22 ms·
New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat
- galangalalgol 7y agoApart from sustainability the only downside of red meat that I have ever heard of is a slight increase to colon cancer and to excess iron in men. I think calling this bedrock advice is hyperbolic. The saturated fat demonization is much more widespread ime.
- sleavey 7y agoI just figured out a weird trick to read the page on Firefox without the sign-in/register popover: open the page in reader mode and refresh. It seems the popover appears only after page loading has finished, before which the full article is available. Reader mode ignores JavaScript, so this works.
- draw_down 7y agoReader mode just works for me in Safari.
- syphilis2 7y agoIt's also possible to force reader mode, for sites where Firefox doesn't want to display the icon. Append this to the beginning of the url: about:reader?url=
- sleavey 7y agoWow - great tip! I'm always annoyed when sites disable it.
- Jill_the_Pill 7y agoYou are my hero.
- leovander 7y agoThanks for the tip. That worked for me using 69.0.1 (64-bit) on macOS Mojave (10.14.6).
- giarc 7y agoI agree that dietary research needs to continue but I think the back and forth about what to eat (saturated vs non saturated, no salt vs salt ok etc) needs to slow down. I think the best advice is that by Michael Pollan "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants."
- galangalalgol 7y agoAs long as we don't call corn syrup or bleached wheat flour plants, sounds good.
- asdf21 7y agoVeggies, not grains.
- munk-a 7y agoNo sorry, you're thinking of the great American vegetable of ketchup.
- whenchamenia 7y agoPickled tomato syrup?
- chrisco255 7y agoI think to the contrary, and agree with Amber Heard, "Eat meat. Not too little. Mostly fat." http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.html?m=1 http://www.empiri.ca/p/eat-meat-not-too-little-mostly-fat.ht... But ultimately what we should all agree on is: eat less processed foods, less sugar, don't overeat, fasting is cool, exercise often.
- tobylane 7y agoI’d like to see lower carbon cost become an important goal of keto dieters. Eggs, fish, etc count for keto as I understand it. I don’t like the fetishisation of red meat.
- ChristianBundy 7y agoActual paper: https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-m... Harvard response: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...
- koboll 7y agoThe first three grey Q&A boxes on the Harvard response are a pretty devastating rebuttal to the paper. To summarize: - 3 of the 5 meta-analyses reviewed support the consensus on red meat's health dangers - The other 2 are irrelevant and shouldn't have been considered at all - The paper handwaves away the conclusions of the 3 by raising reliability issues that could be applied to any meta-analysis of nutrition, since it's impossible to perform nutritional research as rigorously as drug research
- tomp 7y agoDon't all 3 of those conflate red and processed meat? Not very sciency...
- amanaplanacanal 7y agoThat's one of my personal pet peeves.
- TrinaryWorksToo 7y agoAnd there's a big difference too! We know nitrites aren't good for us, and can make meat red. But not all meat contains nitrites.
- scotty79 7y agoIsn't the most red meat consumed also processed? Don't know. Just asking. If so it would make sense to use it in research.
- Retric 7y agoWhat an odd headline/article. Clearly, common food types are not going to be extremely harmful, so the magnitude of impact from dietary advice is never going to be extreme. Red Meat is still showing up as harmful in these studies, which is why it’s advice and not say a ban etc. At best this reads like spin from the cattle industry. Unless I am missing something?
- njarboe 7y agoAbout half was through the article: "Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers."
- Retric 7y agoYea, that’s why I said cattle industry spin, but I don’t want to reject the idea based on the messenger. I suspect a basic risk assessment in the context of other food advice would a good place to start. However, it also says the data is not that great to make such assertions.
- travisp 7y agoAnd Allison had nothing to do with the paper and was quoted total of one time in the article.
- tlarkworthy 7y agoI expect sugar will turn out to be good for your brain (in moderation) and increase your IQ.
- munk-a 7y agoNah, sadly... sugar is crap all the way down - but it tastes delicious. I just wish we could get some regulations banning it and salt as a flavour enhancer in partially prepared food products like frozen stuff and the pre-made components.
- rkop 7y agoSugar? Maybe. Salt? Why?
- differentView 7y agoCan you provide link to any such research? Even ones funded by the sugar industry?
- pazimzadeh 7y agoNot quite the same thing, but glucose is the main source of energy for the brain. It's just that refined sugar is usually not how you get your glucose. But sure, eating sugar might give you a temporary boost in IQ - before the crash. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK22436/
- whenchamenia 7y agoIts only the main source when available. Ketones work fine in its absence, and glucose is not required.
- machinelearning 7y agoYea it is quite interesting how the 'invisible hand' seems to have branded sugar as a 'drug, akin to cocaine' since it signals dopamine in the brain. Refined sugar is nothing but sucrose, a natural compound found in plants and fruits. Surely not all dopamine signalling is bad, just bad/prolonged signalling. Sure, it does cause an insulin spike that causes insulin resistance in the long term but in selective use of blood sugar spiking lies its utility.
