Comment by sph | Hacker News Reader

Comment by sph | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Which meat we're pretty sure it's harmful?

If it's processed one, sure, like most (ultra) processed food.

If you are about to say red meat, you are misinformed like everybody else that has repeated the same nonsense for the past 3 decades about red meat, cholesterol, etc. So I wouldn't be quick to blame sponsored and biased papers, when even laymen like you and I keep parroting the same unscientific dogmas they have heard over the years, which keep being disproved.

Red meat is not unhealthy. Cholesterol is not unhealthy per se. Cholesterol is a simple metric that is often misinterpreted by GP and has a complete different meaning whether you are eating a lot of carbohydrates and sugar with red meat, or not.

https://youtu.be/rdgS3PuSuyg

In fact, recent studies seem to show that higher LDL levels (you know, the bad one) are correlated with longevity. Go figure. Scientifically, we still have no clue. Then add lobbying and ideology on top. This is how you get modern dietary science.

I usually skip dietary posts on this forum because the same misinformation, whether it's because of parroting or pushing a certain anti-meat agenda, is readily found upvoted to the top. At this point arguing with people about diet is starting to feel quixotic.

In case anyone takes this comment seriously:'There is strong evidence that processed meat and red meat intake increases risk of colorectal cancer.[31][32][33] The American Cancer Society in their "Diet and Physical Activity Guideline", stated "evidence that red and processed meats increase cancer risk has existed for decades, and many health organizations recommend limiting or avoiding these foods."[34]'

This is from Wikipedia. References are to solid science. Not to YouTube influencers.

There you go. Not knowing you can find paper that prove A and papers that prove B, it's just a matter of finding the papers that prove what you most believe in, and QED.

Especially when you use a quote which conveniently puts red and processed meat in the same basket to reach their conclusion.

I'll let you have this one, because as I said, it is quixotic trying to restore some kind of objectivity or educated discussion on dietary matters.

Even under the anthropological point of view, red meat which has sustained humanity for hundred of thousands of years, to "cause cancer" smells like biased nonsense from a mile away. I guess during the last ice age, when herbivores roamed the earth freely and in abundant numbers, the opportunist scavenger Homo Sapiens was eating chicken breast and leafy vegetables.

> There you go. Not knowing you can find paper that prove A and papers that prove B, it's just a matter of finding the papers that prove what you most believe in, and QED.

You would be a lot more convincing if you actually cited some papers.

His point is literally that most papers are lobbyist garbage. He made that rather clear. So how would citing papers he already declares biased help anything?

That was what voz_2's point rather than sph's (unless I missed it).

I cited Dr. Mason's talk, and in general I quite like that entire channel, though as it's called "Low carb down under" it's easy to say it's biased, or, as GP said, that I rely on "Youtube influencers".

The panelists on that channel are all doctors and scientists, with as many papers, science and citations you want. I'm not saying they are not biased, but here I am presenting my sources, which are not a sentence from Wikipedia or repeating Pollan's tired quote.

Yet some would want you to believe Big Meat or Big Keto is actually a thing behind doctors trying to reverse their patients' diabetes or atherosclerosis through the reduction of carbohydrates and the increase of natural, unprocessed foods, such as vegetables, animal meat and fats.

Trust me, it's much easier to market and sell low carb cereals or Impossible Burger, than the real thing everybody's trying their hardest to malign. If it's not beef is the major cause of climate change, it's because steak causes cancer.

> Even under the anthropological point of view, red meat which has sustained humanity for hundred of thousands of years, to "cause cancer" smells like biased nonsense from a mile away

How is this line of argument any better than biased studies?

Humans smoked tobacco for thousands of years too, or are you going to argue that smoking doesn't cause cancer either?

Also, humans used to walk dozens of miles a day. Humans used to not be 40% obese. Humans used to never eat refined sugar.

Lots of things have changed. And even if red meat didn't cause cancer in prehistory, cattle and pigs are raised differently now, and human dietary and mobility patterns are completely different today than even 100 years ago.

None of this is strong evidence for anything.

Trying to determine truth in metabolic science is super hard, and yes there are studies that point in all directions on basically any intervention. So people are understandably very wary of "well, let's toss all that out and start from some other first principles that happen to support my preexisting beliefs" like the "anthropological point of view" you describe.

Not all studies are equally bad, but basically all arguments about historical nutrition have so many confounds that they tell us very little about cause and effect, and a lot about priors (or "bias" as you refer to it elsewhere).

Wikipedia is famous for supressing references that oppose whatever is the current editors' views. I also don't see any links in your post, did something go wrong?

Here's a recent (Oct 2022) reference to solid science [1] which seems to contradict WP claim of strong evidence:

While there is some evidence that eating unprocessed red meat is associated with increased risk of disease incidence and mortality, it is weak and insufficient to make stronger or more conclusive recommendations. More rigorous, well-powered research is needed to better understand and quantify the relationship between consumption of unprocessed red meat and chronic disease.

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-022-01968-z

Nutrition is one of my favorite topics on HN. Not because the discussions have any utility, but because it's amazing to see out of a group of highly intelligent people, the weirdest dietary gospel emerges. Anecdotes about how Wim Hof breathing and drinking only apple cider vinegar solved their IBS or something.

This whole trend of “apple cider vinegar cures X” makes no sense to me. My mother, who suffers from acid reflux, wanted to try drinking an acetic acid solution to cure her acid reflux. All because she saw it on Facebook.

Thinking on it, diet trends really are the “TikTok challenges” of old.

Thank you for helping me turn despair into joy. I was getting upset by all the crazy cultish assertions in this thread. This reminded me how funny it all is. Clearly so much emotion involved when people discuss diet!

I think you are underappreciating the placebo effect here. It is very strong, and it's likely one reason for the proliferation of "X solved my Y" anecdotes.

It may well have -- but through the placebo effect, making it useless for others.

No need to put words in my mouth -- yes, cured meats with nitrites are a pretty well-established human carcinogen. But it's not like other "processed food": we have specific causal mechanisms, and have been doing it for millennia.

Jury's still out on red meat; I was not "about to say" anything I didn't say.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com