Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people(bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com)
bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com
Meat consumption and risk of 25 conditions: outcome-wide analyses of 475K people
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-021-01922-9
280 comments
Food surveys and food diaries are hilariously bad[1]. I'm surprised any studies based on them are still getting published.
There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters
There was literally a reality TV show in England based around how terribly inaccurate food diaries are. It's on YouTube[2].
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4527547/figure/...
[2] https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=secret+eaters
That show is incredible. Thanks for sharing. There’s a corollary with Covid in there somewhere: “we’re taking this so seriously” (but then hanging out with friends etc, like that SNL skit).
To further concur, when I was engineering my own body composition improvement plan I quickly learned to completely ignore any study that wasn’t performed in a controlled metabolic ward. Which is, essentially, a voluntary prison. Needless to say participant compensation is considerably more costly than the totally unscientific alternatives so such studies are rare.
Can you share some links to studies done in a metabolic ward that contradict survey-based studies?
I don't have any links handy, this was years ago and I didn't save them. Scholar search or something similar should find you plenty of hits though for metabolic ward. My interest was primarily in nutrient partitioning and thermic effects of food. I want to clarify that I don't claim that survey-based studies necessarily or even predominantly make incorrect claims, just that I am not satisfied with their basis for making such claims.
Daily meat consumption is probably something people can gauge with a high degree of accuracy. People in developed countries are probably all-or-nothing unless they are actively trying to reduce their meat consumption while not being vegetarian.
Studies like this are published for political reasons, not scientific reasons. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation is behind this study.
The study’s funding is included in the study:
Funding
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].
Funding
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].
Right so if you look at LEAP[0] they talk about how "global average consumption of meat and dairy is rising, driven by increasing incomes and population growth ... livestock production can have major environmental impacts ... Livestock production is also a major source of greenhouse gases and other pollutants, increases water scarcity in some regions and can exacerbate soil erosion ... LEAP programme aims to understand the health, environmental, social and economic effects of meat and dairy production and consumption to provide evidence and tools for decision makers to promote healthy and sustainable diets"
They also have a brief explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpjeyypKMU&feature=emb_logo
I'm not going to call this a nefarious conspiracy, but in the same way you might wonder about a study funded by Coca Cola, LEAP doesn't sound like they'd want to fund a study concluding "eating beef is much healthier than soy protein"
If you combine that with the original criticism about the poor study design, you can come to your own conclusions about whether to reduce your meat consumption.
[0] https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/about
They also have a brief explainer video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGpjeyypKMU&feature=emb_logo
I'm not going to call this a nefarious conspiracy, but in the same way you might wonder about a study funded by Coca Cola, LEAP doesn't sound like they'd want to fund a study concluding "eating beef is much healthier than soy protein"
If you combine that with the original criticism about the poor study design, you can come to your own conclusions about whether to reduce your meat consumption.
[0] https://www.leap.ox.ac.uk/about
In fairness, he's not far off. The Wellcome Trust was established by a pharmaceutical magnate and is the fourth-richest charitable organization in the world, with an endowment of ~$40bn.
I think the point was that Bill Gates is believed to be in favor of hyperprocessed meat alternatives & has invested in some. (I don't know the details here - I'm guessing many of his detractors don't know them either.)
I'm not sure whether Wellcome has a similar real or perceived conflict of interest. I did think it was interesting that they showed a lower instance of Afib and varicose veins across the meat eaters...
I'm not sure whether Wellcome has a similar real or perceived conflict of interest. I did think it was interesting that they showed a lower instance of Afib and varicose veins across the meat eaters...
Actually, looks like the Gateses have in the past funded the Wellcome Trust.
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Gran...
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Gran...
The Wellcome Trust is a huge organisation that receives funding from many sources and funds a huge number of projects with it. And they are just one of several funders of this project.
If Bill Gates was that desperate to control what you eat, I'd suggest he could find more effective ways than funding completed unrelated work specifically at the Wellcome Trust starting a decade ago, in the hope that one day he could use his connections to pressure them to give a modest amount of their own money to a study that will likely not have any major impact politically.
This looks to me like a desperate attempt to find an agenda where there isn't one, verging on constituency theory terrain.
If Bill Gates was that desperate to control what you eat, I'd suggest he could find more effective ways than funding completed unrelated work specifically at the Wellcome Trust starting a decade ago, in the hope that one day he could use his connections to pressure them to give a modest amount of their own money to a study that will likely not have any major impact politically.
This looks to me like a desperate attempt to find an agenda where there isn't one, verging on constituency theory terrain.
Even if that were true, what kind of issue would that be if Bill Gates wanted people to get fewer easily preventable illnesses?
There’s zero hard evidence that red meat consumption leads to bad health outcomes. It’s all epidemiological fud.
Why are people so comfortable with billionaires telling them how to live?
Why are people so comfortable with billionaires telling them how to live?
>Why are people so comfortable with billionaires telling them how to live?
Has it occurred to you that billionaires can be using their resource for good? In your cynical world nothing can ever get done because ordinary people don't have the resources to do good, and the people who are resourced and want to do good are shooed away because people like you
Has it occurred to you that billionaires can be using their resource for good? In your cynical world nothing can ever get done because ordinary people don't have the resources to do good, and the people who are resourced and want to do good are shooed away because people like you
To be honest, the abstract says:
> and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)
> higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations
The numbers in the abstract should control for BMI (but not adiposity, i.e. bodyfat percentage). They're probably also too high.
To clarify: I'm 100% in agreement with you. I think meat gets a bad rap for bad reasons (one of them being bad science). I just wanted to point out this study did some effort (even if they could have done more) and that does deserve to be said.
> and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)
> higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations
The numbers in the abstract should control for BMI (but not adiposity, i.e. bodyfat percentage). They're probably also too high.
To clarify: I'm 100% in agreement with you. I think meat gets a bad rap for bad reasons (one of them being bad science). I just wanted to point out this study did some effort (even if they could have done more) and that does deserve to be said.
One problem some studies suffer is over-control of confounding variables, which excludes secondary causal relationships. For example, if you control for health of arteries, you will find that (insert bad food here) known culprits for heart disease stop causing heart disease -- which would seem absurd. That's because artery health and heart disease are correlated (in this case causally related), so when you control condition one on the other, any causes vanish (completely or partially).
In this case in particular they control for BMI. If eating less meat is helpful in lowering BMI, this effect isn't captured by this result. So you have to watch out for this when taking conclusions from a study or making decisions (if you already have a low BMI then you can trust the conclusions better).
In this case in particular they control for BMI. If eating less meat is helpful in lowering BMI, this effect isn't captured by this result. So you have to watch out for this when taking conclusions from a study or making decisions (if you already have a low BMI then you can trust the conclusions better).
I think this overstates what this single study can say about the effects of a vegetarian diet. The NHS did create a page about that study due to the media attention it got, and they conclude:
> Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200427104728/https://www.nhs.u...
> Despite the media headlines, the results from this Austrian cross sectional survey provide no proof that vegetarians are in poorer health than meat eaters.
https://web.archive.org/web/20200427104728/https://www.nhs.u...
B12-deficient crowd here—not just mental health. The potential impact a lack of B12 can have on you physically is catastrophic.
I have to be mindful that I make myself eat a steak once in a while. On a regular day my skin lacks a lot of colour these days. If I forget to eat the right things I start to fog up, emotions waver, mood falters, and can even get clumsy. (Couple this with some latent pancreatic problems and it's worse)
The unfortunate thing about it, is it tends to progress even if you're making an effort unless you're making enough of an effort and it can be so creeping and insidious as to leave you unaware until you've done irreparable harm to yourself, either by diet or a physical defect.
Horrible stuff, this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559316/ (read: your body will more or less start falling apart)
I have to be mindful that I make myself eat a steak once in a while. On a regular day my skin lacks a lot of colour these days. If I forget to eat the right things I start to fog up, emotions waver, mood falters, and can even get clumsy. (Couple this with some latent pancreatic problems and it's worse)
The unfortunate thing about it, is it tends to progress even if you're making an effort unless you're making enough of an effort and it can be so creeping and insidious as to leave you unaware until you've done irreparable harm to yourself, either by diet or a physical defect.
Horrible stuff, this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559316/ (read: your body will more or less start falling apart)
If you eat meat from industry chances are that your b12 vitamin comes from supplements. B12 supplement is very very cheap and everyone should supplement.
While I agree that taking some B12 supplement is probably a good idea for a lot of people, I don't think statements like that can be made so readily.
For one, nutritional studies tend to point to whole foods being the way to go to gain the nutrients required by your body because of the vastly complex interplay of absorption and the related catalysts. And in many cases, it's easy to overdo it on specific vitamins, especially when they're isolated and concentrated. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h..., https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/)
Secondly, I'm not sure what your first statement is intended to mean. When I eat meat, it's from usually chickens, turkeys, some fish, crustaceans, and occasionally western pig and cow (and even more occasionally, game animals).
As always, it's something each person should go over with their doctor—especially vegans or vegetarians who don't want to begin (or return to) eating meat.
For one, nutritional studies tend to point to whole foods being the way to go to gain the nutrients required by your body because of the vastly complex interplay of absorption and the related catalysts. And in many cases, it's easy to overdo it on specific vitamins, especially when they're isolated and concentrated. (https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-h..., https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/WYNTK-Consumer/)
Secondly, I'm not sure what your first statement is intended to mean. When I eat meat, it's from usually chickens, turkeys, some fish, crustaceans, and occasionally western pig and cow (and even more occasionally, game animals).
As always, it's something each person should go over with their doctor—especially vegans or vegetarians who don't want to begin (or return to) eating meat.
What the parent probably meant:
B12 is synthesized by bacteria, algae and yeasts, not directly by the animals we eat. There's a theory that due to the conditions that most animals are farmed in nowadays - the environment and standardized and monotonous feed - they would be B12-deficient themselves if not for supplementation.
So most of the B12 you find in factory-farmed animals might be from supplements in animal feed. Just like how farmed salmon and eggs have a nice color because of supplementation. Check this out: https://nutrition.basf.com/global/en/animal-nutrition/use-ar...
B12 is synthesized by bacteria, algae and yeasts, not directly by the animals we eat. There's a theory that due to the conditions that most animals are farmed in nowadays - the environment and standardized and monotonous feed - they would be B12-deficient themselves if not for supplementation.
So most of the B12 you find in factory-farmed animals might be from supplements in animal feed. Just like how farmed salmon and eggs have a nice color because of supplementation. Check this out: https://nutrition.basf.com/global/en/animal-nutrition/use-ar...
That may be, but the mechanism through which B12 is absorbed in humans is the same whether or not the animal received a supplement or not. It's the process of uptake through the diet that is the part that is concerning to humans.
More simply, the mechanisms involved in uptake by eating beef that received a B12 supplement is still very different from directly supplementing so the comparison should never be drawn.
As an aside: I would be skeptical of any chemical company's recommendations to the agricultural industry at large...
More simply, the mechanisms involved in uptake by eating beef that received a B12 supplement is still very different from directly supplementing so the comparison should never be drawn.
As an aside: I would be skeptical of any chemical company's recommendations to the agricultural industry at large...
Here's another chemical company that recommends supplementation of B12 for cows:
https://www.dsm.com/anh/en_US/products/vitamins/vitamin-nutr...
https://www.dsm.com/anh/en_US/products/vitamins/vitamin-nutr...
Thanks for the info.
It is apparent to me from living life that meat is a big part of a healthy diet. But it can be frustrating seeing studies such as this one come out and not knowing what to believe.
I recently started dating a vegetarian and am really realizing how much harder it is to eat a healthy vegetarian diet. Since no one actually wants to eat nothing but greens / veggies all day, many of her meals are carb heavy to fill up, with little protein. I'm not saying you can't be a healthy vegetarian - but it's harder. There are no good meal analogues for something like grilled chicken with a sweet potato/veggies on the side.
It is apparent to me from living life that meat is a big part of a healthy diet. But it can be frustrating seeing studies such as this one come out and not knowing what to believe.
I recently started dating a vegetarian and am really realizing how much harder it is to eat a healthy vegetarian diet. Since no one actually wants to eat nothing but greens / veggies all day, many of her meals are carb heavy to fill up, with little protein. I'm not saying you can't be a healthy vegetarian - but it's harder. There are no good meal analogues for something like grilled chicken with a sweet potato/veggies on the side.
Vegetarianism has been a (mandatory!) prestige marker in India for at least several hundred years; a traditional diet of that type will be adequately healthy[1]. What's hard is cutting meat out of a meat-based diet. You can't expect to just intuit how to fill the holes it leaves.
[1] As with all traditional practices, partial adoption may result in loss of any amount of the benefit, including amounts greater than 100%.
[1] As with all traditional practices, partial adoption may result in loss of any amount of the benefit, including amounts greater than 100%.
Also applying diets from one genetic cluster in a different one from another climate is asking for trouble. I can process lactose fine, but many can't. Chickpeas and lentils I do not absorb well.
It is a risk, but it's still true that the Indian vegetarian diet will cover all major dietary needs. And while that's not the most ringing endorsement, it's more than you can say for cutting meat out of a diet that features a lot of meat.
How much dairy protein is in such a diet? A lot of the curries I enjoy have yogurt and I love the cheese and cream in palak and saag paneer. But those may not be normal dishes?
I don't know, though my first guess would have been that the major source of protein would be lentils or other pulses. Yogurt is certainly plausible as well.
In England eating beef has been a prestige marker for at least several hundred years[1]. A traditional diet of that type will be more than adequately healthy. What’s hard is getting over ancient superstitions about animals being reincarnated people and then rationalizing that it’s actually healthy for an omnivorous species to abandon eating meat.
Or maybe there’s no reason to believe that a diet that’s healthy for Indians is necessarily healthy for Europeans or vice versa.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6043908-beef-and-liberty
Or maybe there’s no reason to believe that a diet that’s healthy for Indians is necessarily healthy for Europeans or vice versa.
