9 ms·

The problem with many red meat studies that show a negative effect, is typically the meat is eaten in the form of fast food cheeseburgers or in the case of dair

The problem with many red meat studies that show a negative effect, is typically the meat is eaten in the form of fast food cheeseburgers or in the case of dairy, pizza. Red meat alone does not cause heart disease. It’s based off the fraudulent study regarding saturated fat and heart disease, which the sugar industry paid for. More likely, is the breads used in SAD (which have very high amounts of sugar vs other countries’ bread) has a much heavier hand in heart disease. Further, the science about cholesterol and what markers mean what amount of heart disease risk isn’t even a clear science. LSL vs HDL vs triglycerides. It seems we know triglycerides elevated is not good, but it’s not clear on LDL and HDL alone (there’s also the size of the particle that matters in determining cardiovascular risk) Show me a study of a population who eats steaks, vegetables, avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I’ll show you a healthy heart. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html#:~:text=The%20sugar%20industry%20paid%20scientists,newly%20released%20historical%20documents%20show https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in.... https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/#:~:text=The%20PURE%20investigators%20found%20that,risk%20of%20stroke%20%5B34%5D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/#:~:tex....

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
virtuallynathan 3y ago
There's currently a study underway that took 100 people who have been on a low carb high fat diet for, on average, over 4 years. These people had a large increase in LDL when switching to this diet. All participants had CT Angiograms, CAC scans, and other tests at T-0 and after 1 year. Some in the study had LDL levels seen in Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (>350mg/dL). A matched control study with this population and the general population is also underway, with the initial results being presented on Dec 8th at the WCIRDCD Conference. If LDL is independently causal of atheroscelosis/CHD, it should be seen in this population.
bsder 3y ago
> The problem with many red meat studies that show a negative effect, is typically the meat is eaten in the form of fast food cheeseburgers or in the case of dairy, pizza. Beef is also corn fed and corn finished which changes its nutritional characteristics. If you want actual grass fed and grass finished beef, that's very rare and more expensive.
odyssey7 3y ago
It is interesting that this PR pre-empts the natural takeaway many would have — eating more dairy or red meat — by reductively representing the options as “cheeseburgers” and “pizza.” Checking out the research paper[1], the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.” I don’t think the underlying reasoning is incorrect, but the way it’s presented is interesting. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3
- jdkee 3y ago
  "the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.”" That basically destroys his credibility on the topic.
  - hilux 3y ago
    I think that's going a bit far. Technology commercialization by universities is the way any academic research (potentially, eventually) reaches the public, and it's quite normal for the original researchers to be involved in the commercialization venture, as advisers, or as CEO. They know the topic best.
    - Root_Denied 3y ago
      I agree - in cases like this patents are a large part of the motivation behind studying the thing in question, if they didn't have patents they wouldn't do the research. It's up to peer review and replication studies to confirm any effects. Even if there weren't any credibility issues with a piece of research this would be true.
  - s1artibartfast 3y ago
    I think it confers credibility on the topic. It is what you would expect if they actually believe it has therapeutic potential. I would be more skeptical if they made claims about benefit but we're taking no Acton to commercialize or protect it
dade_ 3y ago
I did learn something interesting about red meat travelling to South America. so the story is red meat and cancer, people that consume a lot more red meat tend to have more cancer. Brazil and Argentina are favourite examples. Except no one seems to take an account how they prepare red meat. A churrasco or asado is a full day event. It starts with wood, and they get a fire going, and this last for hours and is a big social event. In other words hanging around wood smoke, now I can picture something that’s not red meat that could cause cancer in this scenario, but that never seems to bother researchers. They got the result they wanted and publish.
- potatopatch 3y ago
  That's not really conclusive about anything as not all studies are done in South America.. Looking into pork for example, it is recommended as an alternative because it seems to have a lower incidence of many cancer types in studies and it's a great meat to smoke.
- djtango 3y ago
  interesting. Teochew people eat a lot of (from my anecdotal experience) and we don't have the same culture of charcoal burning our meat. I wonder whether a similar comparison could work for South East vs other parts of the Chinese diaspora...
- monero-xmr 3y ago
  I avoid grilled and smoked meat because it seems very obvious to me that infusing meat with carcinogens would be bad for you. I’ve read that colon cancer is elevated in youth and I have a hunch that the widespread grilling and smoking culture has played a part.
- oooyay 3y ago
  I can buy some of that. Burn pits in active war zones are a known source of cancer, half being in a constant vicinity of something burning and the other half being the properties of the aerosols produced by the thing being burned. That's to say, if the wood is treated it'll be more dangerous than seasoned wood. When a family member was diagnosed with cancer I was warned heavily about the difference between cooked meat and charred meat. Charring is linked to cancer where cooked meat is a bit more up in the air.
p_j_w 3y ago
You make it sound as though the Lipid Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked, how many medical bodies agree with this conclusion, though? At the very least, the European Atherosclerosis Society, American College of Cardiology, and Canadian Cardiovascular Society disagree with you.
- spirit557 3y ago
  One could cite a lot of things against the lipid hypothesis and likewise the other way. Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint... Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    >Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint Why? >Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name= https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data? I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.
    - 3y ago
sumpit 3y ago
When I saw articles/videos on the centenarians in Italy or Costa Rica, I noticed that they don't shy away from dairy products or grains. They usually prepare their own food themselves, and don't eat too much.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  You should know that most of the claims of unusual proportions of very long life from these communities turned out to be bunk. Many researchers spent much more effort on present-day cultural and medical study than they did on discerning historical verification, and so got their numbers inflated by retroactively-produced proof of age in communities small and disconnected enough to not make this their priority a whole hundred years ago (Okinawa), or fraudulently-adjusted age in communities with enough lack of national oversight to enable community-wide retirement fraud (Sicily). The "Blue Zone Diet(s)" is still probably better than the American Big Mac and Sugar Cup diet, but it's unclear if they're actually living longer than people on other potentially wholesome diets.
  - merry_flame 3y ago
    The Okinawa study had even bigger issues, most notably age misrepresentation linked to the loss of koseki registers during WW2, which were unreliable to begin with and were reconstructed from family testimony after the war. I remember reading that on the top of all the rest, elderly people there tended to make mistakes of a full 12 years when giving their age because they would base themselves on their year sign, which they were more familiar with than the new Western calendar.
resoluteteeth 3y ago
> It’s based off the fraudulent study regarding saturated fat and heart disease, which the sugar industry paid for. A lot of the recent research claiming that there's no link has also been paid for by industry groups. You can't just dismiss one and accept the other.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  They cited sources, it'd be fair if you would too.
  - merry_flame 3y ago
    Big ag and big meat in particular has been playing that game for ages. See [https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/ https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guideline...] for a recent example. For something older, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture's 1991 withdrawal of its Eating Right Pyramid food guide in response to pressure from meat and dairy producers was only the latest in a long series of industry attempts to influence federal dietary recommendations. " [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/]
oooyay 3y ago
Do I understand correctly that you're saying processed meats are a problem but not raw meat you prepare yourself?
- ricardobeat 3y ago
  This is long known to be true, especially for cured meats. Industrial processing requires additives and preservatives that you’ll never use at home or a restaurant.
  - stubish 3y ago
    And also, the cooking method can introduce many problematic elements. It often seems that meat is not the problem, but flavour.
bad_user 3y ago
> Show me a study of a population who eats steaks, vegetables, avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I’ll show you a healthy heart. You're probably right, but only because the actual problem has always been the excess calories. Excess calories leads to energy poisoning, the cause for diabetes, with high blood glucose and high triglycerides being just energy excess that can't be quickly burned or stored. Foods are not equal though. That saturated fat more easily leads to atherosclerosis, compared to monounsaturated fat, is a fact. So, if you eat a lot in excess, being selective matters. Also, lay off the conspiracy theories, it's bad for your health.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
yieldcrv 3y ago
I’m always amused on how thats supposed to be the smoking gun, as if some other party that didn't care would ever allocate time and money into the research no conflict = no interest if the study is fraudulent due to methods then just stick with that, science is supposed to be reproducible so that nobody has to care about who did the hypothesis and conclusion at all

