Live data from Hacker News

Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

theatlantic.com

131–140 of 183 posts

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#131
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Netherlands it is common to have rather cold temperatures in houses even if people can afford to pay for warmth. And cold requires body to spend much more energy that is coming directly from burning body fat unless one shivering from cold. In fact if one wants to loose like 10 kilos quickly, just climb to Everest. Most of that weight will be spent on body heating, not muscular work. That also explains why butter d…

Do you have any references on that? I was under the impression being cold didn't really burn that many more calories. I'll stop wearing a jacket if I can burn hundreds of calories.

Just read hypothermics.com . Its author, Ray Cronise, has done a lot of measurements using proper equipment.

And anecdotaly I have a co-worker who was into serious climbing. Before a high climb like over 6km he on purpose typically gained like 5 kilos of weight and still came back learner from the trip. And he knows for sure that that was due to coldness as on much more physically demanding trips at warmer altitudes weight loss was much smaller.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#132
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years is a very relevant timescale since we need to prevent the tipping point of melting artcitc methane deposits and loss of reflection from permafrost areas.

Yea, I agree. Cows also live about 20 years, so even not breeding cows wouldn't solve this problem. The morality of eating butter is kind of a moot point when all the production mechanisms are already in place and they aren't flexible. A possible solution would be methane fixing bacteria (methanotrophs) in the guts of cows or in the ocean where > 75% of the current concentration atmospheric methane originates. The oc…

[deleted]

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#133
post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Netherlands it is common to have rather cold temperatures in houses even if people can afford to pay for warmth. And cold requires body to spend much more energy that is coming directly from burning body fat unless one shivering from cold. In fact if one wants to loose like 10 kilos quickly, just climb to Everest. Most of that weight will be spent on body heating, not muscular work. That also explains why butter d…

Do you have any references on that? I was under the impression being cold didn't really burn that many more calories. I'll stop wearing a jacket if I can burn hundreds of calories.

"Being cold" does not have any particular caloric advantage until and unless you are cold enough to shiver. Shivering, as it happens, is a fantastic way to burn calories, and 15 minutes of shivering is equivalent to approximately an hour's worth of exercise.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/317620-how-many-calories-a...

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grey matter in your brain is mostly cholesterol. I've personally lost 10 pounds in 10 days eating a high fat, low carb diet, with light excercise about 3 days a week. Kerrygold is my #1 choice for butter, because it comes from grass-fed cows.

What I've heard, all diets work. And they work because they let you focus on what you eat, and they let you eat less energy. The problem is what happens in the long term. If you regain your weight, you're worse off. When you eat less, the body adapts by working more energy efficient. So you eat 10% less, meaning the body can use only 90% of the normal energy supply. It react by using only 85%, storing that extra 5% i…

As someone who's tried every diet and training regiment under the sun, and never (before or after) being outside of "normal" BMI and of varying levels of athletic (maxing out at 10 push-ups through 30 dead-hang pullups):

On your first point, yes. Most diets work, as long as they fit with your persona and schedule. Anything you feel comfortable with and can stick to. Just by "doing" a diet, you end up being a lot more conscious of what you put in yourself.

When someone asks me for advice, it's mostly the same:

* Write down everything you eat for two weeks, weigh yourself before and after. The initial point was to measure your actual TDEE, but people invaribaly end up eating less and losing weight during those two weeks because they don't want to write down "half a package of Ritz crackers" in their log.

* Take an honest before pic. When you think you've stopped progressing after a few weeks after the initial burst, being able to compare backwards is invaluable as a motivator.

> When you eat less, the body adapts by working more energy efficient. So you eat 10% less, meaning the body can use only 90% of the normal energy supply. It react by using only 85%, storing that extra 5% in case things get worse later on. So the body expects that later on, supply could drop to 70% or much less. Then those stored 5% are really useful.

This is however not anything I'm comfortable believing before I read it from reputable sources. From a strict weight standpoint, I've rarely seen anything that doesn't align to your TDEE mainly differing by your weight and muscle/body ratio, unless chemically induced.

There was a recent study on alcohol in this scenario, but even that mostly indicated the effects on hunger, not on energy expenditure: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines...

While I'd say that the keto diet works, it's not very practical, when accounting for eating in restaurants, socially (other people cooking for you, you cooking for others), etc.

