7 ms·

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 n

by 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.
- martingoodson 3y ago
  In case anyone takes this comment seriously:'There is strong evidence that processed meat and red meat intake increases risk of colorectal cancer.[31][32][33] The American Cancer Society in their "Diet and Physical Activity Guideline", stated "evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods."[34]' This is from Wikipedia. References are to solid science. Not to YouTube influencers.
  - sph 3y ago
    There you go. Not knowing you can find paper that prove A and papers that prove B, it's just a matter of finding the papers that prove what you most believe in, and QED. Especially when you use a quote which conveniently puts red and processed meat in the same basket to reach their conclusion. I'll let you have this one, because as I said, it is quixotic trying to restore some kind of objectivity or educated discussion on dietary matters. Even under the anthropological point of view, red meat which has sustained humanity for hundred of thousands of years, to "cause cancer" smells like biased nonsense from a mile away. I guess during the last ice age, when herbivores roamed the earth freely and in abundant numbers, the opportunist scavenger Homo Sapiens was eating chicken breast and leafy vegetables.
    - isaacfrond 3y ago
      > There you go. Not knowing you can find paper that prove A and papers that prove B, it's just a matter of finding the papers that prove what you most believe in, and QED. You would be a lot more convincing if you actually cited some papers.
      - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
        His point is literally that most papers are lobbyist garbage. He made that rather clear. So how would citing papers he already declares biased help anything?
sampo 3y ago
> To be clear, this isn't an academic study, it's basically an op-ed It is published in the proper articles section of the journal. If it was as opinion piece, it would probably be under the "Perspectives" section. https://academic.oup.com/af/issue/13/2 https://academic.oup.com/af/issue/13/2 Unless you mean to say, that the whole journal Animal Frontiers is opinion pieces. https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About
- zamfi 3y ago
  That is exactly what I mean to say, and why I included a link from the published that says exactly that: > Each issue of Animal Frontiers will consist of a series of invited, peer-reviewed articles that present several international perspectives on the status of a high-impact, timely, global issue in animal agriculture. The articles will be in the form of discussion or position articles that will add to the scientific reviews and original articles published in the journals of the four science societies (Animal, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Animal Science, Translational Animal Science, and Meat and Muscle Biology). Note "articles will be in the form of discussion or position articles".

by zamfi 3y ago

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.

martingoodson 3y ago
In case anyone takes this comment seriously:'There is strong evidence that processed meat and red meat intake increases risk of colorectal cancer.[31][32][33] The American Cancer Society in their "Diet and Physical Activity Guideline", stated "evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods."[34]' This is from Wikipedia. References are to solid science. Not to YouTube influencers.
- sph 3y ago
  There you go. Not knowing you can find paper that prove A and papers that prove B, it's just a matter of finding the papers that prove what you most believe in, and QED. Especially when you use a quote which conveniently puts red and processed meat in the same basket to reach their conclusion. I'll let you have this one, because as I said, it is quixotic trying to restore some kind of objectivity or educated discussion on dietary matters. Even under the anthropological point of view, red meat which has sustained humanity for hundred of thousands of years, to "cause cancer" smells like biased nonsense from a mile away. I guess during the last ice age, when herbivores roamed the earth freely and in abundant numbers, the opportunist scavenger Homo Sapiens was eating chicken breast and leafy vegetables.
  - isaacfrond 3y ago
    > There you go. Not knowing you can find paper that prove A and papers that prove B, it's just a matter of finding the papers that prove what you most believe in, and QED. You would be a lot more convincing if you actually cited some papers.
    - tourmalinetaco 3y ago
      His point is literally that most papers are lobbyist garbage. He made that rather clear. So how would citing papers he already declares biased help anything?

sampo 3y ago

> To be clear, this isn't an academic study, it's basically an op-ed It is published in the proper articles section of the journal. If it was as opinion piece, it would probably be under the "Perspectives" section. https://academic.oup.com/af/issue/13/2 https://academic.oup.com/af/issue/13/2 Unless you mean to say, that the whole journal Animal Frontiers is opinion pieces. https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About https://academic.oup.com/af/pages/About

zamfi 3y ago
That is exactly what I mean to say, and why I included a link from the published that says exactly that: > Each issue of Animal Frontiers will consist of a series of invited, peer-reviewed articles that present several international perspectives on the status of a high-impact, timely, global issue in animal agriculture. The articles will be in the form of discussion or position articles that will add to the scientific reviews and original articles published in the journals of the four science societies (Animal, Canadian Journal of Animal Science, Journal of Animal Science, Translational Animal Science, and Meat and Muscle Biology). Note "articles will be in the form of discussion or position articles".