
New research questions the evidence for health benefits of eating less red meat - jonas21
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/30/health/red-meat-heart-cancer.html
======
ChristianBundy
Actual paper: [https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-
red-m...](https://annals.org/aim/fullarticle/2752328/unprocessed-red-meat-
processed-meat-consumption-dietary-guideline-recommendations-from)

Harvard response:
[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-
guidelines-red-processed-meat/)

~~~
jeremyw
Note, all of these studies use a low standard of evidence (food questionnaires
and the like), and they generate low signal (barely registering
positive/negative). Read John Ioannidis @ Stanford for why these methods
should banned, and why nutritional research currently produces mostly
irrelevant data.

Harvard, unfortunately, has doubled-down on this style of science.

It's not helpful that the press supports these methods, without skeptical
commentary.

~~~
trappist
I see this as an epistemological failure in nutrition that plagues other
fields as well. We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism,
and make very little use of it in nutrition, acting as though we can't draw
logical conclusions from what we know about those things, or trust those
conclusions, or at least use them to apply serious skepticism to the apparent
implications of low-quality data.

For myself, until you can tell me _by what means_ a particular food produces
the claimed outcome, I dismiss your epidemiological nutrition study.

~~~
andrewf
_We have all this knowledge of human physiology and metabolism_

I think the depth of knowledge is very uneven. We're not sure how Tylenol
works. (Disclaimer: I work in software, not bioscience)

~~~
nzzzz
There will never be explanations on "how paracetamol (the principal substance
of tylenol) works" because.. it doesn't work. It doesn't fare better than
placebo. [https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/paracetamol-widely-used-
in...](https://www.evidentlycochrane.net/paracetamol-widely-used-ineffective/)

At least, placebos don't harm the user. There's evidence paracetamol is
harmful.
[https://ard.bmj.com/content/75/3/552](https://ard.bmj.com/content/75/3/552)

And dosages higher than 4g/day are known to destroy the liver. Paracetamol
overdose is one of the most painful way to kill yourself. Its abuse being
freely sold over the counter makes it the number one cause of liver failure in
the US and UK.
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403265/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1403265/)

>Paracetamol’s toxicity is also the single biggest cause of acute liver
failure in the United States. Cases have been rising for six years, according
to a study published in December (Hepatology 2005;42:1364-72). By 2003, the
drug accounted for just over half the cases of acute liver failure, and about
half of these cases were the result of unintentional overdose.

It boggles the mind the substance has not been put under harsher control yet.

~~~
circlefavshape
Looks to me like you're over-generalizing. From skimming that article it
appears that paracetamol is ineffective against _chronic_ page, not the
headache/hangover that most people use it for

------
edejong
Harvard Response: "The panel declared “considerations of environmental impact”
out of the scope of their recommendations. This is a missed opportunity
because climate change and environmental degradation have serious effects on
human health, and thus is important to consider when making recommendations on
diet, even if this is addressed separately from direct effects on individual
health."

My response: should we apply this to other topics as well? Pimp the efficiency
of renewables compared with carbon-based? Up the effectivity of hydrogen-based
energy distribution? Lift the results of a study promoting working from home?

Two words come to mind: Occam's razor.

~~~
zygimantasdev
"climate change and environmental degradation have _serious effects_ on human
health" \- can you elaborate? Do you mean mental health?

~~~
edejong
These are not my words. All I am arguing is that we should expect the simplest
possible connection between nutrition and health. Although I do agree we
should _also_ understand the systematic effects of certain choices, we cannot
make decisions if all these effects are aggregated haphazardly.

It would make sense if another study would combine the nutritional long-term
effects, the societal costs, the availability of alternative sources of amino
acids and other factors. Nevertheless, the conclusion: "Red meat consumption
is unhealthy for individuals" should (imho) not consider the environmental
effects. Principle of least astonishment.

------
sleavey
I guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad
health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.)
is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found
in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the
traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high
cholesterol and saturated fat.

I'm looking forward to the next few years in this field, because it seems like
scientists are slowly working out what's wrong with our diets, and it seems
like it's not (solely) the meat and dairy we're eating.

