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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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
Source?
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.
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.
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.
I thought vegetarians were famous for eating lots of beans and tofu. Is this no longer part of the stereotype?
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.
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
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.
Legumes in particular are extremely filling: https://www.azumio.com/blog/nutrition/beans-skinny-food
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.
Big salads? Fiber tends to make you feel full.
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.
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.
Does it actually help avoid obesity? Many of the vegetarians I know are overweight or even obese.
https://jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(13)01113-1/abstrac...
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.
Generally plant-based, means whole, unrefined, or minimally refined ingredients.
i.e. french fries, oreos are all vegan but are refined.
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.
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.
Reminds me of https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-39054778
I think the documentary "the game changers" addresses precisely that.
One of the authors of a cited study did a rebuttal here - https://ketogenic.com/debunking-the-game-changers/
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.
Let’s sing this from the rooftops. I deeply agree.
Welcome to my world!. ( Not just HN really, it extends to most people on this planet)
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.
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?
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.
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.
Fat storage, is for sure related to becoming overweight and the cause of many ailments.
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.