Salt, We Misjudged You • Hacker News Board

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#71

Post by iand » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 9:55 PM UTC

psykotic wrote: post #60

jere wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could be wrong, but I don't think we disagree. However, I think most of the book is still worth reading, especially the history behind the demonitization of fat and the uselessness of "calories in, calories out." Taubes is at his best as a science historian and, obviously, not a scientist.

> the uselessness of "calories in, calories out." There's nothing useless about energy balance. It can be misinterpreted and misapplied, but Taubes throws the baby out with the bathwater and pretends it doesn't apply at all. For example, classical low-carber mythology is that on a low-carb diet you can eat virtually unlimited calories (as usually defined) and maintain weight, if perhaps not lose weight outright. As a…

No. Low-carber thesis is that raising intake of fats suppresses appetite so you can eat what you like until you are full. The idea is carbs keep you hungry because of energy partiioning and so you over consume calories because you feel hungrier than you should. Taubes explains this very well in What Makes us Fat.

His main claim is that the energy balance problem is a consequence of getting fat, not the cause.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#72

Post by smsm42 » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:00 PM UTC

aero142 wrote: post #47

patrickk wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" ...we are a species who's evolution has made us so that we crave foods that are actually killing us. " " ...it sets up a health amount of skepticism towards the idea that our innate cravings are in fact harmful. " It's modern processed food that's harmful. We evolved to cope with the amount of salt, sugar, carbohydrates etc. that was readily available to our ancestors on a hunter-gatherer diet (we would've reached…

Salt is a very important part of a human's diet and was a major trade item for all of recorded history. Salt has been used as a preservative for meat for as long as I'm aware of. Animals often sit and lick natural salt deposits. There is a common belief that meat and especially fat are bad for you and cause heart disease, which is the particular idea that Fat Head makes fun of. He reduces his carb and sugar intake an…

Cravings can be trained and influenced by person's knowledge, I think. Example: When I was young (and stupid :) I drunk a lot of cola. I literally craved it, I chain-drunk it whole day. Then I learned what that thing actually is, and then my doctor told me my blood sugar is entering regions where it shouldn't be. I didn't touch the stuff since, and now the mere sight of it disgusts me. I tried to drink it, and I realize I actually hate the taste now. I have no idea how I could enjoy it years ago. Maybe I'm just impressionable, but here it goes. I still like the sweets, however, even though with my complexion it is best not to overdo them. I guess it has its limits. But if I gave in fully to my cravings in this area, I'd probably have a very serious health problem by now. So trusting "evolutionary tastes" is a dangerous path - unless you put it under strict control of the higher brain, I believe it can seriously harm you.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#73

Post by psykotic » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:09 PM UTC

iand wrote: post #71

psykotic wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the uselessness of "calories in, calories out." There's nothing useless about energy balance. It can be misinterpreted and misapplied, but Taubes throws the baby out with the bathwater and pretends it doesn't apply at all. For example, classical low-carber mythology is that on a low-carb diet you can eat virtually unlimited calories (as usually defined) and maintain weight, if perhaps not lose weight outright. As a…

No. Low-carber thesis is that raising intake of fats suppresses appetite so you can eat what you like until you are full. The idea is carbs keep you hungry because of energy partiioning and so you over consume calories because you feel hungrier than you should. Taubes explains this very well in What Makes us Fat. His main claim is that the energy balance problem is a consequence of getting fat, not the cause.

You don't mention insulin by name, but that's what underlies Taubes's thesis about the link being carbs and obesity. James Krieger dispels much of that argument here: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319

> Low-carber thesis is that raising intake of fats suppresses appetite so you can eat what you like until you are full.

Eating pounds of fruits and vegetables won't you make you full? Or rice and potatoes for that matter? Eating pounds of lean protein sources like tuna and chicken breast won't make you full?

> The idea is carbs keep you hungry because of energy partiioning and so you over consume calories because you feel hungrier than you should.

