3 ms·
Nutrition "science" cannot yet make accurate predictions here, but from my perspective there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that no single artificial pro
by wyager 6y ago
Nutrition "science" cannot yet make accurate predictions here, but from my perspective there is an overwhelming amount of evidence that no single artificial product yet captures the nutritional profile of real beef.
- creato 6y agoThat's probably true. It's probably also true that there are nutritional pros and cons to both. If we could engineer the "ideal" meat for nutrition, it probably wouldn't be exactly the same as real beef.
- psychometry 6y agoThat nutritional profile also includes increased risk of GI tract cancers among other serious conditions, so I'm not sure what the argument you're trying to make is.
- wyager 6y agoThere is no compelling evidence that eating unprocessed beef carries any significant cancer risk. This claim is obvious a-priori bullshit if you know much about human metabolism. Plain old meat is very rapidly metabolized almost entirely into peptides and absorbed; there is little room for it to cause GI problems. Hence why there are a lot of people with plant-related digestive issues (e.g. celiac) but very few people with beef intolerance, outside of freak allergies like alpha-gal (lone star tick syndrome).
- psychometry 6y agoWhat are you, some sort of beef industry lobbyist? This is a widely accepted fact among the medical community and supported by reams of evidence. Metabolism has almost nothing to do with this. The link between environmental exposure (red meat, smoking, etc.) and cancer has to do with DNA damage and inflammation. https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/03/17/bacon-salami-and-sausages-how-does-processed-meat-cause-cancer-and-how-much-matters/ https://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2021/03/17/bacon-sa... The rest of your comment is clearly irrelevant to the topic at hand.
- wyager 6y agoYeah, I’m paid to shill on HN by Big Beef. “Reams of evidence” for an extremely weak effect more than counterbalanced by nutritional benefits.
- psychometry 6y agoOk, I'll bite. Let's see a citation for your absurd claims.
- DanBC 6y ago> There is no compelling evidence that eating unprocessed beef carries any significant cancer risk. Red meat has an IARC classification of 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans. This is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies, but also (contrary to your claim) mechanistic evidence.