6 ms·

The abstract is clear and readable. It also seems to signal, overwhelmingly, "MEAT GOOD". And the problem here, is that I cannot trust it. Not because I disagre

by voz_ 3y ago

The abstract is clear and readable. It also seems to signal, overwhelmingly, "MEAT GOOD". And the problem here, is that I cannot trust it. Not because I disagree, but because any study involving food feels so heavily lobbied, and so chock full of vested interests vying for a headline. (Red wine is good for the heart! Grass feed meat prevents cancer! Beef is terrible for the environment). It is sadly weaponized science for mass consumption. As a lay person , my eyes glaze over. Is sugar alright for me in moderation? Or am I poisoning myself? Should I stop eating meat because I want to preserve our environment, or as this study says, will I deprive myself of B12? How does one know who to believe? It seems easier to just check out and kinda guess through it on ones own.

boudin 3y ago
The thing that sounds off to me is that meat consumption increased a lot in just a few generations. Meat being such a part of a diet is something way too new to be considered evolutionary.
- zamfi 3y ago
  ...since the invention of agriculture, yes. But prior to agriculture, meat was a reasonably large part of diet in a number of places.
- guerby 3y ago
  Relative to native americans or inuit? Both were most or only meat eaters.
- cfn 3y ago
  This is absurd, agriculture was invented 10 thousand years ago, what do you think Homo Sapiens ate for the previous 1990 thousand years of its existence?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  We were a hunter/gatherer society for a reason. Meat/fat is incredibly nutrient and calorically rich, which gave us the ability to grow our brains out and shrink our stomachs. Once we discovered agriculture, we found we could more safely and sufficiently meet our caloric needs with breads, and meat became a luxury as livestock is expensive and hunting was inefficient and costly in a time that normalized daily labor in the community. Once we industrialized farming, we could once again fulfill our demands for meat.
zamfi 3y ago
To be clear, this isn't an academic study, it's basically an op-ed, published in a magazine dedicated to position papers about animal agriculture [1]. I would not read very much into this one specific article. Unfortunately, the scientific jury is still out about meat consumption from a nutritional standpoint---it's clearly not required, and certain types of meat we're pretty sure are harmful, but consumed carefully there may well be benefits from the non-harmful types. In any case, effect sizes are likely to be small at the population level, or we'd have discovered something major by now. The upshot? Try changing your meat consumption patterns and see how you feel -- if you feel better, consider making the change permanent! [1]: https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/General_Instructions# https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/General_Instructions#
- guerby 3y ago
  Don't forget to try to change carbohydrates and fat consumption patterns as well. Some reportedly do better with low carb and avoiding industrial seed oils.
- sph 3y ago
  Which meat we're pretty sure it's harmful? If it's processed one, sure, like most (ultra) processed food. If you are about to say red meat, you are misinformed like everybody else that has repeated the same nonsense for the past 3 decades about red meat, cholesterol, etc. So I wouldn't be quick to blame sponsored and biased papers, when even laymen like you and I keep parroting the same unscientific dogmas they have heard over the years, which keep being disproved. Red meat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol is not unhealthy per se. Cholesterol is a simple metric that is often misinterpreted by GP and has a complete different meaning whether