That isn't borne out by the evidence. The demonization of one macronutrient over another is baffling. If you subsist on calorically dense processed foods that are purposefully engineered to be high in palatability then you are more likely to overeat. Carbs aren't the problem. Neither is fat; dietary fat is very calorically dense, so it's easy to get lots of "hidden" calories from it, but that's the main downside from a weight loss perspective.

It's not as simple as X is good, Y is bad.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#74

Post by iand » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:20 PM UTC

psykotic wrote: post #73

iand wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Low-carber thesis is that raising intake of fats suppresses appetite so you can eat what you like until you are full. The idea is carbs keep you hungry because of energy partiioning and so you over consume calories because you feel hungrier than you should. Taubes explains this very well in What Makes us Fat. His main claim is that the energy balance problem is a consequence of getting fat, not the cause.

You don't mention insulin by name, but that's what underlies Taubes's thesis about the link being carbs and obesity. James Krieger dispels much of that argument here: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319 > Low-carber thesis is that raising intake of fats suppresses appetite so you can eat what you like until you are full. Eating pounds of fruits and vegetables won't you make you full? Or rice and pot…

>Eating pounds of fruits and vegetables won't you make you full? Or rice and potatoes for that matter? Eating pounds of lean protein sources like tuna and chicken breast won't make you full? Of course it will.

I didn't claim otherwise

Fat accumulates due to an excess of calories. But this isn't the cause of us getting obese, it's a proximal cause, not the ultimate cause. What causes us to eat more calories than our bodies require?

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#75

Post by psykotic » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:24 PM UTC

iand wrote: post #74

psykotic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You don't mention insulin by name, but that's what underlies Taubes's thesis about the link being carbs and obesity. James Krieger dispels much of that argument here: http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319 > Low-carber thesis is that raising intake of fats suppresses appetite so you can eat what you like until you are full. Eating pounds of fruits and vegetables won't you make you full? Or rice and pot…

>Eating pounds of fruits and vegetables won't you make you full? Or rice and potatoes for that matter? Eating pounds of lean protein sources like tuna and chicken breast won't make you full? Of course it will. I didn't claim otherwise Fat accumulates due to an excess of calories. But this isn't the cause of us getting obese, it's a proximal cause, not the ultimate cause. What causes us to eat more calories than our b…

> What causes us to eat more calories than our bodies require?

One big reason is eating foods that aren't filling relative to the energy and nutrients they provide. There's nothing unique about carbs in that regard. I can barely put away a 1000-calorie meal with an equal amount of calories from chicken breast and white rice (100+ grams of carbs just from the rice). Putting away the same amount of calories split between chicken breast and greens would be almost physically impossible--I ate a whole pound of grilled asparagus with my chicken breast on Sunday, and the asparagus barely amounted to 100 calories. But I can easily put away a 2000-calorie pepperoni pizza with extra cheese. If you think carbs are the calorically-dominant macronutrient in that pizza, think again. I'm not blaming the fat either. My point is that the issue goes much deeper than simple macronutrient composition.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#76

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:30 PM UTC

arn wrote: post #25

So, I always cringe a little when I read medical conclusions in the mainstream media. And I'll be upfront. I'm probably biased on the side of medicine on this one. I'm a former nephrologist. The one study this person mentions by name (and dismisses) is the DASH-Sodium Study. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DASH_diet#Study_Results "Like the previous study, it was based on a large sample (412 participants) and was a multi…

Uh,

He points out that the study followed people for 30 days.

And made recommendations for life-long behavior.

And wasn't looking at final results but markers (blood pressure).

And was the main argument against salt consumption when we do have some data on people's life-long behaviors and their result.

And this wasn't "medicine" that spoke but a particular institution making recommendations.

Edit: removed possibly inflammatory point

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#77

Post by iand » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:38 PM UTC

psykotic wrote: post #75

iand wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Eating pounds of fruits and vegetables won't you make you full? Or rice and potatoes for that matter? Eating pounds of lean protein sources like tuna and chicken breast won't make you full? Of course it will. I didn't claim otherwise Fat accumulates due to an excess of calories. But this isn't the cause of us getting obese, it's a proximal cause, not the ultimate cause. What causes us to eat more calories than our b…

> What causes us to eat more calories than our bodies require? One big reason is eating foods that aren't filling relative to the energy and nutrients they provide. There's nothing unique about carbs in that regard. I can barely put away a 1000-calorie meal with an equal amount of calories from chicken breast and white rice (100+ grams of carbs just from the rice). Putting away the same amount of calories split betwe…

Fats and proteins are more filling and satisfying per gram than carbs.

