctly and truthfully. The human body is massively complex, and we just don't know very much about how diet affects it. We know that eating a lower calorie diet helps you lose weight, and that's about the only thing we can prove with any kind of certainty. Does a low-carb diet improve health outcomes? Or a vegan diet? We just don't know, and anyone that tells you they do know is either selling you something or, at best, telling you what worked for them.
- modzu 7y ago
  such epistemic issues apply to all domains of knowledge. also, anecdotal evidence, ie, "what worked for them", is still valid data, and should be valued as such
  - thomascgalvin 7y ago
    > anecdotal evidence, ie, "what worked for them", is still valid data, and should be valued as such It's useful information, but it's also limited information. If Atkins worked for your buddy two cubes down, that might indicate that it's worth trying yourself, but it's less useful in terms of making, say, national level nutritional policy. Though I suppose in this case I'm more worried about lobbying than anecdotal data.
- sridca 7y ago
  Exactly. Sadly however some people would still prefer to believe WHO's authority and take their meat-causes-cancer factoid to be a fact. > Does a low-carb diet improve health outcomes? Or a vegan diet? We just don't know, and anyone that tells you they do know is either selling you something or, at best, telling you what worked for them. Yup; and the same applies to anyone looking to refute a diet they do not like. For example, a vegan asserting that the carnivore diet is unhealthy and vice versa.
derefr 7y ago
The one thing that I know eating meat (and/or other tyrosine sources) affects, is the switching frequency of tyrosine kinases in your cells. (Helpful mental model: some of your cellular organelles are finite-state machines. Tyrosine kinases trigger their state transitions.) And I don’t know with the same level of certainty, but do believe, that this switching/state-transitioning in your cells is a major contributor to cellular senescence. Decreasing the switching frequency of tyrosine kinases in the body is, IIRC, being proposed as as both 1. a major reason that intermittent fasting increases lifespan, and 2. as a potential mechanism by which some aquatic species that live in extreme cold can live for hundreds of years. It’d be nice to be able to turn this effect down, is what I’m saying. Sadly, it seems that doing so makes some things (like maintaining homeostasis during exercise) much harder. So there’s, maybe, a trade-off here: a longer life, but one constrained to only a part of the range of human activity. Interesting choice.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Strongarms 7y ago
We are not entirely sure
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
modzu 7y ago
ive not heard of the journal "animal frontiers" before, but they seem to be partially funded by something called "american meat science" which, according to wikipedia, "represents the scientific advancement of meat production, including animal welfare, slaughterhouse operations, meat biochemistry and microbiology, and food safety." i'm not sure if that equates to a conflict of interest (is this just a lobby group with "science" in the name?) maybe somebody more knowledgeable can chime in.
sridca 7y ago
Yet another dietary article not in favour of veganism/vegetarianism got flagged. Well done Hacker News.
- malvosenior 7y ago
  Indeed, why would this be flagged? There's plenty of vegan stuff on this site and it's never flagged. The same argument always comes up too: "red meat causes cancer!". Now we have an article exploring that point and it's flagged so we can't discuss it. Lame.
  - vfc1 7y ago
    This seems to be from a magazine sponsored by the meat industry, so it could be why it was taken down - https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About
    - sridca 7y ago
      What "meat industry"? From the quoted link: > These organizations are dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of science-based knowledge concerning animal agriculture. This is a scientific magazine on a particular domain (animal agriculture). Even so, this article should be discussed on its own. And its author, Dr. David M Klurfeld, is not associated with the meat industry. If you just want to suppress discussion of health benefits of meat why not just honestly say so? After all, that's likely the motive behind this submission getting flagged.
      - vfc1 7y ago
        There is an undeniable conflict between an article published in a publication financially sponsored by a given industry and the results that benefit that industry. A study has shown that studies funded by a particular industry are 85 times more likely to bring results that favor the funding industry, so money has a huge influence. The tobacco industry used this tactic for decades, the strategy is simple. To question the claims that a product is unhealthy, without ever actually denying it. All they have to do is create doubt, and the public will be confused, throw their hands up in the air and eat whatever. In the words of a famous memo leaked in the tobacco industry: "doubt is our business". Here is a summary of the multiple tactics used by the tobacco industry, one of them is precisely to publish studies that aim at raising doubt, without actually addressing the health concerns - https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf But I don't know if that is why the article was taken down, I'm just speculating. Probably the flagging happens automatically, after a certain number of manual flags. Indeed there is a lack of transparency about why certain articles are taken down, at least a reason should be given.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ddoran 7y ago
Not making a comment on the veracity of the article, but the source is "Animal Frontiers", the journal of "The American Society of Animal Science (ASAS)" which is "a non-profit professional organization for the advancement of livestock, companion animals, exotic animals and meat science" [1]. They are not agnostic in the meat vs vegetarian debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Animal_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Animal_Sci...
skilled 7y ago
Rofl. Meat. Hahahhahaha.
DoreenMichele 7y ago
Upon skim, the study appears to be about the relationship between meat consumption and colon cancer, not the more general question of what role it plays in a healthy diet. Everything I have ever read seems to indicate that people who are strict vegetarians, especially strict vegans, have trouble getting enough B vitamins. If you consume some animal products, such as seafood but not beef or chicken ("pescatarian"), this is not an issue. I think there is an argument to be made that eating a low meat diet is generally wiser for most people. It's also easier on the earth -- which is a not insignificant detail these days, what with there being 7 billion people on the planet.
- User23 7y ago
  On the other hand a pescatarian diet exposes you to lots of delicious heavy metals and mercury, which also have their downsides.
purplezooey 7y ago
It is likely that the association of red-meat consumption with colon cancer is explained either by an inability of epidemiology to detect such a small risk or by combinations of other factors.. Whoah.

