Hacker News Reader

Comment by eggdaft | Hacker News Reader

I’d roll back a bit on meat. It can be very fatty, particularly red meat. And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer. If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.

Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

View on HN

I'd say this is intentionally missing the point. Where you draw the line between homo sapiens and the previous predecessor is subjective and largely arbitrary. The point is that we and our evolutionary ancestors have been eating most edible things we could get our hands on for as long as we go back.

EDIT

You're fighting some pretty hard core straw men here. I haven't mentioned cardiovascular disease nor actually anything related to the good or the bad of consuming meat anywhere in my comment. HN is not the right place for flamebait.

Oops, replied to the wrong comment.

Think they replied to your comment accidentally

> I’d roll back a bit on meat. It can be very fatty, particularly red meat.

Fat is not bad. We decided it was on the flimsiest of evidence and suspect "plausbility" arguments (eating fat makes you fat, obvs) and the subsequent attempts to prove the hypothesis in large scales studies have come up empty-handed.

> And it does significantly raise risks of various diseases, including cancer.

I significantly doubt that, the evidence, such that it is, is only found in highly confounded epidemiology that does not allow you to make that claim.

> If you’re going to eat it, I’d be very selective about the types and sources you consume.

Fair enough.

> Humans didn’t exist millions of years ago…

Google "how long have humans been eating meat". Not saying it's right, but it contradicts your point.

Saturated fat (the most prevalent fat in meat) is causally connected to cardiovascular disease. This is based on a huge amount of evidence and, if you are going to discount it, I suggest you also should discount the whole field of nutrition, because this is the close to a scientific fact as we can get.

Saturated fat in excess. The dose makes the poison

For the record, I _do_ think that the whole field of nutrition should be discounted.

In the popular imagination we to tend blame journalism for the "one minute x causes cancer, the next minute x cures cancer" style flip-flopping, and I don't doubt some blame is due. However, the underlying science is hopelessly confounded and generates spurious small effects that are probably artefacts of the data than real effects. If this wasn't the case, how do you explain the constant self-contradiction and almost complete equivocality on every issue on these matters.

What is the causal connection you are talking about? I hope not the saturated fat, clogs the arteries, etc, etc. Everyone believed that 50 years ago, no one will in another 100 years. But persuade me; show me the unequivocal science and I'll change my mind. My understanding is that the efforts to show this effect have not worked.

> What is the causal connection you are talking about?

↑ Saturated fats > ↑ LDL > ↑ Cardiovascular Disease

We have mendelian (genetic) studies that attest the causality of this link, ie. people who are naturally born with low LDL have less CVD. Not sure why you think this is not a compelling narrative.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com