Hacker News Reader

Comment by will_brown | Hacker News Reader

All this money, time and effort in an attempt to market new low sugar cereals, these are the same company’s who: 1. Have been marketing their product as part of a balanced breakfast for decades, and 2. Continued increasing the amount of sugar while actively lobbying against any attempts to regulate marketing their sugary products to kids.

Here is an idea...get rid of the sugary cereals and sugary milk entirely and feed your kids bacon and eggs for breakfast, with water.

View on HN

You want them to get a heart attack instead? Lots of cultures have good breakfast that don't rely on sugar or cholesterol. Look to the Mediterranean/Middle East/Central Asia/Far East.

I'm pretty sure that the idea that cholesterol causes heart attacks is fake news.

Correct dietary cholesterol is unrelated to high cholesterol in people. It’s a myth invented by...the sugar industry.

I've read that lean, cholesterol-laden meats like shrimp, oysters, and liver do not raise cholesterol, but meats high in saturated fat will (ie, butter and ribeye steak).

Yeah. The problem with bacon is the nitrites, not the cholesterol.

Yea, I'm celiac and sodium nitrite is one of the foods I cut out. Might not affect everyone but it definitely messes with me. The uncured bacon products usually have celery powder which also contains sodium nitrite. Plain pork belly is the way to go.

So you can't eat celery?

Correct. I've identified the following as triggers for sinus headaches in myself and cut them out; gluten, caffeine, sodium nitrites, monsodium glutamate, sugar. I also don't eat fruit because of sugar. I just take vitamins to get the good stuff out of them. I mostly eat meat. Rice, corn, or potato based carbs. Broccoli is my go to veggie which I should eat more of.

No need to throw around such a hollow and repurposed phrase.

Dietary cholesterol’s role in heart attacks has been largely disproven, but “fake news” is malicious disinformation, not mistaken conclusions from flawed decades-old research.

OP’s point is even bacon and eggs is healthier than boxed cereal. (My preferred breakfast is miso soup.)

I don't know about other families, but my child won't eat bacon and eggs or other non sugar laden breakfast. I eat bacon and eggs every morning. My child wants cereal, or poptarts, or frozen waffles/pancakes etc. When I removed these items in an effort to have him eat other healthier foods, he decided to not eat anything at home - he'd go to school and instead eat their sugar and carb breakfast. So while I can understand the thought process and well meaning of OP comment, it's one of a non parent attempting to give advice on parenting.

He'd rather pay his own money for a sugary breakfast at school? Or do they provide it for free?

Neither. He'd rather have the school sugary breakfast than to eat at home. The school will not refuse him (or any child) food. So they'll send a bill home that we now owe them money for the breakfast. I have repeatedly asked and responded to them to deny him breakfast at school, which... did not go over well and caused some other issues. So he eats sugar at school, because he won't eat at home, and I'm required to pay for it as his guardian, although I do not want it.

It sounds like another strongly worded letter to the school along with a note/email from a doctor explaining the situation might fix this. I don't think trying once and then saying "Well i guess i cant stop my kid from doing something" is a good idea. As someone who grew up with 0 restrictions on what I ate and when I ate it pains me now to think back on what my parents fed me/allowed me to consume.

Thanks, this is something I don't have to deal with for a few more years, but I'm starting to have to think about it. That's a bit insane that the school is refusing to restrict your kid's access to sugary food.

Then again, thinking back, we all drank chocolate milk in school, since you needed something to cover the awful taste of the underlying milk, so I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.

> a non parent attempting to give advice on parenting

Let's not suggest that parents don't have almost complete control over their kids at this age.

I can reconcile your anecdote against how I was raised: My school didn't have free food, so I didn't have a choice and your scenario was impossible. I either ate breakfast and packed a lunch or went the day hungry. I preferred the former. My parents didn't buy poptarts. I had to learn to enjoy healthy food for breakfast and a ham sandwich for lunch, and I'm very thankful for that.

I was raised differently as well; food in front of you is what you're eating. However in this day and age, it's tantamount to neglect or abuse to refuse a child something to eat. IE "Chicken is what is for dinner, no you can't eat pizza" -> "You can't not feed your kid, let him eat". I commented to another poster about the school breakfast/lunch situation. TLDR: I have no choice in the matter. The kid wins.

I have seven kids. Parents don't have almost complete control over their kids at this age.

>I either ate breakfast and packed a lunch or went the day hungry.

Yes, a lot of kids will actually fast and make themselves ravenous, have blood sugar crashes, be unable to concentrate, act badly towards classmates, etc. rather than eat the food they don't prefer. Some will lose weight. One of mine in particular will fast for _days_ until eventually someone will feed him something sweet. It's a real problem. In his case he'll sometimes eat a dinner one day, then a week later refuse the same food, until we wear him down until he will finally take a bite, then he'll realize he likes it, and eat a full meal. If he is not actually with us, though, we can't force his behavior like that.

This is especially true of kids who are "on the autism spectrum," and I suspect that a lot of HN readers have kids on the spectrum, as I do.

We feed the kids the healthiest food we can at home, almost all the time except for occasional special occasions. But _other_ well-meaning people at churches, schools, playdates, etc. can really screw up the eating habits a parent tries to instill.

I was reading the top and I was like, “oh, ASD!” The food peculiarites can be lifetime problems. My girlfriend almost cannot feed herself and will fast to collapse without routine. For people that don’t know, food is a massive sensory experience. ASD is largely a sensory disorder. This leads to hyper specific “safe” food choices which frequently cause anorexia or obesity without clear other options.

Well it’s advice on diet more than parenting.

the advice is the same but if you believe it carries more weight coming from a pediatrician and father of 8...here is a link to Thornburg Pediatrics, I recommend signing up for their newsletter.

https://thornburgpediatrics.com/site/

However, bacon contains a considerable amount of sodium, as does miso (even the "low-sodium" types).

Dietary cholesterol consumption has almost no direct relationship with serum cholesterol and in fact has been removed from dietary guidelines. [1]

Also, "A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults.1 Similarly in the secondary prevention of CHD there is no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.2 It is instructive to note that in an angiographic study of postmenopausal women with CHD, greater intake of saturated fat was associated with less progression of atherosclerosis whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression.3" [2]

There's plenty of evidence, however that sugar is a much more dangerous driver of CVD [3], which is obvious when you look at the pandemic levels of obesity and metabolic syndrome (and co-morbidity and lack of decline in CVD) that coincided with the demonization of saturated fats (and replacement with much worse trans-fats and high n6 PUFAS [4])...

[1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-...

[2] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111

[3] https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000729

[4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/

I would also add that hdl (the “healthy cholesterol”) in fact helps: 1. Prevent plaque build up; 2. Lowers risk of heart disease; and 3. Lowers risk of stroke.

The problem with industries muddy the water by claiming “cholesterol” is bad without distinguishing between ldl and hdl. It’s similar to what the sugar industry does with “diabeties” when they don’t distinguish between type 1 and type 2.

To me, it's interesting to see first hand, having now done tons of primary literature research over the past few months. What I've pieced together is that driven primarily by Ancel Keys and a few other strong personalities (eg McGovern and his aides), the "lipid hypothesis" was implemented as public policy based on scant epidemiological/associational (and no clinical) evidence to try to stem the heart disease crisis. This of course, happened during a time when tobacco companies was actively suppressing the health impacts of smoking.

Since then, and because the lipid hypothesis was deemed as institutional truth, we've been chasing a white rabbit that didn't exist. First it was saturated fats, then cholesterol, then LDL, now LP(a) and Ox-LDL... In the meantime, since saturated fat was public enemy number one, even worse replacements (trans-fats, industrial seed oils, even potentially worse and unstudied new FA isomers now) were introduced as replacements and sugar consumption increased dramatically from fat-phobia (as the defacto remaining macro as red meat and protein were also tarred with the same brush), leading to where we are now (a global metabolic disease pandemic).

What's interesting is in the past two decades especially, the amount of very interesting nutritional and metabolic research (biomechanistic research in animal models, RCTs and other human trials) has been staggering, and I think there's overwhelming evidence (and now some momentum even) in scientific/medical circles strongly pointing out that nutritional policies and "common wisdom" as being flat out wrong, but in the general public (which includes most medical practitioners, sadly) there's a huge lag. Which is too bad, considering obesity rates are likely above 40% in US adults now (39.8% in 2015-2016 [1]).

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

This sort of pseudo science is usually upvoted/supported only because of bacon's popular conception to be unhealthy. That may be true, but your logic is still flawed since there is no correlation between cholesterol or fat consumption and heart diseases (as pointed out by other commenters). However, high glycemic nature of sugar is still based on facts.