40 points by sridca 7y ago

Podcast with the author (Dr. David Klurfeld) discussing this subject: https://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-causing-cancer-bogus-vegetarian-scientists-and-balanced-nutrition https://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-david-klurfeld-on-meat-not-c... Interesting report of his experience with WHO: - He was on the World Health Organization working group to decide if meat causes cancer in 2015 with a bunch of vegetarians and vegans and says it was the most frustrating professional experience of his life - There were 22 scientists - half of which were epidemiologists - They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18 - There was a group of people that were strongly against the vote - He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived

simplemts 7y ago
I'd recommend the book "How to not Die". Here are some takeaways: "Which foods contain the most cholesterol? Eggs, fish, chicken, and red meat all earn the red light..." "As for saturated fat, desserts, dairy, and snack foods are all designated as red light, with eggs, chicken, fish, and red meat getting the yellow light. Most of the saturated fat in the American diet comes from cheese (8.5%), pizza (5.9%), grain-based desserts (5.8%), dairy desserts (5.6%), and chicken (5.5%)." "Salt levels are highest in lunch meat and snack foods, which both get a red light." "...The more plant-based we get, apparently, the better." Conclusion: Meat is bad, ultra processed foods are bad, and plant based diets are healthiest. Based on your comment alone, sounds like both Dr. Klurfeld and the WHO scientists are biased, whereas that book provides references to each and every claim that has science backing it. It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods. Book: https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/dp/1250066115/ https://www.amazon.com/How-Not-Die-Discover-Scientifically/d... https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/02/15/what-are-the-best-and-worst-foods/ https://nutritionfacts.org/2018/02/15/what-are-the-best-and-...
- eMSF 7y ago
  >It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods. You say that like dietary cholesterol, sodium and saturated fats were bad for us. (They're not.)
- aiphex 7y ago
  This book was the catalyst to me going vegan a few years ago. It was easier than I expected. I can't really say that I feel much different. I like the idea that my cholesterol level will likely never be an issue. I'm loving beyond burgers, because something I missed before was a proper burger.
- theNJR 7y ago
  Cholesterol is not bad for you. You need it to live, that’s why your body makes it. Eating cholesterol has very little impact on the cholesterol levels in your body. Salt is also not bad for you.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- theNewMicrosoft 7y ago
  >I'd recommend the book "How to not Die". I'm sorry but Michael Greger, M.D., author of the said book, is a nutrition quack. https://twitter.com/nutrition_facts/status/1047260078552899584 https://twitter.com/nutrition_facts/status/10472600785528995...
- mkohlmyr 7y ago
  I am no expert but just on the face of it I would take any book that thinks eggs and fish are bad for you (other than in obscene quantities) with more than a few grains of salt.
- keymone 7y ago
  Except neither “cholesterol” nor saturated fats nor salt are “bad” for your health.
bilbo0s 7y ago
This is what was so frustrating to me about working in medical research. >- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18... I hate this, it happens all the time. Basically, say, 20 studies, which each reference other studies. Group all the references, remove the duplicates, add 20, and BAM! 800 studies! What's worse, if you take the time to read through the studies, related papers, and data, you'll find ridiculousness. Circles of "peer reviewers", who clearly either never read the papers they reviewed, or are not as good at advanced math as I am. (I choose to believe they never even read the papers, because I'm not the smartest guy in the world.) Data that doesn't match conclusions. Oftentimes you won't find a single replication of a given study. And on and on and on. It was hard out there for a pimp. >- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived .. I can guarantee you this happened. Having said that though, it's important to remember in situations like the ones the podcast describes, that people have their minds made up "for" and "against". Believe it or not, it's a lot like liberals and conservatives in that, they don't really care what the data says, they're going to do whatever ridiculous thing they want to do in any case. Which frustrated me to no end. I mean, in politics, OK, that's the way things work. Fine. But in science? I was just like, man, what are you people doing?

