10 ms·

The partisan tone of this article is very grating and makes it hard to take it seriously. It is full of brash, opinionated statements which are not backed up by

The partisan tone of this article is very grating and makes it hard to take it seriously. It is full of brash, opinionated statements which are not backed up by the actual study [1] the article is based on. I have to conclude that it's being upvoted here because people enjoy eating red meat and want to continue to do so, not because it has any particular merit on its own terms. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z

tony_cannistra 4y ago
It is interesting how certain posts on HN elicit a compelling discussion and others more of a "everyone yelling into the void" situation.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Virtue signaling. A loaded term, yes. But it is exactly why these discussions go off the rails. Nutritional 'science' doesn't even really exist, so you can always find something out there that sounds very objective and intelligence which will back up the positions you already hold on faith. This discussion today is already off to a great start with bro science and bragging about personal choices that are clearly the best, with the occasional 'but I am a little weak, so I don't get it perfect every time' tossed in to make it sound real. Hell, there's even a bit of the smug international 'this is just an America problem' already cropping up. Another day ending in Y on HN.
  - cbsmith 4y ago
    > Virtue signaling. A loaded term, yes. But it is exactly why these discussions go off the rails. Nutritional 'science' doesn't even really exist, so you can always find something out there that sounds very objective and intelligence which will back up the positions you already hold on faith. What you're describing is more confirmation bias than virtue signaling. Certainly there's plenty of both here.
- danuker 4y ago
  At least we get a poll, in the form of the rank of comments.
ricardobayes 4y ago
I have to agree, it's like one of those 'inspired' researches back in the day that promoted the health benefits of smoking.
newaccount2021 4y ago
hn2017 4y ago
There's been a lot of this partisan/one-sided articles on HN recently. Sometimes even just links to a random person's blog!
- still_grokking 4y ago
  I'm not sure, should I up-vote or down-vote? Could you clarify whether this is sarcasm or not, so I can decide?
onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago
Also have to note that there's hundreds (thousands?) of studies that disagree, and you can p-hack anything, so every study should be taken with a grain of salt - especially when it contradicts a consensus.
- chirau 4y ago
  with a grain of salt... or now, with a piece of beef :)
0xbadcafebee 4y ago
FWIW upvotes don't correlate with accurate or impartial content, they correlate with engagement (controversial or entertaining content). Boring accurate science doesn't attract attention.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  At least at this point, the link to the nature article is the #2 comment on this article...
- dpkirchner 4y ago
  And specifically engagement with the title, not so much the article. It'd be pretty hard for a link to make it out of new without some early knee-jerk pre-read upvotes, IMO.
concinds 4y ago
The tone is necessary. So much bullshit 'nutrition science', with defective methodologies, has been promoted by mainstream media (along with exaggerated nonsense on the "risks" of eggs, coffee, tea, spinach...) that it's appropriate for people to debunk these claims vigorously. These mainstream outlets shouldn't pretend the nocebo effect doesn't exist, and that their reporting won't harm people's health unnecessarily. When better science comes around, then we can let the MSM get away with making these claims.
- q1w2 4y ago
  Two opposing lies do not form a truth.
- martopix 4y ago
  you're missing the point that not all of it was bullshit nutrition science. Research is an ongoing process.
  - vlovich123 4y ago
    It’s an ongoing process but I don’t think anyone can look at this field and see anything other than low quality science with no theoretical model explaining anything and results that often seem like they are driven by conclusions instead of the other way round. Maybe something has changed in the past 10-20 years but certainly the amount of contradictory conclusions in this field is quite high And not like any other more established scientific discipline. To me it’s more in the alchemy phase rather than modern chemistry.
  - concinds 4y ago
    The 'bullshit' was mostly not spread by scientists, but by media. When the findings of scientific studies are twisted and manipulated, and when a study that shows X is treated as if it proved X, and Y, and Z, there's no better word for that than 'bullshit science'. The studies were far too low quality to prove anything, or even show us what's directionally correct. What better term is there? It wasn't pseudoscience, because the studies were real, and addressed scientific topics. It wasn't scientific fraud, because again the studies were real. But the implications 'derived' from them by motivated media were completely made up. My dictionary calls that 'bullshit'. Also see: https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1592663902802055168 https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1592663902802055168
lynndotpy 4y ago
I agree here. It's hard to read this as "Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of other studies. But you should totally trust this one, because the others are Lazy and Shoddy." In an area where there are huge amounts of lobbyist dollars arguing in the same direction, I'd love more technical reasons about why every other study is flawed and why this burden-of-proof function is meaningful. I'm not realistically going to read the 25 page PDF in a field I'm not in.
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  [flagged]
- scoofy 4y ago
  Any study that "slams" decades of research needs to be reproduced or independently reanalyzed (for meta-analysis) before I take it seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
  - martin82 4y ago
    What if the "extraordinary evidence" that is the foundation of your current dogma is the culmination of several decades of "science" that got corrupted by big money?
    - scoofy 4y ago
      Then entire point of science is reproducibility. If it's true, it's reproducible.
tootie 4y ago
Yeah, and there's still a big gap between what data tells us and how to create policy. Sometimes waiting for conclusive evidence isn't possible and when you see warning signs you have to make recommendations. Especially considering the potential downside which in this case is really nothing. Eating meat may not be a terrible menace, but eating less meat is hardly a burden on anyone. The health risks of eating unprocessed red meat may have been overstated, but there is still some evidence that has to be considered. And the article itself says that while the evidence of danger from meat consumption may be a proxy for correlated lifestyle changes so this narrow finding doesn't actually negate policy. Pushing people to eat whole grains, fruits and vegetables still stands as the best option.
slothtrop 4y ago
That tells you who the article is for. Snark does not change minds, but it satisfies certain readers.
DontchaKnowit 4y ago
Frankly, a LOT of nutritional science is heavily politicized, included the research the contra side of this article. The corn and grain industries have a long storied history of funding studies that support their targets and denigrate the meat industry as well as lobbying for regulations which benefit their industries.
- marricks 4y ago
  Aren’t cattle the biggest grain consumers, so wouldn’t that be counter productive? I’ve heard of the ag lobby and the meat and dairy lobbies but never big grain. Of course they exist and do something but going against the meat lobby just seems weird.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    > According to the Cato Institute, farmers of corn, soybeans, and wheat receive more than 70% of farm subsidies. https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162
    - mahogany 4y ago
      To contextualize this given the parent commenter's question: -- About 50% of US corn production goes toward animal feed (and another 30% goes to ethanol). Slightly out of date source, but recent figures show this has only moved a few percentage points. [1] -- Over 70% of US soybean production goes toward animal feed. [2] -- I wasn't able to find something similar about wheat, but I would guess nearly all of it is human consumption. Given this, it's safe to say that a large portion of these grain subsidies are linked to meat, although to get a better idea of the distribution, we would need to see a further breakdown by category (corn, soybeans, wheat). [1] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-corn-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten... [2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
    - marricks 4y ago
lr4444lr 4y ago
Science operates by biasing the null hypothesis. We may like red meat and be partial to it, but the onus is still on people to prove that it's harmful. Now even the correlation for that is falling apart.
umvi 4y ago
> I have to conclude that it's being upvoted here because people enjoy eating red meat and want to continue to do so Similarly, "wine/coffee/beer/marijuana/chocolate/etc is good for you" type studies tend to be upvoted because people like evidence that helps rationalize their habits and vices.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  No, that is different. Psychoactives we need to create this illusion of therapeutic use so that we can enjoy ourselves because otherwise the puritans will ban them. For instance, I'm under no illusion that alcohol, weed, LSD, shrooms, or MDMA are good for you in general but I have to promote articles like that because if I don't, puritans in this society will prevent me from enjoying them just like I enjoy jumping off bridges, skydiving, or motorcycling. This is my life and the only way to live it is to lie to some people in a certain way. So we're going to have this mutually beneficial world where we have to modify the narrative so all parties can get what they want.

