5 ms·

> It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about chol

> It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats, healthy carbs and bad carbs What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about cholesterol after fucking up monumentally and the history repeats itself over and over again. Just man up, recognize how incompetent you are, how your non-scientific advice has been hurting people over the past 50 years and switch jobs because the science you're practicing is nothing more than a cult. > He explained that saturated fat, found in fatty animal foods like meats and dairy products, raises blood levels of cholesterol and is not healthy There is zero evidence that saturated fats are unhealthy. Fats don't make you sick. Neither do carbohydrates. Humans have been eating fats and carbohydrates ever since the dawn of men. It's part of our identity as omnivores. What actually changed is making food an industrial process whose output is processed/synthetic food, which is much more profitable, while riding the waves of crap coming from nutritionists, coinciding perfectly with the obesity and diabetes epidemic. Low-fat milk for example is still on sale with health claims, even though it's a well known fact that it's much more unhealthy than normal milk.

mathgeek 11y ago
Can you link the sources for your claims? I'm asking sincerely, as I'm sure people interested in the topic will want to see the research.
- tldrlol 11y ago
  I can't find a link for that now, especially since most sources on the internet claim otherwise. But I do recall reading something like that. The gist of it was, that there is no observable correlation between the intake of saturated fats consumed, and heart disease. There is however correlation between consumption of meat products and heart disease. A point was made specifically that balancing the diet with vegetables specifically counteracts these negative effects.
- wdewind 11y ago
  Not OP but I think the burden of proof is on the people saying an entire macronutrient group is bad.
  - mathgeek 11y ago
    I'd say that when it comes to nutrition, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. I think it's a good thing to require proof from anyone trying to tell you that eating or not eating something will be beneficial.
    - wdewind 11y ago
      My problem with things being "good" or "bad" is that it's divorced of context. Carbs are not good or bad, but they are certainly bad in certain contexts and good in certain contexts. Different diets can be effective for different things. Some people are actually trying to gain weight, some people only need to change body composition, some people tolerate high fat well, some people don't etc. So I agree with you, and my point is not to say that carbs are good for you or bad for you, but that anyone saying a major macronutrient group is good or bad without context has a large burden of proof.
- cschmidt 11y ago
  If you're interested, the book Big Fat Surprise talks a great deal about how fat (other than trans fat) isn't bad for you. http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425 http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/145162...
  - visakanv 11y ago
    I also recommend reading Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat: http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259
    - wdewind 11y ago
      This book is kind of a joke among people who are seriously interested in nutrition. There is some decent information in there, and the research Taubes is doing now actually seems like it might be pretty good, but the book has some really bad conclusions that are not supported by science. It's a good intro book, but take it with a big grain of salt.
      - visakanv 11y ago
        Interesting. What do the serious nutrition folk recommend? (Also if there's anything specific for skinny low-appetite folk...)
        wdewind 11y ago
        It really depends on your goals and what you are looking to learn. It sounds like maybe you are trying to put on weight, in which case I can't recommend whole milk enough :) But if you want to be more specific about what you'd like to learn I can recommend some resources.
        visakanv 11y ago
        Gaining weight is a part of it, but I'm also curious about understanding things like, the relationship between low blood sugar and brain function, low blood sugar and sleep, stuff like that. Will be happy with anything you can point me to, thanks so much!
zappo2938 11y ago
> What actually changed is making food an industrial process whose output is processed/synthetic food I wanted to include another note about the glycemic index. Processed white rice has .6 grams of dietary fiber while unprocessed brown rice has 3.5 grams of dietary fiber per serving. Often the glycemic index is a function of fiber because the fiber slows down absorption of sugar so it happens slower over a longer period of time; white rice has a glycemic index of 50 and brown rice has lower index of 38. High fiber foods are more satiating per calorie because of the fiber. It's possible that low glycemic foods which are unprocessed lead to weight loss because of they are higher in fiber which just passes through the digestive system but feel just a filling. But I still disagree with the article that blood sugar spikes lead to weight gain in most normal people because the liver can absorb the sugar and release it later without converting it to fat.
- randcraw 11y ago
  Your comment prompted me to look up the GIs for brown and white rice. I checked several sources. Unfortunately GI numbers vary significantly depending on brand and preparation (and perhaps source). Here are some GI values for rice from the Mendosa GI list... http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm The nominal GI of white rice is 73. But various brands and preparations can cause the GI of NS white rice to vary from 43 to 90. Long grain varies from 50 to 76. Uncle Ben's in a pouch runs around 48. The nominal GI of brown rice is 68. But again, brand and preparation introcuces much variance, from 50 to 87. The nominal GI of converted boiled white rice trends lower at 38 (Uncle Ben's) but can run as high as 87. However from an authoritative article of 1000 foods in Diabetes Care from 2008, the GI of white rice is 89 and brown 50. http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_... In the end, it seems you have to be very careful about exactly which products and preparations you're comparing.
