[HN Gopher] Nutrient found in beef and dairy improves immune res...
___________________________________________________________________
Nutrient found in beef and dairy improves immune response to cancer
in mice
Author : elorant
Score : 267 points
Date : 2023-11-27 15:41 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu)
(TXT) w3m dump (biologicalsciences.uchicago.edu)
| progne wrote:
| Immune function analysis displayed significantly lower
| phagocytosis of monocytes and granulocytes in an older vegetarian
| population (vs. older nonvegetarians (P < 0.05, P < 0.001).
| Similar effect of diet was observed as decreased phagocytic
| activity of granulocytes in younger vegetarians. Regardless of
| age, respiratory burst of phagocytic cells was also significantly
| decreased in women vegetarians versus nonvegetarians (P < 0.05, P
| < 0.001). Older vegetarians revealed significantly suppressed
| proliferative response of T-lymphocytes to mitogens (P < 0.001).
| In conclusion, our data indicate that a vegetarian diet might
| have a possible impact on human immune response.
|
| https://journals.lww.com/epidem/fulltext/2007/09001/The_Effe...
| ryuhhnn wrote:
| There might be an impact, but it's not clear what the impact
| is. I'm no biologist, but I'd wager your volume of immune cells
| changes quite a bit over your lifetime. I'd be more interested
| in seeing the long-term health outcomes of vegetarians vs. non-
| vegetarians.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| The opposite was also discovered (dairy increases cancer risk):
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34788365/
| piyushpr134 wrote:
| I find these studies to be deeply flawed. It is a
| multivariate situation and we cannot control/observe more
| than one variable mostly and still end up mistaking these
| correlations to be causation.
|
| It could well be that it is not diary or meat but the amount
| of glucose/fructose one eats which really affects this. We
| must go back to molecular level proofs rather than these kind
| of statistical studies where you cannot control everything
| (apart from mouse models which most people reject for being a
| mouse model)
| cf100clunk wrote:
| From TFA: "There are many studies trying to
| decipher the link between diet and human health, and it's
| very difficult to understand the underlying mechanisms
| because of the wide variety of foods people eat. But if we
| focus on just the nutrients and metabolites derived from
| food, we begin to see how they influence physiology and
| pathology," said Jing Chen, PhD, the Janet Davison Rowley
| Distinguished Service Professor of Medicine at UChicago and
| one of the senior authors of the new study.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > It is a multivariate situation [...] It could well be
| that it is not diary or meat but the amount of
| glucose/fructose one eats which really affects this.
|
| Your missing puzzle piece is the fact that we do
| multivariate adjustment models to adjust for cofounders.
|
| You might as well ask "How do we know whether it's the
| cigarettes or the fact that people who don't smoke also
| tend to exercise and eat vegetables? I guess we can never
| know!"
| scythe wrote:
| It is an epistemic error to say "we did something about
| X, therefore X is not a problem". There are always
| characteristics of a population that aren't modeled. This
| is why randomization is considered so important.
| mtalantikite wrote:
| This comment is from a completely different paper and is
| looking at various blood count levels of 174 women. The
| submitted paper seems more interesting and is investigating TVA
| in particular as a potential supplement to complement other
| cancer treatments.
| _ink_ wrote:
| "There is early data showing that other fatty acids from plants
| signal through a similar receptor, so we believe there is a high
| possibility that nutrients from plants can do the same thing by
| activating the CREB pathway as well," he said.
| herunan wrote:
| So eating food improves immune response to cancer. Next.
| szundi wrote:
| Why the downvote? Correct observation
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Because this identified a specific nutrient, and a specific
| pathway for its action. The "eating food improves immune
| response" is an absurd characterization.
| beebeepka wrote:
| I think it was just a short version of "eating both kinds
| of food"
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Because the "next" meme is the antithesis of what HN
| strives to be.
|
| For example, fasting might help fight cancer, so there's
| obviously more nuance than just "eating fights cancer,
| _next!_ ".
| jader201 wrote:
| I still think the point of the "next" comment is that we
| didn't really learn anything -- except that there's more
| to learn. To your point, way too much nuance here, and it
| sounds like the title -- and maybe article -- is
| clickbait.
| em500 wrote:
| The comment appears at odds with several items in HN
| guidelines, like
|
| - Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't
| cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
|
| - Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not
| less, as a topic gets more divisive.
|
| - Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the
| community.
|
| - Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other
| people's work. A good critical comment teaches us
| something.
| pkd wrote:
| Also important to point out given the headline:
|
| "Focus on the nutrients, not the food
|
| The study suggests that TVA could be used as a dietary
| supplement to help various T cell-based cancer treatments,
| although Chen points out that it is important to determine the
| optimized amount of the nutrient itself, not the food source.
| There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental
| health effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so
| this study shouldn't be taken as an excuse to eat more
| cheeseburgers and pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient
| supplements such as TVA could be used to promote T cell
| activity. Chen thinks there may be other nutrients that can do
| the same."
| cnity wrote:
| It's an interesting and weirdly loaded angle to suggest that
| the only red meat foods are unhealthy (by picking unhealthy
| foods as examples). Consider this alternative phrasing:
|
| > this study shouldn't be taken as an excuse to eat more
| venison, cabbage, and mash.
|
| Is it really the best thing to be finding the correct soup of
| isolated nutrients to take in a multi-pill, as opposed to
| admitting that perhaps it can be healthy to include some red
| meat sources in your diet? Cutting out red meat is clearly
| not some panacea.
| helsinkiandrew wrote:
| Interestingly also in Sea Buckthorn:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccenic_acid
| tuukkah wrote:
| > _Its stereoisomer, cis-vaccenic acid, is found in Sea
| Buckthorn (Hippophae rhamnoides) oil._
|
| An isomer (different configuration of atoms) can have totally
| different biochemical effects though:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereoisomerism
| jwmoz wrote:
| What's sad is I don't believe any of these research papers
| anymore. Both ways can be found good or bad. It's impossible to
| deal with.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| to me that's encouraging. science has never been black and
| white.
|
| the mixed results can be a sign that we don't understand
| something properly. there's nuance and depth adding noise to
| the results
|
| it will only get better with more peer-reviewed studies and
| analysis
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| Mixed results can also be evidence that everything is
| fraudulent and nobody is even pretending to try and replicate
| things. And as a layperson, even honest noise isn't useful.
| szundi wrote:
| 100 more years and we know more. Under we I mean someone
| else.
| wyager wrote:
| There's a difference between "not black and white" and
| "replication crisis". Nutrition studies suffer from a
| replication crisis.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Quite a bit of nutrition research is simply useless. They
| ask a bunch of people what they ate and then try to
| correlate that with health outcomes. You will never learn
| anything that way, though it might give you areas for
| further research.
|
| The next step up is a randomized controlled trial, but
| instead of choosing health outcomes they choose
| measurements of lab tests as their endpoints. Someone's
| cholesterol went up or down by some small number. What did
| we learn? Nothing.
