Hacker News Reader

Comment by senttoschool | Hacker News Reader

>Those below the age of 29 and above the age of 66 were least likely to eat large amounts of beef. Rose said this indicated that the younger generation might be more interested in mitigating the effects of climate change.

Also, people below the age of 29 are likely more food-health conscious. IE. vegans, vegetarians, gluten free, etc.

View on HN

They are also poorer and less likely to be able to afford beef on a daily basis. But I'm sure that is a mere coincidence and in no shape or form relevant to the outcome of the study at hand.

People below the age of 29 are still likely to believe what they were taught in school, and haven’t yet suffered the consequences of the lifestyle they’ve been told their whole lives is more healthy and virtuous.

That's my personal experience too. I thought fatty meat is bad all the way through my teenage and early 20s.

What consequences does one suffer from eating less beef?

Depends on what you replace it with. For the majority of people less beef means more soy, more seed oils, or more chicken (the meat most easily modifiable by modern industrial techniques).

The consequence is low muscle mass and high body fat (skinny fat), chronic health issues and screwed up hormone profiles.

That's just nonsense. There are vegan bodybuilders & other top athletes out there.

I've been vegetarian since I was ~10y old, now 50+ and bordering on vegan, and doing fine health wise. If not better than many peers my age.

It's just a matter of making sure you get all vitamins, minerals & other nutrients the body needs. As opposed to just dropping food categories & hope for the best.

For vegans in particular, that means vit. B12 supplements, and have a good look at things like calcium and iron intake. But with that in order: NO problem.

Uh, humans for the majority of existence have lived off grains, veg, fruits and only some meat. Meat being a everyday thing is purely a 20th century invention, and on that list of meat being available once in awhile, beef was very low on the list, pig was king.

You are starting to sound like one of those fragile male ego types that rants about soy having _plant estrogen_.

It heavily depends on place and period. Humans also lived a lot from eggs and milk products.

That being said, we are bigger and stronger. Humans suffered from malnutrition a lot. Many previously normal malnutrition caused diseases are basically nonexistent now.

>humans for the majority of existence… This is not globally true. Animal products have always been the most important part of the Northern European diet. Earlier, nomadic herders in Asia and Europe ate primarily animal products (while famously conquering every sedentary civilization they came across). Ötzi, the 5300 year old mummy found in the alps, had a stomach full of meat. Going back further, hunter gatherers traditionally derived most of their calories from animal products, and Neanderthals had a completely carnivore diet.

I didn't say no beef. I said less beef.

The average American eats 55lbs/25kg beef a year. For 12% of Americans to eat 50% of the beef they have to consume over 4 times as much as the average American.

That'd mean they'd eat a ~270g beef steak every single day.

I'm by no means a vegetarian, let alone a vegan, but even you have to admit that this is excessive. This could easily be replaced with nothing and you wouldn't be protein deficient.

This is a common trend I see. Younger people are making more environmental conscious choice, because of course they will suffer the most because bad decisions taken by the previous generation. Personally I would not replace it with meat substitutes even though I understand why they exists. We can look at mediterranean and indian vegetarian diets for lot of inspiration on eating healthy vegetarian food.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com