CyberDildonics 11y ago
So what specifically is it about processed and synthetic food that makes them unhealthy, because saying 'processed' alone doesn't give an indication of a fundamental problem. Some would say it is the lack of fiber.
- wdewind 11y ago
  It's basically the lack of fiber, but it can also be the lack of micronutrients. That being said, you can absolutely have a healthy diet that has a fair amount of processed food in it. Edit: as a side note I love your username :)
visakanv 11y ago
> Humans have been eating fats and carbohydrates ever since the dawn of men. It's part of our identity as omnivores. I'm curious to hear a list of carbohydrates that humans have been eating since the dawn of men. Surely not glazed donuts. Did cavemen make bread?
- jcranmer 11y ago
  The earliest evidence of flour production is 30,000 years ago, well into the Paleolithic, so yes, cavemen did make bread. Also, the first crops to be domesticated were grain crops.
  - volkk 11y ago
    a source for the claim: http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2015/article/scientists-report-stone-age-flour-production http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2015/article/scien...
- a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
  > Did cavemen make bread? Yes. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/humans-feas...
wdewind 11y ago
> Low-fat milk for example is still on sale with health claims, even though it's a well known fact that it's much more unhealthy than normal milk. I take issue with this claim. Neither is more healthy than the other. Whole milk has a lower glycemic index, and a higher ratio of fat to carbs/protein. But that's not always desirable. For instance, a higher glycemic index is more effective for building muscle (but also fat). So it's really a situation of matching behavior to goals.
CuriouslyC 11y ago
There is a ton of evidence demonstrating the pro-inflammatory and obesegenic properties of saturated fat. People want to vilify processed foods, but processing isn't inherently bad. Aspirin is basically processed willow bark, and it is more effective, precise and pleasant to consume. Granted, most processed foods haven't been designed with optimal nutrition as a goal, but the potential is there. We shouldn't be anti-processed foods, we should just demand that food manufacturers design "functional foods", rather than just try to create the cheapest, most addictive food possible. As for the skim vs whole milk debate, a couple points - for starters milk fat is quite poor from a health standpoint, being high in palmitate. Additionally, the single biggest problem most people have is consuming too many calories, so why would you hold up the higher calorie option? It isn't like there are a ton of fat soluble vitamins in milk that you lose switching to a reduced fat option, it's just empty calories.
- bad_user 11y ago
  > There is a ton of evidence demonstrating the pro-inflammatory and obesegenic properties of saturated fat. Yet most of those studies have been shown to be flawed and are contradicted by newer studies. The world's health organizations have been back-paddling on this, because wouldn't you know, the trans-fats that we ended up eating on our quest for low-fat are the fats that are actually linked to cancer or cardiovascular disease. > People want to vilify processed foods, but processing isn't inherently bad. Aspirin is basically processed willow bark Aspirin is not food. Name a processed food that proved to be healthy. And it is true that we as humans have always modified our environment and selected for the traits we wanted in our domesticated crops and animals. We also adapted to new foods, like cow milk. But this process has lasted for tens of thousands of years at least, whereas current "innovations" are newer than 30 years without us knowing enough about food and nutrition to make health claims. One day humanity might get used to the current blend of processed foods based primarily on corn, soy and fossil fuels, but I for one refuse to be the sacrice generation ;-) > milk fat is quite poor from a health standpoint, being high in palmitate Milk is a very complex substance and this reductionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism) doesn't apply well to food. Here's one study that claims that people consuming high-fat milk are not more prone to cardiovascular diseases and even more so people consuming high-fat milk are less likely to get fat from it, versus people consuming low-fat milk: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00394-012-0418-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00394-012-0418-1 Here's another study showing that people consuming full-fat diary have a 69% less risk of cardiovascular disease: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/abs/ejcn201045a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/abs/ejcn201045a.ht... > the single biggest problem most people have is consuming too many calories Yet those extra calories are not coming from high-fat milk, but from the cheap high-fructose corn syrup that has been flooding the market for tens of years due to subsidies, most of it ending up in the processed food we consume, including low-fat milk, because in case you don't know, in the process of stripping the fat from milk and of ultra-pasteurizing it, the milk loses its texture and taste, plus it has to travel a lot, so it has to be supplemented with things such as powder milk, artificial colourants and preservatives (based on petroleum) and HFCS. > It isn't like there are a ton of fat soluble vitamins in milk that you lose switching to a reduced fat option, it's just empty calories. Not all calories are created equal and milk is rich in essential nutrients that we need, like calcium, vitamin A and D, phosphorous or B vitamins amongst others. Even its fatty acids are essential for us. And there are recent studies showing that the fat in milk helps our body absorb it better, yet we are stripping it out, then enhancing its taste in a process meant to fool our senses. You think it's just the fat that goes, but that's not true.

