
Less Processed Meat, More Plant-Based Foods May Boost Longevity - pseudolus
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2019/06/12/732061499/the-swap-less-processed-meat-more-plant-based-foods-may-boost-longevity
======
rajekas
To be honest, I don't get the mania for processed meat substitutes when
there's excellent vegetarian/vegan fare from cuisines that have been doing it
for millennia. As an Indian brought up in a vegetarian family, I had no
inkling or desire to eat meat until I came to the US for grad school.

One day I had this niggling doubt that I continued to be a vegetarian for
cultural rather than ethical reasons. I tested that hypothesis by eating a
hamburger. It was literally the worst thing I had ever tasted. I had to try
hard not to throw up and offend my hosts.

Then I tasted bacon, hot dogs pastrami sandwiches and fried chicken and I
understood why people like meat. That continued for a few more months.

About six months after the hamburger episode, I had another epiphany that I
don't like eating animals since I don't like animals being eaten. I turned
vegan. All's well that ends well.

~~~
nerdponx
_To be honest, I don 't get the mania for processed meat substitutes when
there's excellent vegetarian/vegan fare from cuisines that have been doing it
for millennia._

There's a term for vegans who don't actually eat whole foods: "french fry
vegan". It's as derisive as it sounds. If you're eating processed meat
substitutes all the time as a vegetarian, IMO you aren't doing it right. I'm
sure plenty of other people would agree.

And yet, vegetarians do eat those things sometimes. It's cultural. In the West
(not just in the USA, in much of Europe as well), a lot of traditional foods
are either meat-based or contain meat. My friends and I want to go out for a
burger and a milkshake, because that's fun for us; I want a damn burger. A
grilled mushroom on a roll is equally delicious, but it just isn't the same.

~~~
tfehring
> _If you 're eating processed meat substitutes all the time as a vegetarian,
> IMO you aren't doing it right. I'm sure plenty of other people would agree._

I couldn't disagree more. The vast majority of vegans are vegan primarily for
religious reasons or because of animal welfare and/or environmental concerns
(see, e.g., [0]). Heavily processed plant-based foods clearly address the
religious and animal welfare considerations, and I suspect they're far more
environmentally friendly than animal products despite the energy used to
process and ship them.

Avoiding heavily processed foods is a good idea in general. But it's
orthogonal to veganism. And eating heavily processed foods doesn't invalidate
the benefits of veganism - aside from the health benefits, which are the
primary concern for only a slim minority of vegans.

[0] [https://vomadlife.com/blogs/news/why-people-go-
vegan-2019-gl...](https://vomadlife.com/blogs/news/why-people-go-
vegan-2019-global-survey-results) \- I assume this understates the share who
cite religious reasons because of the bias toward English-speaking countries.

------
uxcolumbo
it will boost the longevity of our biosphere, based on a 5 year Oxford Uni
study - see
[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/may/31/avoiding-
meat-and-dairy-is-single-biggest-way-to-reduce-your-impact-on-earth)

And also have a look at research by PCRM (group of doctors and medical pros):
[https://www.pcrm.org/term/processed-
meat](https://www.pcrm.org/term/processed-meat)

------
tunnuz
With more and more people switching to vegetarian and vegan fake meats, I'd be
interested in understanding what is the wisdom on highly processed vegetable-
based foods.

~~~
afpx
Processing foods is what likely helped Homo to get enough energy to evolve big
brains. So, processing foods isn’t all that bad, and it may even be hard-wired
in many of us.

But, Humans tend to take things too far, and inventing new ways of processing
is really fun! So, most food today is over-processed. It’s acceptable to
grind, dice, tear, smash, smush, squeeze, ferment, spice, salt, and cook
veggies, lightly. Any more than that is risky territory.

~~~
me_me_me
I think that is slight miss-use of term processed food. Process food (at least
to me) is anything that has been artificially adjusted by factory processing,
like injecting meat with some solutions in order to 'make' more meat.

