Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

> "Unprocessed" seems to be the key word that the headline skips

The cancer claims haven't been specifically against things like hot dogs, sausages, pepperoni sticks, etc., but red meat. When the term "red meat" is used, that's implying anything containing red-looking meat from large ruminant animals.

> plus the one specific risk category

That's because that's the only risk category that anyone thought was credible up to this point. There are no risk categories for red meat, besides perhaps that one can overeat protein. That's really hard to do, especially with red meat.

> But ignoring that, the article is further confirmation that you should eat more vegetables and less processed meat,

There is no sound scientific evidence that anyone should eat more vegetables. People are certainly free to eat vegetables, they can be pretty tasty, and some may come with their own individual benefits, but there's nothing inherent to vegetables as a category that means we should simply consume more of them. Vegetables have their own drawbacks and contain various substances that are contraindicated in humans. Vegetables may be better than processed foods on a case by case basis, but not as a group. Humans aren't specialized in consuming them as a primary source of nutrition.

> like your doctors have been telling you

"Your doctors" know f--- all about nutrition. General practitioners are not nutritionists and are not trained in nutrition. Their job is to prescribe pills or send you to a specialist.



> that's implying anything containing red-looking meat from large ruminant animals.

Pigs are not ruminants. Their meat is usually considered red meat.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: