[galoisscobi]

Ironic that a steak is one of the three things showing up on the landing page. Is that the beef lobby money coming in?

I enjoy an occasional steak but if the goal is to improve diet of masses, it’s not the food I’d put at the center.

[burkaman]

The "scientific foundation" PDF does disclose several financial relationships with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association and other cow-related lobbyists.

[overgard]

High protein, nutrient dense. Definitely want to get grass-fed or pasture raised though. Shouldn't eat it all the time because it has a high calorie content, but steak isn't bad. They're probably showing a steak to indicate that eating meat is good, not just steak in general. Keto and carnivore diets have been shown to be pretty good for people with inflammatory conditions.

[WA]

> Keto and carnivore diets have been shown to be pretty good for people with inflammatory conditions

No. The scientific evidence of a carnivore diet reducing inflammation is pretty weak. The scientific evidence of a vegan diet reducing inflammation is way stronger.

[sonar_un]

It's not just way stronger, it's basically conclusive.

[tracker1]

Worth noting that ruminants have less variance between "good diets" and "bad diets" for the animals than other animal protein sources. IE: you're better off with a grain fed steak than an unnaturally fed non-ruminant animal.

As to the calories, yes calories count, but the fact that it is calorie dense doesn't necessarily mean you should avoid it so much as be aware if you are mixing sources and having excessive meals. I know a lot of people on carnivore diets for inflammatory and diabetic control and the total calorie intake is less of an issue in those cases. Even with a pound of steak and a dozen eggs a day, weight loss is still happening for overweight diabetics on carnivore diets.

Just meat is very sating and impossible for most people to overeat in practice... at least from my own experience and exposure. The relative mono diet also helps with this.

[overgard]

Yeah, I agree, I'm not really a calorie counter. (I tend to get irritated by the "a calorie is a calorie" folk because nutrient quality is the most important thing). It's occasionally worth paying attention to calories with some foods though, like bacon or whatnot because it's very easy to eat a small volume but a lot of calories.

[tracker1]

My advice in the various keto-carnivore and diabetic groups I'm in is to concentrate on getting used to the diet first and only start counting calories after a prolonged (months long) stall or gaining weight for multiple weeks.

It's too easy to obsess, and I've experienced times where I'll stall when not eating enough more than eating too much when I'm eating clean. I have digestive issues from Trulicity/Ozempic and have a hard time eating enough, and my metabolism is highly dysfunctional... If I eat 1500 calories a day, about my natural hunger level at this point, I won't lose anything, but if I eat closer to 3000-3400/day, I will lose weight. It seems counter-intuitive but it's true.

[cactacea]

> Definitely want to get grass-fed or pasture raised though.

Yeah I mean if you're going to maximize your impact just go all out right. Eating beef, particularly in the US, is one of the worst actions you can take environmentally speaking.

More people need to understand how incredibly destructive cattle ranching has been around the world. In the US in particular pretty much all BLM and Forest Service land that isn't protected as wilderness or permitted for extraction (oil/forestry/etc) is used for ranching. That is an enormous area that has literally been turned to cow shit. Even where the cattle don't eat all vegetation in sight they trample habitat and entirely change the ecology of the area.

Source: I spent three years traveling around the western US from 2019-2022 and camped almost exclusively on public lands during that time. The number of beautiful places I've seen completely covered in cow shit is utterly appalling. Why should we let agribusiness use OUR land this way? It is truly such a waste.

[mcswell]

If Lysenko Jr wants us all to eat steaks, he should get to work on either eliminating ticks, or creating a cure for alphagal (alpha galactose) allergy transmitted by many ticks. I've had to stop eating beef (my wife gives me a little bite of her steak once in awhile), along with lamb and pork (pork seems to be less of a problem than beef, but I still have to eat it in moderation).

In case you're not familiar with this allergy, it doesn't behave like other food allergies: instead of getting instant symptoms, it hits you hours later, making it hard to figure out why you suddenly have hives---unless you already know about alpha gal.

[tracker1]

That's rough... I have issues when I eat legumes and wheat... I still like pasta and pretty much had peanut butter every day of my life up to a few years ago. When I manage to stick to a meat centered diet I do better... but it's easy to get off track in social circles.

[NickC25]

>he should get to work on either eliminating ticks, or creating a cure for alphagal

Or he should just lobby to make high quality, lean, grass-fed steaks cheaper so everyone who wants to consume them can consume them. It's not currently cheap.

[CGMthrowaway]

I'm sure the government is trying. The government weaponized alpha-gal in the first place.

[rcpt]

Obviously the beef lobby is involved. They are masters of public opinion and extremely good at what they do.

[siliconc0w]

"In over 24,000 participants from the NHANES study, high saturated fatty acid intake was associated with an 8% increase in all cause mortality risk. A meta-analysis with over 1,100,000 total participants showed that high intake of saturated fats was also correlated to a 10% increase in coronary heart disease mortality risk" (https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.31403...)

(there is an argument for why this shouldn't apply to grass-fed meat but that is an extremely small minority of meat sold)

[tracker1]

survey based study, correlation is not causation, and correlated affects not separable from other biases.

[siliconc0w]

that is an impossible standard to apply to diet-based research which is incredibly expensive to otherwise study (e.g, you need a metabolic ward and at that point you'd complain about small N).

We know saturated fat increases LDL, we know LDL contributes to CVD. This is still an area of active research and there are small populations of people that don't accept the consensus but it is still very much best-practice keep your LDL low.

[tracker1]

See Minnesota asylum study... Come up with something resembling that quality that says otherwise.

[_dark_matter_]

Whole milk, cheese, and steak are not the usual foods I associate with health. Unfortunately this is not backed by scientific evidence.

