5 ms·

The main difference being that cancer treatment saves your life while eating meat shortens it.

by billyjobob 13y ago

swombat 13y ago
Arguable. According most low-carb diets, eating meat is good for you and it's carbs that screw you over.
- ihsw 13y ago
  Low-carb diets advocate replacing carbs with fat in addition to protein, and there are many non-meat sources of fat and protein. And the premise of the diet is supported by sound scientific research rather than simply hearsay (as your comment implies).
- geoka9 13y ago
  > According most low-carb diets, eating meat is good for you Those diets may be good for losing weight, but are they good for a healthy person?
  - speeder 13y ago
    After figuring low-carb on my own (I never had heard of it before), and making my nutrition person (forgot the name in english for that profession) cringe, it worked wonder. First, I started to lose 1kg a week, until I was in a healthy weight (when the weight stabilized instead, without much adjustments to diet), and my choleterol that I was fighting for years, dropped to healthy levels in 4 months, also several other broken blood levels got fixed. Also my sleep got better, and for the first time in my life going to the gym made a difference (before that, I could go to the gym all I wanted, and I would never get stronger, and I was very weak, sedentary 14 year old girls could lift more weight than me in the upper body). But that is just a anecdote, it happened to me, I did no research to see WHY it happened, it just did, and now I stick with that diet.
    - cperciva 13y ago
      nutrition person (forgot the name in english for that profession) Either "nutritionist" or "dietitian".
  - ihsw 13y ago
    There is a very wide range of low-carb sources of food that are well-rounded and excellent -- avocados, tomatoes, almonds/almond milk, spinach, cheeses, high-fat yoghurt, tofu, blueberries, raspberries. And obviously many meats. This is a thorough list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ah8MbmZepQxWdGo4bnB2QmxxMUlmTzZUTXYzMURRLWc&toomany=true#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ah8MbmZepQxWdGo4... Initially, it's definitely challenging, and switching to a wholly low-carb diet is not without an unpleasant transition period.
ihsw 13y ago
> eating meat shortens it What a massive load of shit. Even if we're going to get on the train that eating meat vicariously results in antibiotics being rendered useless, the two are not any more directly related than watching Netflix destroys the environment (Netflix runs on computers, producing computers causes pollution, pollution destroys the environment).
- bmm6o 13y ago
  Umm, I think he was referring to the (purported) health benefits of a meat-free diet. The ideal amount of meat in one's diet is perhaps debatable, but I wouldn't call the claim "a massive load of shit" (both because it overstates and because I would come up with something more civil).
- pstuart 13y ago
  Hold on, tiger. There appears to be some interesting research that supports this indirectly. It's not the meat, it's the methionine. It's highest in animal products (eggs are #1). Methionine is an essential amino acid that is one of 2 that is used for the start codon for DNA transcription. It follows that if cancer is uncontrolled cell growth, that restricting the resource it needs would limit it's growth. Appeal to authority: my wife, the molecular biologist pointed out the codon angle. It seems reasonable enough to me to have become a pseudo vegan (without the self-righteousness (at least in regards to that)). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine#Methionine_restriction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine#Methionine_restricti... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603655 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603655
  - ihsw 13y ago
    Hmm interesting. I eat a few dozen eggs per month, mostly because they're the cheapest source of protein. I may have to consider chicken or something else.
    - jasallen 13y ago
      I eat at least a dozen per week, and plan to continue. This is non-sense. The "seems to make sense" part especially. You can take any thread from human biology and spin to extremes using inductive reasoning. Fortunately the body has myriad checks and balances. I submit to you "free radicals". Oh-my-god-theyre-awful-help. Enter anti-oxidants, oh-my-god-theyre-great-yay. Let's supplement them right? Ouch, turns out, those dietary anti-oxidants were the bees knees, but supplementation to extremes might be a bad idea, and we might need some free radicals to prevent cancerous cell growth. My moral here is, natural whole foods, mostly, will keep you pretty near balance. Eat your berries, whole grains, eggs, and proteins because the one thing we know is bad for us is a lack of balance.
baddox 13y ago
That wasn't my point. What if there was a cancer treatment that costs literally billions of dollars, so that only a few people in the world could afford it? Would that cancer treatment be a "luxury," or would you consider it a basic need for all humans?
- bobbydavid 13y ago
  I'd say it (the expensive treatment) was a basic need. A need that was not being met. You could tell it was a need because those who needed it but didn't get it would die.

