News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes by lustysocietyorg on Monday February 25, 2019 @03:24AM (#19243993)
Yes. It shows again that marketing and personal fantasy trump science and truth in the USA and probably elsewhere too.

But not eternally. Science will prevail eventually.

Re:Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes by amanaplanacanal on Monday February 25, 2019 @04:24PM (#19249583)
Science will prevail eventually, on that I will agree. Unfortunately most nutrition science today is complete garbage. The evidence doesn't back up the results they claim.

Basically, at this point each person has to try various things and figure out what works best for themself.

Re:Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes by lustysocietyorg on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @02:12AM (#19252540)
True science is clear and known.

Q&A on the carcinogenicity of the consumption of red meat and processed meat. https://www.who.int/features/qa/cancer-red-meat/en/

Position of the American Dietetic Association: vegetarian diets https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/19562864/

Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Vegetarian Diets https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/27886704/

Nutrition concerns and health effects of vegetarian diets. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/21139125/

Why Doctors Don't Recommend A Vegan Diet | Dr. Michael Greger https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_d1Ca6SsKfE

New Canada Food Guide: Some Can't Handle It https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp4zWaLE_ik

Unfortunately lies and fake science affected by a personal or political or financial agenda confuse people.

Re:Paul Graham on the Transition to Meat Substitutes by amanaplanacanal on Tuesday February 26, 2019 @11:26AM (#19255627)
None of those are actual studies.

Quoting from the first link: "In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.

Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out."

This is garbage science. It's all like that. Believe whatever you like, though.