Hacker News Reader

Comment by abandonliberty | Hacker News Reader

A similar thing happened with the red meat industry.

From the first food pyramid evidence was already showing intake should be minimized, but the lobby fought back, and the pyramid was changed.

You will notice that the current food plate still carefully avoids saying anything at all about red meat: http://www.choosemyplate.gov/food-groups/protein-foods.html

Compare & contrast against the evidence-supported http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-p...

View on HN

You implicitly assume that the research that shows red meat is bad for you is correct.

You are absolutely right. There was a lot of manipulation that went on with the food pyramid, but a lot of studies in the last 5 years have shown that the relationship that we once thought existed (red meat=bad) is false. There are also well validated studies showing that the nutrition science that has been taught for the last few decades about our relationship with sugar, fat, food in general, and how cholesterol affects our bodies is wrong.

Dr. Peter Attia's "The Eating Academy" (http://eatingacademy.com/) is a great place to learn more about what we are finding out about how certain foods actually affect out bodies.

Interesting research in this direction is making progress, helping to explain WHY red meat may be dangerous:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141229152226.ht...

Sure, it may be dangerous. Here's the thing- I've been around for a while and read a lot of stuff in the mainstream media about which combinations of foods will kill you and which will make you immortal. As these have changed over the years and as I have failed to see convincing evidence in the medical literature I have concluded that people have a strong urge to believe that doing something mildly unpleasant (not eating something delicious) now can somehow prevent much worse things in the future. Its the same mechanism and magical thinking that inspired our ancestors to sacrifice goats to appease the gods and assure a great harvest. Wrapping the explanation in scientific jargon is just the latest iteration of a priest in shiny robes.

If you read carefully, I didn't - I only pointed out that lobbies overrode the scientific body of evidence, as it does here.

Of course, if you don't find that peer reviewed evidence accepted by leading experts in appropriate fields is the most reliable source of policy, then I'm curious what differentiates you from human-generated climate change deniers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com