Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 183 posts

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#71

Post by Xdafjgneoiwe »

arethuza wrote: post #69

One of the most remarkable snacks I've ever had was served on a trawler in the North Sea - a large number of butteries (pastries from the North East of Scotland which, as the name suggests, are made with a large amount of butter) layered in a deep baking tray and covered with a couple of pounds of salted butter and then baked until nice and hot. Possibly the most delicious thing I have ever consumed NB (it was shared…

That sounds really delicious. But what does it have to do with heart disease risk?

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#72

Post by croon »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #68
thomasfoster96 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the point was that most of the health-conscious general public has the mindset that fat is the enemy and that things like cholesterol should be avoided at (almost) all costs. The reality is that you can have a diet that is relatively high in fat and still lose weight, just as you can have a diet that is low in fat and still put on weight. As for cholesterol, it isn’t a toxin that should be eradicated from you…

That may be so. 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. Studies show that you generally need a level of < 150 mg/dL to avoid heart disease. That's quite a bit below the average "normal" level. But today's average is NOT physiologically optimal.

> 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.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#73

Post by Scaevolus »

a_imho wrote: post #70
brotherAB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grey matter in your brain is mostly cholesterol. I've personally lost 10 pounds in 10 days eating a high fat, low carb diet, with light excercise about 3 days a week. Kerrygold is my #1 choice for butter, because it comes from grass-fed cows.

From a very simple calorimetric pov 1 lbs fat ~ 4000/3500 cal, assuming using 2000 calories for normal daily activity one needs to spend an extra 2000 cal per day for 10 days, which is like running 20 mile with no energy intake whatsoever every day (for 3 days per week it is 40 miles for days when one exercises).

Most of the weight loss would be water weight from glycogen stores being depleted, not fat being burned.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#74

Post by croon »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #60
brotherAB wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The grey matter in your brain is mostly cholesterol. I've personally lost 10 pounds in 10 days eating a high fat, low carb diet, with light excercise about 3 days a week. Kerrygold is my #1 choice for butter, because it comes from grass-fed cows.

The problem with ketogenic diets is not the weight loss. The diet works for weight loss, that is undisputed. The problems are in the longer term with elevated cholesterol and increasing insulin resistance. Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703903 There's however tons of this. Most keto bloggers will try to tell you that increasing LDL-C is okay for different reasons (depending on who you read). That is h…

> The problems are in the longer term with elevated cholesterol...

From your link:

> These differences were not significant at 24 months.

-----------

> and increasing insulin resistance.

I'm going to need to insist on sources on this.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#75

Post by wapz »

ohkaiby wrote: post #50
wapz wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've always been taught that after olive oil, canola is the best to use for cooking. What am I supposed to use?!

Interesting. I've been taught the opposite due to the low smoke point of olive oil. I use Avocado oil; it has a high smoke point and seems healthier. Other oils are OK if you don't cook on high heat (use medium heat or lower).

Thanks I'll try out Avocado oil. Someone else mentioned it also. When I say "taught" I really mean my mom said "that one's good. Oh that one's good, too."

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#76

Post by belorn »

clort wrote: post #67
belorn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A drive to a store to buy oil has a larger co2 footprint than the butter producing cow. That make the butter eating cyclist a more ethical person than a oil buying driver, if we are going to argue co2 footprints.

I don't wish to argue (I'm a butter eating cyclist after all!) but this seems to be selective, since cows are more known for producing methane than co2 ?

If I recall right, they producer more co2 than methane by a factor of 2. A better measurement is pollution, but then we would need to attribute all the particles which makes it more complex to compare the burning of fossil fuels with gas produce by fermentation.

Not to say that I am not a fan of less selective counting. I in big favor of counting footprint based on a person complete effect on the environment rather than specific choices. If we counted everything from purchases of items, clothes, travel, commuting, diet, and so on, I am convinced that the end result is more enlightening than just looking one diet item vs an other.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#77

Post by thatcat »

zurn wrote: post #58
belorn wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A drive to a store to buy oil has a larger co2 footprint than the butter producing cow. That make the butter eating cyclist a more ethical person than a oil buying driver, if we are going to argue co2 footprints.

A 500 g packet of butter has a footprint of 4.7 kg of CO2 equivalent. If a car does 200 grams of CO2e / km, distance by car on the store trip would have to be over 23 km to match the butter.

Most atmospheric methane produced photo oxidizes to CO2 after about 20 years though.

CH4 + 2O2 -photons---> C02 + 2H20

I'm not sure what time scale of heat per mass equivalencies are based on in your example; there is approximately 28 : 1 heat/mass eq. ratio at the 100 year scale, during which time the heating effect decreases exponentially with the decrease in methane concentration[0]. After 100 years the ratio is approximately 1:1 since almost all methane has decomposed.

[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_methane

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#78

Post by bosie »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #66
bosie wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The diet works for weight loss, that is undisputed All I could find was this (although it doesn't seem like they were checking ketone levels) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311279409_Visceral_... Do you have a study that shows ketogenic diets are indeed better for weight loss than other diets?

I do not have one. But I also never said it was better (!). I merely said that it works. People on a keto diet often say something along the lines of "Oh, keto is such a good diet. I lost 20 pounds with it". And I believe them. But that should not be the only measure of how good a diet is for you. Weight is important but not everything.

Ok, fair enough. I just figured that almost any very-low-carb diet would lead to a 15 or 20 pounds weight loss, due to the water loss. Due to the difficulty of the diet (for some), I just always have a hard time recommending it or bringing it up compared to a 'regular' low carb diet.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#79

Post by Xdafjgneoiwe »

Scaevolus wrote: post #73
a_imho wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From a very simple calorimetric pov 1 lbs fat ~ 4000/3500 cal, assuming using 2000 calories for normal daily activity one needs to spend an extra 2000 cal per day for 10 days, which is like running 20 mile with no energy intake whatsoever every day (for 3 days per week it is 40 miles for days when one exercises).

Most of the weight loss would be water weight from glycogen stores being depleted, not fat being burned.

This is correct. You can expect maybe a kilogram of fat (2 lbs) per week on a very restricted diet. Much more than that is hard to maintain over a longer period and unrealistic. When you first start with a keto diet, you can easily expect 3-4 kilogram of water weight being lost.

Re: Replacing butter with vegetable oils does not cut heart disease risk (2016)

#80

Post by tomp »

Xdafjgneoiwe wrote: post #62
jelliclesfarm wrote: post #18

There is nothing wrong with butter. Oils can become rancid. Clarified butter or ghee is even better as they have longer shelf life.

There is: Butter contains 3 % trans fats. And even keto fanatics admit that trans fats are extremely unhealthy. You could say it doesn't have a huge impact and that might be true because it's only a small part of the diet. However, any amount of trans fat is dangerous. The body's enzymes can hardly remove any trans fat build up in the arteries.

> Butter contains 3 % trans fats

Source?

Post reply on HN