tony_cannistra 4y ago

It is interesting how certain posts on HN elicit a compelling discussion and others more of a "everyone yelling into the void" situation.

rootusrootus 4y ago
Virtue signaling. A loaded term, yes. But it is exactly why these discussions go off the rails. Nutritional 'science' doesn't even really exist, so you can always find something out there that sounds very objective and intelligence which will back up the positions you already hold on faith. This discussion today is already off to a great start with bro science and bragging about personal choices that are clearly the best, with the occasional 'but I am a little weak, so I don't get it perfect every time' tossed in to make it sound real. Hell, there's even a bit of the smug international 'this is just an America problem' already cropping up. Another day ending in Y on HN.
- cbsmith 4y ago
  > Virtue signaling. A loaded term, yes. But it is exactly why these discussions go off the rails. Nutritional 'science' doesn't even really exist, so you can always find something out there that sounds very objective and intelligence which will back up the positions you already hold on faith. What you're describing is more confirmation bias than virtue signaling. Certainly there's plenty of both here.
danuker 4y ago
At least we get a poll, in the form of the rank of comments.

ricardobayes 4y ago

I have to agree, it's like one of those 'inspired' researches back in the day that promoted the health benefits of smoking.

newaccount2021 4y ago

hn2017 4y ago

There's been a lot of this partisan/one-sided articles on HN recently. Sometimes even just links to a random person's blog!

still_grokking 4y ago
I'm not sure, should I up-vote or down-vote? Could you clarify whether this is sarcasm or not, so I can decide?

onlyrealcuzzo 4y ago

Also have to note that there's hundreds (thousands?) of studies that disagree, and you can p-hack anything, so every study should be taken with a grain of salt - especially when it contradicts a consensus.

chirau 4y ago
with a grain of salt... or now, with a piece of beef :)

0xbadcafebee 4y ago

FWIW upvotes don't correlate with accurate or impartial content, they correlate with engagement (controversial or entertaining content). Boring accurate science doesn't attract attention.

cbsmith 4y ago
At least at this point, the link to the nature article is the #2 comment on this article...
dpkirchner 4y ago
And specifically engagement with the title, not so much the article. It'd be pretty hard for a link to make it out of new without some early knee-jerk pre-read upvotes, IMO.

concinds 4y ago

The tone is necessary. So much bullshit 'nutrition science', with defective methodologies, has been promoted by mainstream media (along with exaggerated nonsense on the "risks" of eggs, coffee, tea, spinach...) that it's appropriate for people to debunk these claims vigorously. These mainstream outlets shouldn't pretend the nocebo effect doesn't exist, and that their reporting won't harm people's health unnecessarily. When better science comes around, then we can let the MSM get away with making these claims.

q1w2 4y ago
Two opposing lies do not form a truth.
martopix 4y ago
you're missing the point that not all of it was bullshit nutrition science. Research is an ongoing process.
- vlovich123 4y ago
  It’s an ongoing process but I don’t think anyone can look at this field and see anything other than low quality science with no theoretical model explaining anything and results that often seem like they are driven by conclusions instead of the other way round. Maybe something has changed in the past 10-20 years but certainly the amount of contradictory conclusions in this field is quite high And not like any other more established scientific discipline. To me it’s more in the alchemy phase rather than modern chemistry.
- concinds 4y ago
  The 'bullshit' was mostly not spread by scientists, but by media. When the findings of scientific studies are twisted and manipulated, and when a study that shows X is treated as if it proved X, and Y, and Z, there's no better word for that than 'bullshit science'. The studies were far too low quality to prove anything, or even show us what's directionally correct. What better term is there? It wasn't pseudoscience, because the studies were real, and addressed scientific topics. It wasn't scientific fraud, because again the studies were real. But the implications 'derived' from them by motivated media were completely made up. My dictionary calls that 'bullshit'. Also see: https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1592663902802055168 https://twitter.com/fleroy1974/status/1592663902802055168

