Yet another reason to shift to more veganism.
this post was submitted on 11 Feb 2025
140 points (92.7% liked)
Science
13792 readers
23 users here now
Subscribe to see new publications and popular science coverage of current research on your homepage
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Fun fact, we have canine teeth. Which means like every other omnivor and carnivore, we as humans are designed to eat meat. Just not hugely growth hormone filled meat like modern beef and chicken and pork. We're made to eat wild healthy God raised and not farm raised meat. But yes you alsomust maintain a balance of meat and vegetables.
Humans aren't "designed" to do anything, they evolved over time to better suit their environments. You can get all the micro and macro nutrients you need as a vegan, and there is no physical way for every human on Earth to eat wild meat to begin with.
Whatever you wanna tell yourself. I was just letting you know that just because you CAN survive on a highly specialized solely plant based diet, doesn't mean you and everyone else on the planet SHOULD. Humans are opportunistic omnivores, always have been always willing be. there are a few examples of previous humans choosing to only eat plants, but the vast majority of them ate meat and veggies. A well balanced diet of fruits vegetables and meat is best for humans. Again thought not today's modern, super fucked up mass farmed and processed meat.
I can also pretty confidently say that if you were ever actually starving, you would for sure eat meat to survive without a second thought no matter how vegan you say you are. Unless you're one of those people that would rather die than kill an animal to survive.
And as far as the everyone couldn't eat wild meat part, most people with a medium sized back yard could raise chickens or goats or rabbits on their own for meat. While it's not necessarily "wild" it's still much better than commercially farmed meat.
You're fighting a strawman, and moreover the idea that everyone can have a medium sized back yard is again fantasy.
People really need more whole plant foods in their diets.
From a health perspective, economic perspective, climate perspective, and ethical perspective.
Stupid question - are whole plant foods just fruit and veggies and nuts, or is it also stuff like nut milks, chickpea pasta, etc?
When people say "whole" they're referring to virtually any plant food that's in it's whole, ideally intact, form. For example in descending order:
- Farro is a whole grain. It's a type of wheat, and it's whole because all parts of the grain are still there - the bran, germ, and endosperm. This is the ideal kind of grain to eat - whole and intact.
- Whole wheat noodles are still a whole grain, but a bit less so because although all parts of the grain are still in it, it's been broken down and reconstituted into a new form. The structure of plant foods in and of itself has health impacts.
- Whole wheat bread is still a whole grain, but quality can vary greatly depending on the ingredients and ways it gets processed. The vast majority of "whole wheat bread" is honestly dubious at best. Even more, since bread is less compressed than noodles, it digests more rapidly, and takes on properties that start to resemble refined grains more.
- Refined grains. Think white rice, white bread. Low fiber, low phytonutrients. These foods digest rapidly, lack important nutrients, and have a high glycemic load (high blood sugar spikes).
Chickpea pasta would be comparable to number two on this list, so not bad. Store bought plant milks are not whole foods because the plant solids have been strained out. If you were to make a plant milk by, say, blending whole soy beans or almonds in water, that would be a whole food.
Amazing, thank you for the detailed response!
Thank you! Yes, it's definitely a spectrum. The goal is to eat the whole plant while reducing processing that removes or destroys healthy fibers and vitamins.
Go vegan
At old age meat eaters have more muscle mass (left), and that's a big deal too.
Don't go extremist over some obscure paper is all I'm saying. We should all eat less meat BTW especially red.
I dont wanna remember shit anyway
Put that in writing.
Huh? Put what in writing? I'm eating smoked ham
Put it in writing for your family, friends, lawyer, so that they know what retirement strategy to pick.
that's why I always brown it first
/s
https://www.neurology.org/doi/10.1212/WNL.0000000000210286
I don't have time to dive into this paper myself yet. Has anyone else been able to and can give a quick summary of that they did to infer the causal relationship from observational data?
Edit: Aaah, I don't have access to the paper. I guess this isn't happening.
I can't actually access the full paper (either via university access, or Anna's Archive/sciDB), so I can't comment on specifics, but their extended abstract mentions that that they used "Cox proportional hazards models, general linear regression, and Poisson regression models were applied to assess the associations between red meat intake and different cognitive outcomes."
Speaking as a biochemist (i.e. someone well versed in reading scientific papers from the life sciences, but who does not have particular training or experience with the quite different context of clinical medicine research), it looks fairly legit, in that those statistical methods are typical of what I'd expect for something like this. That's vague, but it passes the sniff test, I suppose.
I was initially dubious of the journal/research on the basis of being unable to access the paper (and not knowing anything of this journal), but I feel comfortable in dismissing those concerns after have a wee gander at the journal itself (it seems fairly prominent and well respected). Having not read the paper (nor being familiar with this specific area of research), I am far less able to judge the paper itself, but at least it's not a case of dismissing the research outright because of the journal being sus.
Without knowing your background, it's hard to gauge whether this explainer on some of the stats methods mentioned above would be appreciated, but here you go, just in case.
Thanks, I appreciate the link. I'm a scientist by trade too, but not in a field where hazard ratios would be part of my repertoire.
My concern is not so much the quality of the publisher (though it's nice to know) or whether they used methods that are standard for these kinds of studies, but rather whether the general public is coming to the correct conclusions given what the researchers did.
So based on just this little excerpt, it seems that there's no casual relationship being established at all. They don't seem to claim any casual relationship either. On the other hand, the psypost article talks about it as if they did.
Hmmm, I wonder if they're conflating processed foods and red meat again?
Yep:
Eating processed red meat (such as sausages, bacon, hotdogs and salami) was linked to a 16% higher risk of dementia and a faster rate of cognitive ageing. Eating about two servings of processed red meat a week raised the risk of dementia by 14% compared with those who ate less than about three servings a month. (A serving is a piece of meat roughly the size of a deck of playing cards – around 85g.)
If people substituted processed red meat protein for that found in nuts, tofu or beans, they could reduce their dementia risk by 19%, the study found.
A review of studies, published in 2023, found that people who ate lots of ultra-processed foods (of all kinds – not just processed meats) had a 44% higher risk of dementia
No, they also found associations with unprocessed red meats too
Unprocessed red meat intake of ≥1.00 serving per day, compared with <0.50 serving per day, was associated with a 16% higher risk of SCD [subjective cognitive decline] (RR 1.16; 95% CI 1.03–1.30; plinearity = 0.04).
My reason for cutting red meat out of my diet was that it's expensive, glad there's other reasons it's a good choice too
Starting to feel like that's a serendipitous feature.
I guess it isn't terribly surprising given red meat is known to be inflammatory and inflammation can cause cognitive decline.
Kinda glad my body decided to just stop digesting beef a few years ago. I'm learning so much about what I can be potentially avoiding by not being able to consume it. Beef just sits in my stomach for an absurdly long time. So I don't eat it. I have mostly fish as my animal protein, but substitute with plant based proteins and sometimes chicken to avoid too much mercury. I eat pork on occasion but it isn't my favorite. I tried going vegetarian and vegan a couple of times and my already poor health declined. Now I do whatever it is that I do lol. I just eat what I like and what I know is good for my specific health conditions.
I would wager its not because of the meat but because microplastic contamination is much higher in processed food, especially meats. People are often eating the maximum dosage for plastics in a year in one meal. Its very hard to avoid. Microplastic contamination is highly correlated to dementia.
Along out the spoonful of plastic on my brain could do wonders.
I'm friends with my spoon I'd hate to see it leave
Fuck it. I'm having an A5 Wagyu soon, as a bday treat.
Hell yeah! Dry-aged to perfection!