That's what Big Sugar wants you to think. Who do you think pushed that fat was the worst? Sugar

> get rid of the sugary cereals and sugary milk

It took me a long time to realise that milk was sugary. I'd grown up worrying about the fat content of milk, but all milk, whether full fat or skimmed, has like 5g of sugar per 100ml, a pretty similar sugar content to Gatorade.

We know milk has lactose but we don't usually think of lactose as a sugar like we do with sucrose or fructose.

I may be wrong but I think many milks add sucrose.

The other thing is if you don’t buy organic milk then your milk is also loaded with the antibiotics that we give to dairy cows which attaches to the fat in the milk. So a good rule is if you go organic get whole milk (because it is a good source of fat) but if you buy regular milk get skim (to avoid some of the antibiotics).

I’ve noticed that many products in the US now have an “added sugars” section under the sugars section in the nutritional labels. It always seems to be 0g in all of the milk bottles and cartons I’ve seen, but I’m pretty particular on my milk so I might not have seen the average kind that most people get.

The FDA allows manufactuers to round down for values less than .5g, it's why something like a dry rub for BBQ will have some sugar in it but the nutrition facts will say 0g sugar per serving.

I haven't seen this personally, but people should know how modern milk is made. First all the parts are separated (milk proteins, fat, lactose) then reconstituted in different proportions for each type of milk. I've noticed that low fat milk generally has the same caloric content as high fat milk, they just add in more lactose in place of the missing fat (I presume to ensure the milk doesn't taste gross and watery).

They might be skimming proteins for energy bars, whey supplements and the like.

We spring for the non-homogenized minimally processed stuff, and the skim doesn’t taste gross and watery (we usually buy whole milk fwiw).

I assume it doesn’t go through the oil-refinery style processing you speak of.

False. It's illegal to have antibiotic residue in milk regardless if its labeled "organic vs inorganic".

https://www.fooddialogues.com/antibiotics-hormones-milk-dair...

Nothing prevents dairy farmers from treating cows producing "organic" labeled milk, but just like "normal" milk, they are removed from sending milk into the food chain.

That’s the law...but in practice the farmers (like athletes trying to pass drugs tests) cheat. So here is an article about the FDA catching antibiotics in both meat and dairy products, and the farmers were successful before they were caught because they began using antibiotics and other drugs the FDA tests don’t scan for because they aren’t supposed to be used in animals at all.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/08/391248045/fd...

You could make the exact same argument for the organic food industry

Well in one instance the FDA caught farmers put milk with antibiotic and other drug residue into the stream of commerce, so it’s not an arguement so much as facts.

But yes, you could spend your time arguing organic farmers load up their dairy and meat cows with antibiotics and put it in the stream of commerce without any evidence of the same, if that’s what gets you going.

wave

Long time no see!

Small world! Hope you're doing well.

Yes, you too!

Lactose is a disaccharide made up of one glucose and one galactose (which lactase splits up). The galactose IMO is actually worse for you because like fructose, it's transported and phosphorylated in the liver whereas glucose can be metabolized anywhere in your body.

Of course, the cereals without added sugar have always existed - plain Cheerios, plain corn flakes, plain Rice Krispies, etc.

Sure, they’re processed grains, and you’re eating them with milk, but it’s still a massive improvement over downing some Cinnamon Toast Crunch with a Pop Tart on the side.

The marketing reality is a big problem. We can’t keep with the status quo of kid’s TV channels filled with ads for sugar. It’s no different than having TV ads for cigarettes touting their benefits to your lifestyle and enjoyment.

A lot of parents think these foods are fine because the commercial said so. The reality is that it’s really no more difficult for a busy parent to serve some oatmeal with fruit or something of that sort.

I love the idea of having bacon and eggs for breakfast in the morning. The reality is though that bacon and eggs take time and effort while pouring a bowl of cereal is quick and easy.

Take a whole package of bacon, put it on a cookie sheet. Bake 15 minutes in the oven at 350 degrees to your liking. Remove, Drain/cool. Place bacon in freezer.

Take eggs. Boil in water. Place in refrigerator.

Voila, you now have bacon and eggs in the morning for multiple days with zero effort.

