How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us? • Hacker News Board

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#121

Post by bad_user » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 10:56 AM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #105

bad_user wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since we are talking anecdotes and make-beliefs, I'll add what I saw with my own two eyes ... My grandfather was eating between 5 and 10 eggs per day, every day. He also drank at least 1 liter of home-made red whine per day, while being a big consumer of dairy products (also made in-house). Of course, because my grandparents lived on a farm and consumed what they produced or traded with neighbors, half of a normal we…

Look towards your grandfather's daily activities and not just his diet. My grandparents too lived to a ripe old age eating foods that make so called experts cringe. The real difference between them and our generation was that they never led a sedentary lifestyle. Sometimes I believe the office style of work that many celebrate; because it freed them from the fields and such; probably is the least beneficial change we…

    Look towards your grandfather's daily activities 
    and not just his diet

Oh, definitely.

The point I tried making is that we cannot pinpoint yet the exact cause for the trends in heart-disease, obesity and diabetes. You simply cannot blame it all on meat, or on eggs, or on carbohydrates.

In fact it's quite the opposite ... by making changes to the diet of our grandfathers, we risk a ton of negative side-effects. People nowadays drink low-fat milk, but our grandfathers were drinking whole milk straight from their own cows without problems. And our metabolism is a complex mechanism - we forget that homo sapiens were unable to digest milk, but now we digest it just fine, so it's definitely a mater of context, like culture and genetics.

And personally I tend to blame this all on three things - sedentary lifestyles, stress and preprocessed crap that contains sugar, with sugar being the only common compound that is partly carbohydrate, partly lipid, while also being a nutrient that our grandfathers had little access to.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#122

Post by 1_player » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:26 AM UTC

analog wrote: post #102

progrock wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think I'd advocate the E plan diet as a healthy weightloss program! Coconut is another food that's been demonised. Supposedly it actually encourages weight loss - and is a super food. I only wish it were cheaper here in the UK.

Well Ecstasy as an alternative to alcohol might actually be good for your overall health. I seem to remember that epistemologically it's one of the safest of the recreational drugs; safer than alcohol, tobacco, speed etc.

Well, it's safe if you buy it from a chemist. Also, in powder form (MDMA) is better than in pills.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#123

Post by analog » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:26 AM UTC

BSousa wrote: post #110

geon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, because your body doesn't have the tendency to put on weight, you eat what you like. Your friends who tend to get fat easily watch what the y eat, but it's not helping them that much. This really sounds to me like there are great differences in metabolism person to person. I have always been skinny, and I eat a lot of whatever. I don't exercise much. I know people who are "big", but eat less than I do.

People don't have that much difference in metabolisms (unless we are talking about actual health problems or differences between severe overweight and athletes). What happens is most people don't know what they are eating. BBC did a documentary where two friends, one skinny and one fat, swore the difference was due to metabolism, that the skinny one ate a lot and the fat one didn't. They tested it and found out that…

The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ) [1]

Your metabolism also slows noticeably as you get older. In my 20s I could eat anything (and lots of it) without being able to gain any weight. Now in my 40s I have to lift weights (to increase metabolism) and watch what I eat to stop putting on fat.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#124

Post by JPKab » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:34 AM UTC

Julianhearn wrote: post #120

scythe wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've observed rather different things. The people I know who eat the most meat are the Crossfitters around me. They are, in almost all cases, healthy. I have a roommate who drinks fat-free milk and eats lots of salad and pasta, who avoids meat like the plague. He's been struggling with his weight for as long as I've known him. I drink coconut milk -- which contains nothing but fat -- and a meal usually consists of so…

Weight gain is not because you have eaten the wrong food its due to too many calories. Simple as that.

What a stupid statement. It is analogous to this:

"Why is this building crowded?"

Your answer: "It's due to too many people inside. Simple as that."

Real answer: There is a popular band inside, which has caused more people to walk into the building in a given 3 hour period than leave it.

The "too many calories" people (you are one of them)all think that the effect of a bad diet (which is often bad caloric partitioning in the body, causing plummeting energy levels as fat cells steal nutrients from the rest of the body, causing a fat person to feel tired and hungry) is also the root cause.

Do kids grow because they eat more? No. They eat more because they are in a growth spurt. Obesity works the same way. A bad diet wreaks havoc on the endocrine system, mainly with insulin levels, causing excessive fat accumulation due to calories being partitioned to fat cells at the expense of the rest of the body. If a person with this kind of caloric partitioning doesn't eat excessive amounts of calories, they will feel tired. If they continue to eat the wrong kinds of foods (foods which continue the bad endocrine reaction) they will continue getting fatter in a feedback loop.

But hey, with advice like yours, you should really go and help others. Go to an insomnia board, and when someone complains of being tired, just say "Insomnia is because you don't get enough sleep. Simple as that."

What a dumb ass.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#125

Post by MDS100 » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:35 AM UTC

manmal wrote: post #91

niels_olson wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Non-correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol would most likely be due to the fact that blood cholesterol, and blood lipids generally, are more strongly related to total caloric intake. The correlation with testosterone is equally invalid. Low-hanging fruit: it is not the simplest steroid (1). But lets go a bit further: by this logic, men with hypercholesterolemia should be bulls among men. Clinic…

You rant about non-correlations and such, and then end your post by jumping to a conclusion of your choice ("The problem is..."). Either you allow arguments by others (you are no biochemist either I guess?), or you stick to it, and leave it where it is - there is no scientific consensus about what "is the problem in our society". We can only argue about that, without facts. I can't find the paper, but I read that hig…

Regarding Insulin, you'll probably love reading this: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

Agree, but eating healthy isn't that much more expensive than eating processed foods. Or at least doesn't have to if you buy the right things (bulk frozen veggies, meat etc.).