~~~
Fr0styMatt88
As someone trying to lose weight, all the conflicting advice out there is so
frustrating. Should I eat ‘n’ times a day or just once? Is fasting good, or
will it put me in ‘starvation mode’? Why is it that when I was young I didn’t
even need to think about my food intake and stayed really, really lean? Do we
have a set-point and if so, has mine gone up and am I going to be forever
hungry if I want to get back to a sensible weight? Do antidepressants cause
weight gain, or don’t they? Is there a way we can measure actual calories-in
with a device?

Sorry, just needed to vent.

~~~
nearbuy
One piece of advice that won't change: maintaining a calorie deficit causes
weight loss. It's a basic property of physics that the extra energy used has
to come from somewhere if don't eat enough to cover it.

Tracking your calorie deficit/surplus isn't the easiest method, but unlike fad
diets, it's guaranteed to work (provided, of course, that you stick with it
and count accurately).

~~~
deegles
“Calorie counting doesn’t work for you because you’re not good enough at
counting calories” frames the problem in a way impossible to disprove. Maybe
people aren’t arguing that they’re breaking the laws of physics, but that
they’re having trouble with estimating the caloric surplus in the first place.

~~~
nearbuy
I've used calorie counting before, and I don't think it's hard to do - just a
bit inconvenient. Having a little digital scale helps a lot. Measuring out the
calories in a recipe can be a pain, but people tend to repeat the same
recipes. It's inconvenient in the beginning, but gets better once you've
already calculated most of your standard recipes. There are apps that will
help you track it. Pack a lunch or buy something with a known number of
calories.

If you only rarely go out to restaurants, just give the meal your best
estimate and don't worry about it too much. If you eat out every day, it'll be
hard to estimate. Fast food chains are often (ironically?) helpful here
because many of them list the calories in their meals.

You don't really need to estimate your calorie expenditure. Just keep your
activity level roughly even, count calorie intake, and track your weight. If
your weight doesn't decrease after a couple weeks, subtract a couple hundred
calories from your intake. Eventually, you'll get a deficit and your weight
will decrease.

------
kup0
The HN comments section on any nutrition article sort-of seems to provide its
own microcosm of the problem...

No one remotely agrees on the data found so far. A hundred different anecdotes
all contradict one another about how to lose weight or eat healthy.

It's a pretty sad and frustrating state that nutrition research is in,
honestly. Sugar is bad and then it's okay. Saturated fat is terrible but it's
fine. All red meat is bad. No wait, just processed red meat. Too much sodium
is dangerous, wait no it's fine for most people, even some with high BP.
Counting calories always works, except when it doesn't. Low carb is magic
except when it's not.

Yikes.

~~~
brodouevencode
Well stated. It's political in many ways, and at least for me that makes it a
turn off.

------
galangalalgol
Apart from sustainability the only downside of red meat that I have ever heard
of is a slight increase to colon cancer and to excess iron in men. I think
calling this bedrock advice is hyperbolic. The saturated fat demonization is
much more widespread ime.

------
pazimzadeh
It's complicated. Telling people who have been abstaining from eating red meat
that it's ok to eat it might also be a bad idea.

Humans lost the enzyme that converts Neu5Ac to Neu5Gc. Other animals have
Neu5Gc, which can be incorporated into your own tissues and potentially be
recognized as foreign. So if you haven't been exposed to animal products and
you suddenly are, that could trigger auto-immunity. Oh and of course, the gut
microbiota has a role in regulating all of this.
([https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-019-0564-9](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-019-0564-9))

~~~
tathougies
As an anecdote, my wife gave up vegetarianism after ten years and suffered no
consequences coming back onto meat. She started with a tiny bit of pork and
the next day was eating chicken, pork, etc. The fact is humans are omnivores.

~~~
geggam
My wife tried every diet known, when she started eating Keto style and even
strict carnivorous all of her stomach issues went away. Just from observing
her and the kids I think there are huge benefits to not eating carbohydrates.

Some of this benefit could be related to the chemicals in the foods but every
time she eats any grains or grain products she gets stomach issues

I dont have any stomach issues except I gain weight when I eat carbs. No carbs
and the weight goes off.