|
| Unfortunately good research is outrageously expensive, so
| it doesn't get done.
| rubslopes wrote:
| Relevant chart: https://fivethirtyeight.com/wp-
| content/uploads/2016/01/foodp...
|
| From: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-
| you...
| airstrike wrote:
| Nah. "Beef" is too broad a category. There are lean cuts and
| high fat cuts, there are many methods of preparation and
| countless ways to season. Someone eating maple glazed brisket
| with a side of extra crispy bacon and buttered scrambled eggs
| is very different from someone else eating a grilled sirloin
| seasoned with salt and black pepper.
|
| This crusade against red meat is honestly tiring.
|
| I subscribe to "eat a little bit of everything in moderation.
| Mostly what's available in nature and what someone in a farm
| or at home could produce. Be mindful of the total number of
| calories. Try not to burn or overcook food in general.
| Exercise a little bit most days. Don't neglect sleep."
|
| (Which to me reads like a lot of common sense advice that my
| grandparents already knew and followed with no struggle)
| soco wrote:
| I believe the crusade against red meat comes mostly from
| the environmental footprint which is pretty much the same
| for sirloin and brisket, and significant even for
| industrial grown cattle.
| kjkjadksj wrote:
| If that were truly the case the crusaders would be trying
| to stymie the meat industry on environmental legislative
| grounds. Instead all we get is some abstracted sense of
| blame at the consumer level, no real action, no real
| teeth, no real change to industry or society.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| How do you suggest people change a massive, incumbent,
| dominant animal ag industry married to the government
| (e.g. billions of subsidies per year, ag-gag laws)
| without changing personal attitudes about animal ag and
| consumer level behavior? And why can't they do both at
| once?
|
| Animal-free products from nut milks to meat alternatives
| are a growing industry, so clearly something is working
| without having to somehow do the impossible task of
| changing the government and doing it independent of
| popular opinion.
| jononomo wrote:
| Beef is subsidized in the US? That is definitely news to
| me.
| wyager wrote:
| The output of nutrition science (using the word "science"
| loosely - the epistemic standard is not very high) must be
| examined with the understanding that the field is
| _extraordinarily_ biased by religious and political
| considerations, e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication
| /327179700_The_Globa...
|
| In particular, there are a number of political and religious
| factions opposed especially to red meat.
| ncann wrote:
| Someone made a site for "cure or cause cancer" before, too
| bad it's not available anymore
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1495213
| brigadier132 wrote:
| This just looks like a chart of calorie density. How much of
| this can be explained by increased bmi as a result of over
| consumption of these foods?
| traviswingo wrote:
| That's simply because confirmation bias heavily influences
| perspective. If I want something to be true, I wouldn't be hard
| pressed to find research or conduct my own that could make a
| solid argument for it.
| 1270018080 wrote:
| My least favorite genre is the 100 papers saying X is bad to
| eat and 100 saying X is good to eat. Just have common sense and
| eat everything in moderation. Food absolutists are
| weird/annoying. Especially the trad-fascist "seed oils and soy
| bad, red meat good" crowd. Just a bunch of dorks.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| This might sound like the naturalistic fallacy, but if people
| have been eating things in quantity for hundreds of thousands
| of years, the worst outcomes have probably been weeded out of
| the gene pool.
|
| If it's new in the last 10,000 years (the beginning of
| agriculture) we have at least some hope that the worst
| problems have been dealt with, although we do have lactose
| and gluten intolerance as counter examples.
|
| If it's new to the human diet in the last hundred years,
| maybe it's fine, and maybe it isn't. It has to pretty
| obviously kill you for people to notice.
|
| Animals, fruit, and root vegetables have been in the human
| diet since before humans left Africa. That's my rule of
| thumb.
| im3w1l wrote:
| Agriculture may have existed for 10k years or something,
| but it's not like everyone switched over to that lifestyle
| immediately. There have also been peoples that lived as
| nomadic herders and even hunter gatherers into even modern
| to almost-modern times.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Yes. My ancestry is mostly British isles, and it looks
| like agriculture took hold there only about 6000 years
| ago. Possibly arrived with the Indo-Europeans?
| Vegenoid wrote:
| Yes, but people are often interested in nutrition not to
| avoid 'worst outcomes', but to reduce risk factors as they
| age. Evolution isn't so good at selecting for diets that
| push the median life expectancy from 75 to 85.
| jdminhbg wrote:
| > eat everything in moderation
|
| The entire point of diet advice and nutritional science is
| trying to find out what "in moderation" means for different
| foods. The amount of donuts that is moderate and the amount
| of broccoli that is moderate are not equal.
| swatcoder wrote:
| The mistake is trying to to scry personal life guidance out of
| research papers. Research papers just describe experimental
| results, and sometimes unsound ones.
|
| They're meant to feed further research and bring prestige to
| the authors, not to help intellectuals hyperoptimize their
| longevity or whatever.
|
| It's a widespread mistake, especially among intellectuals who
| take pride in being able to read jargon, but what you're
| calling "impossible to deal with" is actually just the outcome
| of trying to use things in a way they're not meant to be used.
|
| If you really want guidance (you actually don't need much),
| either look to traditions if you're comfortable with that or
| turn to institutional guidelines if you want something that
| feels more evidence-based and modern. Neither of those is
| unassailable either, but at least then you're using things as
| intended. You'll have less grief and frustration that way.
|
| Which is probably good for you.
| smrtinsert wrote:
| Upvoted to raise awareness. The average DYOR type is lacking
| a lot of context with regard to research goals and process.
| There aren't absolutes, there are snapshots or milestones of
| understanding given specific criteria - at best.
| bratwurst3000 wrote:
| This comment sums up so many problems with the interpretation
| of science so good. Thanks
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| > turn to institutional guidelines if you want something that
| feels more evidence-based and modern.
|
| "feels" is the right word here, unfortunately. Often, these
| are heavily out of date, influenced by power struggles inside
| the institutions and by external incentives, and get watered
| down by the need for generality and for avoiding liability.
| So the average person is left with very little to go by,
| which is why people either flock to study after study, choose
| "bro science" instead, or just stick to traditions even in
| places where they're not helpful.
| agumonkey wrote:
| there's a strange phenomenon when you try to dig deeper than
| current accepted textbooks and read pubmed, you end up in
| less certainty. Science behave like a lens, validated data
| (yet about to be obsolete potentially) is in focus, illogical
| is fuzzy, but unproven is fuzzy too.
| INTPenis wrote:
| Yeah I stopped paying attention to cancer research. Someone
| should aggregate all the cancer headlines just to show people
| how many of them there are.
|
| I lost my SO 6 years ago to a weird form of cancer that fed on
| her estrogen, so doctors tried to put her into menopause to
| stop its growth. That's hell on earth, like taking away the
| soul of a woman.