[1] https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/6043908-beef-and-liberty
Just look to biology for the answers, its there if you pay attention.
The leader of a wolf pack gets first pickins at a kill, and it always eats the liver first.
Large carnivores elsewhere eat organs first as well.
There's a growing body of research for something that's being called the "carnivore" diet, and there's a sub-movement called "eating nose-to-tail" that seems to be, as best as I can tell, led by a physician named Dr. Paul Saladino, M.D., although the usual suspects are always on his podcast, or he's on theirs and/or associated with him: Dr. Dominic D'Agostino, Dr. Shawn Baker, M.D., etc.
Its basically exactly what you would expect... eating a lot of heart, liver, kidneys, along with skeletal muscle, etc.. I tried to do it, but I love things like french fries, roasted potatoes, roasted Brussel sprouts, etc. way too much. The biomarkers on this diet look amazing, but its always the same "problem". The people who are evangelical about eating this way are also huge into fitness, oftentimes spending an hour or more a day exercising.
I'd like to see 100 total lazy fatasses on a nose-to-tail carnivore diet and 100 total lazy fatasses on a vegetarian diet for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, and do weekly workups on them... blood pressure, fasting glucose, post-prandial glucose, and so on.
The leader of a wolf pack gets first pickins at a kill, and it always eats the liver first.
Large carnivores elsewhere eat organs first as well.
There's a growing body of research for something that's being called the "carnivore" diet, and there's a sub-movement called "eating nose-to-tail" that seems to be, as best as I can tell, led by a physician named Dr. Paul Saladino, M.D., although the usual suspects are always on his podcast, or he's on theirs and/or associated with him: Dr. Dominic D'Agostino, Dr. Shawn Baker, M.D., etc.
Its basically exactly what you would expect... eating a lot of heart, liver, kidneys, along with skeletal muscle, etc.. I tried to do it, but I love things like french fries, roasted potatoes, roasted Brussel sprouts, etc. way too much. The biomarkers on this diet look amazing, but its always the same "problem". The people who are evangelical about eating this way are also huge into fitness, oftentimes spending an hour or more a day exercising.
I'd like to see 100 total lazy fatasses on a nose-to-tail carnivore diet and 100 total lazy fatasses on a vegetarian diet for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, 1 year, and 2 years, and do weekly workups on them... blood pressure, fasting glucose, post-prandial glucose, and so on.
Another leader in the diet realm is Sean baker, a surgeon, who runs meatrx.com. That website contains a large repository of video testimony from people who have done the carnivore diet. There are hundreds and hundreds of them, each one making eyebrow raising claims. They include remission of asthma, arthritis, MS, anxiety, depression, chronic skin rash, brain fog and many many more things. That repository will convert literally anyone to a carnivore believer. There is even one guy who measured his CAC before and after, and his CAC was significantly lower after. This not only goes against the prediction of mainstream medicine, it is something that is thought to be impossible under any circumstances whatsoever. Carnivore is insanely OP. People get ripped, shredded without ever going to the gym. They become slim and metabolically healthy. Men’s testosterone go up. Couples that have been trying to get pregnant for years are able to get pregnant. I’ve watched hundreds of those videos and it’s case closed in my mind. It’s the healthiest diet we know of.
That being said, it sucks. I tried it and I couldn’t do it. Not eating any of the foods you like fucking sucks. And the adjustment period is brutal, with nausea and watery stools. Electrolytes are a constant problem. Once you get past the one month mark it’s supposed to level out, but I’ve never been tough enough to last a month.
That being said, it sucks. I tried it and I couldn’t do it. Not eating any of the foods you like fucking sucks. And the adjustment period is brutal, with nausea and watery stools. Electrolytes are a constant problem. Once you get past the one month mark it’s supposed to level out, but I’ve never been tough enough to last a month.
> That being said, it sucks. I tried it and I couldn’t do it. Not eating any of the foods you like fucking sucks. And the adjustment period is brutal, with nausea and watery stools. Electrolytes are a constant problem. Once you get past the one month mark it’s supposed to level out, but I’ve never been tough enough to last a month.
Yeap, everything you just said here was exactly my experience too.
Yeap, everything you just said here was exactly my experience too.
If you would like organ meats but don't like the texture there are meat pills that contain an equal portion of each organ type that are desiccated. These [1] are the ones I use.
[1] - https://shop.ancestralsupplements.com/collections/frontpage/...
[1] - https://shop.ancestralsupplements.com/collections/frontpage/...
Fantastic. Thank you very much. Any idea how many you should take daily? I didn't really see anything on that page, although judging by the amount of capsules per bottle, I would assume 6 per day? 180 caps / 30 days = 6?
I think that should be based on your dietary requirements and what amino acid and vitamin gaps you are trying to fill. There are breakdowns of the vitamin content somewhere on their site and I think I also found it in the Amazon questions section. I use 6 when I only have protein shakes but I use less when I eat a complete meal. That is just my personal preference.
There are plenty of good substitutes for chicken that are rich in protein, some even complete proteins. Flavor them however you like. Tofu, tempeh, seitan, chickpeas, portabella mushroom, quinoa, lentils, just to name a few. And then there's the actual chicken analogues like Morningstar and Beyond Chicken, which are pretty good and realistic. I am completely satisfied with any of these and some veggies on the side, even without added carbs, although I do love me some carbs too. (Background: have been vegetarian for 15 years.)
The bit about a vegetarian diet being associated with a higher incidence of cancer is kind of jarring to me. As I've always heard that leaning more towards whole/raw foods and more vegetables were better for avoiding cancer.
Now that may be because of your top point, most of the meat consumed in the US is processed in some way. I think the biggest culprit of meat-related cancer (?) is preserved meats.
I don't know. I just wanted to admit to being a little shocked at the whole vegetarian/cancer link. You often hear the opposite of that.
Now that may be because of your top point, most of the meat consumed in the US is processed in some way. I think the biggest culprit of meat-related cancer (?) is preserved meats.
I don't know. I just wanted to admit to being a little shocked at the whole vegetarian/cancer link. You often hear the opposite of that.
The reality is that there is a difference between vegan/vegetarian and whole food plant based diets. I am sure if you eat beyond burgers (processed meatless patties) everyday, you aren't doing your health any favors.
I mean potato chips are vegan. French fries are vegan, etc.
The key is whole foods. Unprocessed foods.
I mean potato chips are vegan. French fries are vegan, etc.
The key is whole foods. Unprocessed foods.
Fun fact: Oreos are vegan, still magically not good for you.
I expect the correlation of cancer and vegetarian diets is the "sick quitters" bias [0]. People try to improve their diet once they experience a health problem.
[0] https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/blog/the-sick-quitter-effec...
[0] https://www.cancercouncil.com.au/blog/the-sick-quitter-effec...
Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet - lots of highly processed grains (bread, pasta, and other fillers), sweets, desserts, sugary drinks (and other "regular" products with added sugars), and otherwise not too diverse of a diet.
Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. Hence, the link between the veg* diet and cancer is not hard to imagine.
The main issue with (a lot of) these research papers, other than having bad data to begin with, is the lack of control for other parameters: what exactly do those surveyed meat-eaters and vegetarians eat, and what their lifestyle choices are (e.g., vegetarians are generally more health-conscious, so they often exercise, don't smoke/drink as much, etc.).
Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case. Hence, the link between the veg* diet and cancer is not hard to imagine.
The main issue with (a lot of) these research papers, other than having bad data to begin with, is the lack of control for other parameters: what exactly do those surveyed meat-eaters and vegetarians eat, and what their lifestyle choices are (e.g., vegetarians are generally more health-conscious, so they often exercise, don't smoke/drink as much, etc.).
> Most of the vegetarians/vegans I know have a pretty shitty diet
In my observations (I'm in the US) this statement is true of the majority of the population, including omnivores. 2/3 of the US didn't become overweight (1/3 obese) by being mindful of their diets.
In my observations (I'm in the US) this statement is true of the majority of the population, including omnivores. 2/3 of the US didn't become overweight (1/3 obese) by being mindful of their diets.
> Don't know if that's a representative sample of vegetarian/vegan population, but it's not unlikely the case.
There are a lot of vegetarians in India on traditional diets that don't include highly processed foods with added sugar. I think it's safe to say that most Indians eat vegetarian food most of the time. Meat is just something most people in India can't afford everyday.
There are a lot of vegetarians in India on traditional diets that don't include highly processed foods with added sugar. I think it's safe to say that most Indians eat vegetarian food most of the time. Meat is just something most people in India can't afford everyday.
I think it's worth understanding why someone is a 'veggie'.
For me it was for standard 'moral' reasons and so eating junk food is still acceptable.
Eventually I picked up the health reasons angle (and discarded all the junk food) and moving to mostly a plant based diet (mostly vegan).
For me it was for standard 'moral' reasons and so eating junk food is still acceptable.
Eventually I picked up the health reasons angle (and discarded all the junk food) and moving to mostly a plant based diet (mostly vegan).
It’s really not surprising. You’re almost sure to be eating pesticides or weird chemicals even if you go fully organic. You can’t get it off by rinsing or washing. Plus, as has just become clear recently, carbohydrates are highly inflammatory, and inflammation plays a key role in cancer, heart disease, psychiatric disease and almost every other modern malady. It turns out that when you go from eating few carbs to zero carbs, tons of health problems, all centered around inflammation, go away. Carnivore is a miracle for allergies and skin problems. It’s really one of the biggest medical/diet revolutions that’s currently in the pipes. Certainly so when it comes to bang for buck.
Try reading a book about carnivore diet. It's the complete opposite of the bone-breaking with no muscle-mass vegan diet, maybe it has some type of truth in it ;).
I'll start by saying that I am vegan, but not ignorant. Thank you for the links to studies. I've never before read about B12 and mental health. I do make sure I supplement but I'm going to read these nonetheless.
A huge number of diehard carnivores are decades long vegans. Because vegans are the most health conscious people on the planet. This includes Paul saladino, The Godfather of carnivore.
As with most studies there is some criticism about this and how it "changed" overtime:
https://jacknorrisrd.com/austrian-vegetarian-study-making-wa...
https://jacknorrisrd.com/austrian-vegetarian-study-making-wa...
In a similar way, if you reduce your meat consumption by 80%, you're 80% of the way to the environmental benefits of a wholly vegan diet. Isn't it easier to convince someone to reduce their meat intake than to eliminate it completely?
Probably not.
My favorite trivia here is a study which documented that, of people who self-describe as "vegetarian", one third will admit to having eaten meat in the past one (1) week.
My favorite trivia here is a study which documented that, of people who self-describe as "vegetarian", one third will admit to having eaten meat in the past one (1) week.
I eat mostly vegan and I have a bite of meat from my partner's plate about once a week. I want to share in her culinary experiences.
A week has 21 meals. If you eat 3 types of food per meal, you will make 63 food choices per week. A person can choose meat for one of those 63 choices (1.6%) and still be a vegetarian. Many folks choose meat for 30% or more of their diet.
A week has 21 meals. If you eat 3 types of food per meal, you will make 63 food choices per week. A person can choose meat for one of those 63 choices (1.6%) and still be a vegetarian. Many folks choose meat for 30% or more of their diet.
I don't know where you get your definition of a vegetarian.
Eating meat 1.6% means your NOT a vegetarian, it just means your 'mostly' vegetarian.
I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with people eating meat, but most vegetarians I know (myself included), who are in it for moral reasons would take offense at that definition.
Eating meat 1.6% means your NOT a vegetarian, it just means your 'mostly' vegetarian.
I'm not saying there's nothing wrong with people eating meat, but most vegetarians I know (myself included), who are in it for moral reasons would take offense at that definition.
That's a broad stroke you're painting!
Maybe a lot of people want to try and be a 'vegetarian' (I dunno to sound cool?), try it for 3 months and fail constantly. These aren't vegetarians, just pretentious.
I've been a 'veggie' for 25 years and I haven't eaten meat, nor anyone else who I know who are.
Maybe a lot of people want to try and be a 'vegetarian' (I dunno to sound cool?), try it for 3 months and fail constantly. These aren't vegetarians, just pretentious.
I've been a 'veggie' for 25 years and I haven't eaten meat, nor anyone else who I know who are.
80% of "sometimes" or "not every day" is still "sometimes" and "not every day".
People have no clue about how frequently they eat meat. Since vegan and vegetarian diet are gaining traction, everyone is pretending they're being careful and eating less meat than before, yet the global meat consumption is still increasing.
People have no clue about how frequently they eat meat. Since vegan and vegetarian diet are gaining traction, everyone is pretending they're being careful and eating less meat than before, yet the global meat consumption is still increasing.
Global population and wealth are increasing. Meat is expensive. And price - we subsidise farming - is a direct way of influencing how often people eat something.
Multiplying taxes by 50 would indeed be a very convincing way of making people eat less meat.
Its just not about the diet but also lifestyle matters(exercise ,teetotaler,profession) . I am surprised why these studies do not involve that as an index ?
This one does:
> In Model 1, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for race, Townsend deprivation index [20], education, employment, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity, and in women, we additionally adjusted for menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive pill use, and parity. In Model 2, we further adjusted for total fruit and vegetable intake, cereal fibre intake score (calculated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of bread and breakfast cereal by the fibre content of these foods [21]), oily fish intake, and non-oily fish intake. For Model 3, we added adjustment for body mass index (BMI).
> In Model 1, we estimated hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) adjusted for race, Townsend deprivation index [20], education, employment, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity, and in women, we additionally adjusted for menopausal status, hormone replacement therapy, oral contraceptive pill use, and parity. In Model 2, we further adjusted for total fruit and vegetable intake, cereal fibre intake score (calculated by multiplying the frequency of consumption of bread and breakfast cereal by the fibre content of these foods [21]), oily fish intake, and non-oily fish intake. For Model 3, we added adjustment for body mass index (BMI).
