It still amazes me that people surrender to nutritional authorities, instead of self-experimenting (cf. Asra Conlu on YouTube) and finding out the facts for themselves.
You broke the site guidelines here and repeatedly below. Would you please review them and follow them when posting here? One of the main things they're trying to prevent is comments that take threads further into flamewar.
I'm referring to the studies behind the "science" you claim to back up that a plant based diet is both better for [...] health reasons than a meat based diet.
Unless you have read those studies, before seeing how much bullshit is behind them, you'd be wasting your breath away on borrowed beliefs.
But then I doubt you are capable of doing it, as even a scientific review appears as "corporate brochure" to you.
So if you are "more knowledgeable on this topic" than me, why are you continuing to evade my question on whether you have actually read the studies behind the "science" you claim to back up that a plant based diet is both better for health reasons than a meat based diet? Moreover, if you are "more knowledgeable on this topic" than me why is it that a scientific review by Dr. David M Klurfeld appears "like a corporate brochure" to you?
> I don't think anyone is arguing that these burgers are healthier than eating salmon and broccoli. Just healthier and more environmentally friendly than ground beef.
I can't speak for environmental friendliness, but I doubt these burgers are "healthier" than ground beef (especially from humanely raised cattle), which I eat on daily basis. Come meet me in person and tell me that I look unhealthier.
No one cares about the truth. XYZ is identified as a potential carcinogen? It is mostly used to attack a dietary group involving XYZ than to actually cure cancer. You see this liberally happening with red meat, despite questionable evidence towards it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20029519
Indeed, why would this be flagged? There's plenty of vegan stuff on this site and it's never flagged. The same argument always comes up too: "red meat causes cancer!". Now we have an article exploring that point and it's flagged so we can't discuss it. Lame.
Yes I agree, concerning that I have been following this debate for a couple of years now. And you just don't find independent studies that claim that meat is healthy.
The WHO and similar organizations are extremely conservative, so if they adopted this stance concerning meat its because there was some solid science to back it up.
I mean, they knew how people would react, and probably delayed this recommendation for a long time.
Every credible study that I see coming out, they all point in the same direction.
Check Dr Fhurman books, he is not vegan and even gives non-vegan recipes in his books. He is looking for the best human diet from a point of view of longevity and health, without ethical claims.
Just as I don't want to dismiss the OP because of the industry they are in, I also don't want to blankly believe the WHO. We should be free to discuss this and come to our own opinions and having this article flagged goes against that.
> These organizations are dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of science-based knowledge concerning animal agriculture.
This is a scientific magazine on a particular domain (animal agriculture).
Even so, this article should be discussed on its own. And its author, Dr. David M Klurfeld, is not associated with the meat industry.
If you just want to suppress discussion of health benefits of meat why not just honestly say so? After all, that's likely the motive behind this submission getting flagged.
There is an undeniable conflict between an article published in a publication financially sponsored by a given industry and the results that benefit that industry.
A study has shown that studies funded by a particular industry are 85 times more likely to bring results that favor the funding industry, so money has a huge influence.
The tobacco industry used this tactic for decades, the strategy is simple. To question the claims that a product is unhealthy, without ever actually denying it.
All they have to do is create doubt, and the public will be confused, throw their hands up in the air and eat whatever.
In the words of a famous memo leaked in the tobacco industry: "doubt is our business".
Here is a summary of the multiple tactics used by the tobacco industry, one of them is precisely to publish studies that aim at raising doubt, without actually addressing the health concerns - https://www.who.int/tobacco/media/en/TobaccoExplained.pdf
But I don't know if that is why the article was taken down, I'm just speculating. Probably the flagging happens automatically, after a certain number of manual flags.
Indeed there is a lack of transparency about why certain articles are taken down, at least a reason should be given.
It has been un-flagged now, though it is no longer on the front page. Isn't it interesting how the community does its "soft censorship"? I've said this before, but the Hacker News community is increasingly biased towards vegan/ vegetarian movements, so much that they will do anything to suppress discussion of anything positive about meat.
Exactly. Sadly however some people would still prefer to believe WHO's authority and take their meat-causes-cancer factoid to be a fact.
> Does a low-carb diet improve health outcomes? Or a vegan diet? We just don't know, and anyone that tells you they do know is either selling you something or, at best, telling you what worked for them.
Yup; and the same applies to anyone looking to refute a diet they do not like. For example, a vegan asserting that the carnivore diet is unhealthy and vice versa.
- He was on the World Health Organization working group to decide if meat causes cancer in 2015 with a bunch of vegetarians and vegans and says it was the most frustrating professional experience of his life
- There were 22 scientists - half of which were epidemiologists
- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18
- There was a group of people that were strongly against the vote
- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived
This is what was so frustrating to me about working in medical research.
>- They claimed they used 800 studies but they actually only used 18...
I hate this, it happens all the time. Basically, say, 20 studies, which each reference other studies. Group all the references, remove the duplicates, add 20, and BAM! 800 studies!
What's worse, if you take the time to read through the studies, related papers, and data, you'll find ridiculousness. Circles of "peer reviewers", who clearly either never read the papers they reviewed, or are not as good at advanced math as I am. (I choose to believe they never even read the papers, because I'm not the smartest guy in the world.)
Data that doesn't match conclusions.
Oftentimes you won't find a single replication of a given study.
And on and on and on.
It was hard out there for a pimp.
>- He thinks a number of the people made up their minds before they even arrived ..
I can guarantee you this happened. Having said that though, it's important to remember in situations like the ones the podcast describes, that people have their minds made up "for" and "against". Believe it or not, it's a lot like liberals and conservatives in that, they don't really care what the data says, they're going to do whatever ridiculous thing they want to do in any case. Which frustrated me to no end. I mean, in politics, OK, that's the way things work. Fine.
But in science? I was just like, man, what are you people doing?
Here are some takeaways:
"Which foods contain the most cholesterol? Eggs, fish, chicken, and red meat all earn the red light..."
"As for saturated fat, desserts, dairy, and snack foods are all designated as red light, with eggs, chicken, fish, and red meat getting the yellow light. Most of the saturated fat in the American diet comes from cheese (8.5%), pizza (5.9%), grain-based desserts (5.8%), dairy desserts (5.6%), and chicken (5.5%)."
"Salt levels are highest in lunch meat and snack foods, which both get a red light."
"...The more plant-based we get, apparently, the better."
Conclusion: Meat is bad, ultra processed foods are bad, and plant based diets are healthiest. Based on your comment alone, sounds like both Dr. Klurfeld and the WHO scientists are biased, whereas that book provides references to each and every claim that has science backing it. It's not rocket science, it's no surprise at all to find cholesterol, sodium, saturated fats, etc. are in meat and processed foods.
I am no expert but just on the face of it I would take any book that thinks eggs and fish are bad for you (other than in obscene quantities) with more than a few grains of salt.
This book was the catalyst to me going vegan a few years ago. It was easier than I expected. I can't really say that I feel much different. I like the idea that my cholesterol level will likely never be an issue. I'm loving beyond burgers, because something I missed before was a proper burger.
(I own the P71)