Another easy one - McDonald’s style Egg McMuffin:

You’ve got your frozen English muffins because you’re lazy and don’t want to deal with moldy bread. Throw one in the microwave for 30 seconds. Remove and place in toaster to toast. In the meantime crack an egg into a cereal bowl and microwave to poach. I think that’s 30 seconds? Now your egg and muffin are done, add cheese and ham or that frozen bacon from the above, microwave to melt the cheese and such.

Not the healthiest stuff out there but it’s by no means difficult. I think many people wanting to transition from buying pre-made food to making actual food need to do so in baby steps.

Reheated bacon and eggs probably tastes awful.

I hate cooking bacon, especially in the morning, because the smell sticks to my clothes and my hair.

> Reheated bacon and eggs probably tastes awful.

No more "awful" than a McDonald's McMuffin. Since that's literally what they do.

Bacon surprisly reheats in the microwave well. Its better fresh. With that being said, I can feel the oil and grease so I'd personally prefer not to eat bacon every morning.

Eggs taste fine cold, so I personally go with the boiled (but currently cold) egg.

----------

At minimum, something as greasy as bacon gives me pimples if I eat it every day. I can't imagine bacon each morning is healthier than even Cinnamon Toast Crunch (which has less sugar than most people realize...)

http://smartlabel.kelloggs.com/Product/Index/00038000787225

https://www.crazysquares.com/products/cinnamon-toast-crunch/...

Cinnamon Toast Crunch has 9g of Sugar. Special K Oats and Honey has 11g. Granted, Special K has a bigger serving size (31g vs 42g), but the sugar content is actually comparable between the two.

It's important to recognize the serving size of these cereals, as you pointed out. CTC and Special K Oats are comparable (12 and 11G of sugar), but Special K Oats is a sugary cereal. It is not original, plain Special K. It's not really healthier than Cookie Crisp despite the "healthy" branding.

Unsweetened/barely sweetened cereals like plain Special K and Rice Krispies are much better for you than CTC or equivalents.

Also, just about nobody eats one single serving of any of these cereals, either. Probably multiply by 2 for a typical person. They have basically no protein or fat so they don't fill you up. 1.33 grams of protein per cup for Cinnamon Toast Crunch. Breakfast cereals don't make you feel full for a long time.

Obviously bacon isn't necessarily something to consume a lot of. You could substitute a lot of other similarly easy to consume proteins.

Let's go with another easy one: plain greek yogurt. Per 150G container, it's got 80 calories, 6g carbs, and 15g of protein. It's got exactly the same amount of sugar as 1 1/4 cups of unsugared cereal like Rice Krispies (before adding milk), while giving you 15x more protein. It's going to keep you full a lot longer than that bowl of cereal. As a bonus, yogurt is even easier to prepare than cereal.

When they’re cooked properly (i.e. not burned), frozen bacon and sausage are amazing.

The extra joy of going from zero to bacon in 30-seconds is particularly awesome.

Reheated boiled eggs? Wtf...

If I eat eggs that I boiled and refrigerated, I just eat them cold or at room temp if they sit out for a bit.

I didn't say reheated hard boiled eggs. You just keep it in the fridge and eat it cold.

It takes me five minutes to fry two eggs in the morning, including washing the pan. While the eggs are frying I drop some toast in the toaster.

It takes me approx 5 minutes to fry an egg and clean the pan.

I'll be 5 minutes later to work rather than eat non-food.

It's quicker and more efficent to stay in bed than it is to go to work. What of it?

Life is to be lived.

>The reality is though that bacon and eggs take time and effort

Yes, the reality is that children take time and effort.

But if parents can’t spare 15 minutes to invest in their kids health and wellness and instead opt for convince at the cost of priming their bodies for obesity, fatty liver disease and type2...there are other issues to consider.

You can opt for overnight oats. Takes 2 seconds to prepare. I usually include chia, banana and blueberries, then add natural peanut butter in the morning.

Cooking two poached eggs takes 90 seconds in my microwave. Bacon can be cooked in quantity and eaten cold or warmed in the microwave.

So yes, the cereals are easier but the saving in time is really not more than about five minutes.

Costco has precooked bacon that's pretty decent. It definitely isn't as good as the normal uncooked bacon, but only takes a couple minutes to heat up (or under a minute in the microwave). It's great because I can throw it in the pan when my eggs are just about done, total time less than 10 minutes. Tastes way better than any cereal any day, not to mention not full of sugar/carbs.

