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

Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 88 posts

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#51

Post by brandonb »

We know shockingly little about nutrition, but this paper is a great summary of what we do know from both association studies and randomized trials: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/24/2870.full

In particular, table 2 summarizes what we know about each type of food (sodium, saturated fat, trans fat, carbs, sugar, ...) and what type of study we know it from (e.g., randomized trial or association study?): http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/24/2870/T2.expansion...)

The best type of evidence you could have is a randomized trial of clinical end points--divide people randomly into (say) low fat and low carb diets, run the study for a few years, and measure what percentage of people have a heart attack. That's column 4, and it's nearly empty. The only things we seem to know are that total fat seems to be neutral, and substituting polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat reduces heart attacks.

In the absence of that gold standard evidence, we're relying on weaker but more convenient types of study designs -- randomized trials that measure surrogate metrics (e.g., blood cholesterol and blood pressure), or various types of association studies.

As of now, those seem to be telling us that alcohol, dietary fiber, and unsaturated fats help our risk factors for a heart attack, and trans fats, sodium, carbs, and cholesterol make our risk factors worse. But those conclusions can easily change since they're based on a surrogate, and indeed, we've already seen the recommendation against eating cholesterol reversed: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-cal...

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#52

Post by CuriouslyC »

merpnderp wrote: post #40
CuriouslyC wrote: post #2

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 that is based on pretty crappy science. People who cut out refined carbs and sugar, yet eat a very high fat diet have healthy levels of triglycerides and LDL. The science is to the point that the only real danger of high fat diets is colon cancer. But adding fiber to the diet can offset those risks. And of course people want mono and poly unsaturated fats, but they're more expensive and harder to eat in quant…

Congrats on the weight loss.

The fact that you lost 40 pounds in that time frame indicates to me that you were running about an 800 calorie a day deficit. This is important because calorie restriction has been shown to directly improve those numbers, as has weight loss. It is very likely if you cut your calories by the same amount, and lost the same amount of weight with a diet higher in carbohydrates and lower in fat, you would have had similar results.

With that being said, if those dietary restrictions allowed you to lose weight with ad libidum feeding, then they were the right choice for you.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#53

Post by wang_li »

alextgordon wrote: post #7

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…

>70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you.

So? Americans are not subjects, they are citizens. They do not belong to you or the government or any other institution that has a constitutional basis to be telling them to be healthy. If someone chooses to be fat too bad. If you a freaking out because it's going to cost you so much money to deal with their health problems, you should have thought of that before you voted for someone who promised you universal health care.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#54

Post by gadders »

CuriouslyC wrote: post #38
Jdoemk2 wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just some research studies on the metabolic effects of saturated fats that might prove interesting: Overfeeding Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat Causes Distinct Effects on Liver and Visceral Fat Accumulation in Humans. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/1... Substituting dietary saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat changes abdominal fat distribution and improves insulin sensitivity. http://…

I could grab a load of studies from the appendix of her book, but rather than swap PubMed links I'd recommend you read it: http://thebigfatsurprise.com/

It shows you the human factors that led to the distortion and exaggeration of the science to maintain the position of the originating scientists.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#55

Post by gadders »

2mur wrote: post #48
jerf wrote: post #21

Because they can't change their recommendations without admitting they were wrong , and governments generally can't do that . Or, at least, the speed with which they can change their recommendations is sharply bounded by ensuring they never quite have to admit fault. Admitting you were wrong is basically begging to have your funding cut, your reputation trashed, your influence removed, your job cut. The closest thing…

The 3 hardest words to string together: I was wrong (see also: the War on Drugs)

(see also: Extreme Global Warming predictions)

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#56

Post by DanBC »

gadders wrote: post #54
CuriouslyC wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just some research studies on the metabolic effects of saturated fats that might prove interesting: Overfeeding Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat Causes Distinct Effects on Liver and Visceral Fat Accumulation in Humans. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/1... Substituting dietary saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat changes abdominal fat distribution and improves insulin sensitivity. http://…

I could grab a load of studies from the appendix of her book, but rather than swap PubMed links I'd recommend you read it: http://thebigfatsurprise.com/ It shows you the human factors that led to the distortion and exaggeration of the science to maintain the position of the originating scientists.