I would hardly qualified lets say smoked bacon as processed food in that
sense. But all of those microwave ready meals et al. large content of it is
cheap filler masqueraded as actual product.

~~~
matthewmacleod
It is not a mis-use. Bacon is absolutely a processed meat.

“Microwave ready meals” are typically just pre-cooked meals prepared for
reheating - they’re probably not the best meals in terms of ingredient quality
or cooking methods, and low-quality ones might have some plant starches as
filler, but most of them are pretty straightforward.

~~~
ianai
Anything prepared for the microwave like that is high in sodium. We’re talking
over a days worth of sodium all at once. Very far from healthy.

Actually, most meat nowadays is injected with huge amounts of sodium. It’s
like we’re all eating log term storage foods-even that raw meats.

~~~
matthewmacleod
Of course there exist low-quality or over-salted meals.

But I just took a look in my freezer at two bog-standard ready meals I have
there just in case - macaroni and cheese, and a beef lasagne. They’re each
about 1.5g of salt, and there’s nothing notable about the ingredients.

~~~
ianai
Anything more than like 700-900 mg/day is less than ideal. 1.5g leaves you no
budget for the rest of the day. (Though some sources say you just need to be
below 2.5g. Still, that’s not much higher than 1.5g when we’re talking an
entire rest of the day to eat.)

~~~
matthewmacleod
What does “less than ideal” mean?

NHS guidelines in the UK are <6g of salt (2400mg sodium) per day. US
guidelines are 2300mg. Salt and sodium are not the same; 1.5g of salt is about
600mg sodium, or about 1/4 of the recommended daily limit. That seems entirely
reasonable for a main meal.

------
drchewbacca
I think the longevity of dietary advice is pretty low. Remember when eggs were
the enemy, when fat was the enemy, when carbs were the enemy? Meat had to have
it's turn sometime.

~~~
jsjolen
Perhaps we can judge the statements on the evidence behind them?

The reason that processed meat (that is meats which are smoked, salted, etc.)
is recommended to not be eaten is because it has been shown to be
carcinogenic.

The egg thing is based on the idea (I actually don't know enough to know if
this is correct or not) that dietary cholesterol intake affects blood
cholesterol levels, and eggs have a bit of dietary cholesterol in them.

I get that we're not very educated within this area but perhaps we should stay
quiet then? What's the point in writing comments on HN about things we know
very little about?

~~~
nunb
All these results (re 'shown to be carcinogenic') are based on surveys as
opposed to experiments. In other words, unlike randomized, double-blind
studies, they cannot be said to demonstrate causation, but at best may point
to interesting hypotheses.

As for eggs and cholesterol, about 80% + of cholesterol is produced in the
liver, and increasing dietary cholesterol by HUGE amounts at best changes
blood cholesterol by 2-4%

Sorry I can't dig up the study right now, but perhaps searching pubmed may
find it.

------
albertgoeswoof
Regarding processed meat, what part of the processing makes the meat
unhealthy? Or is it something related to how processed meat is often consumed
vs unprocessed meat?

~~~
lm28469
It's all the additional steps and products added. A lot of processed meat are
juste a slime of bones, skin, organs, ligaments whatever was left on the
carcass of the animal. On top of that it comes from low quality (cheap)
animals in the first place which doesn't help.

It's like eating a fruit vs drinking a juice, or eating raw veggies vs a
broth. The original material is the same but it doesn't mean it holds the same
benefits.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9il0DVhT86E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9il0DVhT86E)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NzUm7UEEIY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NzUm7UEEIY)

~~~
jsjolen
I don't believe that this matters. Why would it? Offal has great nutritional
value. The inuit did perfectly well on an all-meat diet. The issue is more
likely curing with nitrites and smoking.

>It's like eating a fruit vs drinking a juice

Another thing that doesn't matter. What exactly do you think magically happens
when you put an orange into a blender and mix with a bit of water that would
make it lose its nutritional value?