The reality is also that 90% of the world population find it unbearable for more than a few days, like during the holidays

I still prefer having bread, butter and jam

Or milk and biscuits

Many here in Italy skip breakfast or have a cornetto (croissant with no butter) and cappuccino at the bar

It's the dose that makes the poison

The opposite of too much sugar it's the right amount of sugar to go through the morning till lunch, not completely avoid sugar

Pretty much.

The vast majority of cereals simply are not food. They are a treat.

At most, perhaps some porridge with fruit for sweetness.

Even the unsweetened stuff like corn flakes - sure, it has less refined sugar, but you're basically eating cardboard. Get some real green vegetables in you!

I noticed in the US the milk seemed a lot sweeter than what I'm used to. Then again I'm all about Museli and mainly eaten with soya milk, seems reasonably healthy and quick and easy.

In general, carbs break down into glucose for consumption... which isn't the worst thing. Fructose (about half, or more, of most natural sugars) is only able to be processed by the liver and usually in excess of what can be metabolized meaning a build up of fatty liver. This has other side effects leading to metabolic syndrome/diabetes/heart-disease.

A big issue is that many people eating low fat actually don't get enough protein or especially fat. Most natural sources of protein (particularly meat) come with around 0.5g of fat per 1g of protein. Lean sources are quite a bit lower. Without enough fat, many will see issues with their gal bladder over time. There's also more insulin response to protein without accompanying fat.

Another issue is refined vegetable oils have more linoleic acid, which leads to more carb absorption in general.

In general, most people are now getting too much carbohydrate, often not enough protein, and almost always not enough fat.

> Without enough fat, many will see issues with their gal bladder over time

Wait what? I was under the impression that most gal bladder issues came from fat, not from not enough fat. Or is it one of those "both extremes are bad" thing?

“Both extremes are bad” applies to everything, by definition of it being extreme.

Fair, though usually "drinking zero water" as an extreme does not cause death by water intoxication, and avoiding all alcohol does not usually cause liver issues.

So im curious how this particular extreme affects the galbladder.

See effects of too much potassium vs too little, or magnesium, sodium, phosphorous. The symptoms overlap because when the balance is off, it can have similar effects.

This article[1], paragraph 2:

    Even as many doctors subscribe to the myth that eating
    fat and cholesterol leads to gallstones, research 
    indicates that eating too little fat and too many 
    carbohydrates in the form of grains, sugars and 
    starches actually leads to gallbladder ailments. ...

Or on WebMD from over a decade ago [2] .. as to the saturated fats... generally animal sources of fats are about half or less saturated, and generally a good mix.

[1] https://www.atkins.com/how-it-works/library/articles/dealing...

[2] https://www.webmd.com/digestive-disorders/news/20041004/more...

Bacon contains nitrates that have been proven to cause cancer. I believe the increased cancer rate is very low however. Also, "nitrate free" bacon usually contains nitrates in a different form (celery powder), which i've read actually contains more nitrates than typical and therefore is actually way worse. I would stick with eggs, with oatmeal, sweetened with some berries.

Nope, incorrect. Nitrites/Nitrates don't have any good evidence by themselves for being carcinogenic/generally harmful.

However, they can form nitrosomenes when cooked at a high heat alongside protein, aka fried bacon, which are considered carcinogenic (but concentrations vary on how much is actually harmful).

Eat oven baked/microwave bacon every once in a while, and its fine.

Or a nice cup of tea :)

I bacon that!

Bacon and eggs? Jesus... Considering you are advocating for removing unhealthy foods, surely you could have mentioned something actually healthy.

There's nothing wrong with bacon and eggs. A vegetable would be nice tho.

I'm surprised this is getting downvoted.

Eggs seem reasonably healthy, but last time I ate that every morning, my cholesterol readings spiked. Bacon has higher fat, saturated fat, and preservatives than fresh eggs. I would imagine that bacon is worse.

This thread is an exercise in food fashion. What is "healthy" is more about a fashion trend rather than hard science. In any case, the scientifically recommended diets to high-blood pressure patients (what US People suffer most of) is the "DASH" diet. And unlike other fad diets, the "DASH" diet is actually scientifically studied. Bacon is certainly off the Dash diet, since it completely blows up your salt intake for the day.

There has been a demonization of sugar recently, but no doctor has ever recommended to me a low-sugar / glycemic index index diet. It doesn't seem like I'm personally at risk for Diabetes (while I'm high-risk for High-blood pressure). So I'll stick to my doctor's advice for me personally, rather than take some internet opinions.