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#126

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:36 AM UTC

fhoxh wrote: post #32

rmobin wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-carb diets work for plenty of people (including me), but this is a must-read refutation of Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...

Guyenet is a joke. Peter over at HyperLipid recently ripped him to utter shreds: http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/confused.html http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/insulin-un-de... Not to mention, Taubes countered Guyenet with a 6-part series refuting Guyenet's widely mocked food-reward/palatability hypothesis: http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ances... http://garytaubes.…

I read through the first 3 of your links by taubes, which all seemed to be extremely verbose sophistry that don't address Guyanet's points at all.

At what point does Taubes actually address Guyanet's (clearly stated) claim, that if food is tastier, people eat more of it, consume more calories, and become fatter?

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#127

Post by bad_user » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:37 AM UTC

spitx wrote: post #82

raverbashing wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please refrain from playing "know-it-all" every time someone writes an anecdote Also what is mentioned has been observed multiple times in several countries. "Anecdote is not data waa waa waa" or in your example, " No. They don’t die. Mick Jagger. Keith Richard" it certainly does not condone drug usage, but it certainly shows there are exception to "drugs are bad and you will die early" (especially given the amount c…

An informed observer would supplant his anecdote with a smidgen of studied data. My-grandfather-lived-to-be-99-and-hes-from-swine-country is spectacularly useless. Make an effort. Add detail. We are not demanding khi-square tests just some detail. Race, Geography, Family history, Rigor of vocation, Illnesses, Special abilities etc. No amount of detail will approach the rigor of a proper study. But make an effort.

Dude, it's not "studied data".

I agree that we should all rely more on actual facts and studies and that we tend to perpetuate myths heard from a friend of a friend, which is just bad, especially for us since we should think like scientists. However it is not our job to do studies on nutrition and the available studies on nutrition are either biased or not conclusive of anything - listening to your gut feeling about what is right is actually the better path to take at this point in time.

Also, I could have added details, such as race (Caucasian), geography (Europe, temperate climate, hills), family history (war veterans, poverty after communism came, rough life), etc... but I usually don't because these are personal details and I like my privacy on the Internet, even though you could probably find plenty about me or my family if you wanted to, but that doesn't mean I have to make that info easy to find.

You also misunderstood me. I actually think that genetics, lifestyle, local culture are all factors that play a role, so I don't disagree with you. I also haven't said that my grandfather's diet would be healthy for everybody, I only said that it was healthy for him personally, so you have to be careful about making generalizations based on limited data and biases.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#128

Post by BSousa » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:49 AM UTC

analog wrote: post #123

BSousa wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People don't have that much difference in metabolisms (unless we are talking about actual health problems or differences between severe overweight and athletes). What happens is most people don't know what they are eating. BBC did a documentary where two friends, one skinny and one fat, swore the difference was due to metabolism, that the skinny one ate a lot and the fat one didn't. They tested it and found out that…

The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ) [1] Your metabolism also slows noticeably as you get older. In my 20s I could eat anything (and lots of it) without being able to gain any weight. Now in my 40s I have to lift weights (to i…

According to the study, only 26.7% difference wasn't explained by age/sex/weight. Which means for almost 75% the values were somehow dependent on sex/age/weight.

And the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% of the outliers was around 30% (which means for a 2000kcal average BMR, the bottom needed only 1700 and top 2300). This, in my opinion, is not enough for people to tout slow/fast metabolism for weight gain/loss as most people won't fall into the top/bottom 5%.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#129

Post by Xodarap » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:54 AM UTC

latch wrote: post #46

unreal37 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read the book "Wheat Belly". That will bust that myth about grains and fruits for you.

You missed my point..for every 1 scientist that says "fruits are bad", I'll find you 1 or more that says "eat more fruits!" That this scientist's views comes in book form doesn't change anything, and whatever graphs and studies he uses will only confuse me because someone saying the exact opposite will use equally impressive graphs and studies. Watching nutrition experts is like watching economist...they can each pro…

US News & World report does an annual survey of dieticians: http://health.usnews.com/best-diet

Unsurprisingly, those dieticians overwhelmingly say that meat-heavy diets like paleo (ranked 25th out of 25) are horrific. The idea that there is some controversy about this is mostly due to people on HN without much formal education.

Re: How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us?

#130

Post by rb2k_ » Thu, Jul 19, 2012, 11:54 AM UTC

scythe wrote: post #63

latch wrote: post #36

While it's really interesting to debate whether you should eat potatoes or beef, the real battle for the western world is that we stop eating processed foods. Wheat vs eggs seems like a silly debate when people are living off of Coke, Oreos and Capt'N Crunch. Whenever I hear these arguments, I feel like these scientists aren't living in the same world as me. "Eggs are ok, declare scientists" reads the headline while…

I've observed rather different things. The people I know who eat the most meat are the Crossfitters around me. They are, in almost all cases, healthy. I have a roommate who drinks fat-free milk and eats lots of salad and pasta, who avoids meat like the plague. He's been struggling with his weight for as long as I've known him. I drink coconut milk -- which contains nothing but fat -- and a meal usually consists of so…

Your diet sounds like a lot of the 'low carb' ones.

I personally try to eat a paleo/keto-ish diet which mainly consists of eggs, meat, veggies and a bit of fruit and nuts. In general anything that doesn't contain sugars or things that get metabolized into sugars (carbs, starches, sugary stuff itself...)).

I lost 12 kg while eating tons of meat. For me the 'just don't eat a lot of carbohydrates' part of it really works.