rongenre 7y ago

I stopped eating meat 6 years ago. I miss it, but decided to try going veg-only + eggs/dairy and see how it impacted my life. If I found myself unable to keep up with my exercise routines (bicycling and sporadic weight work), I'd have stopped. But it really didn't affect things, and I find myself unable to justify the cruelty of meat production. One note: I did notice that it's tougher to control carb intake while eating veg, because meat is a great way to feel full without spiking blood sugar. When that's not an option and you're feeling like snacking, you're faced with a ton of unhealthy options. So I'm probably 10-15 lbs heavier than I would be if I ate meat.

Accacin 7y ago
Not sure what you mean by unhealthy snack options? There are loads, I tend to eat nuts and fruit, hummus, fruit, etc. I'm not sure where you are, but there are some lovely snack bars in the UK called 'nakd' that are cold pressed fruit bars in a variety of flavours that often do the trick when I want to snack. If I'm not wanting any of the former, crisps are always a way for me to feel full quickly though they're hardly a 'healthy' option. Most supermarkets even do ranges of Vegan cookies and other snacks now too!
- hammock 7y ago
  >there are some lovely snack bars in the UK called 'nakd' that are cold pressed fruit bars We have these in the US too, they are called Lara bars and RX Bars.
  - theNJR 7y ago
    Also know as candy bars!
    - hammock 7y ago
      Better than the typical candy bar. More similar to a serving of dried fruit & nut trail mix.

hirundo 7y ago

> I find myself unable to justify the cruelty of meat production. Would you eat meat from an outfit that convinced you it was raised without cruelty, right up to a pain and panic free slaughter? For say, a 20% premium?

spoovy 7y ago
I definitely would. You can buy chickens for £2.50 each in ASDA which is less than a pint of beer in my local pub. Something not right about that.
Brushfire 7y ago
Yes. And do. And so do millions of people. The market is there, but the mechanism is not -- because to trust that the animals are not abused, you must know about the farm, which breaks traditional supply chains where a chicken is a chicken. I've often wondered if a single-source brand could arise where they simply print a QR code on the package that would let you track the meat from its source and review living conditions (video, photos, etc). Its just a matter of historical record, so its feasible if you're willing to install the technology in the farm. There are independent auditors to assess farm quality for organic, etc -- why not also employ them for cruelty practices.
simonask 7y ago
Most people who have the means to do so probably would. However, the killing in itself is very difficult to defend at all, in my opinion. You very quickly run into some sketchy philosophical dead-ends, such as for example the notion that human life fundamentally has some kind of divine right to make decisions of life and death over lesser lifeforms.
- sauwan 7y ago
  >divine right to make decisions of life and death over lesser lifeforms Are plants not lesser lifeforms? I ask this as someone who does not eat factory farmed meat and buys nearly all organic produce, from local farms if possible. But I just don't find this argument compelling. It's not our "divine right", it's just a survival mechanism for our species. There are other much more compelling arguments for avoiding meat consumption.

thomascgalvin 7y ago

The short answer is that we don't know. Refreshingly enough, this article seems to focus on that fact. There are studies that say eating meat will give you cancer, or just kill you younger in general, but there are studies that show the opposite, and studies that show no correlation. And pretty much all of these studies have issues, the biggest usually being, as the article says, that they're observational, based on a subject's ability to remember what they ate, how much they ate of it, and report that information correctly and truthfully. The human body is massively complex, and we just don't know very much about how diet affects it. We know that eating a lower calorie diet helps you lose weight, and that's about the only thing we can prove with any kind of certainty. Does a low-carb diet improve health outcomes? Or a vegan diet? We just don't know, and anyone that tells you they do know is either selling you something or, at best, telling you what worked for them.

modzu 7y ago
such epistemic issues apply to all domains of knowledge. also, anecdotal evidence, ie, "what worked for them", is still valid data, and should be valued as such
- thomascgalvin 7y ago
  > anecdotal evidence, ie, "what worked for them", is still valid data, and should be valued as such It's useful information, but it's also limited information. If Atkins worked for your buddy two cubes down, that might indicate that it's worth trying yourself, but it's less useful in terms of making, say, national level nutritional policy. Though I suppose in this case I'm more worried about lobbying than anecdotal data.
sridca 7y ago
Exactly. Sadly however some people would still prefer to believe WHO's authority and take their meat-causes-cancer factoid to be a fact. > Does a low-carb diet improve health outcomes? Or a vegan diet? We just don't know, and anyone that tells you they do know is either selling you something or, at best, telling you what worked for them. Yup; and the same applies to anyone looking to refute a diet they do not like. For example, a vegan asserting that the carnivore diet is unhealthy and vice versa.