There is more to this issue than meat vs grains IMO

BTW... does anyone have a reference to a medical study showing why the US
recommended diet is recommended ?

~~~
ssijak
Anegdotal evidence are just that, anecdotal. Most of the studies show that all
the unprocessed complex and fibrous carbohidrates are very good for health,
but eating spoons of sugar is obviously bad. All the longevity experts that I
listened to and read what they say also agree that in general protein should
be at a very slight nitrogen positive balance (so less then 100g per day for
most of people) and rest is carbs and some fats. And yes, not everyone i

~~~
amanaplanacanal
Unfortunately the state of the science is such that finding what works best
for you yourself is about the best we can do. I'm certain there are some folks
that do best strict carnivore, and some others that do best strict vegan, and
everywhere in between.

------
narrator
Diet science is the most pathetically politicized "science" next to economics.
On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out
grants to scientists to get the right results. On another side you've got the
rich radical environmental and animal rights activists wanting everyone to go
Vegan and giving out grants to scientists to get their results. It's just a
clusterf __k of politics going back and forth. Eggs are bad, no they 're good.
Meat is bad, no it's good. Carbs are bad, no it's good. Fat is bad, no it's
good. Protein is bad, no it's good. Or in the words of Bugs and Daffy: Duck
Season! Rabbit Season!, etc.

~~~
zacherates
While funding and conflicts of interest are an issue, a much bigger problem
with nutrition research is that it is extremely difficult/expensive/unethical
to study the outcomes people actually care about (living longer, losing
weight, preventing disease), because that would require being able to control
a large number of people's diet for decades (which in turn would require
either paying/motivating them enough to comply, or doing so against their
will).

... so instead, you end with a bunch of observational studies (which cannot
show causation), or studies of placeholders assuming it maps to something
people actually care about (eg. "cholesterol levels in the blood stream after
X hours" for "Y years of life lost to heart disease per hundred thousand"), or
bench studies (some chemical component in broccoli can kill cancer cells in a
petri dish becomes "broccoli fights cancer" ignoring the fact that eg. fire
kills cancer cells in a petri dish... that doesn't mean you should eat it).

... which are subject to all the usual difficulties for associated with
subjects that are hard to study: small samples, inadequate surveys, bad
statistics, HARKing, p-hacking.

... the resulting papers are then reported on uncritically, often generalizing
the claims well beyond what the underlying science would support... because
people read articles about things they actually do (eat meat) and outcomes
they care about (live longer/avoid heart disease)... not about bench results.

------
someonehere
I’m always skeptical when I see counter studies to businesses that have a
strong financial foothold on certain industries.

Case in point, did the meat industry have any weight in this study? Generally
I feel through certain lobbying efforts theses types of industries will
produce a counter study that gets enough backing to be read on the nightly
news and now people go back to the way things were or are confused.

Having read the China Study, I have all the convincing I need about the role
of meat in our diets and I’m fine with that.

~~~
pkghost
As if there are not other industries that benefit from meat being deemed
unhealthy by science?

Non-expert perspective on this: I find it very difficult to believe that there
is such a thing as too much meat (and easy to believe that too much bad
quality meat is the root of the problem as commonly discussed), given that
most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to
support anything other than a ketogenic diet for most people most of the time.

~~~
theferalrobot
> given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate
> density to support anything other than a ketogenic diet

Evolution takes a long time and most of the ancestors in human history were
near vegetarian with a very low percentage of calories coming from non-
vegetarian sources.

[https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-
ancest...](https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-
were-nearly-all-vegetarians/)

~~~
nzzzz
> most of the ancestors in human history were near vegetarian

An extremely disingenuous statement not backed in any manner in the article
outside of paragraphs like these

>But the truth is, for most of the last twenty million years of the evolution
of our bodies, through most of the big changes, we were eating fruit, nuts,
leaves and the occasional bit of insect, frog, bird or mouse.

That goes beyond "human history" because monkeys/apes relatives are not
humans. Last twenty million years? there was nothing recognizably human then.
The australopithecus genus appeared 4 million years ago and even that isn't
quite human in shape. Then mentions a diet of "fruit, nuts, leaves". Leaves?
Humans can't process leaves efficiently enough to get more nutrition than
energy expanded. Unless by leaves they mean leafy vegetables like lettuce
which will fill up your stomach while not providing enough calories to get by.