|
| So for years every single cancer headline made me react, but
| after a while you get jaded because you never see them lead
| anywhere.
| apwell23 wrote:
| > weird form of cancer that fed on her estrogen,
|
| my father is currently dealing with male equivalent of this
| (prostate cancer) . Yea taking away a harmone is a slow and
| painful march to death. I don't wish this on anyone.
| instagib wrote:
| And doesn't work all the time either. So you're left with
| worse choices.
| bluGill wrote:
| Often context matters. Something can be good for one cancer and
| bad for another. Or be good for cancer but bad for heart
| disease. Or bad for cancer but good for heart disease.
| Something may cause cancer if you force feed far more than a
| human could reasonably consume, but harmless at normal
| quantities.
|
| which is why so many of us just say "moderation and eat a
| varied diet". Once in a while science settles on something that
| is true for everyone, but real science is hard.
| jrm4 wrote:
| Not impossible, just a potential "lower quality of
| information?"
|
| I can't speak for anyone else, but I've grown to understand the
| following:
|
| My grandma, with whom I share a bunch of DNA, lived to be a
| healthy 100 and drank milk to the very end; which is why I'm
| probably going to do the same. The quality of that "datapoint"
| for me is (almost objectively) much higher than ANY study could
| ever produce?
| mcpackieh wrote:
| I've given up on 'scientific' nutritional advice and now go
| with my intuition informed by my personal observations. What I
| have observed is that people who eat lots of carbs seem to get
| fat, people who eat lots of processed foods look terrible all
| around, people who are vegan tend to look like cancer patients,
| people who are vegetarian but also eat eggs and/or fish look
| reasonably healthy, and people who eat lots of roasted meat,
| vegetables and eggs seem to have the best outcomes.
| jononomo wrote:
| This has also been my observation. I am convinced at this
| point that a diet that is 95% beef, fish, and eggs is the
| optimal diet for humans.
| fsflover wrote:
| AFAIK research papers are for researchers. For ordinary people,
| there is, e.g., Harvard School of Public Health.
| armchairhacker wrote:
| The main things you need to know:
|
| - "Eat whole food, not too much, (maybe) mostly plants". Do
| some form of exercise for some time at least 5/7 days.
|
| - Listen to your body and do what makes _you_ feel best (e.g.
| types of foods, meal timing and # of meals per day, types of
| exercises and amounts). I really believe that people 's bodies
| work differently enough that even excluding extreme cases, no
| one diet is best for everyone
|
| - Genetics, some people are just unlucky or lucky
|
| Also for cancer, 99% of things have increase your risk by
| _some_ amount; including every food, because simply
| metabolizing causes chemical reactions which (when unlucky)
| cause cancer. The important things to watch out for are those
| which carry a very noticeable, substantial increase, like
| benzene and radiation; studies show that red meat and nitrites
| correlate with increased risk, but it 's ambiguous how
| significant they are especially with the other correlated
| factors (like bad eating in general).
| karol wrote:
| <picture of steak>
| speedylight wrote:
| My body must have exceptional anti cancer properties considering
| the sheer quantity of cheese I consume daily.
| cies wrote:
| From the article:
|
| > There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental
| health effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so
| this study shouldn't be taken as an excuse to eat more
| cheeseburgers and pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient
| supplements such as TVA could be used to promote T cell
| activity.
| tremon wrote:
| >> "Considering the sheer quantity of cheese I consume daily,
| I should have gotten cancer many times over now. Therefore,
| my body must have exceptional anti-cancer properties."
| CobaltFire wrote:
| So I suffer from multiple autoimmune conditions and moving to a
| pescatarian diet (vegan + fish) has had a large moderating effect
| on my symptoms.
|
| I'm trying it based on some research for Neu5gc (that I first saw
| referenced here on HN) because... well it seemed harmless to try.
|
| This makes me wonder if this fatty acid may also/instead be a/the
| casual factor.
|
| Human bodies have so many confounding factors tracing these
| things is very difficult. Very happy to see more research.
| mentos wrote:
| For what it's worth I started developing auto immune symptoms
| after my exposure to Covid (nerve pain in my face, legs, feet,
| inner ear was burning and had a lack of balance, fatigue,
| trembling) only thing that resolved it was exercise (moderate
| to heavy weight lifting) and a strict carnivore diet over 3
| months. I'd probably put more stock into the exercise but my
| working theory was low testosterone and poor diet was
| preventing me from recovering.
|
| 3 years later and if I go a few months without exercise the
| nerve pain starts to come back in my face heh
| zackmorris wrote:
| A I've gotten older, I've found that my overall health mostly
| starts in the gut. I got hit with a form of chronic fatigue
| syndrome from leaky gut in 2019 that was so bad that I burned
| out and lost the ability to work for about 6 months. A
| variation of the Autoimmune Protocol (AIP) diet is what worked
| for me: * Avoid wheat and most grains (rice and
| corn are fine) * Avoid milk and young cheese (cheddar is
| fine but YMMV) * Avoid FODMAPs like beans, other legumes
| and nightshades * Get back to macro nutrients like bacon
| & eggs for breakfast, meat & rice, etc * Get back to
| micro nutrients like spinach for iron and a thyroid supplement
| for iodine * Seek holistic approaches like ashwagandha to
| restore hormone balance * Build gut health with
| probiotics and get treated for parasites if necessary *
| Look into supplements like glutamine and colostrum which
| rebuild the gut * Decrease caffeine and stress which
| lower the activation threshold for nerves in the gut to purge
| its contents * Drink a gallon of water per day, from one
| large container if necessary, to accommodate ADHD/autism
| symptoms * Exercise by alternating weightlifting and
| walking each day, about 60 minutes ideally
|
| Each food damages the villi in the small intestine at a
| different rate, but the gut only regenerates twice per week.
| Gluten causes some of the worst damage, which remains hidden
| until middle age when the ability to regenerate starts to
| decrease.
|
| Now I believe that GMOs and processed foods are so damaging not
| due to stuff like preservatives, but because low cost means a
| higher percentage of fillers like gluten.
|
| It took 3-5 years but I'm able to eat FODMAPs again, tolerate
| milk every day and even eat wheat a couple of times per week. I
| consider myself to be in remission but must be mindful of what
| I eat.
|
| I'm also hopeful that long COVID studies will reveal some of
| the disease mechanisms at work in these types of undiagnosable
| conditions. Gaslighting (not believing patients as they
| describe symptoms) is still a huge problem in western medicine.
| temeritatis wrote:
| Looks like a solid approach. I've mostly gravitated in the
| same direction after my last "mystery disease". I would add
| yoga/meditation and mindfulness to that list as well as the
| importance of sleep. Sleep seem to impact me more than
| anything else. I used to be up all night working and coding.
| I like the night. But it seems more and more obvious to me
| how bad this is for my wellbeing. That, and also to get
| enough natural sunlight during the day, but this is also
| intimately linked with sleep of course.