derefr 7y ago

The one thing that I know eating meat (and/or other tyrosine sources) affects, is the switching frequency of tyrosine kinases in your cells. (Helpful mental model: some of your cellular organelles are finite-state machines. Tyrosine kinases trigger their state transitions.) And I don’t know with the same level of certainty, but do believe, that this switching/state-transitioning in your cells is a major contributor to cellular senescence. Decreasing the switching frequency of tyrosine kinases in the body is, IIRC, being proposed as as both 1. a major reason that intermittent fasting increases lifespan, and 2. as a potential mechanism by which some aquatic species that live in extreme cold can live for hundreds of years. It’d be nice to be able to turn this effect down, is what I’m saying. Sadly, it seems that doing so makes some things (like maintaining homeostasis during exercise) much harder. So there’s, maybe, a trade-off here: a longer life, but one constrained to only a part of the range of human activity. Interesting choice.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Strongarms 7y ago

We are not entirely sure

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

modzu 7y ago

ive not heard of the journal "animal frontiers" before, but they seem to be partially funded by something called "american meat science" which, according to wikipedia, "represents the scientific advancement of meat production, including animal welfare, slaughterhouse operations, meat biochemistry and microbiology, and food safety." i'm not sure if that equates to a conflict of interest (is this just a lobby group with "science" in the name?) maybe somebody more knowledgeable can chime in.

sridca 7y ago

Yet another dietary article not in favour of veganism/vegetarianism got flagged. Well done Hacker News.

malvosenior 7y ago
Indeed, why would this be flagged? There's plenty of vegan stuff on this site and it's never flagged. The same argument always comes up too: "red meat causes cancer!". Now we have an article exploring that point and it's flagged so we can't discuss it. Lame.
- vfc1 7y ago
  This seems to be from a magazine sponsored by the meat industry, so it could be why it was taken down - https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About
  - sridca 7y ago
    What "meat industry"? From the quoted link: > These organizations are dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of science-based knowledge concerning animal agriculture. This is a scientific magazine on a particular domain (animal agriculture). Even so, this article should be discussed on its own. And its author, Dr. David M Klurfeld, is not associated with the meat industry. If you just want to suppress discussion of health benefits of meat why not just honestly say so? After all, that's likely the motive behind this submission getting flagged.
    - vfc1 7y ago
      There is an undeniable conflict between an article published in a publication financially sponsored by a given industry and the results that benefit that industry. A study has shown that studies funded by a particular industry are 85 times more likely to bring results that favor the funding industry, so money has a huge influence. The tobacco industry used this tactic for decades, the strategy is simple. To question the claims that a product is unhealthy, without ever actually denying it. All they have to do is create doubt, and the public will be confused, throw their hands up in the air and eat whatever. In the words of a famous memo leaked in the tobacco industry: "doubt is our business". Here is a summary of the multiple tactics used by the tobacco industry, one of them is precisely to publish studies that aim at raising doubt, without actually addressing the health concerns - https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf But I don't know if that is why the article was taken down, I'm just speculating. Probably the flagging happens automatically, after a certain number of manual flags. Indeed there is a lack of transparency about why certain articles are taken down, at least a reason should be given.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

ddoran 7y ago

Not making a comment on the veracity of the article, but the source is "Animal Frontiers", the journal of "The American Society of Animal Science (ASAS)" which is "a non-profit professional organization for the advancement of livestock, companion animals, exotic animals and meat science" [1]. They are not agnostic in the meat vs vegetarian debate. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Animal_Science https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Animal_Sci...

skilled 7y ago

Rofl. Meat. Hahahhahaha.

DoreenMichele 7y ago

Upon skim, the study appears to be about the relationship between meat consumption and colon cancer, not the more general question of what role it plays in a healthy diet. Everything I have ever read seems to indicate that people who are strict vegetarians, especially strict vegans, have trouble getting enough B vitamins. If you consume some animal products, such as seafood but not beef or chicken ("pescatarian"), this is not an issue. I think there is an argument to be made that eating a low meat diet is generally wiser for most people. It's also easier on the earth -- which is a not insignificant detail these days, what with there being 7 billion people on the planet.

User23 7y ago
On the other hand a pescatarian diet exposes you to lots of delicious heavy metals and mercury, which also have their downsides.

purplezooey 7y ago

It is likely that the association of red-meat consumption with colon cancer is explained either by an inability of epidemiology to detect such a small risk or by combinations of other factors.. Whoah.