The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do • Hacker News Board

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#91

Post by CuriouslyC » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 3:36 PM UTC

lukasm wrote: post #10

It sill blows my mind how little we know about our body. We are aiming to sent someone to Mars, but we can't figure out what to eat. It seems the best default is to try to simulate what we've been eating for a past 50000 years and modify accordingly. When I first tried slow carb diet I lost 5kg in 3 weeks and my general well being improved. I tried it again, but the effect wasn't that strong.

The problem is that nutrition research is very fragmented, and most researchers study diseased states. Thus, you have people who study nutritional metabolism related to diebetes, heart disease, obesity, high blood pressure, etc. Additionally, most of the researchers know a few metabolic pathways relevant to their research extremely well, but have very limited knowledge of the metabolic network as a whole.

It is unfortunate that very few researchers study nutrition as it relates to longevity or optimal human performance. There's very little money available for that type of work, and well-controlled nutrition studies on humans are expensive.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#92

Post by CuriouslyC » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 3:48 PM UTC

bad_user wrote: post #26

> It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about cholesterol after fucking up monumentally and the history repeats itself over and over again. Just man up, recognize how incompetent you are, how your non-scientific advice has been hurting people over the past 50 years and switch jobs because the science you're pr…

There is a ton of evidence demonstrating the pro-inflammatory and obesegenic properties of saturated fat.

People want to vilify processed foods, but processing isn't inherently bad. Aspirin is basically processed willow bark, and it is more effective, precise and pleasant to consume. Granted, most processed foods haven't been designed with optimal nutrition as a goal, but the potential is there. We shouldn't be anti-processed foods, we should just demand that food manufacturers design "functional foods", rather than just try to create the cheapest, most addictive food possible.

As for the skim vs whole milk debate, a couple points - for starters milk fat is quite poor from a health standpoint, being high in palmitate. Additionally, the single biggest problem most people have is consuming too many calories, so why would you hold up the higher calorie option? It isn't like there are a ton of fat soluble vitamins in milk that you lose switching to a reduced fat option, it's just empty calories.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#93

Post by CuriouslyC » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 3:50 PM UTC

sageabilly wrote: post #13

I am particularly excited for the rise of easier genome sequencing and the role that will play in nutritional advice for individuals. The more we learn about genes and how people react differently to different foods the more intrigued I am by the idea of an "optimal" diet only being achieved on a person-by-person level.

The problem with this is that the majority of your response to a given diet is actually a result of your gut microbial ecosystem. Not only does that mean an order of magnitude more genes are in play, but the microbial ecosystem is dynamic, and adapts to changes in diet, stress levels and a variety of other factors.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#94

Post by mathgeek » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 3:53 PM UTC

wdewind wrote: post #41

mathgeek wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you link the sources for your claims? I'm asking sincerely, as I'm sure people interested in the topic will want to see the research.

Not OP but I think the burden of proof is on the people saying an entire macronutrient group is bad.

I'd say that when it comes to nutrition, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. I think it's a good thing to require proof from anyone trying to tell you that eating or not eating something will be beneficial.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#95

Post by wdewind » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 4:14 PM UTC

omarchowdhury wrote: post #87

wdewind wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but since you've packed such a large percentage of your calories into this one meal, what happens to that fat at the later time when you would otherwise be eating again?

Then all things being equal would it not be better to space out short meals to prevent fat generation at all?

It shouldn't really make any difference. The point is fat is an energy store and your body is pretty good at storing excess calories and then using them again when needed.

Things do get a little more interesting, and the science becomes a little weaker, when you start thinking about nutritional timing in the context of body composition instead of overall weight. For instance, muscle protein synthesis remains pretty constant in someone with protein at most meals. But you are able to "spike" it about once every 3 hours (the mechanism seems to have a threshold around 8g of leucine, after which it can't be spiked again for another 3 hours).

So in theory the optimal way to eat the same number of calories, all else being equal, is evenly divided into a meal every three hours you are awake.

But it's a micro-optimization and doesn't make a huge difference, and again the science isn't super well reproduced there. People certainly succeed at elite levels with many different meal timings.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#96

Post by wdewind » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 4:17 PM UTC

mathgeek wrote: post #94

wdewind wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP but I think the burden of proof is on the people saying an entire macronutrient group is bad.

