6 ms·

U.S. dairy cows have tested positive for bird flu

gnabgib 3y ago
Previously: [0] (61 points, 5 days ago, 110 comments) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39838131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39838131
loopdoend 3y ago
[flagged]
- Retric 3y ago
  Vegans still have ~70% of the normal risk for coronary artery disease. It’s often beneficial but don’t assume you’re safe because you’re on a plant based diet.
- 0ckpuppet 3y ago
  Is that for grain fed or grass fed beef?
  - loopdoend 3y ago
    All beef has Neu5Gc. Most mammalian products do, too, and apparently fish roe also.
- onethought 3y ago
  Showing it’s bad in mice on a high fat diet is hardly evidence of anything in humans. Mice typically don’t eat meat… why would we expect their response to meat to be at all related to ours?
  - loopdoend 3y ago
    These are knockout mice where they have changed the CMAH gene to mirror how it is in humans. Of course there is no 1-to-1 correlation, but we can hypothesize about why the dietary change works now that we have an idea of the underlying mechanism.
    - onethought 3y ago
      No we can’t. If you fed a human a mouse diet would you then conclude that it’s not healthy for mice because of what it did to humans? I’m sorry, this is just completely illogical.
  - starbugs 3y ago
    Because that's an easy argument which you can just deploy to force people into your opinion and silence them if they deviate. Here, have a study, it's peer reviewed. Are you going to question that? Now you are unscientific, uneducated and a bad person in general.
    - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
      Did you downvote said comment because of its questionable content or because of your projected strawman, what would happen when you question its content? This silencing you are speaking of is imo a product of a toxic discourse culture.
      - starbugs 3y ago
        No idea what you are talking about. I simply replied to the parent and gave an explanation that could answer the question. I have no study to prove my point though.
- taeric 3y ago
  I mean, you aren't wrong, necessarily. I suspect you will find humanity has gone to amazing lengths to have safe food at the levels that we can have it today. Eye opener for many is to know that any wild caught food almost certainly has parasites and you better cook the heck out of it. And this isn't limited to meat. Picking up food in the wild can be a very risky proposition. Even if you know what mushrooms are safe, good luck. Find some water? How long has it been sitting there? Simply put, if you are hunting for things to scare you at the microscopic level, you don't have to hunt far. No matter what you eat, at a general level.
- lm28469 3y ago
  In a lot of industries the main issue is productivisme. A lot of what we do now could be made safer and better if we just slowed down and did it the right way. But since all we care about is maximise the output and minimise the cost its a losing battle.
- blindriver 3y ago
  This is patently false. Coronary heart disease is extremely prevalent in India, which has a very large number of vegetarians and an extremely low population of beef eaters.
  - ChadNYC 3y ago
    “meat & dairy” It is not false.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    Dairy products have a lot of saturated fat, especially cream, butter, clarified butter (ghee), paneer, and cheese, all popular in India.
    - m0llusk 3y ago
      This is true but not necessarily related as saturated fat is no longer considered strongly related to heart disease. Arterial plaques are blood clots, not fat deposits.
      - devonkim 3y ago
        Also read something casually that (I am suspecting probably falsified but a new one at least) that plastics were found in a lot of cardiovascular deposits following autopsies.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
        I don’t have the capability to verify Wikipedia, but right now it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheroma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheroma > The material consists of mostly macrophage cells,[3][4] or debris, containing lipids, calcium and a variable amount of fibrous connective tissue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis > Risk factors include abnormal cholesterol levels, elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers,[11] high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking (both active and passive smoking), obesity, genetic factors, family history, lifestyle habits, and an unhealthy diet.[4] Plaque is made up of fat, cholesterol, calcium, and other substances found in the blood.[9] If the above is true, then are the aforementioned lipids, cholesterol, and fat not affected by fat consumption, specifically saturated fat?
- nerdjon 3y ago
  It has been thoroughly talked about (except for those trying to push an agenda) that nearly any diet related study is severely flawed. In most situations we either just simply can't collect data for a long enough period of time, struggle with people simply having different micro-biomes, or that when you make a change it often also has other unrelated changes that may be the actual cause instead of the change itself. For example, if you eat less meat you will need to get your nutrients from other sources. Those other sources may be more veggies, beans, etc. So it may not necessarily be related to meat on its own but because of the additional other things. That is something that you could get more of while still eating meat. If we want to have a moral conversation about eating meat, sure. But trying to bring up flawed studies can undermine your entire argument and make people less inclined to engage on the other conversations since you started your argument from a flawed place in the first place. Edit: Another example that often comes up, if someone is choosing to make healthier options with their food they may likely also be trying to be more active. Those 2 things are not necessarily related but are often done at the same time. How do you actually outline which of the 2 is actually benefiting the person? Edit again: Going further, look at just how easy it is for the food industry to get a study to show what they want, to support that their supplements or whatever other product is, is actually good for you. Last Edit: I find it quite interesting that in recent comments you complained about other studies being focused on Mice (and seemingly implying that it weakens their argument) and here you are citing a study being done on Mice without calling that out specifically?
  - loopdoend 3y ago
    Uh... I barely see how this justifies a response but you're calling me out here. The comment that I was responding to makes it sound like keto acidosis is an inevitable outcome in normal healthy people - "over time", which it certainly isn't. It may be an inevitable outcome in rats. I'm not going to comment on the preprint because I don't care enough to go over it again. I don't think this invalidates all studies involving mice or rats. For the record I eat chicken and fish. I'm not trying to start a moral argument.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

Previously: [0] (61 points, 5 days ago, 110 comments) [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39838131 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39838131

loopdoend 3y ago

[flagged]

Retric 3y ago
Vegans still have ~70% of the normal risk for coronary artery disease. It’s often beneficial but don’t assume you’re safe because you’re on a plant based diet.
0ckpuppet 3y ago
Is that for grain fed or grass fed beef?
- loopdoend 3y ago
  All beef has Neu5Gc. Most mammalian products do, too, and apparently fish roe also.
onethought 3y ago
Showing it’s bad in mice on a high fat diet is hardly evidence of anything in humans. Mice typically don’t eat meat… why would we expect their response to meat to be at all related to ours?
- loopdoend 3y ago
  These are knockout mice where they have changed the CMAH gene to mirror how it is in humans. Of course there is no 1-to-1 correlation, but we can hypothesize about why the dietary change works now that we have an idea of the underlying mechanism.
  - onethought 3y ago
    No we can’t. If you fed a human a mouse diet would you then conclude that it’s not healthy for mice because of what it did to humans? I’m sorry, this is just completely illogical.
- starbugs 3y ago
  Because that's an easy argument which you can just deploy to force people into your opinion and silence them if they deviate. Here, have a study, it's peer reviewed. Are you going to question that? Now you are unscientific, uneducated and a bad person in general.
  - throwawayqqq11 3y ago
    Did you downvote said comment because of its questionable content or because of your projected strawman, what would happen when you question its content? This silencing you are speaking of is imo a product of a toxic discourse culture.
    - starbugs 3y ago
      No idea what you are talking about. I simply replied to the parent and gave an explanation that could answer the question. I have no study to prove my point though.
taeric 3y ago
I mean, you aren't wrong, necessarily. I suspect you will find humanity has gone to amazing lengths to have safe food at the levels that we can have it today. Eye opener for many is to know that any wild caught food almost certainly has parasites and you better cook the heck out of it. And this isn't limited to meat. Picking up food in the wild can be a very risky proposition. Even if you know what mushrooms are safe, good luck. Find some water? How long has it been sitting there? Simply put, if you are hunting for things to scare you at the microscopic level, you don't have to hunt far. No matter what you eat, at a general level.
lm28469 3y ago
In a lot of industries the main issue is productivisme. A lot of what we do now could be made safer and better if we just slowed down and did it the right way. But since all we care about is maximise the output and minimise the cost its a losing battle.
blindriver 3y ago
This is patently false. Coronary heart disease is extremely prevalent in India, which has a very large number of vegetarians and an extremely low population of beef eaters.
- ChadNYC 3y ago
  “meat & dairy” It is not false.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  Dairy products have a lot of saturated fat, especially cream, butter, clarified butter (ghee), paneer, and cheese, all popular in India.
  - m0llusk 3y ago
    This is true but not necessarily related as saturated fat is no longer considered strongly related to heart disease. Arterial plaques are blood clots, not fat deposits.
    - devonkim 3y ago
      Also read something casually that (I am suspecting probably falsified but a new one at least) that plastics were found in a lot of cardiovascular deposits following autopsies.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      I don’t have the capability to verify Wikipedia, but right now it says: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheroma https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheroma > The material consists of mostly macrophage cells,[3][4] or debris, containing lipids, calcium and a variable amount of fibrous connective tissue. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis > Risk factors include abnormal cholesterol levels, elevated levels of inflammatory biomarkers,[11] high blood pressure, diabetes, smoking (both active and passive smoking), obesity, genetic factors, family history, lifestyle habits, and an unhealthy diet.[4] Plaque is made up of fat, cholesterol, calcium, and other substances found in the blood.[9] If the above is true, then are the aforementioned lipids, cholesterol, and fat not affected by fat consumption, specifically saturated fat?
nerdjon 3y ago
It has been thoroughly talked about (except for those trying to push an agenda) that nearly any diet related study is severely flawed. In most situations we either just simply can't collect data for a long enough period of time, struggle with people simply having different micro-biomes, or that when you make a change it often also has other unrelated changes that may be the actual cause instead of the change itself. For example, if you eat less meat you will need to get your nutrients from other sources. Those other sources may be more veggies, beans, etc. So it may not necessarily be related to meat on its own but because of the additional other things. That is something that you could get more of while still eating meat. If we want to have a moral conversation about eating meat, sure. But trying to bring up flawed studies can undermine your entire argument and make people less inclined to engage on the other conversations since you started your argument from a flawed place in the first place. Edit: Another example that often comes up, if someone is choosing to make healthier options with their food they may likely also be trying to be more active. Those 2 things are not necessarily related but are often done at the same time. How do you actually outline which of the 2 is actually benefiting the person? Edit again: Going further, look at just how easy it is for the food industry to get a study to show what they want, to support that their supplements or whatever other product is, is actually good for you. Last Edit: I find it quite interesting that in recent comments you complained about other studies being focused on Mice (and seemingly implying that it weakens their argument) and here you are citing a study being done on Mice without calling that out specifically?
- loopdoend 3y ago
  Uh... I barely see how this justifies a response but you're calling me out here. The comment that I was responding to makes it sound like keto acidosis is an inevitable outcome in normal healthy people - "over time", which it certainly isn't. It may be an inevitable outcome in rats. I'm not going to comment on the preprint because I don't care enough to go over it again. I don't think this invalidates all studies involving mice or rats. For the record I eat chicken and fish. I'm not trying to start a moral argument.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]