~~~
lm28469
> I don't believe that this matters

You're free to believe what you want. A slime of chicken skin, fat and
ligaments isn't digested the same way as a chunk of chicken breast. The
nutritional values are just a small part of a big equation.

> Another thing that doesn't matter. What exactly do you think magically
> happens

Many things happen and none of them are magical. The glycemic index of a raw
fruit isn't the same as a juice from the same fruit for example, you don't get
the fibers, &c.

> The inuit did perfectly well on an all-meat diet.

That's another side of my point, they evolved on that diet, most people
didn't. Do you think the lifestyle of the average first worlder has anything
to do with inuit lifestyle?

~~~
jsjolen
>Many things happen and none of them are magical. The glycemic index of a raw
fruit isn't the same as a juice from the same fruit for example, you don't get
the fibers, &c.

Only if you buy a juice concentrate. Making your own juice is equivalent to
chewing an orange.

>You're free to believe what you want. A slime of chicken skin, fat and
ligaments isn't digested the same way as a chunk of chicken breast. The
nutritional values are just a small part of a big equation.

Of course not, I'm not arguing for that. What I am arguing for is that there's
nothing inherently unhealthy about eating any of those things, and that offal
is actually very nutritious.

>That's another side of my point, they evolved on that diet, most people
didn't. Do you think the lifestyle of the average first worlder has anything
to do with inuit lifestyle?

If an American adopted the diet of an inuit in such a way that their caloric
needs are satisfied then I doubt it would matter. It is definitely possible
that the inuit have evolved in some ways to accomodate for their diet, do you
have any sources for that?

------
matthewmacleod
It’s a bit cliché now, but Michael Pollan’s dietary advice
([https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t...](https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html))
does seem to be reasonable: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

------
Doubl
I am now cynical about all dietary advice. In Western countries the sort of
people who eat bacon and burgers tend to have very different lifestyles from
those who eat sushi. They are more likely to smoke and less likely to
exercise. They are also likely to be less well educated and more likely to be
poor and work at unhealthy jobs. Are all these factors taken account of in
this study? For example, as I understand it, black people in America eat a lot
of white meat (chicken which is supposed to be healthier than red meat) and
yet their health tends to be poorer than average.

------
hartator
I wonder how true this is. I have been trying to switch to a more carnivore
diet - more red meat eg steak - for rumored benefits of lowering inflammation
and boosting immune system. This is stating the reverse.

~~~
cageface
Animal protein is highly inflammatory. This is about the worst thing you can
do if you are concerned about inflammation. Load up on fresh vegetables and
fruits instead.

~~~
ShlomoS
>Animal protein is highly inflammatory

What is the basis for this belief?

>Load up on fresh vegetables and fruits instead.

Many fresh vegetables are inflammatory. Plants evolved chemicals to hinder
herbation. Roots/tubers and fruit are generally fine, but leaves/stems/flowers
are generally full of inflammatory anti-nutrients and should be cooked.

~~~
cageface
Not true.

[https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-
fi...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fight-
inflammation)

~~~
moltar
That’s just a blog post on Harvard.edu domain. Has no cred on its own. Not
backed up by scientific references.

Please post sources.

Thank you.

~~~
techstrategist
>just a blog post on Harvard.edu

Which is more authoritative than a comment on HN. I believe it’s on you to
find a more authoritative source that contradicts the above.

~~~
ShlomoS
Blog posts and HN posts have an equal lack of authority. Authority does not
matter though, facts do. You can look up the levels of oxalates, phytates,
PUFAs, etc from whatever source you like and confirm reality. You don't need
an "authority" to tell you what to think.

~~~
techstrategist
>Blog posts and HN posts have an equal lack of authority.

I agree that ultimately facts are what matter, but I disagree on this point.
In the real world where it's not possible to author or reference a peer-
reviewed research study for every statement or decision you'd like to make,
this authority has value.

