Hacker News Reader

Comment by trention | Hacker News Reader

>how did you arrive to conclusion that eating chicken is better than eating lentils, beans, etc

I haven't made such a claim (here "better" would be solely in terms of emissions). What was implied was that the delta of the emissions from switching from beef to chicken/fish is (far) larger than the delta from switching from them to veganism (it's important to note that per grams of protein, dairy is comparable in emmissions to non-beef meats - so really veganism (or veganism + eggs) is required).

Also, this claim "we know that eating animals is not required to be healthy at any stage of life" is most likely false at the margin.

View on HN

If switching from beef to chicken is an option, and switching from beef to lentils is an option, and you say that switching from beef to chickens is the best option then you are indeed implying that switching from beef to chicken is better than switching from beef to lentils. You need not explicitly state exactly that; it logically follows from what you said.

Also you refute the general scientific consensus among all major nutrition and dietetic institutions worldwide that animal products are not required to be healthy at any stage of life by saying “that’s probably not true”. You’ve got to admit how silly that is, right? Unless the “at the margin” part of what you said means something I don’t understand?

>the general scientific consensus

I would advise you to read up on the history of the advice ADA has been giving throughout the years (spoiler alert: they were wrong about fats and complex carbohydrates) before putting your money in that basket that this is the "general scientific consensus". But this is a topic I don't want (or need) to argue about.

Well I hope you find it within yourself to consider the arguments you and I have both made and continue your research. I can’t recommend those Kurzgesagt videos enough. They are chock full of peer reviewed research!

Exactly. “A low fat diet including fruits, pasta, and cereals, supplemented with copious amounts of extraneous insulin.”

But even if we concede that the ADA is entirely untrustworthy, they are only one of many nutrition and dietetic institutions who have officially stated the same thing. That’s why it’s the general consensus, not just the theories of the ADA

The point is that it’s wrong, particularly for type 2 diabetics, and not just a little wrong, it’s dangerously wrong for type 2 diabetics to eat the way the organization that the medical establishment was relying on for providing sound diabetes advice was actually distributing dangerous advice. The general consensus for years relied on an assumption and confirmation bias driven by marketing rather than any actual science.

The claim I made wasn’t about saying what everyone needs to eat, though, so your point doesn’t make sense in the context of the discussion. The point that I was making is that these dietetic institutions state that animal products aren’t necessary. Not that diabetics are required to eat things that risk their lives…

If you believe that diabetics cannot be vegan, then that’s a separate and equally untrue argument.

> If you believe that diabetics cannot be vegan, then that’s a separate and equally untrue argument.

Where did I say that? I didn’t. I was referring specifically to the ADA incorrect suggestion for decades that high carbohydrate foods are ok and encouraged for type 2 diabetics. I did not make a meat vs non-meat absolutist statement. It was more a high carb vs low carb absolutist statement. If you are a vegan T2 diabetic who only eats avocados, cabbage, broccoli, and olives…good for you.

My comments were actually specific the commenter who expressed concern about relying on “general consensus” as an argument for reliability of dietary advice and used the ADA example. I backed them up and it’s completely appropriate to this little thread in the discussion.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com