| datameta wrote:
| Mindfulness meditation is hugely important. The amount of
| gain from 10 minutes a day is clearly noticeable after a
| week or two. I personally often feel better right after do
| it (even though that isn't expressly the goal).
| datameta wrote:
| Some thoughts. About the bacon, try to avoid frying it too
| hard. In general heavily fried food contain acyclic aromatic
| hydrocarbons which are inflammatory and carcinogenic through
| increased oxidative stress. With that said, I very lightly
| fry my eggs and don't feel negative effects. With supplements
| like Ashwaghanda and St. Johns Wort make sure to check that
| they don't have an interaction with medication - these two in
| particular tend to interact widely. Indeed proper water
| intake is hugely important. And as for walking, even 7000
| steps per day can be considered light-medium exercise.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| They isolated trans-vaccenic acid and gave it to mice with
| tumors.
|
| If this informs your dietary preferences but our best
| metaanalyses on human health outcomes do not, you need to check
| your epistemic standards.
| krunck wrote:
| (Nutrient in beef) [?] beef
| idlewords wrote:
| *In mice
| dang wrote:
| Grr, another one. We've inmiced the title above. Thanks!
| TheRealPomax wrote:
| Like almost all of these publications, for HN purposes this title
| really needs "in mice" explicitly added to the end, because there
| is no reason for a Nature publication to put it in, but a lot of
| folks will never read the paper.
| rambojohnson wrote:
| Red meat has been demonstrated to have carcinogenic properties
| for quite some time. It's uncertain whether the discovery of this
| obscure "nutrient" justifies the associated risks...
| chainwax wrote:
| This has been called into question recently.
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36216940/
|
| https://www.healthdata.org/research-analysis/library/health-...
| brigadier132 wrote:
| Those studies that link red meat to cancer are all
| epidemiological and causal relationships can't be drawn from
| them. For example, one possible confounder could be that
| population of people that eat red meat also eat higher amounts
| of fast food or they might have higher bmi than those that
| don't.
|
| Also, always note how the studies never say "red meat causes
| cancer", they say "red meat is linked to cancer". Linked being
| the key word.
| Moldoteck wrote:
| Don't those studies accout for such types of influence?
| brigadier132 wrote:
| They try isolate confounders using statistical methods but
| these are not intervention studies and they rely on self
| reported data. There are obvious limitations with such
| approaches. You could imagine that people who are careful
| enough with their diet to completely avoid red meat also
| probably do physical activity of some sort. How many people
| that avoid red meat in their diet also eat at mcdonalds?
|
| They aren't locking people up in a resort and strictly
| monitoring and controlling what they ingest.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Would you also bite that bullet with regard to the
| association between cigarettes and lung cancer? We don't
| have RCTs.
|
| How do we know that it's not just the fact that people
| who smoke also don't exercise? Well, it's simple: we
| trivially adjust for exercise. Just like we have
| prospective cohort research on unprocessed vs processed
| red meat: we can design studies that measure it.
|
| (This is aimed at your sibling comment) If you're saying
| there's a confounder we don't know about in play: then
| what is it and what evidence would you bring to the table
| to justify its inclusion in our inference model? Note:
| that evidence would have to be at least as good as the
| evidence you're rejecting for _not_ having that magical
| secret confounder.
|
| That said, even before getting to cancer outcomes, I
| would replace red meat with another protein source just
| to avoid saturated fat. And if I was only moved by cancer
| outcomes and refused to change my high red meat diet, I
| would ensure I'm eating lots of veg/fruit to insulate
| myself against the risks which is what you see in the
| Tomorrow Alberta Project prospective cohort analysis
| among the highest red meat eaters who also ate the most
| fruit/veg.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| They try to. Unfortunately you can't account for all of
| them, because we don't know all of them.
|
| Once it's published that X is healthy or Y is unhealthy
| then people change their lifestyle in accordance. You can't
| tell if some other thing that people do because they heard
| it is healthy is the real cause.
| mdhen wrote:
| They try, but not successfully. It is called the healthy
| user effect. If something is already considered unhealthy
| by conventional wisdom then people trying to be healthy
| dont do that thing. And it's extremely difficult to account
| for because the differences between those people and
| everyone else are very large and difficult to lock down,
| since they will tend to do lots and lots of things that you
| are supposed to do for good health, but most people dont.
| rockinghigh wrote:
| > Those studies that link red meat to cancer are all
| epidemiological and causal relationships can't be drawn from
| them.
|
| There is an extensive body of studies that show a direct link
| between amines produced from exposing meat to high
| temperature in animals. You can disagree on the dosage used
| in the studies but I wouldn't ignore them completely. Here
| are a few:
|
| Sugimura T, Wakabayashi K, Nakagama H, Nagao M. Heterocyclic
| amines: Mutagens/carcinogens produced during cooking of meat
| and fish. Cancer Science 2004; 95(4):290-299.
|
| Ito N, Hasegawa R, Sano M, et al. A new colon and mammary
| carcinogen in cooked food,
| 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP).
| Carcinogenesis 1991; 12(8):1503-1506.
|
| Kato T, Ohgaki H, Hasegawa H, et al. Carcinogenicity in rats
| of a mutagenic compound,
| 2-amino-3,8-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoxaline. Carcinogenesis
| 1988; 9(1):71-73.
|
| Kato T, Migita H, Ohgaki H, et al. Induction of tumors in the
| Zymbal gland, oral cavity, colon, skin and mammary gland of
| F344 rats by a mutagenic compound,
| 2-amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline. Carcinogenesis
| 1989; 10(3):601-603.
|
| Ohgaki H, Kusama K, Matsukura N, et al. Carcinogenicity in
| mice of a mutagenic compound,
| 2-amino-3-methylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline, from broiled
| sardine, cooked beef and beef extract. Carcinogenesis 1984;
| 5(7):921-924.
|
| Ohgaki H, Hasegawa H, Suenaga M, et al. Induction of
| hepatocellular carcinoma and highly metastatic squamous cell
| carcinomas in the forestomach of mice by feeding
| 2-amino-3,4-dimethylimidazo[4,5-f]quinoline. Carcinogenesis
| 1986; 7(11):1889-1893.
|
| Shirai T, Sano M, Tamano S, et al. The prostate: A target for
| carcinogenicity of
| 2-amino-1-methyl-6-phenylimidazo[4,5-b]pyridine (PhIP)
| derived from cooked foods. Cancer Research 1997;
| 57(2):195-198.
| fithisux wrote:
| If it works, we will see it eventually used.
| odyssey7 wrote:
| A key excerpt, in my opinion.
|
| "There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental health
| effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so this study
| shouldn't be taken as an excuse to eat more cheeseburgers and
| pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient supplements such as TVA
| could be used to promote T cell activity."
|
| I'm also curious about this being a trans fat. I've heard public
| health campaigning that trans fats are unhealthy, but this
| research highlights one as a potential cancer therapy. It is
| apparently another case of un-nuanced popular ideas about health
| and nutrition not being the whole truth.
| bluGill wrote:
| Are all trans fats equal? We are more and more learning that
| broad categories are not useful as some subsets are
| better/worse than others.
| some_furry wrote:
| It could also be a category error: Vegetable seed oils seem
| to correlate strongly with bad health outcomes. Meanwhile,
| other oils (e.g. olive oil) with similar levels of the same
| types of fatty acids have better outcomes.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM
|
| Is it the type of fat, or the process through which it's
| extracted, that's most important? I don't know if the answer
| is as clear as we'd like it to be.
|
| Going back to the article: Isn't it possible that the trans
| fat in question is actually toxic like other trans fats, but
| in a way that's narrowly beneficial in this circumstance?