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

virtuallynathan 3y ago

There's currently a study underway that took 100 people who have been on a low carb high fat diet for, on average, over 4 years. These people had a large increase in LDL when switching to this diet. All participants had CT Angiograms, CAC scans, and other tests at T-0 and after 1 year. Some in the study had LDL levels seen in Homozygous Familial Hypercholesterolemia (>350mg/dL). A matched control study with this population and the general population is also underway, with the initial results being presented on Dec 8th at the WCIRDCD Conference. If LDL is independently causal of atheroscelosis/CHD, it should be seen in this population.

bsder 3y ago

> The problem with many red meat studies that show a negative effect, is typically the meat is eaten in the form of fast food cheeseburgers or in the case of dairy, pizza. Beef is also corn fed and corn finished which changes its nutritional characteristics. If you want actual grass fed and grass finished beef, that's very rare and more expensive.

odyssey7 3y ago

It is interesting that this PR pre-empts the natural takeaway many would have — eating more dairy or red meat — by reductively representing the options as “cheeseburgers” and “pizza.” Checking out the research paper[1], the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.” I don’t think the underlying reasoning is incorrect, but the way it’s presented is interesting. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3

jdkee 3y ago
"the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.”" That basically destroys his credibility on the topic.
- hilux 3y ago
  I think that's going a bit far. Technology commercialization by universities is the way any academic research (potentially, eventually) reaches the public, and it's quite normal for the original researchers to be involved in the commercialization venture, as advisers, or as CEO. They know the topic best.
  - Root_Denied 3y ago
    I agree - in cases like this patents are a large part of the motivation behind studying the thing in question, if they didn't have patents they wouldn't do the research. It's up to peer review and replication studies to confirm any effects. Even if there weren't any credibility issues with a piece of research this would be true.
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  I think it confers credibility on the topic. It is what you would expect if they actually believe it has therapeutic potential. I would be more skeptical if they made claims about benefit but we're taking no Acton to commercialize or protect it

dade_ 3y ago

I did learn something interesting about red meat travelling to South America. so the story is red meat and cancer, people that consume a lot more red meat tend to have more cancer. Brazil and Argentina are favourite examples. Except no one seems to take an account how they prepare red meat. A churrasco or asado is a full day event. It starts with wood, and they get a fire going, and this last for hours and is a big social event. In other words hanging around wood smoke, now I can picture something that’s not red meat that could cause cancer in this scenario, but that never seems to bother researchers. They got the result they wanted and publish.

