| @dang, can we link the actual journal article[0] instead of the embellished advert to eat more red meat? Also, generally, diet is political in nature and I don't see its place here on HN. Had this article focused on something else, like the replication crisis as it pertains to nutrition research (like some of the comments seem to think), instead of promoting specific dietary views, I could see a healthy discussion starting. However, as it stands, there is nothing in the comments that is related to the article and productive. This seems to be a common trend, I can email you a list of links, if you're interested. --- For my own edification; some thoughts after reading the journal, the comments and some supplementary links. I'm trying not to put on a tinfoil hat and I could be missing the point on some of these. - The author performs funded research by and holds shares in an agri-tech company with a focus on poultry and swine[1]. This isn't an immediate conflict of interest in my mind (food professionals are commonly hired by agribusinesses), but just glancing at her previous publications[2], it's hard to find her arguing against livestock consumption in any way. - What exactly are the 'serious errors' mentioned, specific to red meat consumption? The article's primary concerns seems to be that the GBD 2019 risk factor analysis[3] a) Changes the TMREL (theoretical minimum risk exposure level) for risks to be 0 (this isn't just for red meat) b) Categorizes red meat as a risk factor in the first place c) Fails to match up with other systematic reviews put up by other research organizations. One organization mentioned, NutriRECS[4], has substantial ties to the meat industry[5] - The article fails to mention the fact that GBD groups "dietary factors" into one when linking to death, AND that there was decrease in diet-related burdens[6]. I don't see anywhere that the GDP study says red meat definitively equals more death. It's mentioned as an increased risk factor, but not elaborated on. Additionally, I don't know where this article's authors got their "36-fold" increase from. Could someone help me find that? - I'm confused more about what a quality diet should be after reading this piece. So, it seems as though the article is successful. [0] https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6... [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220710204451/https://us.deveni... [2] https://www.rcsi.com/people/profile/astanton [3] https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736... [4] https://www.nutrirecs.com [5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/01/07/youll-nev... [6] Go to [3] section titled "Substantial changes compared with GBD 2017" (or just Ctrl-F for "red meat"). |