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| > Vegetable seed oils seem to correlate strongly with bad
| health outcomes.
|
| Based on what evidence? Here's a good roundup of our best
| evidence, and it shows that seed oils improve health
| outcomes: https://www.the-
| nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
|
| Since you like Youtube videos, here's a good talk between
| Gil Carvalho and Simon Hill that also goes through the
| evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ri4S7MLu3A
|
| Another summary of the evidence on seed oils by Layne
| Norton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2fSaFnt0FM
|
| I skimmed your video and it's the same old low-carb
| narratives with very little evidence cited which should
| always be a red flag. People who can't point to our best
| metaanalyses or human health outcome research on something
| to back their point will generally spin narratives because
| it's all they have left to do.
| cubefox wrote:
| When vegetable/seed oils are turned into solid fats, like
| shortening or margarine, trans fats (in particular,
| partially hydrogenated oils) occur. They have only
| recently been restricted in the US, at least to some
| extent. They cause heart disease.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks
|
| > Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils were an
| increasingly significant part of the human diet for about
| 100 years, especially after 1950 as processed food rose
| in popularity.[66] The deleterious effects of trans fat
| consumption are scientifically accepted.
|
| > The most important health risk identified for trans fat
| consumption is an elevated risk of coronary artery
| disease (CAD).[72] A 1994 study estimated that over
| 30,000 cardiac deaths per year in the U.S. are
| attributable to the consumption of trans fats.[30] By
| 2006 upper estimates of 100,000 deaths were
| suggested.[73] A comprehensive review of studies of trans
| fats published in 2006 in the New England Journal of
| Medicine reports a strong and reliable connection between
| trans fat consumption and CAD, concluding that "On a per-
| calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of
| CAD more than any other macronutrient, conferring a
| substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption
| (1 to 3% of total energy intake)".[60]
| azakai wrote:
| That's true but it's a separate matter. Yes, vegetable
| and seed oils _can_ be unhealthy if they are processed
| into trans fats, but otherwise they can be healthy.
|
| Whole Foods, for example, banned trans fats 20 years ago,
| but they sell many products with vegetable and seed oils,
| and those are generally healthy.
| simplify wrote:
| Is it just me, or is the nutrivore website unbearably
| slow? It's taking several seconds to render on each chunk
| of page scrolling, and I'm on a maxed out m2
| fngjdflmdflg wrote:
| Two YouTube videos and a blog has the same credibility as
| one YouTube video.
|
| > _certain types of vegetable oil and hydrogenated oil
| shortened the survival of stroke-prone spontaneously
| hypertensive rats by decreasing platelet number,
| increasing hemorrhagic tendency and damaging kidney
| functions, which could not be accounted for by their
| fatty acid and phytosterol compositions._ [0]
|
| The whole article is worth a read. Note this is about
| vegetable oils in general but the discussion at hand is
| about lipids from meat vs lipids from other sources.
|
| [0]Medicines and Vegetable Oils as Hidden Causes of
| Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes https://karger.com/ph
| a/article/98/3-4/134/272344/Medicines-a...
| Modified3019 wrote:
| Broadly speaking, I'd say the evidence decently points to yes
| most trans polyunsaturated fats are probably harmful. But I
| definitely agree, that lumping various fatty acids, amino
| acids and carbohydrates into big groups hides their extreme
| individual complexity.
|
| One possible exception to the "trans fat bad" thing for
| example is that when I last looked into it several years ago,
| Conjugated Linoleic Acid ("CLA") which can be either cis or
| trans were generally regarded as probably beneficial.
|
| Though frankly I've no idea how that would be. Regular
| linoleic acid itself is considered harmful (at least in the
| historically excessive amounts we are currently exposed to).
| It suppresses mammalian metabolism (being required by
| hibernators to induce the start of their winter torpor
| cycling), is very prone to oxidizing and generating free
| radicals and lipid peroxides which cause havoc in
| lipoproteins and blast holes in cardiovascular tissue, and
| even without all that it's breakdown products tend to
| increase inflammation, though this can be paradoxically
| hidden by linoleic acid's ability to suppress the immune
| system. But somehow when you conjugate three of the things
| together and get CLA, it behaves differently and can
| seemingly scavenge for free radicals.
| nkozyra wrote:
| Unless I'm misremembering a lot of the benefits of CLA did
| not prove out with subsequent studies and it always came
| with general health caveats alongside the potential
| benefits (primarily to visceral abdominal fat, IIRC).
| mymacbook wrote:
| Maybe the problem with cheeseburgers is the bun and sugar more
| than the meat or cheese itself? I would imagine grass-fed (and
| finished) beef is better than ultra processed meat - especially
| if sugar ends up in the finished product!
| spacephysics wrote:
| The problem with many red meat studies that show a negative
| effect, is typically the meat is eaten in the form of fast food
| cheeseburgers or in the case of dairy, pizza.
|
| Red meat alone does not cause heart disease. It's based off the
| fraudulent study regarding saturated fat and heart disease,
| which the sugar industry paid for.
|
| More likely, is the breads used in SAD (which have very high
| amounts of sugar vs other countries' bread) has a much heavier
| hand in heart disease.
|
| Further, the science about cholesterol and what markers mean
| what amount of heart disease risk isn't even a clear science.
| LSL vs HDL vs triglycerides. It seems we know triglycerides
| elevated is not good, but it's not clear on LDL and HDL alone
| (there's also the _size_ of the particle that matters in
| determining cardiovascular risk)
|
| Show me a study of a population who eats steaks, vegetables,
| avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I'll show you a
| healthy heart.