An average fit, physically active human needs 2500 calories intake a day. 100
grams of lettuce is 15 calories. 100 grams of fruits like Apples is 52
calories. Of the three mentioned food sources, the only reasonable way of
providing enough energy to a human body is nuts. Most nuts can get you where
you need to be without having to eat yourself to an enlarged stomach.

When you account for seasons, primitive lifestyle that has no way of
preserving food and lack of mobility because men relied on their own two legs
for their own transportations (reducing the variety of foods available) you
really have to brainwash yourself to believe that such a diet could be
possible at all.

It's easy to be a vegetarian in a world with agriculture. Not so much before.
We have human cultures that lived in harsh environments like Alaska for
millenias and they didn't live on a diet of good vegan sentiments.

~~~
theferalrobot
You provided only conjecture - I provided a source and here are more sources
including a study explaining why the trendy paleo diatribes are not backed by
scientific evidence:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0159](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-017-0159)

[https://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14674](https://www.pnas.org/content/113/51/14674)

------
sn9
Andrew Gelman's positive take on this article as a piece of scientific
reporting, for those interested in a statistician's take:
[https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/09/30/that-
study...](https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2019/09/30/that-study-about-
the-health-risks-of-red-meat-an-excellent-news-report/)

------
ttlei
I’ll just stick to my own habit of eating everything but in moderation, cut
sugar consumption to absolute minimal, and exercise 3 days a week.

------
neonate
[http://archive.is/zg4hE](http://archive.is/zg4hE)

------
notadoc
"Researcher funded by [fill in the specialist interest group] says you should
[do thing that benefits special interest group]"

Perhaps I am too cynical, but much research and many studies are generated
from that model.

------
w1nst0nsm1th
Research sponsorized by the USBMA (US Beefsteak Makers Association) and the
WRMA (World Red Meat Alliance).

------
Havoc
Ten points for guessing which agri sector sponsored this study

------
Retric
What an odd headline/article.

Clearly, common food types are not going to be extremely harmful, so the
magnitude of impact from dietary advice is never going to be extreme. Red Meat
is still showing up as harmful in these studies, which is why it’s advice and
not say a ban etc.

At best this reads like spin from the cattle industry. Unless I am missing
something?

~~~
njarboe
About half was through the article:

"Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, a lobbying group for meat producers."

~~~
Retric
Yea, that’s why I said cattle industry spin, but I don’t want to reject the
idea based on the messenger.

I suspect a basic risk assessment in the context of other food advice would a
good place to start. However, it also says the data is not that great to make
such assertions.

------
sleavey
I just figured out a weird trick to read the page on Firefox without the sign-
in/register popover: open the page in reader mode and refresh. It seems the
popover appears only after page loading has finished, before which the full
article is available. Reader mode ignores JavaScript, so this works.

~~~
syphilis2
It's also possible to force reader mode, for sites where Firefox doesn't want
to display the icon. Append this to the beginning of the url:

about:reader?url=

~~~
sleavey
Wow - great tip! I'm always annoyed when sites disable it.

------
reaperducer
Wasn't there a Woody Allen movie about this? People in the future were
cramming Twinkies into their mouths and living longer because everything we
thought we knew about nutrition was wrong?

~~~
NeedMoreTea
Sleeper. He wakes up hundreds of years in the future, and starts asking for
health foods. From the early 70s.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2fYguIX17Q)

------
droithomme
I avoided all red meat for decades and ended up with extremely poor health
with multiple problems.

Not too long ago I saw this insane article about some author's daughter who
had severe lifelong immune diseases and after years of experimentation, found
that eating absolutely nothing but steaks, water, and vodka, cured all her
problems. There was also commentary by nutritionists and scientists saying she
was wrong and her diet would ensure certain doom.

Anyhoo, I bought a nice grill and started eating steaks every day. Red meat.
Rare, barely cooked, just singed a bit. Drinking, licking up that delicious
red blood left over.

All my medical problems went away. Like almost instantly. It was crazy.
Absolutely crazy. I would never have believed it.