you are eating a lot of carbohydrates and sugar with red meat, or not. https://youtu.be/rdgS3PuSuyg https://youtu.be/rdgS3PuSuyg In fact, recent studies seem to show that higher LDL levels (you know, the bad one) are correlated with longevity. Go figure. Scientifically, we still have no clue. Then add lobbying and ideology on top. This is how you get modern dietary science. I usually skip dietary posts on this forum because the same misinformation, whether it's because of parroting or pushing a certain anti-meat agenda, is readily found upvoted to the top. At this point arguing with people about diet is starting to feel quixotic.
Dalewyn 3y ago
>As a lay person , my eyes glaze over. Here's the simple answer: Eat and drink what you want and like. Ignore anything and everything else anyone tells you, unless it's from your doctor or nutritionist concerning specific health conditions you have. If you want cake, eat cake. If you want beer, drink beer. If you want steak, eat steak. If you want onions, eat onions. Nothing else really matters.
- rhn_mk1 3y ago
  If you want crystal meth, take crystal meth. Oh wait, maybe always doing what you want isn't actually that good of an idea.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    If you want a straw man, have a straw man.
    - rhn_mk1 3y ago
      If I'm misrepresenting your point about following desires first and foremost, then please explain. You say "follow advice tailored to your specific situation", but you don't need to be a doctor or to know the specific situation to say crystal meth is a bad idea, so I'm not misrepresenting you there either. This is reduction to the absurd, not a straw man.
      - Dalewyn 3y ago
        We eat to live, but to live we must be happy. Eating what would make us unhappy is therefore contradictory to the purpose of eating. Eating must bring joy to life. Therefore, we should eat what makes us happy, which is to say what we want. The only counterargument here is to prioritize your body's immediate health needs, because not doing so (eg: not listening to doctor's orders) is to forfeit life which is contradictory to the purpose of eating. So eat what you want, within the bounds of what your health allows.
fredrikholm 3y ago
> will I deprive myself of B12? 90% of all B12 supplementation occurs in livestock, join the party! B12 is a product of bacteria living on the surface of roots in soil. Once you add herbicides, pesticides and general monoculture practices (barren soil baking in the sun, heavy tilling, artificial fertilizers), the conditions for producing B12 fall off a cliff. The vast majority of our B12 is added via fortification. Heck, a can of Red Bull is >200% of your daily requirement, but unlike the dairy industry they aren't trying to make it sound as if they're the only source of B12 in the world.
- isaacfrond 3y ago
  I don't take caffeine at all, and the only processed food I eat is bread and cheese. Will I be deprived?
  - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
    By itself? Probably. That’s where dietary supplements come in though. Ideally from somewhere with strong laws regarding dietary supplements like the EU or Canada.
- rikketikm 3y ago
  Exactly. Whether you take the B12 in the form of a supplement or get it through fortified meat, to me there's little difference.
simonh 3y ago
My eldest daughter has gone plant positive. She’s mostly vegetarian, but doesn’t go way out of her way to avoid meats. She eats veggies and tofu from the communal hotpot (were a half Chinese family) even though meat cooks in it as well, She’ll put meat gravy on her nut roast if it’s on the table. We don’t have to adopt extreme positions to make a difference. Most people eat too much sugar, should probably eat more salad and green vegetables, could benefit from a more varied diet. Nobody has to give up anything, but some changes can still make a difference.