lynndotpy 4y ago

I agree here. It's hard to read this as "Red meat is not a health risk. New study slams years of other studies. But you should totally trust this one, because the others are Lazy and Shoddy." In an area where there are huge amounts of lobbyist dollars arguing in the same direction, I'd love more technical reasons about why every other study is flawed and why this burden-of-proof function is meaningful. I'm not realistically going to read the 25 page PDF in a field I'm not in.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
[flagged]
scoofy 4y ago
Any study that "slams" decades of research needs to be reproduced or independently reanalyzed (for meta-analysis) before I take it seriously. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
- martin82 4y ago
  What if the "extraordinary evidence" that is the foundation of your current dogma is the culmination of several decades of "science" that got corrupted by big money?
  - scoofy 4y ago
    Then entire point of science is reproducibility. If it's true, it's reproducible.

tootie 4y ago

Yeah, and there's still a big gap between what data tells us and how to create policy. Sometimes waiting for conclusive evidence isn't possible and when you see warning signs you have to make recommendations. Especially considering the potential downside which in this case is really nothing. Eating meat may not be a terrible menace, but eating less meat is hardly a burden on anyone. The health risks of eating unprocessed red meat may have been overstated, but there is still some evidence that has to be considered. And the article itself says that while the evidence of danger from meat consumption may be a proxy for correlated lifestyle changes so this narrow finding doesn't actually negate policy. Pushing people to eat whole grains, fruits and vegetables still stands as the best option.

slothtrop 4y ago

That tells you who the article is for. Snark does not change minds, but it satisfies certain readers.

DontchaKnowit 4y ago

Frankly, a LOT of nutritional science is heavily politicized, included the research the contra side of this article. The corn and grain industries have a long storied history of funding studies that support their targets and denigrate the meat industry as well as lobbying for regulations which benefit their industries.

marricks 4y ago
Aren’t cattle the biggest grain consumers, so wouldn’t that be counter productive? I’ve heard of the ag lobby and the meat and dairy lobbies but never big grain. Of course they exist and do something but going against the meat lobby just seems weird.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > According to the Cato Institute, farmers of corn, soybeans, and wheat receive more than 70% of farm subsidies. https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162 https://www.thoughtco.com/us-farm-subsidies-3325162
  - mahogany 4y ago
    To contextualize this given the parent commenter's question: -- About 50% of US corn production goes toward animal feed (and another 30% goes to ethanol). Slightly out of date source, but recent figures show this has only moved a few percentage points. [1] -- Over 70% of US soybean production goes toward animal feed. [2] -- I wasn't able to find something similar about wheat, but I would guess nearly all of it is human consumption. Given this, it's safe to say that a large portion of these grain subsidies are linked to meat, although to get a better idea of the distribution, we would need to see a further breakdown by category (corn, soybeans, wheat). [1] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-corn-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten... [2] https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-soybeans-factsheet.pdf https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexisten...
  - marricks 4y ago

lr4444lr 4y ago

Science operates by biasing the null hypothesis. We may like red meat and be partial to it, but the onus is still on people to prove that it's harmful. Now even the correlation for that is falling apart.

umvi 4y ago

> I have to conclude that it's being upvoted here because people enjoy eating red meat and want to continue to do so Similarly, "wine/coffee/beer/marijuana/chocolate/etc is good for you" type studies tend to be upvoted because people like evidence that helps rationalize their habits and vices.

renewiltord 4y ago
No, that is different. Psychoactives we need to create this illusion of therapeutic use so that we can enjoy ourselves because otherwise the puritans will ban them. For instance, I'm under no illusion that alcohol, weed, LSD, shrooms, or MDMA are good for you in general but I have to promote articles like that because if I don't, puritans in this society will prevent me from enjoying them just like I enjoy jumping off bridges, skydiving, or motorcycling. This is my life and the only way to live it is to lie to some people in a certain way. So we're going to have this mutually beneficial world where we have to modify the narrative so all parties can get what they want.