TThe administrators of Harvard Medical School, a well respected university,
were willing to publish this content on a domain they controlled. This implies
that some trusted expert at this trusted institution authored, reviewed, and
published this content. This means that they don't believe that this content
is so inaccurate as to expose the institution to a reputation loss, as opposed
to say www.fake-health-expert.example.com. In fact, this may have _more
authority_ than a peer-reviewed study that doesn't properly disclose its
funding by e.g. the dairy or sugar industry.

This skin in the game of reputational risk is orders of magnitude different
than your or my reputational risk by posting a comment to HN.

~~~
ShlomoS
>This implies that some trusted expert at this trusted institution authored,
reviewed, and published this content.

No it does not. It is a blog post. Tons of people have blogs on that domain.
There is absolutely no standard of authority or correctness involved. You are
falsely inferring that there are trusted experts involved. There is no factual
basis for that belief.

------
msiyer
I said the same thing in a previous HN discussion and my comment was down
voted into oblivion. Many Asian cultures had this thing figured out thousands
of years ago. Less or no meat. Many famous martial arts schools (Indian,
Chinese and Japanese) are totally vegetarian. So, the argument that meat is
needed for extreme physical activity goes out of the window. Almost all Asian
monks (Buddhist, Jain or Hindu) are vegetarians. So, the argument that meat is
needed for better mental\intellectual health also goes out the window.

------
londons_explore
Are there any clues in the scientific literature what part of 'processed' is
causing lower longevity?

Ideas:

* 'Worse' cuts of meat (near bone, nerves, etc)

* Grinding/processing system introduces contamination.

* Processing mixes meats from many animals which spreads infections more.

* Smaller pieces of meat degrade with bacteria faster.

* Processed meat tends to be served with less healthy meals otherwise (more salt, fat).

------
dejaime
We just have to make sure we are not swapping super processed meats with super
processed plant-based foods. Avoiding processed foods is what makes up for
most of this difference.

------
Double_a_92
What is it that makes "processed" meat especially bad? Would the same thing
also apply to processed vegetables?

------
MiscIdeaMaker99
One study isn't scientific fact.

------
thrower123
I do not care, despite the constant barrages from the ethical vegetarians and
the climate-alarmist vegetarians, and the Beyond Meat investors.

First off, steak and bacon and pork taste delicious, and life on rabbit food
is not, in my opinion, worth living.

Second of all, the only way that I can maintain anything close to what the
literature says should be a healthy weight is when I slash grains out of my
diet and eat low carb, high fat, supplemented by green vegetables. Any
vegetarian diet's benefits pale in comparison to the threat of diabetes and
general wear and tear from carrying extra weight around.

------
lorriman
Before anyone goes vegan, check-out the numerous ex-vegan videos on youtube.
Even with supplementation veganism isn't sustainable for most people past 3
years, 10 if you're lucky, very few get to 15. Just keep in mind that without
vitamin B12 supplements-->certain death.

This is not a human diet, and humans are not herbivores. Herbivores have
complex stomachs or eat their own poop (eg, gorrillas and rabbits).

After the health flush of the first few months, veganism is a downward spiral
to pasty skin, mood-swings, depression, dark circles, fatigue, skinny-but-fat,
Joint paint, constant hunger/lack-of-satisfaction, excessive volume of eating.
Vegans eat like you wouldn't believe. And a great deal of wildlife dies due to
agricultural farming.

And despite what people say, anthropologically we are not omnivores but
carnivores. Radio-isotope analysis has us eating a diet close to a wolf by
preference over the last million years. Unlike a pig, a genuine omnivore, we
do not have a proper cecum.

But sure, a few humans are better adapted to a plant-based diet than others,
and our distant genetics was herbivore which means these genes can re-express,
but for most people veganism becomes a nightmare and explains why the level
has historically been at 0.3%.