Bacon and eggs are absolute garbage. Bacon and other processed red meat has been implicated in cancer[1], eggs are overloaded with cholesterol and have also been associated with arterial plaque [2]. This doesn't even get into the massive animal ethics issues and global warming issues that animal agriculture causes. What about oatmeal with fruit, flax, and peanut butter - now there's a concept. (And really better yet? - no breakfast. I recommend intermittent fasting or "IF" as it's usually called.)

[1] http://pcrm.org/health/cancer-resources/diet-cancer/facts/ba...

[2] https://nutritionfacts.org/2015/08/20/what-do-eggs-do-to-our...

Speaking of absolute garbage why are you bothering citing pop garbage nutrition articles when there's plenty of peer-reviewed data? Here's a 2015 meta-analysis of dietary nitrates, nitrates, and nitrosamine intake and cancer risk: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4690057/ - overall, results were pretty weak, with pretty small hazard ratios (1.31 and 1.34 for nitrites and NDMA respectively). This seems largely matched by a 2017 review: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5669970/ There are many other things you could do to reduce your risk of cancer if that were you're primary health concern (my personal preference: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3946160/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4255155/).

There's even more research on eggs (I also checked the author information, these are real academics, not just industry shills as your reference implies must be behind all pro-egg research) - you can also see my other citations in this thread to see references on how dietary cholesterol has little impact on serum cholesterol, and also how high cholesterol has very little to say about CVD (also eggs actually raise HDL which is a good thing if you're looking at cholesterol sub-fractions, you really need to be looking at the research on Lp(a) and Ox-LDL). Anyway, overall consensus, seems to be that eggs are not absolute garbage:

* 2015 Egg Consumption and Human Cardio-Metabolic Health in People with and without Diabetes https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4586539/

* 2016 Eggs and Health Special Issue https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5188439/

* 2016 Eggs: good or bad? https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27126575

* 2017 Intake of up to 3 Eggs per Day Is Associated with Changes in HDL Function and Increased Plasma Antioxidants in Healthy, Young Adults. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28077734

* 2017 Consuming Two Eggs per Day, as Compared to an Oatmeal Breakfast, Decreases Plasma Ghrelin while Maintaining the LDL/HDL Ratio https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5331520/

Just want to note that "2015 Egg Consumption and Human Cardio-Metabolic Health in People with and without Diabetes" states under "Conflicts of Interest": "N.R.F., I.D.C. and T.P.M. have received research grants for other clinical trials funded by Australian Egg Corporation Limited". And: "T.P.M. acts as an advisory member to the Egg Nutrition Council." Your last 2017 study is funded by the "Esperance Family Foundation" - need to do more digging, but I wonder if they're linked to animal agriculture/eggs.

That's nice. No pro-egg shills are ever involved, huh?

Also the processed meat/red meat/nitrate and cancer connection was brought forth by the World Health Organization. Not exactly a pop science source.

Further, Dr. Greger is a highly respected physician, author, and academic - his interpretation of the data absolutely matters.

Yes, that review also cites 94 references and (the core of the reference is 3 tables that reviews existing literature anyway) and was published in MDPI's peer-reviewed open access journal Nutrients. Every other publication I listed was also peer-reviewed and can be read in full and is also full of citations. That's sort of the point of having scientific literature.

But sure, since he's "highly respected" this Dr Greger sounds like a stand-up guy with no axe to grind, let's see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Greger as a "professional speaker on public health issues, particularly the benefits of a whole-food, plant-based diet and the harms of eating animal products" and the vegan publisher of the web site you cite as well, you don't say.

But, he's an academic? Let's see what he's published (lots of peer reviewed work on nutrition and metabolism I'd expect): https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Michael_Greger

Oh hmm, maybe I have the wrong guy, it's just a couple animal welfare papers.

Hey, up to you where you want to get your scientific information (same goes w/ the WHO, which I agree isn't a pop science source - it's a ... public health agency/policy advisory body). I'll just read the peer-reviewed literature, thanks.

Your passion for animal-based products is truly impressive! Have a good one!

The passion is actually for the application of the scientific method in a field that is simply rife with misinformation and ideologues, but thanks for casting aspersions. I can assure you that you haven't made a very strong intellectual argument for your case though.

All of the scientific references Dr Greger cited in his video are invalid? Oh, thanks, Dr. lhl on HN.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com