4 ms·

Attributing colon cancer to meat is, it turns out, complete bullshit, just like most other nonsense anti-meat fear-mongering (uric acid, cholesterol, etc.).

jjtheblunt 6y ago
I'm not familiar with the data either way, so am reading to learn; why do you say it's bullshit?
- zepto 6y ago
  In context, I think it’s as fair to call it bullshit as to claim it as a truth. It was being claimed as a truth to rebut the implications a peer reviewed study, but without any data to support it.
- centimeter 6y ago
  Every time I get concerned about one of these things and look it up, it turns out to have been false.
  - yesenadam 6y ago
    I have the same experience when apparently anti-vegan results/studies appear on HN. Usually the headline is a million miles from what the study could claim to show. It would be nice to actually see this paper. This was the last time I looked at one of these claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23661158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23661158 (Article claimed 25% of vegans have low blood iron, and the study involved ..10 vegans.)
- steve_adams_86 6y ago
  Before I became vegetarian I read as many papers as I could about why meat is good or bad for you. Unfortunately a lot of papers don't provide very good data regarding what kind of meat is being eaten. At least, not in what I've read; I'd love to see something better. Some very specifically included processed meats which, to me, invalidates the study as a study about meat. Processed meats are a completely different beast. On those grounds a significant number of studies I've read are hard to take seriously. This could be a reason people are calling it bullshit. I'd love to see a study involving conscientious meat eating habits in which people eat mostly vegetables, some whole meats, and otherwise avoid processed foods. This is how I'd want to eat if I ate meat, but it's rare to see balanced studies. This does, however, make some sense: most people eat processed foods where these studies are done, so they're relevant to a broader part of the population. They should not be used to condemn meat, though.

jjtheblunt 6y ago

I'm not familiar with the data either way, so am reading to learn; why do you say it's bullshit?

zepto 6y ago
In context, I think it’s as fair to call it bullshit as to claim it as a truth. It was being claimed as a truth to rebut the implications a peer reviewed study, but without any data to support it.
centimeter 6y ago
Every time I get concerned about one of these things and look it up, it turns out to have been false.
- yesenadam 6y ago
  I have the same experience when apparently anti-vegan results/studies appear on HN. Usually the headline is a million miles from what the study could claim to show. It would be nice to actually see this paper. This was the last time I looked at one of these claims: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23661158 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23661158 (Article claimed 25% of vegans have low blood iron, and the study involved ..10 vegans.)
steve_adams_86 6y ago
Before I became vegetarian I read as many papers as I could about why meat is good or bad for you. Unfortunately a lot of papers don't provide very good data regarding what kind of meat is being eaten. At least, not in what I've read; I'd love to see something better. Some very specifically included processed meats which, to me, invalidates the study as a study about meat. Processed meats are a completely different beast. On those grounds a significant number of studies I've read are hard to take seriously. This could be a reason people are calling it bullshit. I'd love to see a study involving conscientious meat eating habits in which people eat mostly vegetables, some whole meats, and otherwise avoid processed foods. This is how I'd want to eat if I ate meat, but it's rare to see balanced studies. This does, however, make some sense: most people eat processed foods where these studies are done, so they're relevant to a broader part of the population. They should not be used to condemn meat, though.