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

Should people be eating more fat?

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#81

Post by tomp »

cschmidt wrote: post #60
jp555 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being fat/obese and/or sedentary is a major contributor to insulin resistance. Your protein/fat/carb intake is not a significant contributor at all outside how much of them you're eating is keeping you fat/obese. Calories > Macros

Wow, I just disagree with everything you're posting on this thread. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but be aware that people who do keto think you are just so wrong. I've lost 33 pounds since May eating LCHF. I just eat until I'm full, and I feel much better. So really all I've changed are my macros. Macros > Calories. You should read a Gary Taubes book, and see what you think.

I disagree with what jp555 just said as well (from what I've read, I think that high-GI foods do negatively impact insulin resistance), but I think you don't quite understand his other comments. The point is, because you changed the macros, you're feeling full much sooner (because fat makes you more "full" faster than sugars), which causes you to eat less calories, which causes you to lose weight. Calories > Macros in that sense.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#82

Post by tomp »

cschmidt wrote: post #61
jp555 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Macros do not significantly affect metabolic rate. Exercise does though. Glycogen (carbs) is the preferred fuel for almost every cell in our bodies. All the fat & protein we eat that ends up used as metabolic fuel will first be converted into carbs. Now granted the thermal effect of these macros are different (it takes more energy to turn protein into fuel than it does to convert table sugar) but the idea that "you n…

Many people think that ketones are the preferred fuel for every cell in our bodies.

Do they? Everything I've read about keto diet is that it will make you less "short-term energized" - you're lacking glycogen, i.e. you won't be able to sprint as much.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#83

Post by tomp »

dpeck wrote: post #23

fyi, if you're interested in losing weight using this approach the /r/keto subreddit is quite good and very encouraging. I won't say its for everyone, but it certainly worked for me, and after getting over the initial hump I felt better than I ever had. Huge amounts of energy, feeling great after 4 hours of sleep, brain feeling like I was grasping concepts and finding solutions quicker.

Anytime I read about keto diet, I read that there's much less of the "short-term" energy, e.g. you can't sprint as much (but long runs are ok). Did you experience that as well, or was it uniformly high-energy?

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#84

Post by jp555 »

tomp wrote: post #81
cschmidt wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, I just disagree with everything you're posting on this thread. You're certainly entitled to your opinions, but be aware that people who do keto think you are just so wrong. I've lost 33 pounds since May eating LCHF. I just eat until I'm full, and I feel much better. So really all I've changed are my macros. Macros > Calories. You should read a Gary Taubes book, and see what you think.

I disagree with what jp555 just said as well (from what I've read, I think that high-GI foods do negatively impact insulin resistance), but I think you don't quite understand his other comments. The point is, because you changed the macros, you're feeling full much sooner (because fat makes you more "full" faster than sugars), which causes you to eat less calories, which causes you to lose weight. Calories > Macros i…

FYI beef spikes insulin higher than rice does. Insulin is released when we eat any food, both stopping the mobilization of fat and driving this food energy into cells to power metabolism. This is analogous to not drawing money out of your savings when you have cash in your hand.

As far as the spiking of insulin, it's just proportional to the rate in which food-energy enters the blood stream. It's not itself bad, and only when it does not work like this do we identify it as a problem (eg. diabetes). But there's this pervasive misunderstanding that spiking insulin is what causes insulin resistance. It's not from the insulin directly, it's from the chronic overfeeding (or other health problems) that's causing the insulin to stay high and drive the resistance adaptation. It's similar to the cholesterol myths. High cholesterol can be a signal that your immune system is dealing with inflammation; but it's that inflammation that is the problem, not the cholesterol.

My point was that the idea that carbs are somehow worse is fallacious. Chronically eating too much can contribute to insulin insensitivity; what you eat is much less important than how much you eat.

If you really want to keep insulin low and maximize fat mobility, nothing beats not eating anything at all. Light exercise like walking in a fasted state (more intense exercise shifts metabolism away from fat and back to fast-energy carbs) is a very effective tactic to target fat loss. But of course this needs to happen in the context of appropriate daily caloric intake. Never subjugate fundamental principles to minor details.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#85

Post by a_c_s »

cstrahan wrote: post #63
a_c_s wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For cows grass is also predominantly carbs! Grass is mostly fiber, which is converted into carbs by the intestinal flora of the cow. So why does corn fatten them better? Is it the macronutrient makeup of digested grass vs digested corn, or is it simply that corn is more calorie dense than grass?

