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

71–80 of 88 posts

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#71

Post by CyberDildonics »

LanceH wrote: post #28
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 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.

Where did bans come in to play? What food is banned that you want? And please don't say trans fats if you don't understand that they were a harmful preservation method and don't affect taste at all.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#72

Post by zo1 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #71
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.

Where did bans come in to play? What food is banned that you want? And please don't say trans fats if you don't understand that they were a harmful preservation method and don't affect taste at all.

I don't think it's so much about banning as it is about "pushing". Look at the subsidies for certain food groups, or the labeling requirements (hint, these feed into peoples' paranoia and preconceived notions of good/bad healthy/unhealthy), etc. So as long as they pipe-up the narrative they want (and scare people about other things), and people listen to it, then they they're effectively creating "ban"-like barriers and hindrances for people making their own choices.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#73

Post by Spivak »

JadeNB wrote: post #68
jerf wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

That's preposterous! Every opinion held by the null set is correct!

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#74

Post by upofadown »

The article talks about some dietary ideas that turned out to be wrong while at the same time saying stuff like "... 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.".

A wrong thing in no way makes other stuff right.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#75

Post by Spivak »

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.

Giving the benefit of the doubt here, presumably at the end of that book is also a long list of peer-reviewed studies that the author based the book on.

Both the parent comment and the book are essentially distillations of the current scientific knowledge on the effects of fat in a person's diet.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#76

Post by Spivak »

LanceH wrote: post #33
mason240 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Most Americans could not sustain a ketogenic diet for any amount of time Why not?

Because they grew up with a ton of grains on the bottom of the officially government sponsored food pyramid.

That isn't the real reason, it's that the bottom of that food pyramid is cheap, they're used everywhere as fillers, and they make that cheap food more palatable.

It can't be national policy because there's a huge portion of the population that couldn't afford that diet.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#77

Post by maxerickson »

logfromblammo wrote: post #49
alextgordon wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A national health body is pointless in the context of the US health care system. Nobody here is going to fix that problem. But we can still self-experiment based on dietary hypotheses. An anecdote is not data, but it can be a counterexample! When someone says, "You can't lose weight by eating mostly fat," and someone else says, "I lost X weight on a diet that was 60% fat," that casts strong doubt upon the validity of…

Our energy metabolism isn't that mysterious. Like, we know how various macro nutrients are broken down into constituents and the pathways that are then used to convert them into energy that is available to cells.

The problem with the food energy hypothesis as a path to weight loss is that it is a lot of work to accurately count and limit calories, and that it is difficult to accurately estimate calorie consumption (a good way is to count calories for a long time and calculate consumption based on the corresponding change in weight). Once there is an accurate estimate of consumption, sustaining intake below that level will result in weight loss.

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#78

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#79

Post by Jdoemk2 »

alextgordon wrote: post #44
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.

The feeling of fullness at the end of a meal is primarily driven by the stretching of the stomach. Which is why people who have their stomach stapled feel fuller faster, and so eat less per meal. Fat, with its extremely high calorie density, is some of the least satiating food you can eat. This oversimplifies it a bit, because there are multiple signals and sensations related to satiety and hunger. The mechanics of s…

You are oversimplifying it. Calorie density is not the only factor related to satiety.

Blood sugar, insulin, the combination of foods eaten, fibre levels, all contribute to satiety. And in this context adding more fat and less carbs to your diet does increase satiety

Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?

#80

Post by gadders »

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.

It's a "shitty book"? Oh well, all the parts where she discusses the methodology flaws in studies are completely bogus then, because you think the book is shitty. Good argument.

Still, you clearly know more than the Economist, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the BMJ who all gave it good reviews. We're totally lucky to have you here to enlighten us.

Post reply on HN