From the Austrian food survey study:
> Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption
Wouldn't you say lower BMI is healthier?
> Our results revealed that a vegetarian diet is related to a lower BMI and less frequent alcohol consumption
Wouldn't you say lower BMI is healthier?
The study was in Austria, not Australia.
I would say that the vegetarian diet says more about the person than the diet itself.
Oh hey, look who funds Wellcome: https://www.gatesfoundation.org/How-We-Work/Quick-Links/Gran...
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, but the Wellcome Trust is a large organization with an endowment worth tens of billions of dollars and a variety of funding sources. Your link shows a number of moderately sized grants for mostly infectious disease projects.
Is there an insight we are supposed to gain from this connection?
Conspiracy theorists have a real thing about Bill Gates.
You can't deny that Bill has completely lost it trying to become public batman by force and shove whatever the fuck he wants into our throats by using his money "for our good".
I deny it. I just disproved your assertion.
Bill Gates spends lots of his money trying to develop technologies such as clean burning stoves for developing countries, inexpensive toilets for the same, funding advanced nuclear technology. How is this shoving it down our throats?
Your single sentence is brimming with emotion: belittling him with the batman moniker, shoving it down our throats, whatever the fuck, scare quotes. HN has higher standards than this.
Bill Gates spends lots of his money trying to develop technologies such as clean burning stoves for developing countries, inexpensive toilets for the same, funding advanced nuclear technology. How is this shoving it down our throats?
Your single sentence is brimming with emotion: belittling him with the batman moniker, shoving it down our throats, whatever the fuck, scare quotes. HN has higher standards than this.
He is doing it by force. Paying ads, paying politicians, paying experts, paying democratic party, insisting on vaccines, insisting on removing meat (have you seen healthy athletic vegans ? extremely rare).
You have to look at things that he wants to be applied by force, not things that he "generously creates and you can optionally use it".
If I want to eat meat and Bill wants to raise taxes on meat by force (using his billions so I pay higher taxes on meat) then I don't see this being a good thing for me.
If he makes cheap soy-lent so people can drink it and rest in peace, then it's ok by me. But he is forcing soy-lent to me too.
You have to look at things that he wants to be applied by force, not things that he "generously creates and you can optionally use it".
If I want to eat meat and Bill wants to raise taxes on meat by force (using his billions so I pay higher taxes on meat) then I don't see this being a good thing for me.
If he makes cheap soy-lent so people can drink it and rest in peace, then it's ok by me. But he is forcing soy-lent to me too.
No-one is forcing you to stop eating meat, and yes in fact I have a powerlifter vegan friend.
You're clearly brimming with emotion, and you seem to have drawn your own conclusion that bill gates is forcing you to stop eating meat. I'll be honest, that's a new conspiracy theory that I've not heard.
Why don't you think about it logically. What would Bill gates, a man who statistically only has 13 more years to live, gain from stopping you from eating meat?
You're clearly brimming with emotion, and you seem to have drawn your own conclusion that bill gates is forcing you to stop eating meat. I'll be honest, that's a new conspiracy theory that I've not heard.
Why don't you think about it logically. What would Bill gates, a man who statistically only has 13 more years to live, gain from stopping you from eating meat?
Bill Gates thinks he's saving the world - presumably his ego and idea of a personal legacy are wrapped up in this.
> No-one is forcing you to stop eating meat
You will slowly see the influence. Bill Gates is going in that direction. It is just too much man, he is going too strong at it, motherfucker appearing in every news about the virus.
> You're clearly brimming with emotion, and you seem to have drawn your own conclusion that bill gates is forcing you to stop eating meat.
It's "let's hear what Ja Rule has to say about this" up to level 9000!
> and yes in fact I have a powerlifter vegan friend.
Yes I have a black friend.
> Why don't you think about it logically. What would Bill gates, a man who statistically only has 13 more years to live, gain from stopping you from eating meat?
The issue is that people think differently. A simple exercise to you: Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorde... and read a little about it. Now, think logically, thinking & behaving like that doesn't make sense. Yet, there is a % of the population that does.
Give somebody with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disor... billions of $, at the end of their life, and they are at your throat.
He is the Microsoft scenario, he isn't good. He just profits, his ego, he gets excited doing this, his NPD, whatever, but he isn't good. He can't be. Can't save the world by force a be a good guy at the same time even if it was true.
You will slowly see the influence. Bill Gates is going in that direction. It is just too much man, he is going too strong at it, motherfucker appearing in every news about the virus.
> You're clearly brimming with emotion, and you seem to have drawn your own conclusion that bill gates is forcing you to stop eating meat.
It's "let's hear what Ja Rule has to say about this" up to level 9000!
> and yes in fact I have a powerlifter vegan friend.
Yes I have a black friend.
> Why don't you think about it logically. What would Bill gates, a man who statistically only has 13 more years to live, gain from stopping you from eating meat?
The issue is that people think differently. A simple exercise to you: Go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorde... and read a little about it. Now, think logically, thinking & behaving like that doesn't make sense. Yet, there is a % of the population that does.
Give somebody with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissistic_personality_disor... billions of $, at the end of their life, and they are at your throat.
He is the Microsoft scenario, he isn't good. He just profits, his ego, he gets excited doing this, his NPD, whatever, but he isn't good. He can't be. Can't save the world by force a be a good guy at the same time even if it was true.
>He is doing it by force. Paying ads, paying politicians, paying experts, [...]
Those don't sound very forceful to me. When you said "by force" I was expecting him to have Men With Guns raiding the houses of meat eaters.
Those don't sound very forceful to me. When you said "by force" I was expecting him to have Men With Guns raiding the houses of meat eaters.
Like I said: Conspiracy theorists have a real thing about Bill Gates.
[deleted]
"Epidemiological study supports assertions of those funding the study"
Does that not seem problematic to you?
Does that not seem problematic to you?
“Problematic” being the catch all term to throw out rather than make an actual claim. Was the study faulty? Was the funding clandestine or did they attempt to conceal it? Does the Gates foundation support meat reduction for ideological reasons, rather than evidence based ones? Is The Gates foundation an industry that has a vested interest in continuing that industry (like an oil company funding oil benefit studies), and if so, what “industry” is that? What would they stand to lose, or gain, from the outcome of this study? What would they stand to lose or gain from any study, when their goal seems to pretty clearly be based on using the best available evidence to inform their charity programs? Is there anything at all beyond a charity that focuses on evidence based programs funding research to help inform their programs?
[deleted]
It might be if the Gates Foundation had funded the study.
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s1291...
Wellcome Trust receives significant funding from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
The term "positive association" makes it hard to parse. The results state: "most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI)", but the Conclusion says:
> Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations. Higher unprocessed red meat and poultry meat consumption was associated with lower IDA risk.
So basically 'Red meat is fine but we found a correlation between heart disease and obesity'?
> Higher unprocessed red meat, processed meat, and poultry meat consumption was associated with higher risks of several common conditions; higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations. Higher unprocessed red meat and poultry meat consumption was associated with lower IDA risk.
So basically 'Red meat is fine but we found a correlation between heart disease and obesity'?
Since meat is seen as unhealthy nowadays, most people who still eat lots of it also tend to be part of the "don't care about health" crowd (smokers, drinkers, people who don't exercise...).
What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy.
These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along?
30 years later the narrative has become: all animal products are bad for you. Stop eating eggs and meat, and eat grains, it's better for the planet too!
People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing.
What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy.
These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along?
30 years later the narrative has become: all animal products are bad for you. Stop eating eggs and meat, and eat grains, it's better for the planet too!
People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing.
You bring up the point that really pisses me off in these studies. They treat a mcdonalds big mac as the same quality of meat as a grass fed steak or free range chicken breast. While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets. Lumping all these together as "meat consumption" is incredibly misleading. Most of these anti meat studies seem to still rely on the idea the "food pyramid" is still gospel.
If someone asked me to name a meat, chicken nuggets would not even come to mind.
Agreed, but it still gets classified as one in these studies. Thats my problem with all of this. Let's try something else. A teriyaki drenched piece of chicken breast doesn't have the same healthiness level of a garlic, carrot roasted chicken breast. One is slathered in sugar, the other isnt. Does it make sense to classify someone who dumps sugary BBQ sauce, ketchup and other condiments on their meats with the same person that, well, doesn't? A salt, pepper, garlic steak salad lunch does not equal a Whooper burger. Drowning the salad in a crappy dressing will though.
I've looked into a few of the studies you mention a while back because of personal interest.
Most of the conclusions of large scale studies are not very solid and can often be dismissed with correlation is not causation. Your point is valid, but also very often popular health habits align with the view of what a healthy diet is in society. Therefore lower meat intake often is connected to more exercise, more sleep etc. Of course they often try to correct for it, but it still makes many of the conclusions debatable.
There is however one association that seems to hold up for red meat, whether that's a steak or a shitty burger, which is the connection between heme iron and certain form of cancers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:tex....
But at the same time the effect is still very small and not well understood.
Most of the conclusions of large scale studies are not very solid and can often be dismissed with correlation is not causation. Your point is valid, but also very often popular health habits align with the view of what a healthy diet is in society. Therefore lower meat intake often is connected to more exercise, more sleep etc. Of course they often try to correct for it, but it still makes many of the conclusions debatable.
There is however one association that seems to hold up for red meat, whether that's a steak or a shitty burger, which is the connection between heme iron and certain form of cancers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3261306/#:~:tex....
But at the same time the effect is still very small and not well understood.
Somewhat agree on the habit assertion. I say it's more of a regional culture habit issue than health habit issue. I changed my health habits to a more MMA diet strictly because I view that "body type" as more well rounded in capabilities. Good stamina, good strength and not overly stacked in one body aspect. Like, you need good upper body, lower body and core strength all around. You cant really focus on just one part. Their diets are mostly meat and veg based. Obviously there are a few exceptions, but most are pretty big meat eaters. But eating lots of meat doesn't mean they tend to be unhealthy in other aspects of their life.
The biggest problem, most people in the modern 1st world are lazy af. No change in diet is truly going to fix the lack of movement and lack of sun exposure. A 12 hour a day, everyday, call of duty gamer is equally unhealthy and useless whether herbivore, omnivore or carnivore in diet.
The biggest problem, most people in the modern 1st world are lazy af. No change in diet is truly going to fix the lack of movement and lack of sun exposure. A 12 hour a day, everyday, call of duty gamer is equally unhealthy and useless whether herbivore, omnivore or carnivore in diet.
[deleted]
>free range is always best
Source?
Source?
I don’t think it’s worth getting pissed about, as if the researchers have an ax to grind.
Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.
Getting Hugh quality data with enough power to separate out the effect of Big Macs versus lean steaks is really really hard. I imagine they are doing the best they can with the experimental techniques available to them.
I would have 100% agreed with you prior to the study involving the sugar industry persuading some research to push the dietary fat, cholesterol link that's being debunked more and more. They claimed simple carbs were better to have and sugar wasn't so bad. When that study was released in the 60s, dietary changes in the US happened. That's also when you see obesity rates rise. Sure, I'm claiming a correlation as causation, but if they can do it, why cant I?
> Getting Hugh quality data
That's why we need large interventional studies instead of observational ones.
Observational studies are interesting and sometimes necessary (e.g. when there's ethical concerns about running an intervention such as with smoking), but it's just way too tricky to separate out the impact of confounders especially when the treatment effects are rather weak (e.g. with coffee or meat consumption).
That's why we need large interventional studies instead of observational ones.
Observational studies are interesting and sometimes necessary (e.g. when there's ethical concerns about running an intervention such as with smoking), but it's just way too tricky to separate out the impact of confounders especially when the treatment effects are rather weak (e.g. with coffee or meat consumption).
Its not just the meat, people eating fast food tend to eat some of the other foods and worse the sugar laden drinks.
We really need to focus on how much sugar is in our foods both naturally occurring but most importantly in processed foods that are everywhere.
I have always operated under the idea that if you only use the produce, meat, and dairy, departments of a grocery store you can do a lot to improve your health. The largess of our society is that we have so many food options that are very easily consumed that many tend towards over consumption; as in no preparation required
We really need to focus on how much sugar is in our foods both naturally occurring but most importantly in processed foods that are everywhere.
I have always operated under the idea that if you only use the produce, meat, and dairy, departments of a grocery store you can do a lot to improve your health. The largess of our society is that we have so many food options that are very easily consumed that many tend towards over consumption; as in no preparation required
> While grain free and free range is always best, even commercially produced grain fed cooked healthy is miles better than mickey d chicken nuggets.
Since you're upset about the weakness of these studies, can you point to any that rigorously show any of the claims here? In particular that free range animals are somehow healthier to eat? Grain free next. Followed by the claim that fast food meat is inherently less healthy than meat I can obtain elsewhere.
None of the claims would surprise me if true, but there's a lot of commentary in this post about how flawed these studies are while making very strong claims about what is healthy (no carbs, free range meat, etc).
Since you're upset about the weakness of these studies, can you point to any that rigorously show any of the claims here? In particular that free range animals are somehow healthier to eat? Grain free next. Followed by the claim that fast food meat is inherently less healthy than meat I can obtain elsewhere.
None of the claims would surprise me if true, but there's a lot of commentary in this post about how flawed these studies are while making very strong claims about what is healthy (no carbs, free range meat, etc).
When it was sugar all along?
Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof.
Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your risks of a lot of illness.
The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity.
Er no, people were told to stop eating fat but of course they didn't and average calorie intake went up in all categories. Sugar intake in the US peaked years ago but Americans are fatter than ever. Chicken and cheese consumption is through the roof.
Like the article says, being overweight is very unhealthy and almost any diet that keeps you from gaining weight is going to reduce your risks of a lot of illness.
The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity.
"The advantage of a plant based diet is that it's a lot kinder to the earth and to our animal cousins while also helping you avoid obesity."
