4 ms·
Here[1] is the article post on HN and the OP[2] on case you want the article directly. Tangentially, seems to me the science on every food seems to change ever
by effingwewt 4y ago
Here[1] is the article post on HN and the OP[2] on case you want the article directly.
Tangentially, seems to me the science on every food seems to change every few years. Sugar, fat, MSG, eggs, butter, meat, fish, milk, the list goes on.
As others in both this and the linked article stated, I think just reducing consumption would drastically reduce the amount of necessary livestock, which would reduce everything else in the chain. I definitely became more conscious of what I consume from all the secondary and tertiary effects.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33655321 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33655321
[2] https://bigthink.com/health/red-meat-cancer-not-health-risk/ https://bigthink.com/health/red-meat-cancer-not-health-risk/
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y agoI tried to do a deepdive on nutrition a few years back when I went on a diet. My conclusion was that there are far too many confounding factors for any population studies to be taken too seriously. That's why the field is so vogueish like you point out. Long term, highly controlled trials are more useful, but much rarer.