This is a perfect demonstration of why nutrition discussions fucking suck.

Someone provides a long list of peer-reviewed published studies; you respond with a shitty book.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#57

Post by sarciszewski »

innguest wrote: post #22
sarciszewski wrote: post #6

Heh. I switched to a high fat, moderate protein, almost zero carbohydrate diet back in April and lost 40 lbs so far.

And yet when I say that the government doesn't like fat because it makes people healthy (less dependent on the government) and faster thinkers (less likely to blindly trust the government) people downvote me. Impact of obesity on the brain, memory and intelligence: https://www.sciencenews.org/article/obesity-messes-brain "Obesity has been associated with a reduced total brain volume and diminished gray matter density…

It's no secret that there are a lot of terrible people on HN with over 500 karma, but usually it doesn't help to complain about them. You just give them a chance to downvote you again.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#58

Post by mod »

saiya-jin wrote: post #30

one thing i don't get with all these sways of opinions... everybody is so obsessed with what they eat and how much, nitpicking contents of this and that, instead of trying to match their intake with amount if activity per day. I know it's hard, i know you have to produce that nasty thing called sweat to actually achieve anything, but for christ sake... just do some activities! ideally daily, with some variability. Bu…

> add a tax that will go directly to health system treating all those

Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but I'm not sure we have any tax that that goes directly into any direct remedial use for any type of issue.

I can't think of one, anyway. If tobacco tax does, then color me impressed (and surprised).

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#59

Post by logfromblammo »

acconrad wrote: post #31
Jdoemk2 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is simply not true. You are oversimplifying the issue. As an example, I'd like you to go take a shot of olive oil and tell me you feel fuller than having a cup of steel cut oatmeal with a cup of blueberries. In fact, in 1 shot of olive oil, that's 3 tbsp, which is roughly 360 calories, whereas the oatmeal and berries clocks in around 250 calories. "All things being equal", I just put fat against carbs and the oa…

The experiments that measure satiety generally have the subjects eat a measured amount of a certain food, wait a specified period of time, then eat from a buffet wherein subjects may eat pre-measured portions of whatever they like.

In such experiments, certain foods do have a significant impact upon the calories later consumed from that buffet. Some foods are more filling than others. I forget the exact results, other than the one that was surprising to me: whole boiled potatoes were the grand champion of fullness, and 3 times as filling as a calorie-equivalent portion of french fries.

So do your experiment for real, with some volunteers. You will need to make some oatmeal, and pour some oil shots, and have a buffet ready. And you will have to continue the experiment for multiple days, so you can get same-person comparisons for different foods.

Please actually do the experiment before you declare your hypothesis confirmed. For what it's worth, I think it probably would be, but there is always the possibility that we will be surprised by the results.

Naturally, to avoid accusations that your experiment cherry-picked specific foods that are not representative of their fat/carb classes, you would also have to test other foods, like coconut oil, glazed doughnuts, rendered beef suet, dry white toast, butter, and bananas.

But wait. That's still oversimplifying the issue. Boiled white potatoes are three times as filling as plain white bread. If some carbs are more filling than other carbs, how can you meaningfully compare all carbs against all fats?

I guess you can't. The experiment would have to serve isolated food components. Rather than olive oil, serve a shot of caprylic acid, or stearic acid, or DHA. Rather than oatmeal, serve pure starch, or pure glucose syrup, or fructose. Maybe also test the effects of added MSG, aspartame, or table salt.

Everyone is oversimplifying the issue.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#60

Post by mod »

DanBC wrote: post #56
gadders wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could grab a load of studies from the appendix of her book, but rather than swap PubMed links I'd recommend you read it: http://thebigfatsurprise.com/ It shows you the human factors that led to the distortion and exaggeration of the science to maintain the position of the originating scientists.

This is a perfect demonstration of why nutrition discussions fucking suck. Someone provides a long list of peer-reviewed published studies; you respond with a shitty book.

To add: this is also why many other discussions suck: politics, economics, religion, etc.

Everyone's a fucking expert, can disregard science because [someone on tv] disagrees with peer-reviewed studies, and there's no obvious correct answer.

At least on HN it's moderately fact-based, even in disagreement. If you dare to read discussions--dare I call them that--on somewhere like Facebook or Reddit...well, godspeed.

Post reply on HN