Does it actually help avoid obesity? Many of the vegetarians I know are overweight or even obese.
Does it actually help avoid obesity? Many of the vegetarians I know are overweight or even obese.
I mean everyone has some anecdotal opinion. But there is cite-able research. To bring this full circle back to HN community, I wouldn't go start a company on my opinion alone, I would do customer development, user research, etc. to make sure my assumptions are valid.
https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(13)01113-1/abstrac...
https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(13)01113-1/abstrac...
Interesting.
Did it say how they measured BMI? Was it the lazy height/weight way or the real way? I can't see the full study due to a pay wall and it doesn't say in the abstract. I would also be interested to see if they had any selection criteria based on lifestyle (exercise and healthy food selections) and family history since it only mentions adjustments for age, sex, and race.
Also, I would like to see the BMI by subgroup. Based on their breakdown they are comparing omnivores to vegans but leave out the vegetarian and pesectarian results.
Here's one that compares a healthy Mediterranean diet with a healthy vegetarian one. The conclusion was that they are comparable.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29483085/
Did it say how they measured BMI? Was it the lazy height/weight way or the real way? I can't see the full study due to a pay wall and it doesn't say in the abstract. I would also be interested to see if they had any selection criteria based on lifestyle (exercise and healthy food selections) and family history since it only mentions adjustments for age, sex, and race.
Also, I would like to see the BMI by subgroup. Based on their breakdown they are comparing omnivores to vegans but leave out the vegetarian and pesectarian results.
Here's one that compares a healthy Mediterranean diet with a healthy vegetarian one. The conclusion was that they are comparable.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29483085/
You can read the whole thing on sci-hub, e.g., https://sci-hub.st/10.1016/j.jand.2013.06.349.
I don't believe 'plant-based diet' means 'vegetarian'.
Generally plant-based, means whole, unrefined, or minimally refined ingredients.
i.e. french fries, oreos are all vegan but are refined.
Generally plant-based, means whole, unrefined, or minimally refined ingredients.
i.e. french fries, oreos are all vegan but are refined.
Plant based diets can be unhealthy if you eat a lot of processed foods. If you stick to unprocessed, whole plant foods you will lose weight.
Just replying to your last point: sugar and carbohydrates make you fat more than anything else.
To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight.
Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?
If you're some amazing diet expert, I have no doubt you can figure out a way to get to satiety without relying on carbs. But most people, what are they gonna do? Just get two more slices of bread, or 50% more pasta.
If you strictly oppose a meat only diet VS a plant only diet, people will be leaner on the first one.
To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight.
Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?
If you're some amazing diet expert, I have no doubt you can figure out a way to get to satiety without relying on carbs. But most people, what are they gonna do? Just get two more slices of bread, or 50% more pasta.
If you strictly oppose a meat only diet VS a plant only diet, people will be leaner on the first one.
> To fix that, most successful diets rely on increasing the ratio of protein you eat (wether it's fish, meat or poultry). It gets you to the same satiety but eating less carbs, and you lose weight.
Beans like chickpeas and lentils, or grains like quinoa, have some carbs, but a lot more fiber. Cook them with a solid dose of olive oil and they're both healthy and filling. Or use coconut oil, which has more saturated fat (making it taste a bit better but be potentially a bit less healthy).
A few years ago my wife wanted to try the "plant-based" diet. I told her I don't care what I eat as long as it tastes OK, fills me up, and has enough protein. We did it for a month, and I never had any problems feeling full, and I definitely didn't load up on pasta. In the end she decided full plant-based wasn't for her, but we still end up cooking some of the plant-based recipes we picked up from that time few times a week.
It's the recipe / workflow thing that's really the issue. You can't just eat what you were eating before but without meat, and making imitation meat things is generally a recipe for disappointment. Making a good-tasting meal with beans or grains takes a shift in mindset and a shift in equipment if you're used to making food with meat. But once you get it figured out, it's fine.
Beans like chickpeas and lentils, or grains like quinoa, have some carbs, but a lot more fiber. Cook them with a solid dose of olive oil and they're both healthy and filling. Or use coconut oil, which has more saturated fat (making it taste a bit better but be potentially a bit less healthy).
A few years ago my wife wanted to try the "plant-based" diet. I told her I don't care what I eat as long as it tastes OK, fills me up, and has enough protein. We did it for a month, and I never had any problems feeling full, and I definitely didn't load up on pasta. In the end she decided full plant-based wasn't for her, but we still end up cooking some of the plant-based recipes we picked up from that time few times a week.
It's the recipe / workflow thing that's really the issue. You can't just eat what you were eating before but without meat, and making imitation meat things is generally a recipe for disappointment. Making a good-tasting meal with beans or grains takes a shift in mindset and a shift in equipment if you're used to making food with meat. But once you get it figured out, it's fine.
> Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?
I thought vegetarians were famous for eating lots of beans and tofu. Is this no longer part of the stereotype?
I thought vegetarians were famous for eating lots of beans and tofu. Is this no longer part of the stereotype?
The problem is that the most extreme plant-based dieters are the ones who get popular. So a vegan in popular culture's eyes is someone who eats 50 bananas a day.
Eating more calories than you burn make you overweight. Not the type of calorie. This has been proven (wish I could find the research paper) and was funded by Gary Taubes' research group.
Refined sugar and carbs are high in calories and low in nutrients. If you eat 2000 (or appropriate for you expenditure) calories of brocoli, you ain't getting overweight.
Additionally, most people are addicted to sugar and refined carbs. Half the problem with diets is getting over that. It is likely the problem defined as satiety--but really just cravings.
We are just starting to get more Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials on diets and such. Will never be perfect, but there is just not enough highly controlled research as it is very hard to implement. But I think with keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, all fighting to claim to be most healthiest diet, there are folks starting to put money into researching them on equal footing. So we will see.
I think to summarize Michael Pollan, eat whole food, not too much and mostly plants is probably a good bet on healthy diet.
Refined sugar and carbs are high in calories and low in nutrients. If you eat 2000 (or appropriate for you expenditure) calories of brocoli, you ain't getting overweight.
Additionally, most people are addicted to sugar and refined carbs. Half the problem with diets is getting over that. It is likely the problem defined as satiety--but really just cravings.
We are just starting to get more Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials on diets and such. Will never be perfect, but there is just not enough highly controlled research as it is very hard to implement. But I think with keto, carnivore, vegan, paleo, all fighting to claim to be most healthiest diet, there are folks starting to put money into researching them on equal footing. So we will see.
I think to summarize Michael Pollan, eat whole food, not too much and mostly plants is probably a good bet on healthy diet.
>Eating more calories than you burn make you overweight. Not the type of calorie. This has been proven (wish I could find the research paper) and was funded by Gary Taubes' research group.
This article [1] is a good writeup of the study (with the original study linked) and does a very good job at contextualizing the results and limitations, alternative viewpoints, and criticisms. My takeaway is, while a very interesting pilot study, the small sample size, lack of a control group, lack of an alternative group that ate the two diets in opposite order, possible confounding factors including exercise while outside the metabolic chamber, etc. don’t make this study any kind of smoking gun.
[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/59012
This article [1] is a good writeup of the study (with the original study linked) and does a very good job at contextualizing the results and limitations, alternative viewpoints, and criticisms. My takeaway is, while a very interesting pilot study, the small sample size, lack of a control group, lack of an alternative group that ate the two diets in opposite order, possible confounding factors including exercise while outside the metabolic chamber, etc. don’t make this study any kind of smoking gun.
[1] https://www.medpagetoday.com/primarycare/dietnutrition/59012
I’ve had terrible gastrointestinal issues for years that had been getting worse and worse, and after so many doctors telling me to just take PPI at 34 (which increase risk of dementia!), I’ve finally dropped 40 pounds by eating whole foods, no grains, mostly meat, as much as I want. I am completely off all antacid medications and blood pressure medicines. It turns out a huge amount of the depression and anxiety I’ve experienced over the years was food related. I’ll eat a salad every few days, but try to make most of my fat intake saturated. I was CONSTANTLY inflamed before, wheat was a major problem.
Some people can’t wait for the data to come in, they’re suffering now, especially when special interest groups that want people to be vegetarian muddy the waters with agenda studies. All I can trust is how I feel personally eating different ways, and eating whole cuts of meat is keeping me from vomiting up my stomach acid in the middle of the night as my “completely normal stomach” (according to my doctor) tries to digest my trachea.
Some people can’t wait for the data to come in, they’re suffering now, especially when special interest groups that want people to be vegetarian muddy the waters with agenda studies. All I can trust is how I feel personally eating different ways, and eating whole cuts of meat is keeping me from vomiting up my stomach acid in the middle of the night as my “completely normal stomach” (according to my doctor) tries to digest my trachea.
You might have a disrupted gut microbiome. People that report the kind of results you describe often have gut flora that are way out of whack. You might want to look into a SIBO test because in the long run a diet very high in meat is also inflammatory and not ideal.
Fat has 9 calories per gram. Carbohydrates and protein have 4. The problem is that we strip all the fiber away from the carbs we eat and this causes all kind of problems including making them less satiating. Getting fat eating whole carbs is quite difficult. Refined carbs and sugar are bad but the idea that all carbs are bad is simplistic and wrong.
Legumes in particular are extremely filling: https://www.azumio.com/blog/nutrition/beans-skinny-food
Legumes in particular are extremely filling: https://www.azumio.com/blog/nutrition/beans-skinny-food
>Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?
There was a time when animal products were a lot more expensive and scarce. When you add more foods with water in them (provided you're not overloading those foods with fat and oils) you end up feeling more satiated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRrD58Ah3Q&t=967s
There was a time when animal products were a lot more expensive and scarce. When you add more foods with water in them (provided you're not overloading those foods with fat and oils) you end up feeling more satiated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRrD58Ah3Q&t=967s
> Now enter plant based / animal free diets, how are people gonna get to satiety without all that dense meat / fish / chicken?
Big salads? Fiber tends to make you feel full.
Big salads? Fiber tends to make you feel full.
Legumes too. Lots of traditional diets around the world have at least one kind of bean at their foundation.
This.
Also, let's take a look at the regions of the world that live longer. What do we find? Regions of the world that, in almost all cases, consume less red/white meat, sugar and fats comparatively. These populations almost universally eat more plant based food. Look at places like Japan, Singapore, Monaco. Is it just food? No. Stress, access to healthcare and other things also compound into the results. But you can almost guarantee where you find old, lucid individuals you're not finding fast food, junk food, highly processed food and stress.
Is red and white meat akin to smoking? No. But overconsumption of something that doesn't provide many essential vitamins, minerals, and fibers doesn't positively increase overall health.
Also, let's take a look at the regions of the world that live longer. What do we find? Regions of the world that, in almost all cases, consume less red/white meat, sugar and fats comparatively. These populations almost universally eat more plant based food. Look at places like Japan, Singapore, Monaco. Is it just food? No. Stress, access to healthcare and other things also compound into the results. But you can almost guarantee where you find old, lucid individuals you're not finding fast food, junk food, highly processed food and stress.
Is red and white meat akin to smoking? No. But overconsumption of something that doesn't provide many essential vitamins, minerals, and fibers doesn't positively increase overall health.
> cheese consumption is through the roof
As an aside, cheese consumption doesn't have to be bad since there are really delicious cheeses which have almost no fat but plenty of protein like the whole branch of "Harzer" cheeses with one example I buy and eat quite often being "Hausmacher"[0] (grinding a little bit of pepper on top of the cheese slices makes it even more delicious). Short summary of its contents by weight: 30% protein, 0.5% fat, <0.1% carbohydrates, which AFAIU is quite normal for sour milk cheeses.
[0]: https://www.loose.de/sauermilchkaese/hausmacher/
As an aside, cheese consumption doesn't have to be bad since there are really delicious cheeses which have almost no fat but plenty of protein like the whole branch of "Harzer" cheeses with one example I buy and eat quite often being "Hausmacher"[0] (grinding a little bit of pepper on top of the cheese slices makes it even more delicious). Short summary of its contents by weight: 30% protein, 0.5% fat, <0.1% carbohydrates, which AFAIU is quite normal for sour milk cheeses.
[0]: https://www.loose.de/sauermilchkaese/hausmacher/
What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy.
If this is the case, you are also more likely to be financially comfortable as this is an expensive diet. It just isn't possible if you are poor enough, but plenty of vegetarian meals based on beans, rice/grain, and vegetables are.
If this is the case, you are also more likely to be financially comfortable as this is an expensive diet. It just isn't possible if you are poor enough, but plenty of vegetarian meals based on beans, rice/grain, and vegetables are.
Why does that matter? If it turns out the worlds healthiest diet is eating the heart of a pure bred Wagyu cow and nothing else, it would still be scientifically useful to know that.
I don't think that's the narrative.
The narrative is factory farmed meat & dairy is not good for you, not good for the people working in that industry and it's not good for our biosphere, e.g. deforestation, pollution etc.
And of course it's absolutely bad for the animals involved, but most people don't care about animal welfare or don't even think about it.
If people must eat meat for whatever reason then the healthiest option would be to hunt or raise & kill your animals or buy from people who do, but it also comes with the associated price tag.
The narrative is factory farmed meat & dairy is not good for you, not good for the people working in that industry and it's not good for our biosphere, e.g. deforestation, pollution etc.
And of course it's absolutely bad for the animals involved, but most people don't care about animal welfare or don't even think about it.
If people must eat meat for whatever reason then the healthiest option would be to hunt or raise & kill your animals or buy from people who do, but it also comes with the associated price tag.
Don’t researchers generally try to control for such factors when making a study like this? I am at work so I’m a little too busy to pick through this one right now, but it sounds like you’re concerned about this, so it’s worth checking before drawing any conclusions
It should but no, the opposite is true with most large observational studies - they don't refine the questions or give enough options to account for nuance.
