171–180 of 183 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How does macadamia nut oil compare to olive oil on price per liter? Is it within a factor of 10?
There's such a range of olive oils, but I think it's roughly the same price for a similar quality. It's just kind of hard to find. This is the one I buy (it's been prime before, looks like right now it's not) so $0.52 an ounce. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Macadamia-Bottles-Cold-Pressed-100/dp...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if the Tibetans and Inuits benefit from the fact that their dietary fats come from animals who lived healthy, whole lives. Much of the US consumes dairy and meat that comes from animals who were shoved into dark, overcrowded, stressful, unnatural habitat and fed strange feed that they'd normally not eat such as corn and grain.
To argue that, you'd have to demonstrate that the fats in animals raised on what you call healthy food differ chemically from the fats you'd find in animals fed otherwise. Related example: The glucose from sugar beets is chemically identical to and indistinguishable from the glucose from sugar cane or corn. Animal fat tends to be a more complex mix, but while no expert I suspect there's only so many different lipid c…
glucose from sugar cane or corn
Cholesterol isn't bad, it's in fact very important for the production of testosterone among other things. The problem comes from the inability to use it because the body isn't healthy. Polyunsaturated fats will produce bad byproducts when it breaks down and over time makes the body sick. We crucially lack magnesium and potassium in our diet. There are tons of studies showing the benefits of magnesium against heart di…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But it's undisputed (aside from most keto blogs) that an increase in serum cholesterol and especially LDL-C increases the risk of heart disease. Sure, but show me where cholesterol intake correlates to LDL. At some point someone managed to convince the public subconscious that food fat = body fat, and that food cholesterol = body cholesterol. And it's a ridiculous notion. I don't eat protein to become protein.
For starters, saturated fat increases cholesterol and that is almost exclusively in animal products. Animal products are basically the only products to contain dietary cholesterol. So there you have at least a strong correlation. As for the dietary cholesterol itself, see here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549... "Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary choles…
Even so, check out this element of its conclusions:
"The greatest response is expected when baseline dietary cholesterol is near zero, while little, if any, measurable change would be expected once baseline dietary cholesterol was > 400-500 mg/d. People desiring maximal reduction of serum cholesterol by dietary means may have to reduce their dietary cholesterol to minimal levels (modest serum cholesterol reductions while persons eating a diet relatively rich in cholesterol would be expected to experience little change in serum cholesterol after adding even large amounts of cholesterol to their diet."
It didn't even differentiate HDL from LDL, let alone the actually harmful subsets like small-particle LDL.
It obviously does not because there are whole populations, such as Tibetans, who consume butter on daily basis and are still alive and well, without any cardiovascular epidemic. What is a risk, by the way? How it is defined, apart from a personal lifestyle, diet, habits, current set of disorders and chronic illnesses of a particular person? It is a likelihood? An average of some imagined population of which some non-…
The classic example, since modern nutrition research started in the '50s, is Inuit/Eskimo. They eat a lot of whale blubber, yet have very low rates of heart disease. A good book that presents the case against nutrition research is "The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat & Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can't be controlled for if there is no variation in the population. At that point it becomes a fixed effect--a population-specific intercept, as it were--and the only way to net that out would be through a difference-in-difference type study.
> It can't be controlled for if there is no variation in the population. You think there are no Tibetans who don't exercise much and don't eat much vegetables either?
However, the grandparent comment I understood to be relevant to dietary factors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To argue that, you'd have to demonstrate that the fats in animals raised on what you call healthy food differ chemically from the fats you'd find in animals fed otherwise. Related example: The glucose from sugar beets is chemically identical to and indistinguishable from the glucose from sugar cane or corn. Animal fat tends to be a more complex mix, but while no expert I suspect there's only so many different lipid c…
glucose from sugar cane or corn Is there meaningful mass production of glucose (or dextrose) from corn? Corn syrup is higher in fructose, which is metabolized very differently from glucose.
HFCS is just sugar syrup with an intentionally elevated level of fructose. There's nothing that specifically ties corn to high amounts of fructose, other than that corn is heavily subsidized in the US while other sources of sugar are hit with import tariffs. So corn is what US sugar producers will tend to use as a source.
I think that generalizations on fats in diets don't work for analyzing different diets because of other factors like how much processed foods, sugar, and meat are in a person's diet. My wife does well eating lots of butter and more meat. I do well by eating lots of vegetables. The only thing our diets really have in common is the avoidance of packaged/processed foods. It is some work, but people need to pay attention…
You inadvertently seem to be avoiding grains and carbs. Every livestock farmer knows nothing makes fat mammals quite like high grain intake. Government dietary recommendations on grain intake have increased with excellent correlation to very little other than re-election donations by grain farmers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
glucose from sugar cane or corn Is there meaningful mass production of glucose (or dextrose) from corn? Corn syrup is higher in fructose, which is metabolized very differently from glucose.
Absolutely! The glucose mix initially produced from corn is about 50% glucose and 42% fructose, which is roughly the same ratio as you get from beets or cane. You can then _optionally_ raise the percentage of fructose to 55, 65 or even 90% fructose. The 90% stuff is usually diluted/mixed before use. HFCS is just sugar syrup with an intentionally elevated level of fructose. There's nothing that specifically ties corn…
(On a side note, cane/beet sugar is sucrose, a molecule that takes an additional step to break down into fructose and glucose)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Partially hydrogenated oils are shelf-stable, so they're used in a lot of individually-wrapped junk food items. That kind of stuff should be left out of just about any diet.
It used to be the case. It isn't any longer. It's one of the reasons that packaging got more annoying in recent years. In addition to consumer preferences, the FDA called for a phase out in 2015: http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.ht...