by voz_ 3y ago

boudin 3y ago

The thing that sounds off to me is that meat consumption increased a lot in just a few generations. Meat being such a part of a diet is something way too new to be considered evolutionary.

zamfi 3y ago
...since the invention of agriculture, yes. But prior to agriculture, meat was a reasonably large part of diet in a number of places.
guerby 3y ago
Relative to native americans or inuit? Both were most or only meat eaters.
cfn 3y ago
This is absurd, agriculture was invented 10 thousand years ago, what do you think Homo Sapiens ate for the previous 1990 thousand years of its existence?
tourmalinetaco 3y ago
We were a hunter/gatherer society for a reason. Meat/fat is incredibly nutrient and calorically rich, which gave us the ability to grow our brains out and shrink our stomachs. Once we discovered agriculture, we found we could more safely and sufficiently meet our caloric needs with breads, and meat became a luxury as livestock is expensive and hunting was inefficient and costly in a time that normalized daily labor in the community. Once we industrialized farming, we could once again fulfill our demands for meat.

zamfi 3y ago

To be clear, this isn't an academic study, it's basically an op-ed, published in a magazine dedicated to position papers about animal agriculture [1]. I would not read very much into this one specific article. Unfortunately, the scientific jury is still out about meat consumption from a nutritional standpoint---it's clearly not required, and certain types of meat we're pretty sure are harmful, but consumed carefully there may well be benefits from the non-harmful types. In any case, effect sizes are likely to be small at the population level, or we'd have discovered something major by now. The upshot? Try changing your meat consumption patterns and see how you feel -- if you feel better, consider making the change permanent! [1]: https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/General_Instructions# https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/General_Instructions#

guerby 3y ago
Don't forget to try to change carbohydrates and fat consumption patterns as well. Some reportedly do better with low carb and avoiding industrial seed oils.
sph 3y ago
Which meat we're pretty sure it's harmful? If it's processed one, sure, like most (ultra) processed food. If you are about to say red meat, you are misinformed like everybody else that has repeated the same nonsense for the past 3 decades about red meat, cholesterol, etc. So I wouldn't be quick to blame sponsored and biased papers, when even laymen like you and I keep parroting the same unscientific dogmas they have heard over the years, which keep being disproved. Red meat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol is not unhealthy per se. Cholesterol is a simple metric that is often misinterpreted by GP and has a complete different meaning whether you are eating a lot of carbohydrates and sugar with red meat, or not. https://youtu.be/rdgS3PuSuyg https://youtu.be/rdgS3PuSuyg In fact, recent studies seem to show that higher LDL levels (you know, the bad one) are correlated with longevity. Go figure. Scientifically, we still have no clue. Then add lobbying and ideology on top. This is how you get modern dietary science. I usually skip dietary posts on this forum because the same misinformation, whether it's because of parroting or pushing a certain anti-meat agenda, is readily found upvoted to the top. At this point arguing with people about diet is starting to feel quixotic.

Dalewyn 3y ago

>As a lay person , my eyes glaze over. Here's the simple answer: Eat and drink what you want and like. Ignore anything and everything else anyone tells you, unless it's from your doctor or nutritionist concerning specific health conditions you have. If you want cake, eat cake. If you want beer, drink beer. If you want steak, eat steak. If you want onions, eat onions. Nothing else really matters.

rhn_mk1 3y ago
If you want crystal meth, take crystal meth. Oh wait, maybe always doing what you want isn't actually that good of an idea.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  If you want a straw man, have a straw man.
  - rhn_mk1 3y ago
    If I'm misrepresenting your point about following desires first and foremost, then please explain. You say "follow advice tailored to your specific situation", but you don't need to be a doctor or to know the specific situation to say crystal meth is a bad idea, so I'm not misrepresenting you there either. This is reduction to the absurd, not a straw man.
    - Dalewyn 3y ago
      We eat to live, but to live we must be happy. Eating what would make us unhappy is therefore contradictory to the purpose of eating. Eating must bring joy to life. Therefore, we should eat what makes us happy, which is to say what we want. The only counterargument here is to prioritize your body's immediate health needs, because not doing so (eg: not listening to doctor's orders) is to forfeit life which is contradictory to the purpose of eating. So eat what you want, within the bounds of what your health allows.

fredrikholm 3y ago

> will I deprive myself of B12? 90% of all B12 supplementation occurs in livestock, join the party! B12 is a product of bacteria living on the surface of roots in soil. Once you add herbicides, pesticides and general monoculture practices (barren soil baking in the sun, heavy tilling, artificial fertilizers), the conditions for producing B12 fall off a cliff. The vast majority of our B12 is added via fortification. Heck, a can of Red Bull is >200% of your daily requirement, but unlike the dairy industry they aren't trying to make it sound as if they're the only source of B12 in the world.

isaacfrond 3y ago
I don't take caffeine at all, and the only processed food I eat is bread and cheese. Will I be deprived?
- tourmalinetaco 3y ago
  By itself? Probably. That’s where dietary supplements come in though. Ideally from somewhere with strong laws regarding dietary supplements like the EU or Canada.
rikketikm 3y ago
Exactly. Whether you take the B12 in the form of a supplement or get it through fortified meat, to me there's little difference.

simonh 3y ago

My eldest daughter has gone plant positive. She’s mostly vegetarian, but doesn’t go way out of her way to avoid meats. She eats veggies and tofu from the communal hotpot (were a half Chinese family) even though meat cooks in it as well, She’ll put meat gravy on her nut roast if it’s on the table. We don’t have to adopt extreme positions to make a difference. Most people eat too much sugar, should probably eat more salad and green vegetables, could benefit from a more varied diet. Nobody has to give up anything, but some changes can still make a difference.