They seldom do. When you go down that rabbit hole you realize "science" is an industry like every other, subject to the same forces (wanting to be published, to get media coverage, etc).
Reminds me of https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
Reminds me of https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
> What if don't drink, don't smoke, do regular exercise, not obese... and eat lots of high quality meat? I haven't seen anything that comes close to showing that this would be unhealthy
I think the documentary "the game changers" addresses precisely that.
I think the documentary "the game changers" addresses precisely that.
That film was one big inaccurate extrapolation after another.
One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/
One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/
Just as the documentary dramatized things, that rebuttal does the same. Taking small points in the movie, ie, the roman gladiator thing, and hype it up as if the movie made some grandiose claim about gladiators being the pinnacle of achievement.
The main argument that game changers proposes is a rebuttal to a long history of meat eaters and the meat industry claiming you need meat and dairy to be an athlete. That's false, and that's what the movie shows. There's also lots of benefits to eating a vegan diet and it showcases that as well.
The reason there aren't a lot of studies showcasing people who only eat grass fed beef that they killed themselves with cows they love is there simply isn't enough people doing that. Meat consumption leans drastically towards processed meats or bulk beef and chicken output. So naturally that's what these studies are targeting.
I believe you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients.
Just like how you can have an awful diet as a meat eater, you can have a awful diet as a vegan. It's not hard, just have white pasta with no vegetables and you have a carb dense vegan meal.
We don't need everyone to go vegan, but I think society would be better off if almost everyone (in America at least) believe they needed meat in the meal to feel full. We have an obsession with meat, but not in how it actually arrived to our plate, but in a don't ask don't tell philosophy. The general advice of "eat a lot of everything, mostly plants" is a good one and doesn't exclude meat and dairy, but it probably means to reduce your consumption. If you're someone who gets milk from your local farmer who also raises cows they have named and care for then you're probably fine, otherwise, don't think vegans are just crazy idiots, they may have a point.
The main argument that game changers proposes is a rebuttal to a long history of meat eaters and the meat industry claiming you need meat and dairy to be an athlete. That's false, and that's what the movie shows. There's also lots of benefits to eating a vegan diet and it showcases that as well.
The reason there aren't a lot of studies showcasing people who only eat grass fed beef that they killed themselves with cows they love is there simply isn't enough people doing that. Meat consumption leans drastically towards processed meats or bulk beef and chicken output. So naturally that's what these studies are targeting.
I believe you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients.
Just like how you can have an awful diet as a meat eater, you can have a awful diet as a vegan. It's not hard, just have white pasta with no vegetables and you have a carb dense vegan meal.
We don't need everyone to go vegan, but I think society would be better off if almost everyone (in America at least) believe they needed meat in the meal to feel full. We have an obsession with meat, but not in how it actually arrived to our plate, but in a don't ask don't tell philosophy. The general advice of "eat a lot of everything, mostly plants" is a good one and doesn't exclude meat and dairy, but it probably means to reduce your consumption. If you're someone who gets milk from your local farmer who also raises cows they have named and care for then you're probably fine, otherwise, don't think vegans are just crazy idiots, they may have a point.
> you can make most diets healthy when adhering to rules of freshness, nutrient density, and a wide array of nutrients.
Let’s sing this from the rooftops. I deeply agree.
Let’s sing this from the rooftops. I deeply agree.
That documentary drove me nuts, Incouldnt take anything seriously from the moment they compared the impact of meat vs plant on blood fat levels, using black beans vs fried chicken. Yes, fried chicken..
>People are getting duped, even on HN, it's depressing.
Welcome to my world!. ( Not just HN really, it extends to most people on this planet)
Welcome to my world!. ( Not just HN really, it extends to most people on this planet)
I wonder what is a good way to love sedentary obese smokers who eat poorly.
It's the ideologues referencing terrible observation studies, along with the health food industrial complex tapping into that arguably relatively irrational demand.
One problem is there isn't enough high quality meat available - high fat red meat in particular - however there are trends developing including ketogenic, carnivore diets, etc - as well as people buying half or full cows (much much cheaper) and then freezing it; plus then you can actually meat [freudian slip pun, I'm leaving it] the cow and see how it's cared for, etc - tying into the benefits, value of local.
One problem is there isn't enough high quality meat available - high fat red meat in particular - however there are trends developing including ketogenic, carnivore diets, etc - as well as people buying half or full cows (much much cheaper) and then freezing it; plus then you can actually meat [freudian slip pun, I'm leaving it] the cow and see how it's cared for, etc - tying into the benefits, value of local.
>> These studies are quick to point to conclusions. Remember that time where every "scientific" study pointed at fat as the big culprit behind heart problems? When it was sugar all along?
I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause with not much scientific research to back it up. Sugar is bad and inflammatory for sure, but mountains and mountains of research on fat and heart disease are somehow all wrong now?
I mean there is just insurmountable evidence that fat is correlated to heart disease. What is so ironic is that some journalists with no medical backgrounds write a book about "The Big Fat Lie" and now it is sugar that is the cause with not much scientific research to back it up. Sugar is bad and inflammatory for sure, but mountains and mountains of research on fat and heart disease are somehow all wrong now?
Fat stored in the body is the cause of heart disease, not fat consumption. Sugar is how you tell your body to store fat.
Sugar doesn't give you cholesterol. So how is cholesterol correlated to heart disease?
Fat storage, is for sure related to becoming overweight and the cause of many ailments.
Fat storage, is for sure related to becoming overweight and the cause of many ailments.
Sugar does not contain cholesterol, but consuming an inappropriate amount of it will most certainly have a negative impact on your blood lipid profile.
Do you have a reference by chance? Would love to dig in a bit. I know that high sugar consumption raises triglycerides. But haven't seen anything yet on cholesterol.
One missing piece of this puzzle is that your body is perfectly able to make its own cholesterol even if you never eat any.
What is wrong was the immediate jump from "Fat in organs is the fat we eat from food". It seemed a natural and simple explanation at the time.
Now it appears it's not that clear. It's the excess of sugar in everything that overloads your bodies temporary stores of glycogen in the muscles and liver, which is then stored as fat, since your body can easily transform sugars into fats.
To see how that looks you can track the obesity numbers in US, the more "0%!" fat products are propped up with suger over the years, the larger the obesity crowd.
I don't think the final word is out yet, but the _cause_ of fat in your body, is not necessarily the fat that you eat.
Now it appears it's not that clear. It's the excess of sugar in everything that overloads your bodies temporary stores of glycogen in the muscles and liver, which is then stored as fat, since your body can easily transform sugars into fats.
To see how that looks you can track the obesity numbers in US, the more "0%!" fat products are propped up with suger over the years, the larger the obesity crowd.
I don't think the final word is out yet, but the _cause_ of fat in your body, is not necessarily the fat that you eat.
Did people really believe that dietary fat was stored by the body without any kind of biological processing?
If you examine it from a thermodynamic perspective (I know that is simplistic for human biology), weight for weight fat has double the energy density of sugar, 38 MJ/kg vs 17 MJ/kg according to [0]. For reference, gasoline and diesel fuel are around 45 - 48 MJ/kg.
Also, according to [1], dietary fats are broken down to generate acetyl-CoA which is the precursor for lipogenesis (fat storage), therefore eating fat does not necessarily make you fat but consuming a lot of it and not metabolising it to do work will make it easier for you body to store fat.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Energy_storage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Degradation
If you examine it from a thermodynamic perspective (I know that is simplistic for human biology), weight for weight fat has double the energy density of sugar, 38 MJ/kg vs 17 MJ/kg according to [0]. For reference, gasoline and diesel fuel are around 45 - 48 MJ/kg.
Also, according to [1], dietary fats are broken down to generate acetyl-CoA which is the precursor for lipogenesis (fat storage), therefore eating fat does not necessarily make you fat but consuming a lot of it and not metabolising it to do work will make it easier for you body to store fat.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Energy_storage
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid#Degradation
They have a "Role of BMI" section which strengthens your point.
> BMI accounted for a substantial proportion
In the "Role of BMI" they also say that BMI isn't perfect to detect adiposity, suggesting even further that being fat is what you want to avoid.
> Finally, given the observational nature of this study, it is possible that there is still unmeasured confounding, residual confounding, and reverse causality.
Studying human diets is hard.
> BMI accounted for a substantial proportion
In the "Role of BMI" they also say that BMI isn't perfect to detect adiposity, suggesting even further that being fat is what you want to avoid.
> Finally, given the observational nature of this study, it is possible that there is still unmeasured confounding, residual confounding, and reverse causality.
Studying human diets is hard.
Meatless is the new “low fat” boogieman.
Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc.
All of the “problems” with meat are market issues. Animal welfare issues are due to industrial farming practices, which will get worse if the industry declines. Land use and environmental issues are all about the market conditions, which are literally putting sustainable meat and dairy business out of business.
The “solutions” of fake substitutes are PR driven narratives.
Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc.
All of the “problems” with meat are market issues. Animal welfare issues are due to industrial farming practices, which will get worse if the industry declines. Land use and environmental issues are all about the market conditions, which are literally putting sustainable meat and dairy business out of business.
The “solutions” of fake substitutes are PR driven narratives.
> Coincidentally, industrial food producers have discovered that it is cheaper and more profitable to sell ground up peas and plant oil as “meat”, water rinsed through oats as milk, etc.
> The “solutions” of fake substitutes are PR driven narratives.
I think you are looking for a conspiracy where there is none. Those newer alternative meat products are not the basis of a healthy plant-based diet - they are treats that actually are marketed towards meat eaters. Ask any veg/ans you know what they eat as staples; it's not expensive Impossible or Beyond burgers, but tofu, tempeh, beans, legumes, and seitan.
I also doubt that the problems with meat can be fixed at its current scale. A trope in the vegan community is every meat eater has a neighbor raising organic grass-fed cattle on acres of land that he lovingly slaughters.
The reality is, almost all animal agriculture in the US is factory farming style CAFOs.
[0] "Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms"
Cattle especially are not grass fed, they are stuffed with corn, soy, and other food grown at a rapid clip with petro fertilizer. There is not enough grazing land in the country to produce meat at the scale it's consumed here.
[0] https://plantbasednews.org/culture/factory-farms-study/
You can dive into the USDA numbers yourself here.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Re...
> The “solutions” of fake substitutes are PR driven narratives.
I think you are looking for a conspiracy where there is none. Those newer alternative meat products are not the basis of a healthy plant-based diet - they are treats that actually are marketed towards meat eaters. Ask any veg/ans you know what they eat as staples; it's not expensive Impossible or Beyond burgers, but tofu, tempeh, beans, legumes, and seitan.
I also doubt that the problems with meat can be fixed at its current scale. A trope in the vegan community is every meat eater has a neighbor raising organic grass-fed cattle on acres of land that he lovingly slaughters.
The reality is, almost all animal agriculture in the US is factory farming style CAFOs.
[0] "Using data from the 2017 USDA Census of Agriculture, which was released this month, it is estimated that 70.4 percent of cows, 98.3 percent of pigs, 99.8 percent of turkeys, 98.2 percent of chickens raised for eggs, and over 99.9 percent of chickens raised for meat are raised in factory farms"
Cattle especially are not grass fed, they are stuffed with corn, soy, and other food grown at a rapid clip with petro fertilizer. There is not enough grazing land in the country to produce meat at the scale it's consumed here.
[0] https://plantbasednews.org/culture/factory-farms-study/
You can dive into the USDA numbers yourself here.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/Full_Re...
There is no conspiracy. It's a standard industry transform/consolidate play. From a public health perspective, a $1 McDonald's burger made of coconuts/pea/soy/salt is just as bad as the incumbent beef-based product. The capital behind meat alternatives does not give a hoot about animal welfare or anything beyond money... meat alternatives are the new Coke.
It is much cheaper to operate a couple of large national-scale factories to produce plant-based meat alternatives with mostly automated equipment and minimal regulatory oversight. Meat processing either needs to be regional, which is higher cost, or national, where limitations or capital costs of automation require a large pool of unskilled labor. You "fix" factory farming by enforcing labor standards at the processing layer that make concentrated, high throughput meat processing uneconomic. The result would be changes in how the industry functions and higher prices. (ie. market forces)
Those same market forces would ultimately drive more plant-based calories in diets and probably healthier eating habits. Factory farms exist because USDA policy since the 70s have been focused on slowing inflation in food prices. That policy ultimately drives alot of unsustainable practices, from factory farms for livestock, to the long-term depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, to the transfer of topsoil from the Mississippi/Missouri/Ohio river watershed to the Gulf of Mexico. 50-100 years from now, our descendants will be returning to regional agriculture at very high cost as midwest production fails and climate change breaks the environment the supports the magnificent bounty of the California central valley and Colorado watershed.
It is much cheaper to operate a couple of large national-scale factories to produce plant-based meat alternatives with mostly automated equipment and minimal regulatory oversight. Meat processing either needs to be regional, which is higher cost, or national, where limitations or capital costs of automation require a large pool of unskilled labor. You "fix" factory farming by enforcing labor standards at the processing layer that make concentrated, high throughput meat processing uneconomic. The result would be changes in how the industry functions and higher prices. (ie. market forces)
Those same market forces would ultimately drive more plant-based calories in diets and probably healthier eating habits. Factory farms exist because USDA policy since the 70s have been focused on slowing inflation in food prices. That policy ultimately drives alot of unsustainable practices, from factory farms for livestock, to the long-term depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer, to the transfer of topsoil from the Mississippi/Missouri/Ohio river watershed to the Gulf of Mexico. 50-100 years from now, our descendants will be returning to regional agriculture at very high cost as midwest production fails and climate change breaks the environment the supports the magnificent bounty of the California central valley and Colorado watershed.
> It is much cheaper to operate a couple of large national-scale factories to produce plant-based meat alternatives...