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-
| in....
|
| https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/#:~:tex...
| .
| odyssey7 wrote:
| It is interesting that this PR pre-empts the natural takeaway
| many would have -- eating more dairy or red meat -- by
| reductively representing the options as "cheeseburgers" and
| "pizza."
|
| Checking out the research paper[1], the competing interests
| section declares that Chen "has patents pending on TVA and
| TVA derivatives."
|
| I don't think the underlying reasoning is incorrect, but the
| way it's presented is interesting.
|
| [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06749-3
| jdkee wrote:
| "the competing interests section declares that Chen "has
| patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.""
|
| That basically destroys his credibility on the topic.
| hilux wrote:
| I think that's going a bit far.
|
| Technology commercialization by universities is the way
| any academic research (potentially, eventually) reaches
| the public, and it's quite normal for the original
| researchers to be involved in the commercialization
| venture, as advisers, or as CEO. They know the topic
| best.
| Root_Denied wrote:
| I agree - in cases like this patents are a large part of
| the motivation behind studying the thing in question, if
| they didn't have patents they wouldn't do the research.
|
| It's up to peer review and replication studies to confirm
| any effects. Even if there weren't any credibility issues
| with a piece of research this would be true.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| I think it confers credibility on the topic. It is what
| you would expect if they actually believe it has
| therapeutic potential.
|
| I would be more skeptical if they made claims about
| benefit but we're taking no Acton to commercialize or
| protect it
| dade_ wrote:
| I did learn something interesting about red meat travelling
| to South America. so the story is red meat and cancer, people
| that consume a lot more red meat tend to have more cancer.
| Brazil and Argentina are favourite examples. Except no one
| seems to take an account how they prepare red meat.
|
| A churrasco or asado is a full day event. It starts with
| wood, and they get a fire going, and this last for hours and
| is a big social event. In other words hanging around wood
| smoke, now I can picture something that's not red meat that
| could cause cancer in this scenario, but that never seems to
| bother researchers. They got the result they wanted and
| publish.
| potatopatch wrote:
| That's not really conclusive about anything as not all
| studies are done in South America..
|
| Looking into pork for example, it is recommended as an
| alternative because it seems to have a lower incidence of
| many cancer types in studies and it's a great meat to
| smoke.
| djtango wrote:
| interesting.
|
| Teochew people eat a lot of (from my anecdotal experience)
| and we don't have the same culture of charcoal burning our
| meat. I wonder whether a similar comparison could work for
| South East vs other parts of the Chinese diaspora...
| monero-xmr wrote:
| I avoid grilled and smoked meat because it seems very
| obvious to me that infusing meat with carcinogens would be
| bad for you. I've read that colon cancer is elevated in
| youth and I have a hunch that the widespread grilling and
| smoking culture has played a part.
| oooyay wrote:
| I can buy some of that. Burn pits in active war zones are a
| known source of cancer, half being in a constant vicinity
| of something burning and the other half being the
| properties of the aerosols produced by the thing being
| burned. That's to say, if the wood is treated it'll be more
| dangerous than seasoned wood.
|
| When a family member was diagnosed with cancer I was warned
| heavily about the difference between cooked meat and
| _charred_ meat. Charring is linked to cancer where _cooked_
| meat is a bit more up in the air.
| p_j_w wrote:
| You make it sound as though the Lipid Hypothesis has been
| thoroughly debunked, how many medical bodies agree with this
| conclusion, though? At the very least, the European
| Atherosclerosis Society, American College of Cardiology, and
| Canadian Cardiovascular Society disagree with you.
| graphe wrote:
| Why do they matter? Do you only care about everything they
| agree on? If not, why are you resistant to the idea they
| could be wrong?
| p_j_w wrote:
| >Why do they matter?
|
| Because they are the experts in their field. They are the
| most qualified to not only read through all of the
| literature, but actually properly understand it, debate
| it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
|
| >why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?
|
| I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's
| science, the whole thing is built on showing proving
| previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow
| incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd
| be better served by listening to the consensus of various
| medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media
| outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific
| literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected
| value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the
| advice of medical bodies is better than the expected
| value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research,"
| in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong
| here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.
| dalore wrote:
| They also have more to lose if they are wrong. They would
| have to admit they pushed something wrong for so long. So
| they need to double down.
| p_j_w wrote:
| I could imagine this sort of thing having an impact on a
| scattered group here and there, but these are not static
| groups. Why would a member who joined 10 years ago would
| give a shit about doubling down for the sake of the
| reputation of the same group from 40 years ago?
| graphe wrote:
| Look at the food pyramid. You're advocating for the same
| kind of diet that focuses on. It's known to be outdated,
| wrong and unhealthy.
| p_j_w wrote:
| That's an example of a body of scientists changing its
| recommendations when there's data available to support
| it, which is what GP was trying to argue wouldn't happen
| because it'd make them look bad.
|
| I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm
| advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple
| independent groups of scientists to determine what the
| data does and does not say about what's healthy.
| graphe wrote:
| There is no consensus. There are different consensuses.
| That group has a consensus based on false evidence.
| Nordic countries have another consensus based on real
| evidence. https://nordstjernan.com/news/food/4668/
| orangepurple wrote:
| It wouldn't be the first time a reputable research group
| threw off an entire field for decades and millions of
| dollars wasted: https://www.science.org/content/blog-
| post/faked-beta-amyloid...
| spacephysics wrote:
| That's the key problem though, in the face of alternative
| hypothesis they fail to even acknowledge they may be
| wrong. Coupled with the intense lobbying
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Lobbying by whom? The beef industry certainly does a lot
| of lobbying itself[1].
|
| [1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-
| beef-mea...
| Vegenoid wrote:
| Lobbying from the veggie industry persuading doctors to
| tell people to eat less meat and cheese?
| p_j_w wrote:
| >That's the key problem though, in the face of
| alternative hypothesis they fail to even acknowledge they
| may be wrong.
|
| That is not they key problem as you originally laid out.
| Your original position is that they key problem is they
| ARE wrong. Further, I don't know that I've ever read any
| sort of paper or written guidelines that explicitly says
| "we might be wrong here." Should those all be ignored for
| that reason? The papers you yourself cited in a comment
| above don't explicitly say they may be wrong, yet you
| have no problem taking them as 100% established fact.
| This seems like a bit of a double standard and sloppy
| logic.
|
| >Coupled with the intense lobbying
|
| Do you have evidence for corruption in these
| institutions?
| graphe wrote:
| According to whom are they considered experts? After how
| the government deals with COVID I don't trust "the
| medical consensus" which is code for "things I want you,
| the mainstream to agree with". Why would they be
| "experts"? What expertise do they have? It's not based on
| the best credentials, it's a job.
|
| They're nameless government entities. Depending if you
| feel knowledge always grows you may change your ideas.
| Waves of ignorance litter the medical field today, as
| hysteria was accepted as the only disease women could
| have: the wandering womb theory. Consensus of ignorance
| is still ignorance.
|
| There's no real evidence that high red meat is bad.
| There's no evidence that eating more veggies is bad.
| Phiwise_ wrote:
| Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field
| of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they
| want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Sci
| entific_reception
|
| Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about
| the number and magnitude of confounding variables a
| moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be
| present in their foundational research. As, again, in the
| specific case that user is worried you're glossing over:
| The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies
| with diets also high in processed foods, simple
| carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and
| low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we
| all agree these things as a staple in a diet will
| probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can
| the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model
| on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet
| through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-
| liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet?
