Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 269 posts

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#221

Post by coldpie »

brianwawok wrote: post #218
baron816 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also a myth that runners need a high carb diet. I was a competitive distance runner for many years with a high carb diet and I'm confident that my performance suffered because of it. You're cells become much more efficient at using energy as you train, so you really don't need to eat that many calories at all. I was running 80+ miles per week, with a not above average calorie intake (for Americans), and my weigh…

The average American probably eats 60-70% carbs. They would do well on more like 25% carbs aka Paleo. As a distance runner, I don't perform well at 25% carbs. I need more like 40% carbs. So not "high carb", but "higher carb then a sedentary person needs".

Paleo is crap nonsense, but yes, the typical American high-carb diet is bad news.

Edit: Where "paleo" is defined roughly as "eating only foods that [I think] were available ~10,000 years ago": http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/09/10/3842158.ht...

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#222

Post by evidence_first »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #190
Fnoord wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're forgetting all the biases (& fallacies) which may or may not have affected the experience or the memory leading to the anecdote. These biases (& fallacies) are detectable or the lack of them is verifiable, with the scientific method. I'm not denying an anecdote is not valuable to the individual. It is, for the individual who made the anecdote; not the rest of us, not the readers. I'm also will admit I, too, us…

I feel like waving my hands around in the air while running around screaming. The bullshit that's been pushed on us for decades about cholesterol isn't science. And to add to that, I've never heard any anecdotal evidence that goes "I went on a low cholesterol diet and my symptoms improved". The scientific method is valuable. Science as it is practiced...? Let's just say it's reputation has been tarnished.

What is this 'bullshit'? There are studies that show correlations between LDL cholesterol and risk of heart attacks (happy to show you some if you're curious).

It's true that we're still making sense of how to operationalize those observations (restrictive diet, exercise, statin therapy, etc). This doesn't make the science worthless; it's just an intermediate step in this particular area of research.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#223

Post by dwc »

mtw wrote: post #219

For those who are curious, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines is available here https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-202... (PDF) Unfortunately it does not highlight the danger of sugar & processed food. Someone can follows these dietary guidelines and still be able to have a high intake of sugar, HCFS, processed food and all sorts of food chemicals (emulsifiers etc.), all prevalent in the american…

Dietary guidelines typically self-moderate to something that they think the populace has a chance of adopting. I.e., they don't want people to completely shrug it off as too drastic of a change.

I would like to see a different approach: show the actual best diet guidelines, and then explain which partial steps will do the most good. Or something like that. It's better to be up front with what's known and then proceed to harm reduction rather than telling people that these partial steps are where they should end up.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#224

Post by Raphmedia »

YCode wrote: post #22
pdq wrote: post #10

Let me know when the government wakes up and inverts the food pyramid, so that breads and grains and carbs are scarce, rather than fats.

Since 2011 they've been recommending MyPlate: https://choosemyplate-prod.azureedge.net/sites/default/files...

Do people eat fruits at each meals?

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#225

Post by naasking »

mjmasn wrote: post #196
naasking wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're really committed to a super-healthy diet, you should probably eat lots of carbs, but the right carbs--complex and mixed with fiber Then you should stop referring to them as carbs and just refer specifically to fiber. Way less confusion.

If you're looking to avoid confusion you should refer to them as starches, they are the complex carbs (such as rice, beans, potatoes etc.) that give us energy and should form the largest proportion of any healthy diet. - These starches should preferably be unrefined (yes, quit that white bread, discover the great taste of brown rice) and eaten alongside some green and yellow vegetables to get extra vitamins, minerals…

> - Avoid dairy products at all costs.

Why?

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#226

Post by PKop »

mjmasn wrote: post #196
naasking wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're really committed to a super-healthy diet, you should probably eat lots of carbs, but the right carbs--complex and mixed with fiber Then you should stop referring to them as carbs and just refer specifically to fiber. Way less confusion.

If you're looking to avoid confusion you should refer to them as starches, they are the complex carbs (such as rice, beans, potatoes etc.) that give us energy and should form the largest proportion of any healthy diet. - These starches should preferably be unrefined (yes, quit that white bread, discover the great taste of brown rice) and eaten alongside some green and yellow vegetables to get extra vitamins, minerals…

I won't resort to personal attacks, but I consider this absolutely terrible nutritional advice.

