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

How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

eatingacademy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#171

Post by ethermal »

latch wrote: post #36

While it's really interesting to debate whether you should eat potatoes or beef, the real battle for the western world is that we stop eating processed foods. Wheat vs eggs seems like a silly debate when people are living off of Coke, Oreos and Capt'N Crunch. Whenever I hear these arguments, I feel like these scientists aren't living in the same world as me. "Eggs are ok, declare scientists" reads the headline while…

not true in the least, the healthiest of my friends from outward appearances eat no fruit or veggies what so ever. Observations on small samples sizes are useless.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#172

Post by Julianhearn »

JPKab wrote: post #167
jerf wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What evidence do you have that too many calories dont result in weight gain?" You should read the parent again, more carefully. The point is not that that is not a true statement, the point is that is a vacuous statement, and therefore, the wrong question. It is not controversial that things that cause weight gain cause you to gain weight, but it's not a useful statement for either science or engineering, and we hav…

Thank you. How the above comment poster somehow read that I don't think excess calorie consumption is part of the chain of weight gain is beyond me.

As you can see from the number of comments on this subject there is a lot of confusion subject. We make things difficult by talking about bad foods, partitioning, healthy food, etc. People get fat from eating more calories than they burn.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#173

Post by sliverstorm »

Shivetya wrote: post #105
bad_user wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we are talking anecdotes and make-beliefs, I'll add what I saw with my own two eyes ... My grandfather was eating between 5 and 10 eggs per day, every day. He also drank at least 1 liter of home-made red whine per day, while being a big consumer of dairy products (also made in-house). Of course, because my grandparents lived on a farm and consumed what they produced or traded with neighbors, half of a normal we…

Look towards your grandfather's daily activities and not just his diet. My grandparents too lived to a ripe old age eating foods that make so called experts cringe. The real difference between them and our generation was that they never led a sedentary lifestyle. Sometimes I believe the office style of work that many celebrate; because it freed them from the fields and such; probably is the least beneficial change we…

probably is the least beneficial change we have made

Maybe, but there are trade-offs. For example, would you rather live to 100 but bust your ass every day, or live to 90 doing a desk job? Many people would pick the latter.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#174

Post by analog »

randallsquared wrote: post #158
analog wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. I don't think cutting your calories in half would result in a plateau within a few months in most cases. That's quite a major reduction, pretty much a starvation diet.

As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. The initial claim was about 300 kcal more than you need, though. My experience suggests plateau happens every time, without regard to the type of dieting done, unless it's quite literally a starvation diet. The only time I've manage to lose more than 100 pounds was on a diet of about 400 kcal a day. Reducing my diet from about 3500 kcal/day to half…

Ah ok, 100 pounds would be quite a challenging target. As I understand it though starvation diets don't work long term as they train your body to deal with food shortages by storing energy as fat.

Losing in bursts doesn't sound like it would be a healthy option for the rest of your body as well.

Do you include exercise at all? From what I've researched, and what trainers have told me, weight training is the most effective way to lose weight - when combined with calorie monitoring and some cardio.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#175

Post by analog »

BSousa wrote: post #149
analog wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if you're eating just 300kcal over what you need every day you will become overweight eventually. Edit: for reference 300kcal is about what you'd burn off with a 4 kilometer run.

I'm not saying that eating 300kcal over daily maintenance everyday would not make you fat. What I'm saying is that I really doubt the most of the people that are overweight/obese are eating according to what a BMR calculator says and because of slow metabolism they are getting fat. Also, body uses more kcals per day than BMR, you also have to take in account the activities per day. Using Harris Benedict formula: If y…

I think we basically agree, it's very easy to miss high calorie foods that can totally throw your calculations out.

And you shouldn't use a slow metabolism as an excuse for accepting a certain state, maybe that's easy for you and me to say as we both seem to be lucky enough to be healthy.

But since you can alter your metabolism it can be a useful tool as part of weight loss. Do weights, increase muscle mass, increase metabolism, lose weight. In terms of time spent weights are very effective as well - 3-5 workouts of 45mins per week is plenty.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#176

Post by analog »

ralfn wrote: post #152
analog wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well Ecstasy as an alternative to alcohol might actually be good for your overall health. I seem to remember that epistemologically it's one of the safest of the recreational drugs; safer than alcohol, tobacco, speed etc.