This whole paragraph is exactly right, and exactly why factory meat is set to rapidly lose market share to plant-based substitutes. The market forces are unstoppable.
I'll add that the lesson of COVID's meat processing labor disruptions will not be lost on retailers and retaurant chains.
This whole paragraph is exactly right, and exactly why factory meat is set to rapidly lose market share to plant-based substitutes. The market forces are unstoppable.
I'll add that the lesson of COVID's meat processing labor disruptions will not be lost on retailers and retaurant chains.
I would love to have the time to dig into those numbers, but for now I'm going to take the sources "Plant Based News" and "The Sentience Institute" with a big grain of salt.
The numbers are there. If you're looking for a digested summary from the USDA itself, here is an old 2002 analysis of the 1997 farm census. With industrial farm consolidation continuing since then I can't imagine it's improved. Key point here is the value of sales.
"Of the 1,315,051 farms with livestock, 18 percent (237,821 farms) were farms with confined livestock types (i.e., farms with 4 or more animal units of any combination of fattened cattle, milk cows, swine, chickens and turkeys, or appeared to be raising veal or heifers in confinement). These 237,821 farms accounted for $79 billion in gross livestock sales, which was 80 percent of gross livestock sales for all farms."
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?cid=nrcs14...
"Of the 1,315,051 farms with livestock, 18 percent (237,821 farms) were farms with confined livestock types (i.e., farms with 4 or more animal units of any combination of fattened cattle, milk cows, swine, chickens and turkeys, or appeared to be raising veal or heifers in confinement). These 237,821 farms accounted for $79 billion in gross livestock sales, which was 80 percent of gross livestock sales for all farms."
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/?cid=nrcs14...
Nice example of a pareto distribution. Eighty percent of our meat comes from the roughly twenty percent of factory farms that confine their livestock in tiny cages.
So if factory farms reduce or disappear - animal welfare will get worse?
I don't quite follow.
I don't quite follow.
You're thinking of this as some sort of ethical issue. It's just business.
What happens to businesses with fixed or declining demand? Consolidation.
The bigger players start scooping up the weaker ones. Bigger players have more regulatory muscle. There are a thousand examples... aircraft is probably a decent one. You used to have Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell, Douglas, etc... Now you have Boeing as "Team USA", who has the political and market power to do things like ship airliners that crash for avoidable reasons.
What happens to businesses with fixed or declining demand? Consolidation.
The bigger players start scooping up the weaker ones. Bigger players have more regulatory muscle. There are a thousand examples... aircraft is probably a decent one. You used to have Lockheed, Boeing, McDonnell, Douglas, etc... Now you have Boeing as "Team USA", who has the political and market power to do things like ship airliners that crash for avoidable reasons.
I think the argument is that if you squeeze the meat industry they’re going to get even more desperate to cut costs at the expense of the animal’s welfare.
I don’t really buy it.
I don’t really buy it.
Correct, animal welfare in factory farms is already at an diabolical level.
You just have to ask yourself why AG-GAG laws exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
You just have to ask yourself why AG-GAG laws exist.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
Right which is why I don’t buy the argument that we can’t reduce people’s meat intake because then meat producers will be forced I tell you to treat their animals worse.
If they disappear, of course they won't be an issue anymore.
But I'm assuming he means that with a reduced demand for meat, it would mean that factory farms are going to have to find ways to reduce costs. And they're already doing their best to operate at the bare minimum. So any cost cutting measures will come at the expense of animal welfare.
But I'm assuming he means that with a reduced demand for meat, it would mean that factory farms are going to have to find ways to reduce costs. And they're already doing their best to operate at the bare minimum. So any cost cutting measures will come at the expense of animal welfare.
The point is - there really is no animal welfare in the factory farm industry.
We want the cheapest meat - don't care how. Caring for an animal's welfare is counter to that.
If demand for meat goes down it means environmental damage is reduced and fewer animals have to be born, which means fewer animals have to suffer.
We want the cheapest meat - don't care how. Caring for an animal's welfare is counter to that.
If demand for meat goes down it means environmental damage is reduced and fewer animals have to be born, which means fewer animals have to suffer.
You'd be surprised at the depths we can sink to if we really put our minds to it.
The plant based ones are. But there are some companies that are trying to grow meat out of cultured muscle cells, and that could be an actual solution.
adtac(4)
And also, don't eat processed meat.
There's a big difference between someone who eats a lot of high quality meat with no regard for pricing and someone who lives who gets meat consumption from cheap canned goods. I would guess the latter has a higher rate of obesity.
There's a big difference between someone who eats a lot of high quality meat with no regard for pricing and someone who lives who gets meat consumption from cheap canned goods. I would guess the latter has a higher rate of obesity.
Also, whatever stuff is there in the cheap meat. Antibiotics and co. Very cheap food they got. Stress hormones ...
And even with the confounding factors the increase in risk is 7% to 44% (with means for various diagnoses varying from 15% to 31%). But the study summary doesn't indicate what the rate of those diseases in the study sample population is; i.e. for example an increase in the rate of diagnosis from 0.1% to 0.12% probably isn't going to bother most people.
It is a good point, but I suppose what matters is incidence of disease in total (or all cause mortality); those small increases can add up.
"Positive association" means "yes, there is an association". I think of it as answering the question "is there an association?" in the positive.
"Positive association" doesn't mean that there was an association with a "positive", as in "beneficial" result.
The study found that this positive association with health risks was "attenuated" (read: reduced across its range) after adjusting for BMI, meaning there is also a positive association with BMI that confounds the effort to draw a firm conclusion from the studied data.
This is clarified further in the rest of the paper:
Role of BMI
In the present study, most of the positive associations between meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjusting for BMI, suggesting that BMI was a strong confounder or possible mediator for many of the meat and disease associations. BMI is an important risk factor for many of the diseases examined (e.g. diabetes [7]). BMI was highest in participants who consumed meat most frequently, and some previous studies have found that high meat consumption is associated with weight gain [56, 57], but it is unclear whether this indicates any specific impact of meat or an association in these populations of high meat intakes with high total energy intakes. The associations of meat with disease risk reported here which remain after adjustment for BMI might still be due to higher adiposity, because BMI is not a perfect measure of this characteristic; we observed similar effects when adjusting for waist circumference (results not shown), but, as with BMI, waist circumference is not a perfect measure of adiposity and there could still be residual confounding.
"Positive association" doesn't mean that there was an association with a "positive", as in "beneficial" result.
The study found that this positive association with health risks was "attenuated" (read: reduced across its range) after adjusting for BMI, meaning there is also a positive association with BMI that confounds the effort to draw a firm conclusion from the studied data.
This is clarified further in the rest of the paper:
Role of BMI
In the present study, most of the positive associations between meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjusting for BMI, suggesting that BMI was a strong confounder or possible mediator for many of the meat and disease associations. BMI is an important risk factor for many of the diseases examined (e.g. diabetes [7]). BMI was highest in participants who consumed meat most frequently, and some previous studies have found that high meat consumption is associated with weight gain [56, 57], but it is unclear whether this indicates any specific impact of meat or an association in these populations of high meat intakes with high total energy intakes. The associations of meat with disease risk reported here which remain after adjustment for BMI might still be due to higher adiposity, because BMI is not a perfect measure of this characteristic; we observed similar effects when adjusting for waist circumference (results not shown), but, as with BMI, waist circumference is not a perfect measure of adiposity and there could still be residual confounding.
Sugars are far verse than meet, and for some reasons in the UK, it is an ingredient of most processed foods. (even the salty ones like cans, ready meals, pastries, pasta, sometimes they are sweetening salads...)
I guess sugar does not create CO2 while it grows so (it binds Carbon), so political idea is to create a narrative that will decrease usage of meat/dairy. But even if we all stop eating meat/dairy sheer number of people and population growth will again create CO2 emission in some other way.
I guess sugar does not create CO2 while it grows so (it binds Carbon), so political idea is to create a narrative that will decrease usage of meat/dairy. But even if we all stop eating meat/dairy sheer number of people and population growth will again create CO2 emission in some other way.
No, that is not what it says.
> In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI)
So after correcting for BMI, meat consumption is still bad.
> In multi-variable adjusted (including BMI)
So after correcting for BMI, meat consumption is still bad.
No, that is not what it said.
The summary says "higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations"
That means that a substantial proportion of the increased risk is explained by a higher BMI. Unfortunately the summary doesn't say how much "substantial" is.
The summary says "higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations"
That means that a substantial proportion of the increased risk is explained by a higher BMI. Unfortunately the summary doesn't say how much "substantial" is.
To be specific, the regression models they use assume no measurement error in predictors. In this case BMI isn't even a direct measure of adiposity, so it's kind of obvious, but even if they had a direct measure of body fat the issue could remain because error in measurement of predictors would attenuate the ability of this covariate to eliminate confounding.
[deleted]
After correcting for BMI, but BMI is an imperfect proxy for adiposity: "...residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations"
Well I am not so sure. First off they measure very little outside of meat consumption, the chart has a line for fruits/vegetables and grains, but this surely does not account for the whole diet. I want to see the consumption of processed foods and such combined with meats.
Ten percent are active smokers and the alcohol numbers look really high to someone like me who never drinks.
What I want to see are numbers where people with healthy habits who consume meat and their outcomes. This means no measurable smoking or drinking. When there are some truly adverse numbers associated with smoking and drinking it really needs to have those risk factors removed as much as possible to get good results.
Ten percent are active smokers and the alcohol numbers look really high to someone like me who never drinks.
What I want to see are numbers where people with healthy habits who consume meat and their outcomes. This means no measurable smoking or drinking. When there are some truly adverse numbers associated with smoking and drinking it really needs to have those risk factors removed as much as possible to get good results.
[deleted]
I'm just gonna say it: epidemiological studies suck and we need something better.
Humans and their lives are just too multi-variate, even with nearly ~500k people in a study.
All you end up with are correlations – I've basically never seen a study like this that manages to demonstrate causality convincingly.
Humans and their lives are just too multi-variate, even with nearly ~500k people in a study.
All you end up with are correlations – I've basically never seen a study like this that manages to demonstrate causality convincingly.
The gold standard to establish causation is the 2x blind random placebo-controlled study. There are many of them assessing various types of foods, from meat to lychee to soy and everything in between. Many biomarkers in the body can be studied such as stress hormones, markers of inflammation, lipid panels, arterial wall thickness, etc. If you poke around on youtube, you can find smart people presenting this research! Most of them are health influencers. Personally, I follow Drs. Gregor, Rhonda Patrick, Fung, Mike Hetzel Thoms Delauer and the rest of this particular cohort. They all have their separate biases and areas of interest, such as fasting, muscle gain, veganism, grass-fed beef, ketosis, etc, but if you find the intersection of their work, you'll have an excellent idea what is good and bad for you and how much you can get away with!
To distill two of the most valuable things I've learned:
1. The Mediterranean diet seems to be the healthiest and closest to the Western and American diets, although its actual form has some key differences from the received wisdom. In particular, its pasta is a whole-grain variety and the fish consumption is less than once per day.
2. Most people are not fat-adapted and their bodies do a poor job of metabolizing fat! Typically this requires fasting or other forms of intermittent ketosis to get the body producing fat-burning enzymes. This is likely the source of a lot of conflicting info on fat. It's perfectly excellent for you - if you are fat-adapted, you will use it for energy and won't experience 3pm brainfog. But if you're not, it will very quickly create adipose tissue (body fat!) that continuously emits cytokines (poison) that sabotage your health.
3. Stress alters our metabolism for the worse! Since so many of us are stressed we're not performing proper digestion and not getting the right benefits from what we eat! Breathing exercises, etc. can help improve this.
To distill two of the most valuable things I've learned:
1. The Mediterranean diet seems to be the healthiest and closest to the Western and American diets, although its actual form has some key differences from the received wisdom. In particular, its pasta is a whole-grain variety and the fish consumption is less than once per day.
2. Most people are not fat-adapted and their bodies do a poor job of metabolizing fat! Typically this requires fasting or other forms of intermittent ketosis to get the body producing fat-burning enzymes. This is likely the source of a lot of conflicting info on fat. It's perfectly excellent for you - if you are fat-adapted, you will use it for energy and won't experience 3pm brainfog. But if you're not, it will very quickly create adipose tissue (body fat!) that continuously emits cytokines (poison) that sabotage your health.
3. Stress alters our metabolism for the worse! Since so many of us are stressed we're not performing proper digestion and not getting the right benefits from what we eat! Breathing exercises, etc. can help improve this.
The Mediterranean diet is only superficially close to the American one. It would be more accurate to speak of separate lifestyles than diets. The relationship to food that Americans have is almost completely alien to what most Italians experience, although with the spread of American culture this might not last beyond a few generations.
It's a bit like what used to be called the 'French paradox' in that American observers mistook a tradition of rich foods as the constant ingestion of such food.
It's a bit like what used to be called the 'French paradox' in that American observers mistook a tradition of rich foods as the constant ingestion of such food.
Double-blind random placebo-controlled doesn't automatically demonstrate causation either. Humans are just too multi-variate.
It would if people could stick to the protocols in the studies as designed. In practice RCTs only enable us to estimate the effect of the _offer_ of treatment (the intention to treat estimate) rather than making a direct causal estimate of the treatment itself. Missing data is a particular source of bias in this regard (if people dropped out, you can't know why or the counterfactual of what you would have observed had they stayed in the trial).
To infer causality you need interventions. Although there are some methods to infer causal relationships from observational data (e.g. see Pearl or Spirtes' work, which is ignored by most epidemiologists).
I think the biggest problem is that they are not measuring low level molecular variables like metabolites, or abundances of gut bacteria. Hence, it's pretty hard to infer a causal chain. And since controlling for covariates is so hard, inferring something useful is difficult.
I think the biggest problem is that they are not measuring low level molecular variables like metabolites, or abundances of gut bacteria. Hence, it's pretty hard to infer a causal chain. And since controlling for covariates is so hard, inferring something useful is difficult.
