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

61–70 of 88 posts

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#61

Post by Jdoemk2 »

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…

I said fatty foods are often more satiating. Your oatmeal vs olive oil competition has nothing to do with what I said.

A higher fat:carb balance than mainstream diets leads to less hunger, because of the satiety of fat when combined with other foods (especially fibre and protein) and mor importantly because of the reduced insulin spike when carbs are reduced.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#62

Post by rasz_pl »

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…

Lets be real here. Average fatass wont be craving no olive oil tea spoons, but he will get up at 2 in the morning to snort a gallon of blueberries.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#63

Post by irishcoffee »

kazinator wrote: post #50
irishcoffee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic, but every time I see the phrase "a fraction of what it was" I get a bit miffed. 99/100 is a fraction. 101/100 is a fraction. Every thing that gets measured in time intervals is always going to be a fraction of what it was before, bigger or smaller.

"A fraction of what it was" is a common idiom, which uses fraction in the ordinary sense. "Fraction" is related to words like "fracture" and "fragment". When you fraction something into pieces, they are always smaller than the whole (barring strange spatial partitionings: Banach-Tarski paradox and all that). Maybe you were playing hooky in grade 3 when the teacher explained that 101/100 is an improper fraction, which…

An improper comment is still a comment. An improper fraction is still a fraction. What exactly is your point? I'm not sure why you felt the need to be snarky.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#64

Post by irishcoffee »

roel_v wrote: post #41
irishcoffee wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Off-topic, but every time I see the phrase "a fraction of what it was" I get a bit miffed. 99/100 is a fraction. 101/100 is a fraction. Every thing that gets measured in time intervals is always going to be a fraction of what it was before, bigger or smaller.

That's one meaning of the word. It also means 'much smaller than it once was'. Funny thing with words is that they can mean different things in different contexts.

Does it?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraction

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#65

Post by dragonwriter »

irishcoffee wrote: post #29
lsniddy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Off-topic, but every time I see the phrase "a fraction of what it was" I get a bit miffed. 99/100 is a fraction. 101/100 is a fraction. Every thing that gets measured in time intervals is always going to be a fraction of what it was before, bigger or smaller.

Words and phrases have multiple, context-dependent meanings. That's just how natural language works.

"a fraction of ..." is commonly used in informal and/or non-technical contexts to mean what would be expressed in a more technical context as "a positive, proper fraction of ..."

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#66

Post by roel_v »

irishcoffee wrote: post #64
roel_v wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's one meaning of the word. It also means 'much smaller than it once was'. Funny thing with words is that they can mean different things in different contexts.

Does it? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraction

Did you even read you link? The very page you link to says "3. bit, little ".

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#67

Post by jawilson2 »

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://…

Do these studies control for carb intake?

A pretty huge collection of studies I have show that a low-carb diet, high in fats (saturated and unsaturated) is hugely effective in reducing bad LDL and increasing good HDL and LDL.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzEPvoDPVTV5SzJlSHV0Y21rZ0k...

When I was a neurology professor at a highly-ranked Children's Hospital, half the staff was on a LCHF diet.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#68

Post by JadeNB »

jerf wrote: post #39
LanceH wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The next wave of food bans are worse because "everyone is an eventual consumer of healthcare" so the choice to ignore the government on some things is also being taken away.

This is one of the important reasons for my general vague libertarianism. Governments can be wrong, markets can be wrong, individuals can be wrong, clubs can be wrong, companies can be wrong, all people and all elements of the powerset of all people can be wrong. (Except perhaps the null one, but it's also not known for being very right....) But the incentives for what happens next varies widely, and very-large-organ…

all elements of the powerset of all people can be wrong … [e]xcept perhaps the null one ….

Are you kidding? Every opinion held by the null set is wrong!

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#69

Post by CuriouslyC »

jawilson2 wrote: post #67
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://…

Do these studies control for carb intake? A pretty huge collection of studies I have show that a low-carb diet, high in fats (saturated and unsaturated) is hugely effective in reducing bad LDL and increasing good HDL and LDL. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzEPvoDPVTV5SzJlSHV0Y21rZ0k... When I was a neurology professor at a highly-ranked Children's Hospital, half the staff was on a LCHF diet.

Some do, some don't.

One of the big wins for low carb high fat diets is that people tend to self regulate better. I hear people say "I ate as much as I wanted and I lost weight" all the time. Thus it is important that calories also be controlled.

The big issue with carbs is that when you have too much glucose floating around, the liver responds by converting it into palmitic acid. Palmitic acid seems to be one of the worst saturated fatty acids in terms of metabolic effects, and hepatic fat production tends to result in increased levels of low density lipoprotein. Fructose is even worse than glucose in this respect, as its primary metabolic fates are hepatic glycogen storage (which is very limited) or conversion to fat. Note that these issues only occur when you consume carbohydrates in excess of your body's ability to readily store or metabolize them - consumed in moderation, carbs are just fine.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#70

Post by ak39 »

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)

Correct. That's science. And if you can't say that ("I was wrong"), it's simply dogma.
Post reply on HN