Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat? • Hacker News Board

Re: Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

#181

Post by yummyfajitas » Sat, May 21, 2011, 9:15 AM UTC

anthonyb wrote: post #180

yummyfajitas wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might try reading the report I linked to. The big difference is that we eat more calories, less carbs, more fat and more sugar.

Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no decline (p18). There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.

See table 4 and 5. It doesn't give breakdowns of sugar vs HFCS or corn vs wheat, but it does separate sweeteners from potatoes from grains.

Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!

Re: Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

#182

Post by anthonyb » Sat, May 21, 2011, 10:33 AM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #181

anthonyb wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your report just has "Carbs" - nothing to do with what sort they were. That could be flour, sugar, or potatoes, and they stay relatively constant, there's no decline (p18). There's a big increase in the amount of fat consumed, but I suspect a large part of the difference is going to be lifestyle, too. Around the turn of the century people walked a lot more and did a lot more manual labour.

See table 4 and 5. It doesn't give breakdowns of sugar vs HFCS or corn vs wheat, but it does separate sweeteners from potatoes from grains. Regardless - total calories went up. Carbs stayed almost constant in absolute terms (a slight decrease) and decreased in relative terms. Fat increased in both absolute and relative terms. I guess carbs must be the culprit!

Ok, I see that now, and it fits with what I know - if your blood glucose is saturated, then any extra fat and sugar you eat goes straight to your arse.

Interesting that whole milk dropped off so sharply in the 1970s and 80s - about the time that 'fat is bad' started up? From what I've read, low fat milk contributes to heart disease too - something about the level of fat-soluble vitamins?

Re: Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

#183

Post by terio » Sat, May 21, 2011, 1:22 PM UTC

sambeau wrote: post #167

terio wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really. It depends on each person's metabolism. I know people that get fat just by having regular desserts for a few days, and others (generally very young) that can eat anything until they burst without moving the needle.

There is no such thing as 'metabolism': just body mass, muscle mass and activity. Big people burn more calories even when still. Active people burn more than still people of the same size. Muscular people burn more calories than the non-muscular as they have to feed their bigger muscles. In sealed room tests fat people use more calories than thin people. Skinny people who can eat anything they want without putting on…

"There is no such thing as 'metabolism': just body mass, muscle mass and activity."

Those factors are not enough. The human body has many more important factors in play there, like hormones, intestinal flora, and so on.

Re: Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

#184

Post by beaumartinez » Sun, May 22, 2011, 11:35 AM UTC

forensic wrote: post #152

beaumartinez wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(I don't want to split hairs, but "carbs" aren't to blame, simple sugars are, especially in sodas, confectionary, et cetera.) > Millions and millions of people have died because they followed the advice of the scientific authorities. Because of a poor diet? Maybe; diet is only one side of this. People who die of heart disease are normally very unfit. As easy as it is to blame the scientific authorities, they should h…

You are still ignorant of the latest research.

Please enlighten me!

Re: Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

#185

Post by danssig » Mon, May 23, 2011, 8:05 AM UTC

jodrellblank wrote: post #155

danssig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were wrong? What system couldn't do that? To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science today…

What system couldn't do that? Religion, for one. Alternative medicine for another. Any fixed mindset philosophy that has no feedback loop between "reality" and "what it advocates". You know tomorrow is predicted to be judgement day, right?[1] Do you think that guy/group is going to change his/their philosophy one iota when tomorrow is not judgement day? Even when they've predicted it before and been wrong before? [1]…

>Religion, for one.

Wrong. All religions have, in fact, adjusted to changing realities. The Pope has made changes, the Jews don't sacrifice animals anymore, etc. You have a point with "alternative medicine" though.

Re: Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

#186

Post by danssig » Mon, May 23, 2011, 8:10 AM UTC

jinushaun wrote: post #46

danssig wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The interesting thing about this whole episode is that it serves as a wonderful illustration of the self-correcting nature of the scientific method. This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were wrong? What system couldn't do that? To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science today…

The problem isn't science or the scientific method. It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it. The studies themselves are probably littered with probabilities, statistics and caution conclusions. That doesn't work when you're trying to sell snake oil. Just look at the whole anti-oxidant craze with cranberries, pomegranate and acai berries. Suddenly people are buying…

>It's marketers and salesmen (laypersons) that take one scientific study and go crazy with it.

In most case; scientists are salesmen/marketers. They have to be because they're salaries come from grant money. There are plenty of examples of scientists themselves trumping things up.