> controlling for covariates is so hard
Especially when the purported effects are small/clinically insignificant.
Especially when the purported effects are small/clinically insignificant.
John Robbins (would-be heir to the Baskin & Robbins empire) wrote a book examining the social, exercise and diet cultures of four of the known longest-living cohesive groups of people in the world. These were/are isolated or otherwise somehow physically-bounded societies who regularly have members living healthy lives at over 100 years of age (for example, no cancer, no degraded eyesight etc), and in a much higher proportion than is normally expected.
He was curious as to whether these groups of people, known to live a long time and even be healthy in their old age, had anything in common.
And they did.
They all exercised a lot.
They all had very strong social and community connections.
The all ate a mostly-vegan diet, punctuated with small amounts of animal product (in quantities varying from a portion every few weeks, to a few times a week but for only a couple of months of the year - for seasonal reasons).
He attempted to also prove, that taking any one of the above three commonalities away, was enough to invalid the results.
It's an interesting book, for sure.
Unfortunately, it has the terrible, baity title of: "Healthy At 100", and an even worse sub-title I won't repeat. But other than that mis-step (possibly at the hands of a publishing company), it's a good, well-referenced read.
He was curious as to whether these groups of people, known to live a long time and even be healthy in their old age, had anything in common.
And they did.
They all exercised a lot.
They all had very strong social and community connections.
The all ate a mostly-vegan diet, punctuated with small amounts of animal product (in quantities varying from a portion every few weeks, to a few times a week but for only a couple of months of the year - for seasonal reasons).
He attempted to also prove, that taking any one of the above three commonalities away, was enough to invalid the results.
It's an interesting book, for sure.
Unfortunately, it has the terrible, baity title of: "Healthy At 100", and an even worse sub-title I won't repeat. But other than that mis-step (possibly at the hands of a publishing company), it's a good, well-referenced read.
So it seems that high BMI / adiposity is still the leading cause for those 25 adverse health outcomes and that high meat consumption is simply correlated with high total energy consumption.
It will be interesting to see if WHO revise its recommendations regarding meat consumption.
It will be interesting to see if WHO revise its recommendations regarding meat consumption.
I doubt it. The WHO recommendations are based on extensive research linking red meat consumption to increased risk of colorectal cancer. This article explores the association of meat consumption with various non-cancer conditions.
(background section describes that in more detail)
(background section describes that in more detail)
It's it the searing that contains the problematic components and not so much the red meat in and of itself?
If it were just the sear, you might expect the same sort of issue with fish consumption, but alas, that's not clearly the case.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15342453/
"Consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat seemed to be associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of chicken and fish did not increase risk."
(admittedly, that conclusion is a stronger statement than it should be. More precise: consumption of chicken and fish was not linked to increased risk, as they merely did not reject the null hypothesis.)
Some potential culprits are listed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
Loosely: curing, searing, heme iron (from blood; what gives red meat its color), fat content, and some other things that can't be summed up as nicely.
It's plausible that all of them contribute to some degree, leading to a more potent effect than any of them in isolation.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15342453/
"Consumption of fresh red meat and processed meat seemed to be associated with an increased risk of rectal cancer. Consumption of chicken and fish did not increase risk."
(admittedly, that conclusion is a stronger statement than it should be. More precise: consumption of chicken and fish was not linked to increased risk, as they merely did not reject the null hypothesis.)
Some potential culprits are listed here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4698595/
Loosely: curing, searing, heme iron (from blood; what gives red meat its color), fat content, and some other things that can't be summed up as nicely.
It's plausible that all of them contribute to some degree, leading to a more potent effect than any of them in isolation.
It's at least partially the iron, particularly bioavailable iron. Cancer cells need lots of iron. It's also the very same nutrient that motivates you to eat red meat in the first place. Chicken and fish contain less heme iron and don't contribute to colorectal cancer.
What I wonder is if adding heme iron to fake meat cf. Impossible Burger would reproduce the same effect.
What I wonder is if adding heme iron to fake meat cf. Impossible Burger would reproduce the same effect.
Interesting. Maybe the new rule should be "Eat red meat if you want, just don't let it make you fat".
Isn't it more "eat red meat if you want, just don't BE fat?"
I mean a person can eat a hamburger a day and still be thin, in my experience it's the fries, coke, twinkies and pop tarts and stuff that make you fat.
I mean a person can eat a hamburger a day and still be thin, in my experience it's the fries, coke, twinkies and pop tarts and stuff that make you fat.
If you eat almost exclusively red meat, and not the things that commonly go with it, it’s quite hard to get fat. Meat is very very satiating.
Study: Exclusive Meat Consumption and Risk of Rickets and Scurvy in Low BMI Individuals
Eat some sardines and cod liver too for vitamin D. Scurvy doesn’t occur, fresh meat contains vitamin C, about 10-15mg per lb.
Yeah, but there's also gout.
Eating meat does not seem to cause gout, fructose and ethanol seem to be the big players.
They'll keep coming after meat eating with every angle - health, ecology, economics, emotional appeals - but humans can live a long, healthy life with meat in their diet. That doesn't mean industrial burgers daily or portions that look like a carnival hot dog eating contest, but 4 to 6 oz of quality meat from animals is healthy.
I think the US especially would be far better served to appeal to people to reduce portion sizes rather than insist on industrialized plant based food. Minimally processed foods in smaller portions is far more sustainable and healthier than vegan radicalism and scientifically formulated plant-based edible substances.
I think the US especially would be far better served to appeal to people to reduce portion sizes rather than insist on industrialized plant based food. Minimally processed foods in smaller portions is far more sustainable and healthier than vegan radicalism and scientifically formulated plant-based edible substances.
If you can figure out how to successfully market and sell "Eat less, eat quality" to American consumers while maintaining food supplier revenue growth, you'll solve a lot of problems.
My personal opinion is that we're so growth and value oriented - and that's fundamentally incompatible with a healthy diet.
Look at CostCo! They have an amazing amount of fresh, healthy meats and vegetables. But you're still walking out of that store with a twelve-pack of fish and the barrel of cheese puffs you saw on the way out. The majority of Americans simply lack the self control. The food production companies know this and take full advantage of it.
My personal opinion is that we're so growth and value oriented - and that's fundamentally incompatible with a healthy diet.
Look at CostCo! They have an amazing amount of fresh, healthy meats and vegetables. But you're still walking out of that store with a twelve-pack of fish and the barrel of cheese puffs you saw on the way out. The majority of Americans simply lack the self control. The food production companies know this and take full advantage of it.
I think it has been figured out, it is just heavily lobbied against. In general, you have to flip normal. Every time I get my Butcherbox pasture raised beef out of the freezer, I'm aggravated they have to print "pasture raised"... that should be the standard, not the luxury brand. A few ideas off the cuff...
- Make food companies label non-organic food and say why they aren't organic, vs. making organic declare themselves, certify and therefore cost more. - Raise minimum grades on beef and poultry. Low grade meat is the only way to make large portions work economically. - Require food with meat ingredients to list what grade of meat is being used, hormone use, etc. - Disallow mixing of multiple animals in ground meat products... or at least cap it. Right now, fast food works because you can grind up hundreds of cattle at once.
- Make food companies label non-organic food and say why they aren't organic, vs. making organic declare themselves, certify and therefore cost more. - Raise minimum grades on beef and poultry. Low grade meat is the only way to make large portions work economically. - Require food with meat ingredients to list what grade of meat is being used, hormone use, etc. - Disallow mixing of multiple animals in ground meat products... or at least cap it. Right now, fast food works because you can grind up hundreds of cattle at once.
I agree with most of this, but what specifically is wrong with grinding up hundreds of animals (apart from sounding gross)?
Risk of disease spread. Many outbreaks (mad cow, etc) were larger problems than they should have been because cattle from various farms had been mixed.
It also complicates source tracing for any other problem - bad feed, importing rules, etc.
It also complicates source tracing for any other problem - bad feed, importing rules, etc.
Who's "they"?
You're absolutely right. There's a whole subset of people who have declared war on meat. They want to replace meat with a diet desperately low in B12 so you have to supplement to be healthy. They want to replace meat with ingredients most similar to the ingredients they use to make dog food. They want to replace meat with extremely processed vegetables made to taste like meat, just like they did with margarine replacing butter, and hydrogenated vegetable oils replacing lard (both of which have killed millions prematurely). They want to replace meat with something very high in phytoestrogens and then demand that you believe that the massive endocrine disruption we're seeing all across humanity isn't related to this push towards foods high in xenoestrogens. They won't even allow for the possibility because it doesn't fit their agenda.
There are issues with our industrial food production particularly around meat. They should be addressed. I would be perfectly happy with lab grown meat if it was proven to be safe over time. I would prefer real meat without massive pollution or cruelty. But I'm not going to shift my diet to something proven to require pills to be healthy.
Just watch, the next phase will be trying to shame people for eating meat. It's only a matter of time.
There are issues with our industrial food production particularly around meat. They should be addressed. I would be perfectly happy with lab grown meat if it was proven to be safe over time. I would prefer real meat without massive pollution or cruelty. But I'm not going to shift my diet to something proven to require pills to be healthy.
Just watch, the next phase will be trying to shame people for eating meat. It's only a matter of time.
From my personal experience, people that eat less or no meat have a healthier lifestyle in general. I am wondering if that also plays a part in the results.
It is a general thing.
Back when being atheist was a tough choice and being some kind of religious was the default choice I think there was more thoughtful people in the atheist camp.
Today as the tides turn one finds that the same annoying thoughtless people are atheists if that is the default.
Im the same way it doesn't surprise me at all that one find some of the healthiest people are vegerarians (or mostly meat), I think there's a huge overlap between those groups and those that generally think carefully about what they eat instead of just eating whatever processed food is cheap.
Going forward I think we'll see more unhealthy vegetarians.
Back when being atheist was a tough choice and being some kind of religious was the default choice I think there was more thoughtful people in the atheist camp.
Today as the tides turn one finds that the same annoying thoughtless people are atheists if that is the default.
Im the same way it doesn't surprise me at all that one find some of the healthiest people are vegerarians (or mostly meat), I think there's a huge overlap between those groups and those that generally think carefully about what they eat instead of just eating whatever processed food is cheap.
Going forward I think we'll see more unhealthy vegetarians.
You already do. Oreos are technically vegan. Margarine is already a plant-based butter substitute.
The Impossible Whopper is no better or worse for you than a regular Whopper by any metric.
It is pretty easy to be a fat vegetarian today.
The Impossible Whopper is no better or worse for you than a regular Whopper by any metric.
It is pretty easy to be a fat vegetarian today.
As someone who cut meat out of her diet, I can attest to that.
On days when we have time to cook, we make good, healthy meals. However, unhealthy alternatives are always present and very tempting.
The curfew has been hard for me and I have resumed my bad habits. I ate plant-based burgers, non-dairy ice cream, cookies and cakes almost every day. Most fast-food restaurants near me will ship from apps and offer meat-free alternatives for the same price.
Plant-based food is not necessarily healthier. It is simply meat-free.
On days when we have time to cook, we make good, healthy meals. However, unhealthy alternatives are always present and very tempting.
The curfew has been hard for me and I have resumed my bad habits. I ate plant-based burgers, non-dairy ice cream, cookies and cakes almost every day. Most fast-food restaurants near me will ship from apps and offer meat-free alternatives for the same price.
Plant-based food is not necessarily healthier. It is simply meat-free.
Plant-based food generally means whole grain, minimally or unrefined. The things you mention wouldn't fall under that category, just vegetarian junk food.
I have never seen this, but it might be a difference in regulations between countries. Whole grain and unrefined are two different labels that are not related to the fact that the food is plant-based.
- Harvey uses Lightlife burgers which are made with pea protein.
- A&W uses Beyond Meat which is made using beans along with beet juice for the coloring.
- Oggi's frozen pizzas made with Beyond Meat, cauliflower as the crust and vegan mozzarella (coconut milk).
- Coconut Bliss makes ice cream is using coconut milk.
- Cookies and bars made of fermented vegan proteins contains hemp, quinoa sprouts, alfalfa, spirulina, mung bean sprouts.
Those are all plant-based alternatives and are advertised as such. They are vegan junk food since they avoid animal products such as eggs and dairy.
An example of vegetarian junk food would be Quest's spinach & mushroom pizzas which use no meat at all but will use animal cheese.
- Harvey uses Lightlife burgers which are made with pea protein.
- A&W uses Beyond Meat which is made using beans along with beet juice for the coloring.
- Oggi's frozen pizzas made with Beyond Meat, cauliflower as the crust and vegan mozzarella (coconut milk).
- Coconut Bliss makes ice cream is using coconut milk.
- Cookies and bars made of fermented vegan proteins contains hemp, quinoa sprouts, alfalfa, spirulina, mung bean sprouts.
Those are all plant-based alternatives and are advertised as such. They are vegan junk food since they avoid animal products such as eggs and dairy.
An example of vegetarian junk food would be Quest's spinach & mushroom pizzas which use no meat at all but will use animal cheese.
Not an authoritative source just a fyi, the forksoverknives [0] (informative film if you've not seen it) site:
- Whole foods describes natural foods that are not heavily processed. That means whole, unrefined, or minimally refined ingredients. - Plant-based means food that comes from plants and doesn’t include animal ingredients such as meat, milk, eggs, or honey.
I've mostly seen the term 'plant-based' to differentiate between stuff you probably shouldn't be eating (all vegrtarian: french-fries, potato-chips, oreos, beyond meat (heavily processed [1]), non meat pizza with real-milk cheese) to stuff you should be eating: fresh-fruit, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts etc.
i.e. if what your eating tastes REALLY good, made by a robot, comes out of a box with lots of fat/oil, salt, sugar, then it's mostly likely not in the range of plant-based diet (AFAIK). Technically ketchup is a vegetable [2]! :)
Note: I'm not criticizing you for eating any of this, that's your choice, I think that a lot of evil corps are probably mis-labeling these products as pseudo healthy (and maybe they are compared to the original versions), but whether one should be inserting them into your body is subject to opinion.
