Right at the bottom:

"This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition."

And the opposing view from the same issue: https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/112/4/926/5901948

Would we be so generous to allow the same kind of debate on any science-related topic.

"The Earth is round: yes or no?"

:)

Well, er, it was indeed debated before the question was settled. It was a whole thing actually.

I feel like this thread's title is editorialized (and click-bait). It got me. To be fair, maybe it hit a character limit.

The actual title:

Children and adults should avoid consuming animal products to reduce risk for chronic disease: NO

You mean switching to a diet of twinkies won't reduce my risk of chronic disease?

It has not a click-bait intent. It hit the character limit.

> To claim that avoidance of animal products is required to prevent chronic disease is not supported by evidence, makes little sense from an evolutionary perspective, and distracts policy makers from common-sense approaches to achieve adequate nutrition.

Makes enough sense to me. Ive been eating way less meat and feeling pretty good. But it's hard to muster the motivation to make that last push to no meat. Especially not with the existence of Taco Bell...

Fortunately, Taco Bell will make anything on their menu vegetarian!

Some one is wrong https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1417508112

Both could be right. The original article states animal products and does not specifically say red meat like your article. It’s like an apples to multiple other fruit comparison.

It’s also not just about the animal meat (protein), fats are important as well.

Well, I think that's the beauty of science, right here :)

Can someone explain why was it flagged?

Disclaimer: If this site could enlarge the character number in the "title" field, the full title would be there.

The title comes across kind of like click bait, and it presents itself as a study or review when it isn't

> This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition.

"kinda of like"

Since it's clearly described in the text exactly what the topic is about, is it not enough to read to understand what it is about?

And it has not a click-bait intent. It hit the character limit.

You have to read further down to know that it was someone assigned to argue this point of view - not that it was a study or review where someone looked at research and came to that conclusion. Reading the abstract and title did not give me the impression that someone was assigned to make that argument. Those are very different

But isn't the intention of posting something here for people to read?

An abstract is supposed to be a summary. Many people will read only an abstract since they think they are just getting a shorter version of something and stop there

That sounds pretty arbitrary and lazy anyway

How does a diabetic, goes on a vegetarian, or vegan diet? Wouldn't that have more carbs?

The difference is that a clinically recommended vegeterian diet would be rich in nutritive foods high in fiber. The recommendation wouldn’t just be to not eat meat and, like, eat all the processed sugary junk you want.

even so called healthy fiber rich veggie foods have lots of carbs and thus raise blood sugar levels for diabetics and pre-diabetics...cut the carbs to a minimum, eat meat and eggs and cheese and salad and oil, and blood sugar will stay at safe levels, even without medication, at least for prediabetics and most type 2 diabetics

It's more difficult, but it is possible. My mother was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes and currently follows a vegetarian diet. With diet and exercise, her numbers (a1c, and blood glucose after eating) are now well within the normal range.

Her diet does seem quite restrictive to me, but it works.

By eating food that doesn’t contain animal or animal produced content.

It is possible to have a high protein vegetarian or vegan diet, although it does require planning and effort.

You're missing the point - diabetics struggle with carbs which are a key part of vego/vegan diets.

Low carb almost requires animal products until we can better synthesise the protein/fats needed.

Not necessarily. No potatoes, bread, pasta would be easy as a vegan

so? if you do not eat animal products, you have to eat almost all oil or whole grain products...and the oil will wreak havoc on your intestinal tract and the whole grains will raise your blood sugar is you are diabetic or prediabetic

a science oriented article flagged on HN for...ideological reasons?

This is not a scientific study in the slightest, yet the abstract and title are presented as such. That is why it was flagged

> This article series is designed as an Oxford-style debate. As such, participants are required to argue pro and con positions, even when that opinion may differ from their own. The views expressed in this debate do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the participants, The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, or the American Society for Nutrition.

>> This is not a scientific study in the slightest, yet the abstract and title are presented as such. That is why it was flagged

Still makes no sense?

pure carnivory diet is delicious, if I have the wealth to do it full time I'd probably switch. Alas, I can only afford maybe 2 or 3 days before fasting and return back to grain-heavy diet.

Is there a point to this comment? No one is denying you anything, and what does a lion's diet have to do with anything?