The main difference being that cancer treatment saves your life while eating meat shortens it.

swombat 13y ago

Arguable. According most low-carb diets, eating meat is good for you and it's carbs that screw you over.

ihsw 13y ago
Low-carb diets advocate replacing carbs with fat in addition to protein, and there are many non-meat sources of fat and protein. And the premise of the diet is supported by sound scientific research rather than simply hearsay (as your comment implies).
geoka9 13y ago
> According most low-carb diets, eating meat is good for you Those diets may be good for losing weight, but are they good for a healthy person?
- speeder 13y ago
  After figuring low-carb on my own (I never had heard of it before), and making my nutrition person (forgot the name in english for that profession) cringe, it worked wonder. First, I started to lose 1kg a week, until I was in a healthy weight (when the weight stabilized instead, without much adjustments to diet), and my choleterol that I was fighting for years, dropped to healthy levels in 4 months, also several other broken blood levels got fixed. Also my sleep got better, and for the first time in my life going to the gym made a difference (before that, I could go to the gym all I wanted, and I would never get stronger, and I was very weak, sedentary 14 year old girls could lift more weight than me in the upper body). But that is just a anecdote, it happened to me, I did no research to see WHY it happened, it just did, and now I stick with that diet.
  - cperciva 13y ago
    nutrition person (forgot the name in english for that profession) Either "nutritionist" or "dietitian".
- ihsw 13y ago
  There is a very wide range of low-carb sources of food that are well-rounded and excellent -- avocados, tomatoes, almonds/almond milk, spinach, cheeses, high-fat yoghurt, tofu, blueberries, raspberries. And obviously many meats. This is a thorough list: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ah8MbmZepQxWdGo4bnB2QmxxMUlmTzZUTXYzMURRLWc&toomany=true#gid=0 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0Ah8MbmZepQxWdGo4... Initially, it's definitely challenging, and switching to a wholly low-carb diet is not without an unpleasant transition period.

ihsw 13y ago

> eating meat shortens it What a massive load of shit. Even if we're going to get on the train that eating meat vicariously results in antibiotics being rendered useless, the two are not any more directly related than watching Netflix destroys the environment (Netflix runs on computers, producing computers causes pollution, pollution destroys the environment).

bmm6o 13y ago
Umm, I think he was referring to the (purported) health benefits of a meat-free diet. The ideal amount of meat in one's diet is perhaps debatable, but I wouldn't call the claim "a massive load of shit" (both because it overstates and because I would come up with something more civil).
pstuart 13y ago
Hold on, tiger. There appears to be some interesting research that supports this indirectly. It's not the meat, it's the methionine. It's highest in animal products (eggs are #1). Methionine is an essential amino acid that is one of 2 that is used for the start codon for DNA transcription. It follows that if cancer is uncontrolled cell growth, that restricting the resource it needs would limit it's growth. Appeal to authority: my wife, the molecular biologist pointed out the codon angle. It seems reasonable enough to me to have become a pseudo vegan (without the self-righteousness (at least in regards to that)). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine#Methionine_restriction http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methionine#Methionine_restricti... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603655 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11603655
- ihsw 13y ago
  Hmm interesting. I eat a few dozen eggs per month, mostly because they're the cheapest source of protein. I may have to consider chicken or something else.
  - jasallen 13y ago
    I eat at least a dozen per week, and plan to continue. This is non-sense. The "seems to make sense" part especially. You can take any thread from human biology and spin to extremes using inductive reasoning. Fortunately the body has myriad checks and balances. I submit to you "free radicals". Oh-my-god-theyre-awful-help. Enter anti-oxidants, oh-my-god-theyre-great-yay. Let's supplement them right? Ouch, turns out, those dietary anti-oxidants were the bees knees, but supplementation to extremes might be a bad idea, and we might need some free radicals to prevent cancerous cell growth. My moral here is, natural whole foods, mostly, will keep you pretty near balance. Eat your berries, whole grains, eggs, and proteins because the one thing we know is bad for us is a lack of balance.

baddox 13y ago

That wasn't my point. What if there was a cancer treatment that costs literally billions of dollars, so that only a few people in the world could afford it? Would that cancer treatment be a "luxury," or would you consider it a basic need for all humans?

bobbydavid 13y ago
I'd say it (the expensive treatment) was a basic need. A need that was not being met. You could tell it was a need because those who needed it but didn't get it would die.