Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perfect demonstration of why nutrition discussions fucking suck. Someone provides a long list of peer-reviewed published studies; you respond with a shitty book.
Giving the benefit of the doubt here, presumably at the end of that book is also a long list of peer-reviewed studies that the author based the book on. Both the parent comment and the book are essentially distillations of the current scientific knowledge on the effects of fat in a person's diet.
Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
81–88 of 88 posts
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is a perfect demonstration of why nutrition discussions fucking suck. Someone provides a long list of peer-reviewed published studies; you respond with a shitty book.
To add: this is also why many other discussions suck: politics, economics, religion, etc. Everyone's a fucking expert, can disregard science because [someone on tv] disagrees with peer-reviewed studies, and there's no obvious correct answer. At least on HN it's moderately fact-based, even in disagreement. If you dare to read discussions--dare I call them that--on somewhere like Facebook or Reddit...well, godspeed.
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
A national health body is pointless in the context of the US health care system. Nobody here is going to fix that problem. But we can still self-experiment based on dietary hypotheses. An anecdote is not data, but it can be a counterexample! When someone says, "You can't lose weight by eating mostly fat," and someone else says, "I lost X weight on a diet that was 60% fat," that casts strong doubt upon the validity of…
Our energy metabolism isn't that mysterious. Like, we know how various macro nutrients are broken down into constituents and the pathways that are then used to convert them into energy that is available to cells. The problem with the food energy hypothesis as a path to weight loss is that it is a lot of work to accurately count and limit calories, and that it is difficult to accurately estimate calorie consumption (a…
As you suggested, the element that makes it useless for practical adiposity management is the fact that human bodies adjust resting metabolic rates, psychological impulses to consume food, and psychological impulses to adjust physical activity levels in response to dietary intake. One person drinks a sweetened beverage and starts bouncing off the walls for the next two hours, burning off that extra energy. Another drinks an identical portion, then becomes lethargic and turns every last sugar molecule into stored lipids. We don't [yet] have a model that can predict a structured diet for a specific person that can reliably produce the desired effect.
The labels on food packages and the calorie counting websites get their numbers from nutritional assays, rather than in vivo measurements in actual humans. The latter would be prohibitively expensive, would produce results that are far less precise, and offer foods suppliers no competitive advantage.
This is why diet plans that don't require calorie counting are relatively popular. People just want to follow a diet where they can consistently lose excess adipose tissue without either literally working their asses off for hours a day, or constantly suppressing the psychological impulse to eat more than is allowed by the plan. Whatever other mechanisms may be in play, some diets work best for some people for just one reason: they can feel satiated and stop eating at a caloric intake level consistent with fat loss, without having to constantly do math during their day.
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Our energy metabolism isn't that mysterious. Like, we know how various macro nutrients are broken down into constituents and the pathways that are then used to convert them into energy that is available to cells. The problem with the food energy hypothesis as a path to weight loss is that it is a lot of work to accurately count and limit calories, and that it is difficult to accurately estimate calorie consumption (a…
As far as I am aware, the only useful application of the food energy hypothesis to practical obesity management are the recommendations that people increase their daily physical activity, do resistance training to build muscle mass (thereby raising resting metabolic rate), and eat specific foods that may increase resting metabolic rate. Notable examples would be caffeinated black coffee and unsweetened tea, which pro…
Raises hand.
I don't constantly count calories, but carefully tracking calories for a medium length of time was a valuable tool in helping me make better food choices over the long term (which means I consume less calories).
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Where did bans come in to play? What food is banned that you want? And please don't say trans fats if you don't understand that they were a harmful preservation method and don't affect taste at all.
I don't think it's so much about banning as it is about "pushing". Look at the subsidies for certain food groups, or the labeling requirements (hint, these feed into peoples' paranoia and preconceived notions of good/bad healthy/unhealthy), etc. So as long as they pipe-up the narrative they want (and scare people about other things), and people listen to it, then they they're effectively creating "ban"-like barriers…
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that is based on pretty crappy science. People who cut out refined carbs and sugar, yet eat a very high fat diet have healthy levels of triglycerides and LDL. The science is to the point that the only real danger of high fat diets is colon cancer. But adding fiber to the diet can offset those risks. And of course people want mono and poly unsaturated fats, but they're more expensive and harder to eat in quant…
Congrats on the weight loss. The fact that you lost 40 pounds in that time frame indicates to me that you were running about an 800 calorie a day deficit. This is important because calorie restriction has been shown to directly improve those numbers, as has weight loss. It is very likely if you cut your calories by the same amount, and lost the same amount of weight with a diet higher in carbohydrates and lower in fa…
For example, I can eat 2 eggs for breakfast and not think about food for 4+ hours. Before I would eat an oat-based muesli with dried fruit (no refined sugar), which contained twice the calories - I'd invariable be hungry within 2 hours. Maybe it's also possible that the drop in blood glucose after eating carbs has a hunger 'signalling' effect.
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#87Fat is calorie dense. There's ~380 calories per 100g of sugar but 880 calories per 100g of olive oil. 70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you. If your diet contains a lot of fat, you're consuming more calories than if you substituted the fat with something else (e.g. by avoiding deep fried foods, and eating leaner meat). If you are not overweight, then feel free to eat as much fat as y…
I don't think I'd be physically capable of eating the same weight in fat as I used to eat in carbs.
Re: Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
The next wave of food bans are worse because "everyone is an eventual consumer of healthcare" so the choice to ignore the government on some things is also being taken away.
Where did bans come in to play? What food is banned that you want? And please don't say trans fats if you don't understand that they were a harmful preservation method and don't affect taste at all.
From http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.ht...
Close enough to use the word "ban".