What is your goal? Just losing weight? Being healthier? Body recomposition?

What is your life today? Could you cut out something you indulge in now? Alcohol, snacks, sugar in your drinks? Would you be content in cutting those out?

Do you work out? Could you see yourself doing that a few times a week? What would you enjoy doing? Hard 7 minute work-outs daily? Fun climbing/swimming/rowing/hiking? Lifting in gyms?

TLDR; Whatever diet/routine works is whatever you can stick with. I hate running/endurance training, so HIIT and calisthenics is what I've had most fun with. Would love climbing if I didn't hate heights :)

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#135
post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Insulin resistance: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20427477 As for the cholesterol, the study I linked was probably not a very good example - sorry. Saturated fat does raise cholesterol however - so unless you are on a vegan low carb diet, you will see it rise. (IF you keep your weight steady, weight loss almost always lowers cholesterol)

Counter source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4264021/

Losing weight, especially fat does wonders for insulin sensitivity, though.

The low carb group lost 6.2 kg of fat. That is a lot. I do wonder what happens if you look at insulin sensitivity when weight and fat mass remains mostly neutral. I do not know if there are studies done on that (in humans). I will have a look around.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the sample size was large enough and you could factor our everything else, then yes. I don't think anything like this was done, though. What exactly is your point, then?

That the lifestyle difference is irrelevant since any study that measures the impact of a food in health should control for it.

It can't be controlled for if there is no variation in the population. At that point it becomes a fixed effect--a population-specific intercept, as it were--and the only way to net that out would be through a difference-in-difference type study.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#137
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20 years is a very relevant timescale since we need to prevent the tipping point of melting artcitc methane deposits and loss of reflection from permafrost areas.

Yea, I agree. Cows also live about 20 years, so even not breeding cows wouldn't solve this problem. The morality of eating butter is kind of a moot point when all the production mechanisms are already in place and they aren't flexible. A possible solution would be methane fixing bacteria (methanotrophs) in the guts of cows or in the ocean where > 75% of the current concentration atmospheric methane originates. The oc…

Cows can live that long but after production drops (about 4 years) they will be sold off for beef. Not breeding cows would definitely help.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy_cattle lists a few sources for the 4 years figure.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#138
post #109
post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we focus on diet over environment too much. It isn't just what you eat but how you get around that is vital to tackling the cardiovascular epidemic. The only evidence that I currently have available is the Netherlands. The only western country to have a reducing obesity index, by 2030, predicted to be 8.5% down from 10%. Their diet is a very typical western diet. However their transport system and their urban…

In Netherlands it is common to have rather cold temperatures in houses even if people can afford to pay for warmth. And cold requires body to spend much more energy that is coming directly from burning body fat unless one shivering from cold. In fact if one wants to loose like 10 kilos quickly, just climb to Everest. Most of that weight will be spent on body heating, not muscular work. That also explains why butter d…

[deleted]

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any references on that? I was under the impression being cold didn't really burn that many more calories. I'll stop wearing a jacket if I can burn hundreds of calories.

"Being cold" does not have any particular caloric advantage until and unless you are cold enough to shiver. Shivering, as it happens, is a fantastic way to burn calories, and 15 minutes of shivering is equivalent to approximately an hour's worth of exercise. http://www.livestrong.com/article/317620-how-many-calories-a...

That link contradicts that?

"even mild cold that doesn't cause you to shiver starts to burn through those brown fat stores, jumpstarting your caloric burn rate."

Famously, Inuit team drivers for Arctic expeditions would eat all the butter out of the food supplies first.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is: Butter contains 3 % trans fats. And even keto fanatics admit that trans fats are extremely unhealthy. You could say it doesn't have a huge impact and that might be true because it's only a small part of the diet. However, any amount of trans fat is dangerous. The body's enzymes can hardly remove any trans fat build up in the arteries.

> Butter contains 3 % trans fats. _No_ it does not. Trans fats are a completely artificial creation originally thought to avoid weight gain because it's specifically _not_ butter. They don't exist naturally in any butter.

Yes they do contain trans fats - just not the same kind - and recent research shows that they are probably just as damaging as the artificial creations. See my comment to the other poster.
Post reply on HN