Comment by m000 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by m000 | Hacker News Reader

As an outside observer of this beef tallow trend, it looks to me a lot like a fad driven by some internalized machismo: "It's not proper food if it's not from a dead animal." While this is not unique to the US, apparently believers of this in the US reached a critical mass enough to make it public policy.

I don't doubt that one can find health benefits in beef tallow. But I also vividly remember ads in the 80s and 90s that promoted the health benefits of seed oils and margarines, which years later proved to be cherry-picked facts. So, I'm skeptical on whether we have the same thing happening, only now it is beef tallow that is promoted by cherry-picking studies.

And frankly, RFKs "new pyramid" is at least misguided, if not worse. Bread and grains at the bottom of the pyramid make no sense. In mediterranean countries (e.g. Italy, Greece, Spain) bread and pasta are on the table in ample quantities every single day. And guess who has longer life expectancy than the US.

The #1 thing to look out for in studies they reference is what's the replacement

Saturated fat looks good when you replace trans fat

Red meat looks to be neutral when you eeplace refined grains

Doesn't mean there aren't better options though

Aren't Americans the kind of people who will cut the fat and gristle out of their rib-eye and leave it on the plate? And it was like a thing of pride to not eat the fatty part because look how rich we are ... Now they suddenly all into slurping beef tallow. What?

I think it has more to do with disliking the mouth feel/texture of fat and gristle than because we are so rich. But by all means feel free to gnaw away at that bone in the ribeye for the calcium if you're so worried about getting 100% of the all possible nutrition from a ribeye steak.

There are 342 million Americans. Don't try to treat them all as a unified group. There are Americans who cut the fat, there are Americans who eat it.

What has changed is we have learned that fat isn't as bad as it was made out to be - it doesn't seem to have as large an effect on health as thought 40 years ago. That doesn't mean it is healthy - though some take it that way.

It was once observed that vegetarians being healthier than others could be explained almost entirely by vegetarians being less likely to smoke - something studies generally didn't even try to control for and so we don't know if that observation is true. There could be some other unknown factor in play as well that because it is unknown we can't control for it.

Seems like Americans are into making up food theories instead of just eating with common sense and moving your body with legs instead of cars sometimes.

i dont think it takes machismo to say that frying in animal fat is tastier than frying in whatever the hell constitues canola oil , as well your american breads and pastas are probably significantly less healthy than the european equivalent

Looking at dry pasta from Europe and the US, they seem pretty much the same, except the US pasta is more likely to use enriched flour; not sure what makes that less healthy.

Bread varies a lot and yeah we have some terrible breads, I don't buy them but someone must because they keep selling them

it was a bit doubtful that the recipe for pasta could vary so much , although i do see on the net that america is fond of jar pasta sauce over tomato cans (not pasta exactly but intrinsically linked) ... perhaps this down promotion of carbs is a knock on effect from years of the keto diet being mainstream

> As an outside observer of this beef tallow trend, it looks to me a lot like a fad driven by some internalized machismo: "It's not proper food if it's not from a dead animal."

Well, it's a response to the green/eco push for making do with protein from insects and plants only and that it's bad and wrong to have nice things because global warming and sustainability.

It's not a "something died for this so therefore it's better", it's "stop commanding me to not have nice things".

This is my vibe too. There is a huge masculinism effort across not only the Trump administration but broader society. Just look at the number of "cereal, but for MEN" products that have cropped up in the last couple years.

Relatedly, it is crazy to me that people don't see the value in gender studies as an academic field when so much of the past couple years has revolved around gender.

A lot of guys are very insecure because they’re overweight and sedentary and have a desk job (instead of working manual labor). And since the US is all about making your consumption your identity, the “x is masculine” marketing is like shooting fish in barrel.

Gender studies as a field is absolutely riddled with gender bias. I view it with scepticism because I don't think it will treat my gender or my sex fairly, not because I think there's no need for it.

The "X for MEN" trend, for example, exists in the context of decades of "X for WOMEN" products. The Man Shake (TM) is a product that only exists because Slimfast (TM) has already convinced the world that meal replacement shakes are for women.

I can see why The Man Shake is stupid, but I don't understand how Slimfast was any better. Nor do I understand why The Man Shake is masculinisation but Slimfast isn't feminisation. Nor why one should be seen as exploitative advertising targeting insecurities, while the other is an intentional political effort.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com