| It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of
| "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this
| question in place of this "mind-your-seniors"
| browbeating. Isn't _that_ what science is supposed to be
| about?
| spirit557 wrote:
| One could cite a lot of things against the lipid hypothesis
| and likewise the other way. Maybe just think about this
| from an armchair standpoint... Before 1900 heart disease
| was extremely rare. And what were people eating before
| 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs.
| Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically
| unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed.
| Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-
| 9Mj?format=png&name=...
|
| Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured
| oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900.
| Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By
| 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they
| blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't
| need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the
| lipid hypothesis.
| sumpit wrote:
| When I saw articles/videos on the centenarians in Italy or
| Costa Rica, I noticed that they don't shy away from dairy
| products or grains. They usually prepare their own food
| themselves, and don't eat too much.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| > It's based off the fraudulent study regarding saturated fat
| and heart disease, which the sugar industry paid for.
|
| A lot of the recent research claiming that there's no link
| has also been paid for by industry groups. You can't just
| dismiss one and accept the other.
| oooyay wrote:
| Do I understand correctly that you're saying _processed
| meats_ are a problem but not raw meat you prepare yourself?
| ricardobeat wrote:
| This is long known to be true, especially for cured meats.
| Industrial processing _requires_ additives and
| preservatives that you'll never use at home or a
| restaurant.
| bad_user wrote:
| > _Show me a study of a population who eats steaks,
| vegetables, avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I'll
| show you a healthy heart._
|
| You're probably right, but only because the actual problem
| has always been the excess calories.
|
| Excess calories leads to energy poisoning, the cause for
| diabetes, with high blood glucose and high triglycerides
| being just energy excess that can't be quickly burned or
| stored.
|
| Foods are not equal though. That saturated fat more easily
| leads to atherosclerosis, compared to monounsaturated fat, is
| a fact. So, if you eat a lot in excess, being selective
| matters.
|
| Also, lay off the conspiracy theories, it's bad for your
| health.
| yieldcrv wrote:
| I'm always amused on how thats supposed to be the smoking
| gun, as if some other party that didn't care would ever
| allocate time and money into the research
|
| no conflict = no interest
|
| if the study is fraudulent due to methods then just stick
| with that, science is supposed to be reproducible so that
| nobody has to care about who did the hypothesis and
| conclusion at all
| virtuallynathan wrote:
| There's currently a study underway that took 100 people who
| have been on a low carb high fat diet for, on average, over 4
| years. These people had a large increase in LDL when
| switching to this diet. All participants had CT Angiograms,
| CAC scans, and other tests at T-0 and after 1 year. Some in
| the study had LDL levels seen in Homozygous Familial
| Hypercholesterolemia (>350mg/dL).
|
| A matched control study with this population and the general
| population is also underway, with the initial results being
| presented on Dec 8th at the WCIRDCD Conference.
|
| If LDL is independently causal of atheroscelosis/CHD, it
| should be seen in this population.
| caesil wrote:
| "I've heard public health campaigning that trans fats are
| unhealthy, but this research highlights one as a potential
| cancer therapy."
|
| Something can help fight cancer and also be terrible for heart
| health. The body is a collection of complex systems.
| belly_joe wrote:
| Yeah my understanding is that the balance of evidence on
| moderate alcohol consumption works this way as well (though
| with cancer and heart health reversed).
| aplusbi wrote:
| It was my understanding that many of the studies on
| moderate alcohol consumption included people in the study
| who could not drink for medical reasons (or were former
| alcoholics) which skewed the results for the zero-alcohol
| groups.
|
| Studies on red wine included people whose only source of
| fruit was red wine, which similarly skewed the results.
| hanniabu wrote:
| Studies say ray guns are great at fighting cancer, but
| terrile for heart health
| Dalewyn wrote:
| The moral of all these tales is that the best diet is composed
| of a reasonable balance of varied foods that you like, not
| something that takes the meter to +/-11.
|
| Too much of anything is bad, as is too little.
| tazjin wrote:
| Yes, eat less cheeseburgers and pizza, and more steak.
| codingdave wrote:
| With all the information available and research about nutrition
| really impacts our lives... I find myself wondering if there
| really is a benefit for a layman like myself to keeping up, or if
| the overall best advice still sits at: "Eat food. Not too much.
| Mostly plants."
| anonu wrote:
| Tomorrow we'll see an article that says: "beef consumption tied
| to higher rates of cancer". Sorry to be cynical.
|
| I'll never forget - back when Google News was more about an
| amalgamation of all articles from around the web - there were 2
| articles in the "coffee" category: "Coffee consumption linked to
| cancer" and then "Coffee consumption linked to lower cancer".
|
| The answer is really moderation. Michael Pollan puts it well:
| "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants".
| moffkalast wrote:
| Well sometimes the solution to cancer _is_ more cancer. Larger
| animals like elephants and whales don 't die from cancer
| because their cancer gets cancer before it manages to spread.
| These hypertumors then compete with and deprive the original
| cancer of blood flow, so they all end up starving.
|
| When you think about it we mostly cure cancer with ionizing
| radiation, which is ironically notorious for causing it in the
| first place.
| moose44 wrote:
| This comment section is a perfect example of how little we know
| about health.
| grecy wrote:
| "Eat _food_ , mostly plants, not too much."
| jononomo wrote:
| I have the opposite view. Eat food, entirely beef, as much as
| you'd like.
| grecy wrote:
| > _entirely beef, as much as you 'd like._
|
| That is a very good way to eat thousands of calories per
| day in excess of base metabolic need, which for nearly
| everyone will result in significant weight gain.
| helicalmix wrote:
| which is good, if you want to gain weight
| sp3000 wrote:
| From Dr. Robert Lustig in his book, Metabolical (highly
| recommended):
|
| "Michael Pollan (full disclosure, he's a friend), in his now-
| famous New York Times Magazine article, espoused seven simple
| words: Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. Three separate
| clauses, but I think that each clause is misleading. Eat food
| doesn't take into account that some people may do better on a
| low-fat diet, while others may do better on a high-fat diet.
| Not too much doesn't say how you are supposed to moderate
| that, as it doesn't take into account food addiction or what
| generates satiety. And mostly plants doesn't take into
| account that Coke, French fries, and Doritos are all plant-
| based. If you buy your organic, all-natural, GMO-free
| tortilla chips at Whole Foods, you're still stuffing your
| liver and starving your gut--you're just paying more for the
| privilege."
| helicalmix wrote:
| This feels like an overly complex response to a statement
| that's intentionally simple though.
|
| The whole point of Pollan's statement is to have simple
| guidelines that ignore optimizations in favor of
| directionally good flexibility, which makes me feel like
| Lustig either misses Pollan's point, or just believes in a
| completely different philosophy.