[CompoundEyes]

I visited a heart doctor at Duke research medical center a few years back. His comments then were that dairy products were the most inflammatory foods for humans and a major contributor to heart disease by gunking up our bloodstreams.

[badc0ffee]

Red meat has a link to colorectal cancer.

[Finnucane]

RFKjr, the guy who feeds roadkill to his brain worm, thinks more saturated fat = good, 'seed oil' = bad.

[overgard]

RFKjr is generally an idiot, but saturated fat = good, seed oil = bad is actually correct. For instance: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/seed-oils-are-they-actual...

Saturated fats are good because they're more stable than poly-unsaturated fats for instance.

If you do consume a seed oil (which you really shouldn't -- there's no benefit), you should get a cold-pressed one. But that would be more expensive, so if you're paying more you might as well just get something good like avacado oil or coconut oil.

[adrianmonk]

The link you gave doesn't support your claim that saturated fat is good.

In fact, from the very same site, here's another article saying it's not: https://health.clevelandclinic.org/saturated-fats-finding-a-...

Saturated fat is OK in moderate amounts, but if you eat too much, it drives up your cholesterol because your body converts saturated fat into cholesterol[1][2].

The issue I have with this new food pyramid is the guidance ignores the danger of saturated fat. It lists "meats" and "full-fat dairy" among sources of "healthy fats", and that's just not true. In the picture that shows sources of protein/fat, 11 out of 13 of the items are animal-based fats. With a giant ribeye steak, cheese, butter, and whole milk specifically (not just milk), they're simply not giving an accurate picture of healthy fat sources.

I personally don't think seed oils are bad, but even if they were, it does not follow that saturated fat is good. The evidence shows otherwise, for one thing, plus it's not like seed oils and saturated fat are the only two kinds of fat. There are plenty of unsaturated fats which aren't seed oils.

---

[1] https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000838.htm

[2] https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-eating/eat-s...

[margalabargala]

This isn't true, per your own link.

The point the Cleveland Clinic page makes is that seed oils tend to be what's used in ultra-processed foods, and those are bad for you. So if you avoid seed oils, you wind up avoiding the bad things as a second order effect.

Aside from that it's just hand-wavey "they use chemicals to make it! It doesn't have nutrients beyond the fat!". There's nothing to indicate that using sunflower or peanut oil is any worse for you than using walnut oil.

The connection between omega-6 fats and inflammation is a whole lot more tenuous than the link between ultra-processed foods and inflammation.

[BeetleB]

Just Google "seed oils health" and look at the reputable results (Cleveland Clinic, various universities, Mayo Clinic, etc), and you'll see opinions across the board. Some say "Bad". Some say "Not bad". Some say "Unsure".

Jury is still out on this one.

And I think lumping all seed oils into one category isn't helping. Maybe canola oil is OK and sesame oil is not. Or vice versa.

[overgard]

I think it's generally fair to lump them together, because the types of fats you get in them are similar.

The history of cotton seed oil is interesting. After reading that, I would challenge people to think if that's really something they'd want in their body. Other than cost, I see no downside to avoiding seed oils and a lot of upside: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottonseed_oil#Economic_histor...

[BeetleB]

Looking at the article, I'm not sure I see the problem.

> Other than cost, I see no downside to avoiding seed oils and a lot of upside

The taste of food in certain recipes (that don't involve cooking the oil) varies widely with the oil used. In some recipes, canola oil tastes better than olive oil (by a significant margin - no one would eat it with olive oil).

Cost was never a factor for me (even as a student). Oil is amongst the least expensive things in the food I cook.

[overgard]

I mean, what you want to put in your body is up to you, but an industrial byproduct that involves a lot of chemistry seems like something I'm not a fan of. Also if you go past the history a bit: "The FDA released its final determination that Partially Hydrogenated Oils (PHOs), which include partially hydrogenated cottonseed oil, are not Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) in 2015."

Olive oil definitely has a flavor, but other oils are pretty neutral (I cook with avacado oil because of the high smoke point and I don't notice it really effecting anything). Also you have to keep in mind that those seed oils have a neutral flavor because they've been through a deodorizing chemical process, otherwise they'd taste/smell rancid.

[WA]

Exactly this. Rapeseed oil is obviously a seed oil. You can have a chemically extracted version or a cold-pressed version. "Seed oil is bad for you" is a typical simplistic Twitter/Reddit conspiracy theory.

[everdrive]

This is a great example of how harming your own credibility can damage an otherwise correct and uncontroversial message. RFK Jr. has surrounded himself in controversy, and that controversy is really dominating a lot of this conversation and drowning out the message. Given how he's acted, I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of him, even if this particular food pyramid seems to be a good move that would itself be uncontroversial if provided by a different messenger.

[overgard]

True, but, I think this is also an important lesson in considering the arguments not just a source. Nobody is ever 100% right or 100% wrong, and just leaning on arguments of authority is lazy thinking.

[Finnucane]

"inflammation"! It's always "inflammation". What a crock.

[overgard]

You want more inflammation?

Inflammation is a real thing you can measure in the body, you know. (C Reactive Protein for instance). It's behind a lot of diseases.

The reason WHY it's "always" inflammation is because the standard american diet CREATES a lot of inflammation. You'll probably have to worry about hearing that buzzword a lot less if people ate better..

[drstewart]

https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/food-guide-snapshot/

What is the top thing shown on the plate here?

[maerF0x0]

Depends if it's eye of round or rib eye. I think the usual steak emoji is a porter house. All 3 of them have very different protein/fat ratios (and thus calories)

[brightbeige]

“Let them eat steak.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Let_them_eat_cake

[bobbylarrybobby]

Steak’s not great for you, but in moderation is probably a better source of calories than refined grains, which should be treated more or less the same as candy.