The pizza example you give is basically wrong. Carbs would be the largest source of calories. For example see http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fast-foods-generic/9307/... which is for a 2500 calorie pepperoni pizza. Almost half the calories come from carbs.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#78

Post by psykotic » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:41 PM UTC

iand wrote: post #77

psykotic wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What causes us to eat more calories than our bodies require? One big reason is eating foods that aren't filling relative to the energy and nutrients they provide. There's nothing unique about carbs in that regard. I can barely put away a 1000-calorie meal with an equal amount of calories from chicken breast and white rice (100+ grams of carbs just from the rice). Putting away the same amount of calories split betwe…

Fats and proteins are more filling and satisfying per gram than carbs. The pizza example you give is basically wrong. Carbs would be the largest source of calories. For example see http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/fast-foods-generic/9307/... which is for a 2500 calorie pepperoni pizza. Almost half the calories come from carbs.

> Fats and proteins are more filling and satisfying per gram than carbs.

Again, that statement makes no sense. You don't eat carbs, fats and proteins. You eat foods. Is 100 calories of olive oil as filling as 100 calories of asparagus (about a pound)? If that's too extreme, I'd still gladly put up your 100 calories of olive oil (a few spoonfuls) against my 100 calories of white rice (a small bowl) for satiety and fullness.

Different macronutrients stimulate hormones differently, so I'm not saying that macronutrient composition doesn't play a role in these matters, only that those effects are mostly irrelevant if you don't go overboard. For example, high GI and low GI foods have virtually identical glycemic loads when consumed alongside a lean protein like chicken breast (GI is measured by feeding food to a subject after a 12-hour fast), so even if you accept that insulin is the master regulator of fat storage (which is out of date nonsense that Taubes can't get out of his head), it still wouldn't matter appreciably so long as you eat your carbs alongside your fiber and protein.

> The pizza example you give is basically wrong.

I was going by the pizza recipe I usually make at home, which per slice has 200 calories from fat and 100 from carbs.

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#79

Post by joe_the_user » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:44 PM UTC

arn wrote: post #45

crazygringo wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He points out that the DASH study didn't conclude anything about death or cardiovascular disease. Yes, that's true. So sure, there's a chance that despite blood pressure reductions a low salt diet could cause problems. But it's not the obvious conclusion. That's the whole point, you say it yourself. The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". The only thing we care…

> The idea that "salt is bad" has just as shaky underpinnings as "lower blood pressure is good". Wait, "lower blood pressure is good" has shaky underpinnings? Is there a debate on that? I don't think there's a debate that high blood pressure results in worse (death/disease) outcomes.

"Wait, "lower blood pressure is good" has shaky underpinnings? Is there a debate on that? I don't think there's a debate that high blood pressure results in worse (death/disease) outcomes."

There's no debate that high blood is associated with heart disease. There's always "a debate" if you try to go from correlation to cause. You always have to be careful this.

You have to show that a particular mechanism for lowering blood pressure results in better outcomes. You can't unambiguously say "we've lowered the blood pressure, we know the results will be better now".

Re: Salt, We Misjudged You

#80

Post by harrisreynolds » Tue, Jun 05, 2012, 10:49 PM UTC

The harsh reality is that there are so many variables when it comes to diet and nutrition information that formal studies are close to worthless. That is why I find information like the studies Weston Price did [1] interesting. His conclusion was that any society on a whole food local diet was generally healthy and that pre-mature physical degeneration only happened when "primitive" diets were replaced with "modern" diets (i.e. highly processed).

Here's a simple rule. If you could find/grow it in your back yard, eat it. If not don't.

[1] http://www.amazon.com/Nutrition-Physical-Degeneration-Weston...