My total diet's still a bit more varied than meat and vodka though. I do a lot
of vegetables as I always have still.

~~~
geggam
Not sure why this is downvoted. There are many stories like this.

------
giarc
I agree that dietary research needs to continue but I think the back and forth
about what to eat (saturated vs non saturated, no salt vs salt ok etc) needs
to slow down. I think the best advice is that by Michael Pollan "Eat food, not
too much, mostly plants."

~~~
galangalalgol
As long as we don't call corn syrup or bleached wheat flour plants, sounds
good.

~~~
munk-a
No sorry, you're thinking of the great American vegetable of ketchup.

~~~
whenchamenia
Pickled tomato syrup?

------
cageface
_Dr. Allison has received research funding from the National Cattlemen’s Beef
Association, a lobbying group for meat producers._

This is just meat industry damage control. The Harvard rebuttal lays out the
issues pretty well. Just like big tobacco and big oil, they just need to sow
enough confusion around the facts to make people give up and stop paying
attention.

~~~
dang
That person isn't an author of the study, presumably just someone the NYT
asked to comment. The article says about this study: "The investigators
reported no conflicts of interest and did the studies without outside
funding."

I think it's fair to say that "This is just meat industry damage control"
breaks the HN guideline: " _Please don 't post shallow dismissals, especially
of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something._"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

~~~
cageface
Fair enough. I thought it was worth mentioning since the meat industry is
engaged in an active disinformation campaign.

As others have said, the Harvard rebuttal itself gets into the details. I'll
link it again here:

[https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flaw...](https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2019/09/30/flawed-
guidelines-red-processed-meat/)

~~~
scottlocklin
> the meat industry is engaged in an active disinformation campaign

Come on man: citations needed. From where I am sitting, the "meat industry" is
about as threatened by vegetarians as the brussel sprouts industry is by
mcdonalds. Keto diets are presently quite popular and don't seem to do people
much harm at least.

~~~
cageface
Major fast food chains are rolling out plant based burgers, backed by massive
marketing campaigns. You bet the meat industry is threatened by this. If
you’re really interested in learning more about this read the book
Meatanomics:

[https://meatonomics.com/](https://meatonomics.com/)

The typical keto diet is an improvement over the standard American diet loaded
with junk but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other dietary options with better
long term results and much smaller environmental impact.

~~~
scottlocklin
That isn't really much of a citation; it's an assertion, and the thing you
link me to is ... not a citation either: it's some kind of vegetarian
propaganda.

I don't care about factory farming or the "personal dignity" of cows; I just
want to know why you think there is a "meat industry" engaged in
disinformation programs. From the looks of this link, you may be projecting.

FWIIW I barely eat red meat when I'm in America; mostly game meats. No horse
in this race, but if you know something I don't about nefarious meat
conspiracies, you should link people to it.

~~~
cageface
There are so many industry funded studies with conclusions contrary to
mainstream wisdom I hardly know where to start. This article lists several,
just as an example:

[https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marta-zaraska-big-
meat-a...](https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marta-zaraska-big-meat-
article-1.2669374)

Also the statement that you don’t care about factory farming is a pretty
appalling disregard for the suffering of intelligent animals.

~~~
scottlocklin
It's an interesting article if true, though written by an anti-meat
activist[1], which is even less useful than nutrition studies sponsored by the
pork board.

Feel free to be appalled; most normal people don't care about the "suffering
of cows" either.

[1] Marta Zaraska, author of Meathooked: The History and Science of Our
2.5-Million-Year Obsession with Meat.

~~~
cageface
_Feel free to be appalled; most normal people don 't care about the "suffering
of cows" either._

It's sad but true - our species has a lot of evolving to do still.

------
fooker
This gets repeated again and again with nutrition.

Eat less fat, oops.

Eat less meat, oops.

Eat less sugar, oops?

------
tlarkworthy
I expect sugar will turn out to be good for your brain (in moderation) and
increase your IQ.

~~~
machinelearning
Yea it is quite interesting how the 'invisible hand' seems to have branded
sugar as a 'drug, akin to cocaine' since it signals dopamine in the brain.
Refined sugar is nothing but sucrose, a natural compound found in plants and
fruits. Surely not all dopamine signalling is bad, just bad/prolonged
signalling.

Sure, it does cause an insulin spike that causes insulin resistance in the
long term but in selective use of blood sugar spiking lies its utility.

