Live data from Hacker News

Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

nytimes.com

11–20 of 88 posts

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#11
>Based on years of low-fat messaging, most Americans still actively avoid dietary fat, while eating far too much refined carbohydrates.

This is the crux of the problem; years of social programming is hard to reverse. Try to explain to someone that fat is good and carbs are bad. It shouldn't be hard to convince someone, but even the basic premise is tantamount to heresy to most Americans. Fat gives you clogged arteries! Fat makes you fat!

Carbs and sugar are the American Way™.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#12

A large part of the issue is that in the traditional American diet, a significant portion of fat intake is in the form of saturated fat. There is a decent amount of research showing saturated fat has inflammatory effects in the body and directly causes insulin resistance. For a long time doctors have had success encouraging patients to eat diets excluding America's primary sources of saturated fat (red meat, bacon/la…

I think you're really far off with that assessment.

The vilification of saturated fat has been widely shown to be based on poor evidence, and there are many arguments for it being healthy.

Furthermore, it is not clear-cut that mono- and poly- unsaturated fats are as healthy as you say they are.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#13
Because whenever they set dietary guidelines last the common way of thinking was that "fat is bad" and since it's the government progress is ridiculously slow and also because resetting dietary guidelines is probably way down on the list of "Things that we should really fund this year"?

I've seen comments here and elsewhere pop up across the entire internet in response to this article saying that obviously it's a government conspiracy and a lobbying issue and they're all trying to keep us fat and stupid but that's some serious tin foil hat lines of thinking.

Also: But rather than focusing on total fat or other numbers on the back of the package, the emphasis should be on eating more minimally processed fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, fish, yogurt, vegetable oils and whole grains in place of refined grains, white potatoes, added sugars and processed meats.

Which seems to be saying "hey, if you don't eat processed stuff and instead eat more whole foods from a variety of sources and strive for lots of variety in your diet then you're probably going to be healthier and less likely to gain a bunch of weight" which seems to be pretty ridiculously obvious nutrition science.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#14
post #4

The federal government isn't afraid of fat, but carbs, most extensively from corn and corn syrup, are a huge industry in the US, and the agriculture industry is a massive lobby. Politicians aren't going to tell you to eat fats not sugars when your sugar addiction is keeping them in office. http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/11/why-our-food...

This doesn't make sense. Corn is used much more heavily as feed stock for animals than as a sweetener or dietary carb for humans. Corn growers thus have more invested in encouraging high-fat diets than low-fat diets.

About 4.2 billion bushels of U.S. corn per year are used to feed livestock (dairy, beef, hogs, poultry). About 1.4 billion bushels go toward uses including sweeteners like HFCS, as well as toward cereals (and booze).

This per: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_...

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#15
post #10

Fat is calorie dense. There's ~380 calories per 100g of sugar but 880 calories per 100g of olive oil. 70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you. If your diet contains a lot of fat, you're consuming more calories than if you substituted the fat with something else (e.g. by avoiding deep fried foods, and eating leaner meat). If you are not overweight, then feel free to eat as much fat as y…

Once upon a time I did the ketogenic diet which bases the bulk of your daily calories from healthy natural fat. No carbs allowed except for carbs from fiber. I, along many other people who have did this diet have lost a lot of weight. It's simply not true that you can't lose weight by eating primarily fatty foods.

Most Americans could not sustain a ketogenic diet for any amount of time, so it is pointless for the purposes of a national health body.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#16

Fat is calorie dense. There's ~380 calories per 100g of sugar but 880 calories per 100g of olive oil. 70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you. If your diet contains a lot of fat, you're consuming more calories than if you substituted the fat with something else (e.g. by avoiding deep fried foods, and eating leaner meat). If you are not overweight, then feel free to eat as much fat as y…

Fatty foods are often more satiating than carbs, meaning you eat less overall.

All things being equal calorie-wise fat is better for weight loss than carbs are.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#17

A large part of the issue is that in the traditional American diet, a significant portion of fat intake is in the form of saturated fat. There is a decent amount of research showing saturated fat has inflammatory effects in the body and directly causes insulin resistance. For a long time doctors have had success encouraging patients to eat diets excluding America's primary sources of saturated fat (red meat, bacon/la…

That is curious, considering our rates of heart disease and diabetes were a fraction of what they were today when people ate more saturated fats (e.g butter). And when switching to a diet where saturated fat is the primary energy source, people tend to lose weight and see an increase in insulin sensitivity.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#19
We don't know much about our bodies. I feel like every time a major news publication publishes an op-ed or a study, they're contradicting themselves[1]. One week eggs are bad, the next they're good. Same with dairy, carbs, and red meat. Then you mix in the whole "diet" complexity: Atkins? Paleo? Keto? Vegan? How do I choose?

When you study the longest-living peoples of the world, you also find extremely varied diets: the carbohydrate-rich Greeks rely heavily on fruits, veggies and whole grains. They also love goat's milk and wine. While natives of costa rica are primarily relying on "evil" white rice and beans, and heavy on pork and chicken. The people of Japan are also heavy on white rice, and virtually no fat in their diet, since their diet is primarily plant-based[2].

The truth is that everyone's needs are different. As an anecdotal example, I was convinced that keto was the right way, and that carbohydrates were not going to help me. Did I lose fat? Yes. Did I feel great? Sure. It turns out that even with great HDL and Triglycerides, my LDL and fasting glucose were still high. And I'm not alone in this problem from keto either [3].

After switching to a broader, less-restrictive diet, which now includes whole grains (quinoa, oatmeal, and wild rice), beans, and fermented vegetables (kimchi, sauerkraut), lots of fruits and vegetables (including starchy carbs like sweet potatoes and squash), I've lowered my LDL and fasting glucose (yes, now that carbs are back in my diet). Different things work for different people because everyone has a different metabolism. It seems that, if you study the longest-living people, the trends are as follows:

* Don't overeat.

* Eat mostly plant-based, whole or minimally-processed/refined foods.

* Leave 10-20% of your diet for indulgences. Virtually all of the longest-living peoples drink alcohol or coffee on the regular. And even then, by allowing yourself that affordance, you don't risk binge eating or rebounding for days/weeks/months on end.

* Ignore fad diets. Stick with the whole foods that you like to eat, get in some variety, but don't be dogmatic about dietary approaches, because not only will you likely not adhere to such restrictions, but you'll probably find yourself being contradicted by another study in the next 3-10 years.

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/why-nutriti...

[2] http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/prog...

[3] https://www.google.com/webhp?#safe=off&q=keto+fasting+glucos...

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#20
post #12

A large part of the issue is that in the traditional American diet, a significant portion of fat intake is in the form of saturated fat. There is a decent amount of research showing saturated fat has inflammatory effects in the body and directly causes insulin resistance. For a long time doctors have had success encouraging patients to eat diets excluding America's primary sources of saturated fat (red meat, bacon/la…

I think you're really far off with that assessment. The vilification of saturated fat has been widely shown to be based on poor evidence, and there are many arguments for it being healthy. Furthermore, it is not clear-cut that mono- and poly- unsaturated fats are as healthy as you say they are.

It isn't even that clear-cut that saturated fatty acids with different lengths have equal effects on health.

Butyric acid (C4:0) and stearic acid (C18:0) are both saturated fatty acids. I would be very hesitant to claim that they are interchangeable for the purposes of human body chemistry.

Post reply on HN