- sleavey 7y agoI guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.) is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high cholesterol and saturated fat. I'm looking forward to the next few years in this field, because it seems like scientists are slowly working out what's wrong with our diets, and it seems like it's not (solely) the meat and dairy we're eating.
- asdf21 7y agoI've known this for years, and own a restaurant that serves all of our fried food cooked in beef tallow rather than seed oils. Everyone loves the taste of the food, I guess our fries ruin other chains for people.
- sleavey 7y agoThe thing that really irks me about seed oils is that humans find it difficult to taste when it's rancid. I wonder how many of the long shelf life products filled with sunflower oil are actually rancid, or how many fast food restaurants use oil long past its normal life without anyone being able to tell.
- inetknght 7y agoAs far as I understand, Rancid just means it doesn't taste as good as it should but generally doesn't otherwise result in less-healthy or less-nutritious food. Am I incorrect?
- sleavey 7y agoI'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 exact details.
- narrator 7y agoDiet science is the most pathetically politicized "science" next to economics. On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. On another side you've got the rich radical environmental and animal rights activists wanting everyone to go Vegan and giving out grants to scientists to get their results. It's just a clusterfk of politics going back and forth. Eggs are bad, no they're good. Meat is bad, no it's good. Carbs are bad, no it's good. Fat is bad, no it's good. Protein is bad, no it's good. Or in the words of Bugs and Daffy: Duck Season! Rabbit Season!, etc.
- vonmoltke 7y ago> On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. The worst part is, that's not really "one" side. Many of those groups are actively fighting each other, particularly now that organic foods, supplements, and superfood-of-the-week are big business.
- lotsofpulp 7y agoI think a large part of it is that regardless of the politics behind it or who is funding it, doing a proper scientific experiment is impossible with our current tools due to the complexity of the human body, food, and issues with control groups and accurate data. In this type of scenario, I would expect frequent changes in what is considered “true” and I would consider that a good sign assuming the proper procedures are resulting in iterative improvements to our field of knowledge.
- zacherates 7y agoWhile funding and conflicts of interest are an issue, a much bigger problem with nutrition research is that it is extremely difficult/expensive/unethical to study the outcomes people actually care about (living longer, losing weight, preventing disease), because that would require being able to control a large number of people's diet for decades (which in turn would require either paying/motivating them enough to comply, or doing so against their will). ... so instead, you end with a bunch of observational studies (which cannot show causation), or studies of placeholders assuming it maps to something people actually care about (eg. "cholesterol levels in the blood stream after X hours" for "Y years of life lost to heart disease per hundred thousand"), or bench studies (some chemical component in broccoli can kill cancer cells in a petri dish becomes "broccoli fights cancer" ignoring the fact that eg. fire kills cancer cells in a petri dish... that doesn't mean you should eat it). ... which are subject to all the usual difficulties for associated with subjects that are hard to study: small samples, inadequate surveys, bad statistics, HARKing, p-hacking. ... the resulting papers are then reported on uncritically, often generalizing the claims well beyond what the underlying science would support... because people read articles about things they actually do (eat meat) and outcomes they care about (live longer/avoid heart disease)... not about bench results.
- fooker 7y agoThis gets repeated again and again with nutrition. Eat less fat, oops. Eat less meat, oops. Eat less sugar, oops?
- pazimzadeh 7y agoIt's complicated. Telling people who have been abstaining from eating red meat that it's ok to eat it might also be a bad idea. Humans lost the enzyme that converts Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc. Other animals have Neu5Gc, which can be incorporated into your own tissues and potentially be recognized as foreign. So if you haven't been exposed to animal products and you suddenly are, that could trigger auto-immunity. Oh and of course, the gut microbiota has a role in regulating all of this. (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-019-0564-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-019-0564-9)
- tathougies 7y agoAs an anecdote, my wife gave up vegetarianism after ten years and suffered no consequences coming back onto meat. She started with a tiny bit of pork and the next day was eating chicken, pork, etc. The fact is humans are omnivores.
- pazimzadeh 7y agoThat makes sense - by starting with small amounts you're more likely to induce oral tolerance. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4603531/
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- geggam 7y agoMy wife tried every diet known, when she started eating Keto style and even strict carnivorous all of her stomach issues went away. Just from observing her and the kids I think there are huge benefits to not eating carbohydrates. Some of this benefit could be related to the chemicals in the foods but every time she eats any grains or grain products she gets stomach issues I dont have any stomach issues except I gain weight when I eat carbs. No carbs and the weight goes off. There is more to this issue than meat vs grains IMO BTW... does anyone have a reference to a medical study showing why the US recommended diet is recommended ?