The issue here is "excess carbs" are very easy to exceed consuming grains and sugar.

Carbs (especially sugar) are what most easily gets converted to adipose fat tissue on the body... unintuitively consuming dietary fat is NOT conducive to increasing body fat. Counter intuitive but true.

Consuming a high carb diet, especially if a significant portion comes from high glycemic index sources, will guarantee body fat increase.

Oils, fats, nuts should be primary components of ones diet.

Excess body fat and high carb diet eventually leads to diabetes and metabolic-syndrome, the overall systemic decrease in health and increase in risk factors for other diseases because of being overweight (specifically, over fat).

I could post study after study but for anyone else reading this, you'll have to do your own research and learn from your own experience. Try both diets.

If you've never tried low carb (and high fat.. it's important to replace carbs with fat) then you should do so and observe your energy changes and decrease in body fat. It will happen.

Here's a good collection of references:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Keto

Look at the before and afters, read the experiences.

My nutritional and fitness experience? 5 years Army Special Operations, where diet and nutrition were studied and an important component to unit readiness....and a lifetime of sports and athletics including college football. And then studying the issue quite a lot.

Read the science behind the Atkins / Keto diet. It's not complicated how our bodies store fat.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#227

Post by jschwartzi »

mjmasn wrote: post #196
naasking wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you're really committed to a super-healthy diet, you should probably eat lots of carbs, but the right carbs--complex and mixed with fiber Then you should stop referring to them as carbs and just refer specifically to fiber. Way less confusion.

If you're looking to avoid confusion you should refer to them as starches, they are the complex carbs (such as rice, beans, potatoes etc.) that give us energy and should form the largest proportion of any healthy diet. - These starches should preferably be unrefined (yes, quit that white bread, discover the great taste of brown rice) and eaten alongside some green and yellow vegetables to get extra vitamins, minerals…

I think your advice about oil and fat works well mainly because fat is very calorically dense, and not because there is something inherently wrong with fat. Otherwise fat, fiber, and protein form the backbone of the only meals that I'm sated by, and I get hungry much faster after a meal consisting only of starches and vegetables, which makes dieting by your guidelines very unpleasant.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#228

Post by baddox »

ejstronge wrote: post #212
baddox wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't show any evidence of the FDA being a net benefit. You only showed that the FDA probably could have reduced that specific type of liver injury by regulating those specific supplements. But the government is not magic, and the FDA almost certainly has also caused injuries by overly or erroneously regulating other things. I have no idea what the net effect is, but you certainly haven't shown it to be positive…

I'm curious about your assertion of 'overly' regulating things leading to a net negative effect. Are there specific examples you're considering?

Marijuana would be the most obvious example.

Re: US government to withdraw longstanding warnings about cholesterol (2015)

#229

Post by pessimizer »

evidence_first wrote: post #222
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like waving my hands around in the air while running around screaming. The bullshit that's been pushed on us for decades about cholesterol isn't science. And to add to that, I've never heard any anecdotal evidence that goes "I went on a low cholesterol diet and my symptoms improved". The scientific method is valuable. Science as it is practiced...? Let's just say it's reputation has been tarnished.

What is this 'bullshit'? There are studies that show correlations between LDL cholesterol and risk of heart attacks (happy to show you some if you're curious). It's true that we're still making sense of how to operationalize those observations (restrictive diet, exercise, statin therapy, etc). This doesn't make the science worthless; it's just an intermediate step in this particular area of research.

> There are studies that show correlations between LDL cholesterol and risk of heart attacks (happy to show you some if you're curious).

Why wouldn't you? It seems like it would be unambiguously helpful both in general for the thread, and specifically for your argument.

For evidence that the lowering of LDL cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attacks, though, the evidence can't just be an association between heart attacks and naturally high cholesterol, which could obviously both spring from the same cause. An association between low cholesterol diets and heart attack rates, or good evidence that statins lowered mortality would both be interesting.

Post reply on HN