potatopatch 3y ago
That's not really conclusive about anything as not all studies are done in South America.. Looking into pork for example, it is recommended as an alternative because it seems to have a lower incidence of many cancer types in studies and it's a great meat to smoke.
djtango 3y ago
interesting. Teochew people eat a lot of (from my anecdotal experience) and we don't have the same culture of charcoal burning our meat. I wonder whether a similar comparison could work for South East vs other parts of the Chinese diaspora...
monero-xmr 3y ago
I avoid grilled and smoked meat because it seems very obvious to me that infusing meat with carcinogens would be bad for you. I’ve read that colon cancer is elevated in youth and I have a hunch that the widespread grilling and smoking culture has played a part.
oooyay 3y ago
I can buy some of that. Burn pits in active war zones are a known source of cancer, half being in a constant vicinity of something burning and the other half being the properties of the aerosols produced by the thing being burned. That's to say, if the wood is treated it'll be more dangerous than seasoned wood. When a family member was diagnosed with cancer I was warned heavily about the difference between cooked meat and charred meat. Charring is linked to cancer where cooked meat is a bit more up in the air.

p_j_w 3y ago

You make it sound as though the Lipid Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked, how many medical bodies agree with this conclusion, though? At the very least, the European Atherosclerosis Society, American College of Cardiology, and Canadian Cardiovascular Society disagree with you.

spirit557 3y ago
One could cite a lot of things against the lipid hypothesis and likewise the other way. Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint... Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint Why? >Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name= https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data? I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.
  - 3y ago

sumpit 3y ago

When I saw articles/videos on the centenarians in Italy or Costa Rica, I noticed that they don't shy away from dairy products or grains. They usually prepare their own food themselves, and don't eat too much.

Phiwise_ 3y ago
You should know that most of the claims of unusual proportions of very long life from these communities turned out to be bunk. Many researchers spent much more effort on present-day cultural and medical study than they did on discerning historical verification, and so got their numbers inflated by retroactively-produced proof of age in communities small and disconnected enough to not make this their priority a whole hundred years ago (Okinawa), or fraudulently-adjusted age in communities with enough lack of national oversight to enable community-wide retirement fraud (Sicily). The "Blue Zone Diet(s)" is still probably better than the American Big Mac and Sugar Cup diet, but it's unclear if they're actually living longer than people on other potentially wholesome diets.
- merry_flame 3y ago
  The Okinawa study had even bigger issues, most notably age misrepresentation linked to the loss of koseki registers during WW2, which were unreliable to begin with and were reconstructed from family testimony after the war. I remember reading that on the top of all the rest, elderly people there tended to make mistakes of a full 12 years when giving their age because they would base themselves on their year sign, which they were more familiar with than the new Western calendar.

resoluteteeth 3y ago

> It’s based off the fraudulent study regarding saturated fat and heart disease, which the sugar industry paid for. A lot of the recent research claiming that there's no link has also been paid for by industry groups. You can't just dismiss one and accept the other.

maerF0x0 3y ago
They cited sources, it'd be fair if you would too.
- merry_flame 3y ago
  Big ag and big meat in particular has been playing that game for ages. See [https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/ https://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guideline...] for a recent example. For something older, "The U.S. Department of Agriculture's 1991 withdrawal of its Eating Right Pyramid food guide in response to pressure from meat and dairy producers was only the latest in a long series of industry attempts to influence federal dietary recommendations. " [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/]

oooyay 3y ago

Do I understand correctly that you're saying processed meats are a problem but not raw meat you prepare yourself?

ricardobeat 3y ago
This is long known to be true, especially for cured meats. Industrial processing requires additives and preservatives that you’ll never use at home or a restaurant.
- stubish 3y ago
  And also, the cooking method can introduce many problematic elements. It often seems that meat is not the problem, but flavour.

bad_user 3y ago

> Show me a study of a population who eats steaks, vegetables, avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I’ll show you a healthy heart. You're probably right, but only because the actual problem has always been the excess calories. Excess calories leads to energy poisoning, the cause for diabetes, with high blood glucose and high triglycerides being just energy excess that can't be quickly burned or stored. Foods are not equal though. That saturated fat more easily leads to atherosclerosis, compared to monounsaturated fat, is a fact. So, if you eat a lot in excess, being selective matters. Also, lay off the conspiracy theories, it's bad for your health.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

yieldcrv 3y ago

I’m always amused on how thats supposed to be the smoking gun, as if some other party that didn't care would ever allocate time and money into the research no conflict = no interest if the study is fraudulent due to methods then just stick with that, science is supposed to be reproducible so that nobody has to care about who did the hypothesis and conclusion at all