mathgeek 11y ago

Can you link the sources for your claims? I'm asking sincerely, as I'm sure people interested in the topic will want to see the research.

tldrlol 11y ago
I can't find a link for that now, especially since most sources on the internet claim otherwise. But I do recall reading something like that. The gist of it was, that there is no observable correlation between the intake of saturated fats consumed, and heart disease. There is however correlation between consumption of meat products and heart disease. A point was made specifically that balancing the diet with vegetables specifically counteracts these negative effects.
wdewind 11y ago
Not OP but I think the burden of proof is on the people saying an entire macronutrient group is bad.
- mathgeek 11y ago
  I'd say that when it comes to nutrition, the burden of proof is on anyone making a claim. I think it's a good thing to require proof from anyone trying to tell you that eating or not eating something will be beneficial.
  - wdewind 11y ago
    My problem with things being "good" or "bad" is that it's divorced of context. Carbs are not good or bad, but they are certainly bad in certain contexts and good in certain contexts. Different diets can be effective for different things. Some people are actually trying to gain weight, some people only need to change body composition, some people tolerate high fat well, some people don't etc. So I agree with you, and my point is not to say that carbs are good for you or bad for you, but that anyone saying a major macronutrient group is good or bad without context has a large burden of proof.
cschmidt 11y ago
If you're interested, the book Big Fat Surprise talks a great deal about how fat (other than trans fat) isn't bad for you. http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425 http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/145162...
- visakanv 11y ago
  I also recommend reading Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat: http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259 http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259
  - wdewind 11y ago
    This book is kind of a joke among people who are seriously interested in nutrition. There is some decent information in there, and the research Taubes is doing now actually seems like it might be pretty good, but the book has some really bad conclusions that are not supported by science. It's a good intro book, but take it with a big grain of salt.
    - visakanv 11y ago
      Interesting. What do the serious nutrition folk recommend? (Also if there's anything specific for skinny low-appetite folk...)
      - wdewind 11y ago
        It really depends on your goals and what you are looking to learn. It sounds like maybe you are trying to put on weight, in which case I can't recommend whole milk enough :) But if you want to be more specific about what you'd like to learn I can recommend some resources.
        visakanv 11y ago
        Gaining weight is a part of it, but I'm also curious about understanding things like, the relationship between low blood sugar and brain function, low blood sugar and sleep, stuff like that. Will be happy with anything you can point me to, thanks so much!

zappo2938 11y ago

> What actually changed is making food an industrial process whose output is processed/synthetic food I wanted to include another note about the glycemic index. Processed white rice has .6 grams of dietary fiber while unprocessed brown rice has 3.5 grams of dietary fiber per serving. Often the glycemic index is a function of fiber because the fiber slows down absorption of sugar so it happens slower over a longer period of time; white rice has a glycemic index of 50 and brown rice has lower index of 38. High fiber foods are more satiating per calorie because of the fiber. It's possible that low glycemic foods which are unprocessed lead to weight loss because of they are higher in fiber which just passes through the digestive system but feel just a filling. But I still disagree with the article that blood sugar spikes lead to weight gain in most normal people because the liver can absorb the sugar and release it later without converting it to fat.

randcraw 11y ago
Your comment prompted me to look up the GIs for brown and white rice. I checked several sources. Unfortunately GI numbers vary significantly depending on brand and preparation (and perhaps source). Here are some GI values for rice from the Mendosa GI list... http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm http://www.mendosa.com/gilists.htm The nominal GI of white rice is 73. But various brands and preparations can cause the GI of NS white rice to vary from 43 to 90. Long grain varies from 50 to 76. Uncle Ben's in a pouch runs around 48. The nominal GI of brown rice is 68. But again, brand and preparation introcuces much variance, from 50 to 87. The nominal GI of converted boiled white rice trends lower at 38 (Uncle Ben's) but can run as high as 87. However from an authoritative article of 1000 foods in Diabetes Care from 2008, the GI of white rice is 89 and brown 50. http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods http://www.health.harvard.edu/healthy-eating/glycemic_index_... In the end, it seems you have to be very careful about exactly which products and preparations you're comparing.