The problem with ectasy is that it is illegal and you are not able to judge the quality. That makes its risky in society, but not by and of itself.

You can send samples off for testing to find out what's actually present, at least in the UK.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#177

Post by randallsquared »

analog wrote: post #174
randallsquared wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As you put on more weight the amount of calories you need increases. The initial claim was about 300 kcal more than you need, though. My experience suggests plateau happens every time, without regard to the type of dieting done, unless it's quite literally a starvation diet. The only time I've manage to lose more than 100 pounds was on a diet of about 400 kcal a day. Reducing my diet from about 3500 kcal/day to half…

Ah ok, 100 pounds would be quite a challenging target. As I understand it though starvation diets don't work long term as they train your body to deal with food shortages by storing energy as fat. Losing in bursts doesn't sound like it would be a healthy option for the rest of your body as well. Do you include exercise at all? From what I've researched, and what trainers have told me, weight training is the most effe…

I have included exercise at times. While I agree that weight training is very effective at burning more fat, it also makes me ravenous.

Losing in bursts is probably less healthy than losing steadily, but more healthy than not losing at all. :)

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#178

Post by BSousa »

analog wrote: post #175
BSousa wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying that eating 300kcal over daily maintenance everyday would not make you fat. What I'm saying is that I really doubt the most of the people that are overweight/obese are eating according to what a BMR calculator says and because of slow metabolism they are getting fat. Also, body uses more kcals per day than BMR, you also have to take in account the activities per day. Using Harris Benedict formula: If y…

I think we basically agree, it's very easy to miss high calorie foods that can totally throw your calculations out. And you shouldn't use a slow metabolism as an excuse for accepting a certain state, maybe that's easy for you and me to say as we both seem to be lucky enough to be healthy. But since you can alter your metabolism it can be a useful tool as part of weight loss. Do weights, increase muscle mass, increase…

Actually, and that is my point entirely, luck isn't the word. I have shitty genetics (I think on both sides, for the last 2-3 generations my family has been overweight/obese). Heck, during my wife's pregnancy there were complications, and due to stress + bad food + no exercise I ballooned up 9 kilos (20 pounds) in about 2.5 months. If I don't take care of myself, I gain weight quite easily.

And not to try to be the naysayer, but the effect of muscle on calories burned at rest has been quite the myth floating around. Check the references at the bottom of http://www.lanimuelrath.com/blog/calories-burned-by-muscle-v... and you will see that 10 pounds of extra muscle will burn at most 60-70 more calories than fat at rest.

Apart from that, I agree, do weight training 3-5 days a week. move around, eat healthy. That should be enough to at least get you to the normal weight range.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#179

Post by uriah »

progrock wrote: post #160
1_player wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it's safe if you buy it from a chemist. Also, in powder form (MDMA) is better than in pills.

I don't think that the associated brain damage linked to ecstasy makes it that safe in either form. Scientists can't assertain just yet as to whether the damage is human repairable or not.

I hadn't heard of the brain damage link. When searching for information on it, however, I mainly came across references to a study last year that said it is does not, in fact, cause brain damage. Additional mystery ingredients might be another story.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/19/ecstasy-harm-b...

http://www.addictionjournal.org/viewpressrelease.asp?pr=147

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#180

Post by niels_olson »

manmal wrote: post #91
niels_olson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol would most likely be due to the fact that blood cholesterol, and blood lipids generally, are more strongly related to total caloric intake. The correlation with testosterone is equally invalid. Low-hanging fruit: it is not the simplest steroid (1). But lets go a bit further: by this logic, men with hypercholesterolemia should be bulls among men. Clinic…

You rant about non-correlations and such, and then end your post by jumping to a conclusion of your choice ("The problem is..."). Either you allow arguments by others (you are no biochemist either I guess?), or you stick to it, and leave it where it is - there is no scientific consensus about what "is the problem in our society". We can only argue about that, without facts. I can't find the paper, but I read that hig…

>You rant about non-correlations and such, and then end your post by jumping to a conclusion of your choice

You want to stick around for the decade of training in between?

The 'stain of Earl K Butts' is the outrageous corn and grain subsidy.

That really is the biggest problem, by a massive factor. TV is probably second.

Post reply on HN