| grecy wrote:
| > _doesn't take into account that Coke, French fries, and
| Doritos are all plant-based_
|
| By the very definition Pollan gives, none of those are
| _food_ , they are lab concoctions that have been invented
| in the last few generations. Like the advice given about
| McDonalds by all the doctors and nutritionists in Super
| Size Me, a healthy person should never eat them.
|
| When Pollan says "eat _food_ ", he means "real" things that
| exist naturally. [Note 1]
|
| He also introduces the "grandma test" which is to say you
| shouldn't eat anything your grandma wouldn't recognize as
| food. A glass of black fizzy liquid sugar? no. Drink water.
|
| [Note 1] I often think about this like the periodic table.
| Many of the elements that have been on the table forever
| (low atomic numbers) can be found just lying around on the
| ground (Gold, Copper, etc.). They are "real".
|
| Almost all the ones added in the last few decades
| (nihonium, moscovium, tennessine) (high atomic numbers)
| never exist naturally and must be concocted in a lab under
| extremely specific circumstances. Often they only exist for
| a fraction of a second. They are "fake".
|
| Can you find an Apple, spinach, meat or fish out in nature?
| Yes - that's "real" food.
|
| Can you find Doritos or coke out in nature? No - that's not
| food.
| swatcoder wrote:
| Alternately, it's example of how absurdly some obsess over it.
|
| Excepting bad luck and pretty-obvious excess, almost everybody
| will have about 6-7 decades of adulthood and maybe 1-2 decades
| of slowing down and feeling less capable in the last of those.
| If you can come to terms with that, and many do, there's not a
| lot to worry about.
|
| All the obsessing people get up to here is a kind of "premature
| optimization" that often sends people flailing around between
| research trends without any of the rigor or continuity that
| might have yeilded benefit anyway. It's a lot of time, effort,
| and mental energy stolen from the most vibrant and impactful
| stage of life in questionable hope of squeezing a teensy bit
| more out of the least.
| metabagel wrote:
| I suspect that the way the body processes food is modified
| significantly by exercise. So, it's not the food you are eating,
| but rather it's the food you are eating combined with how active
| or sedentary your lifestyle is. I think that exercise has a
| marked effect on the gut's microbiome.
| jononomo wrote:
| I only eat beef and eggs.
| mcpackieh wrote:
| The Vince Gironda diet.
| jononomo wrote:
| exactly
| EGreg wrote:
| Don't vegetarians live far longer and meat cooking brings
| carcinogens? Also meat of older animals ages you more quickly
| sundarurfriend wrote:
| I'd love to hear what sources these claims are from. I'm
| vegetarian, and every time I've come across these "vegetarians
| live longer" claims it's from dubious sources that cite random
| tiny studies in isolation.
|
| I could believe modern factory farming, preservation, and mass-
| preparation techniques make meat much less healthy (than it
| used to be in our ancestral days), but a general "meat cooking
| brings carcinogens [to a level that matters, beyond plant
| cooking does]" sounds pretty unlikely too.
| shinryuu wrote:
| The most famous study is the seventh adventist study. The
| study in question is not tiny. About 70k people participated.
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4191896/
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000291652.
| ..
| HNDen21 wrote:
| They also don't smoke or drink.. I am sure that chops off a
| few years
| hanniabu wrote:
| Need to control for healthy habits also associated with
| healthier diets, such as exercising, not smoking, etc. It
| should also eliminate any participants with clearly
| unhealthy habits like poor diets consisting of fast food
| and living extremely sedentary lifestyles (different from
| just not exercising).
| hilux wrote:
| There is no large long-term double-blind controlled study
| comparing a vegetarian/vegan diet to some omnivore diet - and
| there never will be.
|
| The only diet studies are observational, and they are
| unreliable in all kinds of ways. The famous _Blue Zones_ book
| has about the validity of _Rich Dad Poor Dad_ or _The
| Millionaire Next Door_. But the book continues to sell, and
| at a macro level, its advice is not terrible, but it 's also
| not "the only way."
|
| Surprisingly (to me), there is some evidence that some people
| are genetically better disposed to eating a vegetarian diet
| than others.
| roschdal wrote:
| Milk cures cancer.
| teslabox wrote:
| The current top comment [0] on this submission said he was
| "curious about this being a trans fat". This would be a result of
| biohydrogenation, where the bacteria in the ruminants stomachs
| will add hydrogen to the unsaturated oils.
|
| First link for biohydrogenation:
| https://www.megalac.com/resources-advice/fats-advice/71-bioh...
|
| Biohydrogenation is a totally different process from the
| hydrogenation used to make margarine from seed oils.
|
| _Ruminal microbe of biohydrogenation of trans-vaccenic acid to
| stearic acid in vitro_ -
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3305423/
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38434521
| jnellis wrote:
| Reports like this always remind me of that scene in Sleeper.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=485Em2JF34M
| atlgator wrote:
| It's shocking how little we know about what is "good" and what is
| "bad" for the body. There are too many confounding factors around
| meat, such as using processed meats and meats cooked with seed
| oils.
|
| For me, eating as clean as possible is the best approach. Find
| meat that isn't loaded up with hormones, antibiotics, or mold
| toxins. Find non-GMO vegetables that aren't loaded with
| pesticides. Limit carbs and dairy as much as possible. No
| stimulants, barbiturates, or other drugs.
| shuntress wrote:
| _" It's shocking how little we know about how food affects the
| body. That's why I follow this trendy diet based on assumptions
| about how food affects the body."_
| atlgator wrote:
| In the last 70 years, the human diet has become polluted with
| chemicals and shifted to refined carbs, concurrent with the
| rise of heart disease and diabetes. And I'm the one following
| the "trend" by eliminating those things? Not sure you know
| what that word means.
| sethammons wrote:
| how is that a trendy diet? It looks like what we assume
| people have mostly eaten for the last 100k years.
| huytersd wrote:
| The only way to actually know is with "dispensable" humans and
| long term studies. That's not ethical and never going to happen
| so I guess we'll never know.
| capitainenemo wrote:
| Huh. From reading the article it doesn't seem like a nutrient and
| more a signaling thing (activates a receptor on the cell's
| surface).
|
| Could this be a hormesis effect? For example, the body reacts to
| things like exercise or UV by amping up repair and immune system.
| Perhaps the body is amping up its immune system in response to
| consuming meat/milk due to carcinogen or disease risks?
| iteratethis wrote:
| Cut sugar, sauce and highly processed food.
|
| I know they have a fatal attraction, quite literally. But if you
| manage to get rid of all that junk, you can pretty much eat what
| you want from the selection of real foods like whole wheat bread,
| fruits and vegetables, eggs, meats. Mix and match a reasonable
| balance between those, and you strike a good balance.
|
| But to start with: sugar is your enemy.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-27 23:01 UTC)