CyberDildonics 11y ago

So what specifically is it about processed and synthetic food that makes them unhealthy, because saying 'processed' alone doesn't give an indication of a fundamental problem. Some would say it is the lack of fiber.

wdewind 11y ago
It's basically the lack of fiber, but it can also be the lack of micronutrients. That being said, you can absolutely have a healthy diet that has a fair amount of processed food in it. Edit: as a side note I love your username :)

visakanv 11y ago

> Humans have been eating fats and carbohydrates ever since the dawn of men. It's part of our identity as omnivores. I'm curious to hear a list of carbohydrates that humans have been eating since the dawn of men. Surely not glazed donuts. Did cavemen make bread?

jcranmer 11y ago
The earliest evidence of flour production is 30,000 years ago, well into the Paleolithic, so yes, cavemen did make bread. Also, the first crops to be domesticated were grain crops.
- volkk 11y ago
  a source for the claim: http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2015/article/scientists-report-stone-age-flour-production http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/fall-2015/article/scien...
a8da6b0c91d 11y ago
> Did cavemen make bread? Yes. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/humans-feasting-on-grains-for-at-least-100000-years/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/humans-feas...

wdewind 11y ago

> Low-fat milk for example is still on sale with health claims, even though it's a well known fact that it's much more unhealthy than normal milk. I take issue with this claim. Neither is more healthy than the other. Whole milk has a lower glycemic index, and a higher ratio of fat to carbs/protein. But that's not always desirable. For instance, a higher glycemic index is more effective for building muscle (but also fat). So it's really a situation of matching behavior to goals.

CuriouslyC 11y ago

There is a ton of evidence demonstrating the pro-inflammatory and obesegenic properties of saturated fat. People want to vilify processed foods, but processing isn't inherently bad. Aspirin is basically processed willow bark, and it is more effective, precise and pleasant to consume. Granted, most processed foods haven't been designed with optimal nutrition as a goal, but the potential is there. We shouldn't be anti-processed foods, we should just demand that food manufacturers design "functional foods", rather than just try to create the cheapest, most addictive food possible. As for the skim vs whole milk debate, a couple points - for starters milk fat is quite poor from a health standpoint, being high in palmitate. Additionally, the single biggest problem most people have is consuming too many calories, so why would you hold up the higher calorie option? It isn't like there are a ton of fat soluble vitamins in milk that you lose switching to a reduced fat option, it's just empty calories.

bad_user 11y ago
> There is a ton of evidence demonstrating the pro-inflammatory and obesegenic properties of saturated fat. Yet most of those studies have been shown to be flawed and are contradicted by newer studies. The world's health organizations have been back-paddling on this, because wouldn't you know, the trans-fats that we ended up eating on our quest for low-fat are the fats that are actually linked to cancer or cardiovascular disease. > People want to vilify processed foods, but processing isn't inherently bad. Aspirin is basically processed willow bark Aspirin is not food. Name a processed food that proved to be healthy. And it is true that we as humans have always modified our environment and selected for the traits we wanted in our domesticated crops and animals. We also adapted to new foods, like cow milk. But this process has lasted for tens of thousands of years at least, whereas current "innovations" are newer than 30 years without us knowing enough about food and nutrition to make health claims. One day humanity might get used to the current blend of processed foods based primarily on corn, soy and fossil fuels, but I for one refuse to be the sacrice generation ;-) > milk fat is quite poor from a health standpoint, being high in palmitate Milk is a very complex substance and this reductionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductionism) doesn't apply well to food. Here's one study that claims that people consuming high-fat milk are not more prone to cardiovascular diseases and even more so people consuming high-fat milk are less likely to get fat from it, versus people consuming low-fat milk: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00394-012-0418-1 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00394-012-0418-1 Here's another study showing that people consuming full-fat diary have a 69% less risk of cardiovascular disease: http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/abs/ejcn201045a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/abs/ejcn201045a.ht... > the single biggest problem most people have is consuming too many calories Yet those extra calories are not coming from high-fat milk, but from the cheap high-fructose corn syrup that has been flooding the market for tens of years due to subsidies, most of it ending up in the processed food we consume, including low-fat milk, because in case you don't know, in the process of stripping the fat from milk and of ultra-pasteurizing it, the milk loses its texture and taste, plus it has to travel a lot, so it has to be supplemented with things such as powder milk, artificial colourants and preservatives (based on petroleum) and HFCS. > It isn't like there are a ton of fat soluble vitamins in milk that you lose switching to a reduced fat option, it's just empty calories. Not all calories are created equal and milk is rich in essential nutrients that we need, like calcium, vitamin A and D, phosphorous or B vitamins amongst others. Even its fatty acids are essential for us. And there are recent studies showing that the fat in milk helps our body absorb it better, yet we are stripping it out, then enhancing its taste in a process meant to fool our senses. You think it's just the fat that goes, but that's not true.