[0] https://www.forksoverknives.com/how-tos/plant-based-primer-b...
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/impossible-and-beyond-ho...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable
- Whole foods describes natural foods that are not heavily processed. That means whole, unrefined, or minimally refined ingredients. - Plant-based means food that comes from plants and doesn’t include animal ingredients such as meat, milk, eggs, or honey.
I've mostly seen the term 'plant-based' to differentiate between stuff you probably shouldn't be eating (all vegrtarian: french-fries, potato-chips, oreos, beyond meat (heavily processed [1]), non meat pizza with real-milk cheese) to stuff you should be eating: fresh-fruit, vegetables, whole grains, beans, nuts etc.
i.e. if what your eating tastes REALLY good, made by a robot, comes out of a box with lots of fat/oil, salt, sugar, then it's mostly likely not in the range of plant-based diet (AFAIK). Technically ketchup is a vegetable [2]! :)
Note: I'm not criticizing you for eating any of this, that's your choice, I think that a lot of evil corps are probably mis-labeling these products as pseudo healthy (and maybe they are compared to the original versions), but whether one should be inserting them into your body is subject to opinion.
[0] https://www.forksoverknives.com/how-tos/plant-based-primer-b...
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/impossible-and-beyond-ho...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup_as_a_vegetable
Oh, by all mean it is unhealthy food. The nutritional labels are quite clear that they contain too much fat, sugar and calories.
But they are still plant-based and do not contain any animal products.
I eat a vegan diet for one single reason and that is to avoid voting with my wallet for the continuation of factory farming. I do not care about any other parts of the vegan philosophy and/or lifestyle.
Those items are plant-based products and do not claim anything else. I do agree that they are not part of a healthy plant-based diet but that is a different topic altogether.
But they are still plant-based and do not contain any animal products.
I eat a vegan diet for one single reason and that is to avoid voting with my wallet for the continuation of factory farming. I do not care about any other parts of the vegan philosophy and/or lifestyle.
Those items are plant-based products and do not claim anything else. I do agree that they are not part of a healthy plant-based diet but that is a different topic altogether.
I wonder if the general avoidance of a specific food or ingredient is enough extra conscious effort to generally improve the baseline quality of what that individual is consuming.
Without resorting to an anecdote, my point is that it might simply be easier to accidentally eat healthier food when one has to abide by the contents of the packaging.
Without resorting to an anecdote, my point is that it might simply be easier to accidentally eat healthier food when one has to abide by the contents of the packaging.
I don't know what it is about diet research but it seems to really bring out strong opinions on hackernews. Given that we're the target market for Soylent I guess it makes sense.
In some forums, when you want to post something about body-building,training or what to eat, you also have to post your body picture. Keep that in mind whenever you hear opinions about food.
That's a great point. Let's do a real study with real people and real diets, collect their blood type, an auto immune disorders, any allergies or food intolerance. Bundle that with a relevant body photo.
Any thread about nutrition devolves to an absolute shit show.
Most nutrition research is bad. Everybody gets a chance to espouse their favorite theories in the comments. How could it be otherwise? Doing good research in this space is expensive.
I am sceptical due to this:
and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI).
I didnt read all the details, but that seems like a sneaky way to invalidate the benefits of eating meat. If sounds like the benefits correlate with low BMI, so they want to dismiss them. But what if eating meat helps one to maintain a low BMI? Suddenly the picture is cloudy.
As for heart disease, there is always the iodine rabbit experiment from the 1930s.
and most of the positive associations observed for meat consumption and health risks were substantially attenuated after adjustment for body mass index (BMI).
I didnt read all the details, but that seems like a sneaky way to invalidate the benefits of eating meat. If sounds like the benefits correlate with low BMI, so they want to dismiss them. But what if eating meat helps one to maintain a low BMI? Suddenly the picture is cloudy.
As for heart disease, there is always the iodine rabbit experiment from the 1930s.
I ate an 8oz bag of potato chips and an 8oz can of onion dip for dinner last night.
Just wanted to throw out there how healthy my vegetarian dinner was.
Just wanted to throw out there how healthy my vegetarian dinner was.
Caveat: UK citizens all of them. Not the best country for an healthy diet.
The title seems to muddle the conclusion.
higher BMI accounted for a substantial proportion of these increased risks suggesting that residual confounding or mediation by adiposity might account for some of these remaining associations.
You can see that in table 6ff in the "additional file 1" (it's a docx file). For example, before adjustement for the BMI, the increase of ischemic heart disease per 70g/daily red and processed meat consumption is 1.26 (model 2). With BMI adjustment (model 3) it's 1.15.
So, for someone who isn't good at reading scientific papers - if my BMI is low but I consume a lot of meat, how much worse is that than being vegetarian?
Depends what kind of death you're trying to avoid. :) BMI is not the 100% indicator of being healthy.
i.e. you can still be 'skinny as a rake' and be type-2 diabetic.
i.e. you can still be 'skinny as a rake' and be type-2 diabetic.
No one can say. It depends on many factors: your general health, age, genetic disposition, the composition of the rest of your diet, your general lifestyle (e.g. exercise, drug consumption, social status, mental health, ...).
If you are a homeless drug addict, being a vegan or vegetarian won't help improving your overall health. Likewise, being a well-off employed young individual in a stable and happy relationship who does regular health-checkups is more than enough to counter the daily 250g rare steak...
If you are a homeless drug addict, being a vegan or vegetarian won't help improving your overall health. Likewise, being a well-off employed young individual in a stable and happy relationship who does regular health-checkups is more than enough to counter the daily 250g rare steak...
>Higher consumption of unprocessed red and processed meat combined was associated with higher risks of... pneumonia (1.31, 1.18-1.44 [95% CI])
That surprised me. The article later gives a hypothesis that plentiful iron is good for pathogens, citing a separate and interesting article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23684303
That surprised me. The article later gives a hypothesis that plentiful iron is good for pathogens, citing a separate and interesting article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23684303
So, fat is bad. Carbs are bad. Meat is bad. Assuming you eat calories (ie leafy vegetables are not a large source of calories), what are you left with? Plant based low fat, low carb lean protein? Peanuts are high in fat. Beans are high in carbs. There’s like nothing you really should eat.
I think I read what would our poor great-great-grandparents think of the food we eat today?
What did they eat, meat rarely (they couldn't afford it all the time), mostly vegetables (mostly home grown), salad-stuff, beans, maybe fruit and the odd nut.
Maybe going back to this direction, is the way we should be leaning.
What did they eat, meat rarely (they couldn't afford it all the time), mostly vegetables (mostly home grown), salad-stuff, beans, maybe fruit and the odd nut.
Maybe going back to this direction, is the way we should be leaning.
You should eat a diversified diet and with moderation. All of those are not necessarily bad. Take peanuts for example, they are a great tool to reach certain goals. But eating only peanuts every day would make you ill quickly.
Let's follow the money.
Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:
"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."
Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
Said "scientific study" is funded by Wellcome. An arm of WHO, unelected crisis manufacturer supreme. On wellcome's site:
"Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."
Show me the incentives and I'll show you the outcome.
>This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Our Planet Our Health (Livestock, Environment and People - LEAP) [grant number 205212/Z/16/Z]; Cancer Research UK [grant numbers C8211/A19170 and C8211/A29017]; and the UK Medical Research Council [grant number MR/M012190/1]. AP-C is supported by a Cancer Research UK Population Research Fellowship [grant number C60192/A28516] and by the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF UK), as part of the WCRF International grant programme [grant number 2019/1953].
And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.
edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.
And cancer research. But you didn't bring that up.
edit: Also not "An arm of WHO", they partner with them cause priorities (public health) are aligned.
Can you link to the part of Wellcome being against meat consumption? They look like a charity about vaccination or such?
I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:
https://wellcome.org/about-us
I couldn't find anything here about meat consumption:
https://wellcome.org/about-us
The page on the site with the specific quote by GP is here: https://wellcome.org/grant-funding/people-and-projects/grant...
You may already realize this but if you type
site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."
into Google you'll find it.
You may already realize this but if you type
site:wellcome.org "Reducing meat intake, particularly in the USA where meat consumption is highest, should be a global priority."
into Google you'll find it.
thanks, didn't know that.
I don't get the unhealthy obsession with "unelected" in some people.
A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.
That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.
That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).
[1] https://youtu.be/hnoMsftQPY8?t=277
A proper -mediocracy- meritocracy (i.e. it's actual skills and qualification that counts) is preferable over any kind of popularity contest. That's not to say the WHO in particular works by this standard, I just find it very irritating if people insist on every position or institution - especially very specialised ones - being subject to elections.
That just doesn't make sense and can have horrifying consequences (see [1] for an example). There are positions (in my example: medical examiners), that simply cannot be adequately filled by laypeople and amateurs. That's not how a complex society works. It's not the middle ages anymore and most professions and many official positions require training, experience, and qualifications.
That's why I don't get the obsession with everyone needing to be "elected" (and by that I assume you mean by the general public, because WHO positions in particular are in fact awarded by elections).
[1] https://youtu.be/hnoMsftQPY8?t=277
> A proper mediocracy
While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".
While I think mediocracy is more accurate, I think you meant "meritocracy".
Indeed I did - thanks for the correction!
[deleted]
hfsp(2)
I’m interested in seeing what kind of research gets released once we find out how cheap it is to make bug patties from harvesting locust swarms.
Good study! Results aren't terribly surprising, but verification needs doing too!I for one applaud it!
Now that there is money at scale to be made from vegetarianism, this will all be over quickly
Wish there was a better way to represent these stats.
[deleted]
So, eat red meat for the iron, but not so much it makes you fat (and sick).
So... don't eat processed meat. Doesn't this just correlate with what we already knew?
I'm not sure what the conclusion of this study is, but I'd like to point out that it is not the role of science to be controversial or surprising. It's really a pity that researchers who get non-exciting results feel like they've failed.
It's the role of science to be as accurate and precise as possible, and the vast majority - perhaps even all of them - fail to take into account enough variables to make it actually relevant; e.g. observational studies that target red meat being eaten don't usually differentiate from a healthy diet with red meat, high fat vs. low fat meat consumptions, nor account for what else a person is eating - e.g. ketogenic diet, if no sugars/carbs, etc.
>Unprocessed red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of IHD (ischemic heart disease), pneumonia, diverticular disease, colon polyps, and diabetes
Lower risk of IDA (Iron deficiency anaemia), but you have a higher risk with the above five
Lower risk of IDA (Iron deficiency anaemia), but you have a higher risk with the above five
Do you even find unprocessed meat these days?
I take processed meat to mean deli meats, bacon, and cured ham. Additives are one of the things that make them damaging.
Is a filet mignon, ground beef, or chick thighs processed? Sure. But i don't think that is what we're talking about here.
Is a filet mignon, ground beef, or chick thighs processed? Sure. But i don't think that is what we're talking about here.
Fresh meat can be processed by injecting it with water + various salts to bulk up the weight/volume by up to 15%. Depending on the legislature, it could be legally still considered fresh meat in some countries. See plumping: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plumping
It's not just chickens, I've seen ground meat, and pork tenderloins in supermarkets with the same processed treatment.
It's not just chickens, I've seen ground meat, and pork tenderloins in supermarkets with the same processed treatment.
Good point!
I thought pre-cook and/or treated meats meant processed in terms of the general consumer. Raw cuts of steak, pork loins and drumsticks isnt typically considered processed for the consumer. From what I know, you only call cut up raw meat "processed" if you handled the full carcass, like a butcher.
But like you said, it's the additives that we really think of as "processed". If you home make sausage with just ground meat and pork casing is that "processed" if you didnt add nitrates or edta? Technically yes, but that's where I think clear cut definitions need to be in place.
But like you said, it's the additives that we really think of as "processed". If you home make sausage with just ground meat and pork casing is that "processed" if you didnt add nitrates or edta? Technically yes, but that's where I think clear cut definitions need to be in place.
Here in Czech republic / Slovakia it's enough to read the label - if it says fresh meat, it's unprocessed meat. If it's processed, the label cannot say fresh meat anymore, it has to say meat product.
Same in Poland; all information you need is on label and AFAIK is sorted by amount of components and that also applies for variety of packaged food.
You can just buy cuts of meat at any grocery store in most western countries, can you not?
Definitely true in the EU and most of Europe in general.
Not sure about other parts of the world, though.
Not sure about other parts of the world, though.
Yes, in the US. But a large (possibly dominant) fraction of food consumption in the US is via prepared food purchased in stores, or from restaurants. To use raw meat, you have to know how to store and prepare it yourself.
If you know how to cook, you can tell what it is, just by looking at it.
If you know how to cook, you can tell what it is, just by looking at it.
I feel strongly that people should eat based on their blood type. For example O type appear to do best with a meat based diet. Blood type A should eat more plant based diet. Human bodies are N+1, each body is different, there is not one diet to rule them all. Please be mindful of what you are eating and how it makes you feel. Get in touch with your unconscious and body.
Results are different, often opposite, in countries that have a better relationship to meat, like the big Austrian food survey study from 2014: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3917888/
> Moreover, our results showed that a vegetarian diet is associated with poorer health (higher incidences of cancer, allergies, and mental health disorders), a higher need for health care, and poorer quality of life.
Other survey data across several countries often replicate the meatless = lower mental health claims, eg: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2020.1...
(This should come as no surprise to people who have read about B12 and mental health, which is a relationship so extraordinary that I'm surprised its not more front-and-center.)
But again, food survey data is generally bad. Some are okay, when they are very focused, like the Swedish studies on dairy product consumption. But most of them are bad, and the more general, the worse they are.