My understanding is that it's the difference in glycemic index. Corn has a GI of 60, whereas spinach has a GI of 0 (couldn't find the GI for grass, so...). The higher the GI, the more impact on blood sugar and insulin, and insulin causes the body to use sugars over fat for fuel. So how does corn stack up against, say, table sugar? Table sugar has a GI of 68, so cows (or people, for that matter) that consume a lot of…

You're still treating cows and people as equivalent: thanks to the microorganisms in their guts, cows break down fiber, which is entirely indigestible for humans.

Unless you know the glycemic load of both digested corn and digested grass for cows you can't compare them with the figures for humans. And more importantly, drawing nutritional wisdom from such a comparison is foolish at best.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#86

Post by cstrahan »

a_c_s wrote: post #85
cstrahan wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that it's the difference in glycemic index. Corn has a GI of 60, whereas spinach has a GI of 0 (couldn't find the GI for grass, so...). The higher the GI, the more impact on blood sugar and insulin, and insulin causes the body to use sugars over fat for fuel. So how does corn stack up against, say, table sugar? Table sugar has a GI of 68, so cows (or people, for that matter) that consume a lot of…

You're still treating cows and people as equivalent: thanks to the microorganisms in their guts, cows break down fiber, which is entirely indigestible for humans. Unless you know the glycemic load of both digested corn and digested grass for cows you can't compare them with the figures for humans. And more importantly, drawing nutritional wisdom from such a comparison is foolish at best.

"Unless you know the glycemic load of both digested corn and digested grass for cows you can't compare them with the figures for humans. And more importantly, drawing nutritional wisdom from such a comparison is foolish at best."

I agree with what your saying. Given what I know about nutrition in humans, I'm suggesting that maybe there's a similar effect in cows. Perhaps someone can chime in regarding the GI for cows, and if similar, it might be something worth further researching.

Definitely not suggesting that what applies to humans always applies to cows.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#87

Post by nsxwolf »

cstrahan wrote: post #63
a_c_s wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For cows grass is also predominantly carbs! Grass is mostly fiber, which is converted into carbs by the intestinal flora of the cow. So why does corn fatten them better? Is it the macronutrient makeup of digested grass vs digested corn, or is it simply that corn is more calorie dense than grass?

My understanding is that it's the difference in glycemic index. Corn has a GI of 60, whereas spinach has a GI of 0 (couldn't find the GI for grass, so...). The higher the GI, the more impact on blood sugar and insulin, and insulin causes the body to use sugars over fat for fuel. So how does corn stack up against, say, table sugar? Table sugar has a GI of 68, so cows (or people, for that matter) that consume a lot of…

Wouldn't the glycemic index of spinach / grass be higher than 0 for a cow, though? Because they are able to convert it into sugar?

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#88

Post by applecore »

bane wrote: post #59
applecore wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting theory regarding bone marrow consumption and early human brain development... Can you recommend any articles or research on the topic to learn more?

In terms of modern science, we know marrow can have direct impact on neuron development in adults. http://www.foh.dhhs.gov/NYCU/BoneMarrow.asp Earlier scientific work has shown that bone marrow cells can enter the mouse brain and produce new neurons. However, the new study is the first to show that this phenomenon can occur in the human brain. The study appears in the January 20, 2003, online early edition of the Pro…

Thank you.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#89

Post by dpeck »

tomp wrote: post #83
dpeck wrote: post #23

fyi, if you're interested in losing weight using this approach the /r/keto subreddit is quite good and very encouraging. I won't say its for everyone, but it certainly worked for me, and after getting over the initial hump I felt better than I ever had. Huge amounts of energy, feeling great after 4 hours of sleep, brain feeling like I was grasping concepts and finding solutions quicker.

Anytime I read about keto diet, I read that there's much less of the "short-term" energy, e.g. you can't sprint as much (but long runs are ok). Did you experience that as well, or was it uniformly high-energy?

I'd say thats probably true, but likely has more to do with training than diet.

I would do intervals of walking/running while pushing my son in his stroller and have no problem with it, even while quite overweight and never being a runner. I shocked myself the first time I did 3 miles without really thinking about it or feeling very winded.

Re: Should people be eating more fat?

#90

Post by smartial_arts »

bane wrote: post #59
applecore wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting theory regarding bone marrow consumption and early human brain development... Can you recommend any articles or research on the topic to learn more?

In terms of modern science, we know marrow can have direct impact on neuron development in adults. http://www.foh.dhhs.gov/NYCU/BoneMarrow.asp Earlier scientific work has shown that bone marrow cells can enter the mouse brain and produce new neurons. However, the new study is the first to show that this phenomenon can occur in the human brain. The study appears in the January 20, 2003, online early edition of the Pro…

The bone marrow studies look at implanted, not orally consumed material.

Just in case anybody assumes "If I eat more bone marrow I'll get new brain cells built from the cells I eat".

Post reply on HN