~~~
pazimzadeh
Cocaine is also a natural compound. So's cyanide. Pretty sure the 'invisible
hand' demonized animal fats and promoted sugar, and now people are are
starting to come to their senses.

~~~
machinelearning
Do you have a source showing that Cocaine is a natural compound?

Perhaps the invisible hand did demonize animal fats and promote sugar but how
is that in any way related to my argument?

~~~
pazimzadeh
Cocaine is found in coca leaves.

"The pharmacologically active ingredient of coca is the cocaine alkaloid,
which is found in the amount of about 0.3 to 1.5%, averaging 0.8%"
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca)

Can you clarify what your argument is?

~~~
machinelearning
1\. So you just contradicted yourself. Cocaine is not a naturally occurring
compound but one extracted through a synthetic process specifically to inhibit
re-uptake of certain neurotransmitters.

2\. On the other hand, sugars have a very important purpose in the body and is
present in fruits/vegetables.

3\. Like my comment states, prolonged abuse of sugars certainly have negative
effects, but as evident from the comment chain, people argue that any and all
use of sugar is bad. That's the kind of coarse thinking that I think is
harmful.

~~~
pazimzadeh
How did I contradict myself - I pointed out to you that cocaine is a naturally
occurring compound, which it is.

"Cocaine is not a naturally occurring compound but one generated through a
synthetic process specifically to inhibit re-uptake of certain
neurotransmitters"

No, cocaine is extracted from coca leaves, it is not synthesized. Refined
sugar is also extracted from plants - same thing.

~~~
machinelearning
You are commenting on an older version of what I commented. I had already
corrected that before your comment.

I do know that cocaine alkaloids are extracted from plants. Sugar is not
necessarily extracted from plants. Its not the same thing. You can simply eat
1-2 servings of most fruit to get the same amount of sugar as a can of soda.
It doesn't have to be potent to be found in nature.

Still, I don't see where your argument is going, we're arguing about the
_moderate_ use of sugar. The incans chewed on coca leaves and it seemed to
enhance their long distance endurance. Are you arguing that any amount of
sugar is de facto bad?

~~~
pazimzadeh
I'm not sure what comment you're referring to, but you said "Refined sugar is
nothing but sucrose, a natural compound found in plants and fruits"
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21119863](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21119863)

You're the one who mentioned _refined_ sugar. Nowhere have I said that any
amount of sugar is bad. On the other hand, the parts of fruit that are
beneficial are not the fructose (which is even worse for you than sucrose,
which I assume is what you're talking about) but the vitamins, flavonoids and
other compounds.

We can agree that sugar is not de facto bad. Where we apparently disagree is
that refined sugar is not bad. I still eat it - doesn't make it good.

I would argue that coca leaves are not de facto bad, but refined cocaine is
much closer to bad (though I hear it's really the impurities in street stuff
that are bad.)

~~~
machinelearning
1\. Re-read the comment you quoted and you'll see what comment I'm referring
to.

2\. If you need a source to prove that table sugar is sucrose here it is:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_sugar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_sugar)

3\. Finally, you're close to understanding my point (and what I presume is the
orignal commenter's).

As far as we know, a moderate amount of refined sugar is not bad once in a
while since it helps to increase blood glucose levels like any other source of
sugar. (I'm intentionally disregarding the insulin spiking aspect of it here
since I've already addressed that in a previous comment.) The fact that you
and various other are against _moderate_ sugar consumption (the original
commenter's claim), shows how brainwashed the masses are.

------
queercode
How about "eat no meat regardless of nutritional value (unless absolutely
necessary) because it's unethical to do so"?

~~~
mijamo
Unethical for whom? It's not like ethics is universal.

~~~
queercode
I'd say unethical for everyone.

This isn't even just an "animal rights" debate. It's also a debate about the
impact that eating meat has on the environment.

There's way too many "eat less meat" articles to list, but here's one:
[https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-
meat/](https://time.com/5648082/un-climate-report-less-meat/)

Sure, it's a bit of a jump from "eat less meat" to "eat no meat", but the
trend is there.

~~~
odessacubbage
how about instead of eat less meat, eat less shitty meat and cook more? in all
likelihood, you'll save money and feel better.