I'd say that when it comes to nutrition, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. I think it's a good thing to require proof from anyone trying to tell you that eating or not eating something will be beneficial.

My problem with things being "good" or "bad" is that it's divorced of context. Carbs are not good or bad, but they are certainly bad in certain contexts and good in certain contexts. Different diets can be effective for different things. Some people are actually trying to gain weight, some people only need to change body composition, some people tolerate high fat well, some people don't etc.

So I agree with you, and my point is not to say that carbs are good for you or bad for you, but that anyone saying a major macronutrient group is good or bad without context has a large burden of proof.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#97

Post by briHass » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 4:40 PM UTC

mannimow wrote: post #59

Every article on fats vs. carbs dilemma stresses out weight management issue, none of them mention any other effects, but weight. As a skinny guy, what are the dangers of say french fries, honey, and fast food? What about when coupled with active life style and moderate exercise?

As with everything, it depends largely on your genetics and natural inclination to becoming insulin resistant. Insulin resistance (IR) can occur in normal-BMI individuals. This is typically accompanied (caused?) by a large amount of visceral fat (internal, around your organs), which isn't what we typically see when we look at an overweight individual. IR is really just the first step to full type 2 diabetes.

Exercise and youth can negate much of a bad diet, but it will likely catch up to you eventually. Better markers than your weight might be HDL (should be high), triglyceride levels (should be low), and fasting blood sugar. If those are optimal, you're probably doing fine, but there isn't really a case to be made that you should continue to eat poor food choices if you can avoid it.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#98

Post by rgoddard » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 4:42 PM UTC

gabemart wrote: post #89

zappo2938 wrote: post #12

The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood sugar levels. In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems, the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens when a runner carbo loads the nigh…

This seems like a huge premature optimisation. Reduced-calorie diets result in clinically meaningful weight loss regardless of which macronutrients they emphasise [1]. For someone who wants to lose weight or maintain their current weight, eating a calorie controlled diet is the first (and often only) thing they need to do. Eating a calorie-controlled diet is primarily a psychological challenge. They should therefore…

When talking about a diet you want to break it down into several dimensions. 1) Does this diet lead to weight loss? This boils down to burning more calories then consumed. As mentioned in a different comment you can lose weight eating only twinkies. 2) Sustainability of diet - can the diet be maintained over the long term, and this plays in to the psychological challenge you mentioned. 3) Long term health effects - does the diet promote overall long term health or have potential negative consequences. Something like the twinkie diet most likely does not. i.e. does a twinkie have enough vitamin c to prevent scurvy 4) Interactions with personal health conditions - how does the diet affect your own current health condition. I am sure a diabetic would not fare well on the twinkie diet

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#99

Post by code_sterling » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 4:54 PM UTC

wlesieutre wrote: post #21

code_sterling wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd suggest a conflict of interest makes his results suspect.

I'd be more inclined to agree if it were a complicated subject with a lot of data to be cherry-picked and "interpreted." In this case, "lost 27 pounds" and "only ate twinkies" would be pretty hard to play games with. But hey, maybe 20 different scientists ran the same experiment and only the one time when it was successful got published. No way to know for sure.

In order to be accepted as anything other than an anecdote, you would require a much more rigorous study with a LOT more people and a much higher level of scrutiny. We would want to control for external issues, possibly genetic complications, gut flora, blood glucose levels, liver and pancreas health, illness, infection, cancers, etc...

Anecdotal evidence if fine for discussion, but no one should act upon it without medical supervision.

Re: The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do

#100

Post by agumonkey » Wed, Oct 21, 2015, 5:14 PM UTC

Having reached limits my body starts to reject anything fatty, salty, sweet ... basically most processed food. I thus was forced to eat raw vegies, raw, no sauce, not cooked, nothing, and it was a revelation. They're full of subtle taste, texture that tickle your senses just enough and will make you feel full very very quick, without any strings attached [1]. I miss the sophistication of traditional meals (spices, sauces) though, and am seeking for an in between solution.

[1] junk food satisfies you 10x more but leaves after taste, or sugar heavy, fat heavy feel in you.