- queercode 7y agoHow about "eat no meat regardless of nutritional value (unless absolutely necessary) because it's unethical to do so"?
- mijamo 7y agoUnethical for whom? It's not like ethics is universal.
- queercode 7y agoI'd say unethical for everyone. This isn't even just an "animal rights" debate. It's also a debate about the impact that eating meat has on the environment. There's way too many "eat less meat" articles to list, but here's one: https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-meat/ https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-meat/ Sure, it's a bit of a jump from "eat less meat" to "eat no meat", but the trend is there.
- odessacubbage 7y agohow about instead of eat less meat, eat less shitty meat and cook more? in all likelihood, you'll save money and feel better.
- moocow157 7y agoOf course it is. If you mean by this to endorse moral relativism, then there is no further ethical conversation that can be had on this whatsoever.
- F-0X 7y agoBecause it is not objectively unethical.
- queercode 7y agoNothing is "objectively unethical". That doesn't mean conversations about ethics can't and don't take place.
- neonate 7y agohttp://archive.is/zg4hE http://archive.is/zg4hE
- reaperducer 7y agoWasn't there a Woody Allen movie about this? People in the future were cramming Twinkies into their mouths and living longer because everything we thought we knew about nutrition was wrong?
- NeedMoreTea 7y agoSleeper. He wakes up hundreds of years in the future, and starts asking for health foods. From the early 70s. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q
- edejong 7y agoHarvard Response: "The panel declared “considerations of environmental impact” out of the scope of their recommendations. This is a missed opportunity because climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual health." My response: should we apply this to other topics as well? Pimp the efficiency of renewables compared with carbon-based? Up the effectivity of hydrogen-based energy distribution? Lift the results of a study promoting working from home? Two words come to mind: Occam's razor.
- humble_engineer 7y ago"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" This is not how science works.
- zygimantasdev 7y ago"climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on human health" - can you elaborate? Do you mean mental health?
- edejong 7y agoThese are not my words. All I am arguing is that we should expect the simplest possible connection between nutrition and health. Although I do agree we should also understand the systematic effects of certain choices, we cannot make decisions if all these effects are aggregated haphazardly. It would make sense if another study would combine the nutritional long-term effects, the societal costs, the availability of alternative sources of amino acids and other factors. Nevertheless, the conclusion: "Red meat consumption is unhealthy for individuals" should (imho) not consider the environmental effects. Principle of least astonishment.
- parliament32 7y agoYeah that's a terrible response. Of course it's out-of-scope, just like someone's pro-vegetarian paper should have "considerations of the impact to American cattle farmers" out-of-scope. It's just not what the paper's about, and trying to use that as a rebuttal speaks to the weakness of Harvard's response.
- cageface 7y agoDr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, a lobbying group for meat producers. This is just meat industry damage control. The Harvard rebuttal lays out the issues pretty well. Just like big tobacco and big oil, they just need to sow enough confusion around the facts to make people give up and stop paying attention.
- oh_sigh 7y agoOne would expect a cattle lobbying group to support hopeful studies which support their worldview. I think it is premature to write this off merely for that fact, just like it would be to write off a study which came to the opposite conclusion if it was funded by a soy growers association.
- dang 7y agoThat person isn't an author of the study, presumably just someone the NYT asked to comment. The article says about this study: "The investigators reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside funding." I think it's fair to say that "This is just meat industry damage control" breaks the HN guideline: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- cageface 7y agoFair enough. I thought it was worth mentioning since the meat industry is engaged in an active disinformation campaign. As others have said, the Harvard rebuttal itself gets into the details. I'll link it again here: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-guidelines-red-processed-meat/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...
- scottlocklin 7y ago> the meat industry is engaged in an active disinformation campaign Come on man: citations needed. From where I am sitting, the "meat industry" is about as threatened by vegetarians as the brussel sprouts industry is by mcdonalds. Keto diets are presently quite popular and don't seem to do people much harm at least.
- notadoc 7y ago"Researcher funded by [fill in the specialist interest group] says you should [do thing that benefits special interest group]" Perhaps I am too cynical, but much research and many studies are generated from that model.
- droithomme 7y agoI avoided all red meat for decades and ended up with extremely poor health with multiple problems. Not too long ago I saw this insane article about some author's daughter who had severe lifelong immune diseases and after years of experimentation, found that eating absolutely nothing but steaks, water, and vodka, cured all her problems. There was also commentary by nutritionists and scientists saying she was wrong and her diet would ensure certain doom. Anyhoo, I bought a nice grill and started eating steaks every day. Red meat. Rare, barely cooked, just singed a bit. Drinking, licking up that delicious red blood left over. All my medical problems went away. Like almost instantly. It was crazy. Absolutely crazy. I would never have believed it. My total diet's still a bit more varied than meat and vodka though. I do a lot of vegetables as I always have still.
- geggam 7y agoNot sure why this is downvoted. There are many stories like this.
- hi5eyes 7y agoforcing people to eat in a way that doesnt suit their body is insanity. fuck the fads
- bigtex 7y agoYou are probably referring to Mikala Peterson, Jordan Peterson's daughter.
- jonnycoder 7y agoLook up "joe rogan mikhaila peterson" on youtube for those who want to learn more about it. Joe Rogan also interviews Rhonda Patrick and she goes into far more detail about the good and bad of red meat than what you will find reading the comments here.
- someonehere 7y agoI’m always skeptical when I see counter studies to businesses that have a strong financial foothold on certain industries. Case in point, did the meat industry have any weight in this study? Generally I feel through certain lobbying efforts theses types of industries will produce a counter study that gets enough backing to be read on the nightly news and now people go back to the way things were or are confused. Having read the China Study, I have all the convincing I need about the role of meat in our diets and I’m fine with that.
- pkghost 7y agoAs if there are not other industries that benefit from meat being deemed unhealthy by science? Non-expert perspective on this: I find it very difficult to believe that there is such a thing as too much meat (and easy to believe that too much bad quality meat is the root of the problem as commonly discussed), given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to support anything other than a ketogenic diet for most people most of the time.
- theferalrobot 7y ago> given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to support anything other than a ketogenic diet Evolution takes a long time and most of the ancestors in human history were near vegetarian with a very low percentage of calories coming from non-vegetarian sources. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/ https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancest...
- nzzzz 7y ago> most of the ancestors in human history were near vegetarian An extremely disingenuous statement not backed in any manner in the article outside of paragraphs like these >But the truth is, for most of the last twenty million years of the evolution of our bodies, through most of the big changes, we were eating fruit, nuts, leaves and the occasional bit of insect, frog, bird or mouse. That goes beyond "human history" because monkeys/apes relatives are not humans. Last twenty million years? there was nothing recognizably human then. The australopithecus genus appeared 4 million years ago and even that isn't quite human in shape. Then mentions a diet of "fruit, nuts, leaves". Leaves? Humans can't process leaves efficiently enough to get more nutrition than energy expanded. Unless by leaves they mean leafy vegetables like lettuce which will fill up your stomach while not providing enough calories to get by. An average fit, physically active human needs 2500 calories intake a day. 100 grams of lettuce is 15 calories. 100 grams of fruits like Apples is 52 calories. Of the three mentioned food sources, the only reasonable way of providing enough energy to a human body is nuts. Most nuts can get you where you need to be without having to eat yourself to an enlarged stomach. When you account for seasons, primitive lifestyle that has no way of preserving food and lack of mobility because men relied on their own two legs for their own transportations (reducing the variety of foods available) you really have to brainwash yourself to believe that such a diet could be possible at all. It's easy to be a vegetarian in a world with agriculture. Not so much before. We have human cultures that lived in harsh environments like Alaska for millenias and they didn't live on a diet of good vegan sentiments.
- ttlei 7y agoI’ll just stick to my own habit of eating everything but in moderation, cut sugar consumption to absolute minimal, and exercise 3 days a week.
- Havoc 7y agoTen points for guessing which agri sector sponsored this study
- w1nst0nsm1th 7y agoResearch sponsorized by the USBMA (US Beefsteak Makers Association) and the WRMA (World Red Meat Alliance).
- GoodJokes 7y agoSome good news for Jordan Peterson while he is in rehab.
- kup0 7y agoThe HN comments section on any nutrition article sort-of seems to provide its own microcosm of the problem... No one remotely agrees on the data found so far. A hundred different anecdotes all contradict one another about how to lose weight or eat healthy. It's a pretty sad and frustrating state that nutrition research is in, honestly. Sugar is bad and then it's okay. Saturated fat is terrible but it's fine. All red meat is bad. No wait, just processed red meat. Too much sodium is dangerous, wait no it's fine for most people, even some with high BP. Counting calories always works, except when it doesn't. Low carb is magic except when it's not. Yikes.
- brodouevencode 7y agoWell stated. It's political in many ways, and at least for me that makes it a turn off.
- hombre_fatal 7y agoJust like how we know that pushups work, we know that eating moderate amounts of whole foods works. But arguments don't start over that so our attentions shift to the zany opinionated bullshit. Kind of like how it's more fun to argue about min/max exercise equipment and routines than actually do the damn exercise.
- sn9 7y agoAndrew Gelman's positive take on this article as a piece of scientific reporting, for those interested in a statistician's take: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/09/30/that-study-about-the-health-risks-of-red-meat-an-excellent-news-report/ https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/09/30/that-study...