

Ask HN: Why so many meat industry lobbyists on HN? - grandalf

There have been a few topics posted lately on the topic of nutrition.  In some of these, various people have cited the work of researchers such as T. Colin Campbell and Michael Pollan.<p>In each of these threads, comments citing Campbell's work have been modded down mercilessly (and anonymously), and there have been very few comments articulating reasoned opposing views.<p>I would guess that it's because this issue is very emotional for people -- it's very hard to believe in something that is broadly rejected by most consumers and the food industry itself.<p>As a hacker I'm interested in figuring out what is the optimial diet for maximum vitality and longevity.  Both because I am working on an entrepreneurial project along these lines, and also because I find that what I eat impacts my mental state and my ability to write lots of good quality code, etc.<p>Thoughts?<p>p.s.  I'd be happy to discuss issues related to nutrition with any skeptics :)
======
frossie
I haven't seen the comments you mention (nutrition threads bore me) but:

 _As a hacker I'm interested in figuring out what is the optimial diet for
maximum vitality and longevity_

As a hacker, I'm interested in the optimal trade-off between effort and
reward. My life expectancy is about 78 years of age. I am willing to engage in
behaviours that would stop me dying at 50 (eg. I wear my seatbelt) but I am
less interested in sweeping and often poorly substantiated claims that would
make me live to 80 (eg. live on raw foods).

Also, as a scientist, I find many of the claims made in support of great
nutritional benefits dubious and overrated.

~~~
spkthed
Agreed. Many scientists can't even agree on the health benefits/drawbacks of
foods like (cow) milk that we've ingested for centuries/millennium. Every
other year for decades it's been called good or bad.

I have no interest in following health fads, until something is conclusive
it's far too much energy (and indeed far too expensive) to try to play along.
Most have a lifetime of a few months to a few years before they're discovered
to be well-nigh worthless.

I'd rather invest time, energy, and money in my projects rather than trying to
follow a diet. There's a lot of things to like in vegetarian diets, there's
also a lot to like about meat (bacon anyone?)

~~~
grandalf
Good points. I was of the same opinion as you until I read The China Study...
which is a large scale epidemiological study of nutrition.

I think it's worth reading b/c it could have a fairly drastic impact upon
one's health.

And yes, the constant hubbub of opposite ideas is also frustrating. Sadly most
of it is (in one way or another) intended to help sell a food product that
someone hopes to make money on.

~~~
frossie
Re: the China study (of which all I know is what I just read on Wikipedia).

I don't want to tell you what to believe, but for the record the correct
scientific measure for morbidity is "all-cause" mortality. For example,
suppose I say to you that eating M&Ms halves your chance of death from liver
cancer. Your response should be "What are my overall chances of dying"? For
example, while it halves your chance of death from liver cancer, maybe it
doubles your chance of death from pancreatic cancer. It is not enough to say
that diet X "lowers the instance of Western diseases" - the realy question is,
does it genuinely stop you from dying. Of anything.

Once you have shown that an environmental factor is indeed correlated with a
reduction in all-cause mortality, then the next thing to do is try to prove
causation (since we all know correlation is not causation). For example if you
told me that the average life expectancy in China is 100 and in the west it is
70, I would say "so if you parachute a bunch of Westerners in China, would
they live to be 100?". It may be that Caucasians, exposed to the "Western
Diet" for millenia, are actually well adapted to it.

These are very hard questions to answer to a high level of scientific
confidence. I also don't like the implication, as reported in Wikipedia, that
if lots of animal protein is bad for you, 0 is bound to be better. Every
single substance known to man has a poisonous dose and a safe dose. There's a
safe dose for arsenic. The burden of proof to say that 0 of something is
meaningfully safest is very high.

I'll give you a well-researched example. Mercury is a neurotoxin. In certain
quantities it causes terrible mental decline. There is mercury in fish, mainly
in the fish that are high up the food chain (eg. swordfish, marlin, the big
tunas etc). So, in the US it is standard to advise pregnant women not to eat
fish, so as to avoid exposing the foetus to significant levels of mercury,
which from experience with industrial workers can cause low IQ levels and
other problems.

You would think that is cut and dry? It turns out that if you go and study
Pacific Islander populations where all they eat (three meals, 7 days a week)
is fish, then there's nothing wrong with their kids.

Why? I don't know. The point is that even with one single chemical compound
and one well-known effect, it is really hard to understand what goes on inside
the body. So doing so when you have something as complicated as nutrition on
one hand, and longevity on the other, is really _really_ hard to do, and in
principle I distrust anybody who claims to have a simple answer.

I mention all this because you seem to have good motives and say you are
building a business on this. I suggest you look a bit further than one or two
best-seller books before you commit yourself.

~~~
grandalf
I suggest you actually read The China Study b/c it addresses your concerns...
I think you'll be satisfied with the level of scientific rigor used.

------
aristus
Well I guess if I call vegans who eat fake steaks "crypto-carnivores", it's
fair to call me a "meat industry lobbyist", so I'll bite.

It's not really a burning issue for most people I think. If the XYZ Diet works
for you, use it. Trying to persuade other people on a hacker forum doesn't
really make sense. The claims of "vitality" and longevity are not provable in
any reasonable amount of time (right?), and quickly goes off-topic.

~~~
grandalf
I have no interest in persuading people to eat a certain way... I just find it
odd that the subject of nutrition does not seem to be one on which people
enjoy rational discussion...

