6 ms·

There's isn't any conflicting data. There are only bad, biased research published which gets media attention with click-bait titles purposely to dilute actual r

by noondip 11y ago

There's isn't any conflicting data. There are only bad, biased research published which gets media attention with click-bait titles purposely to dilute actual reason and good science. I challenge you to post some actual links to articles here which advocate a high-fat or low-carb diet. I can personally guarantee you it will 1) be sponsored by the Atkins foundation and/or animal agriculture business and 2) have obvious flaws in methodology which I'll gladly point out to you. What I'll likely get instead are die-hard paleo freaks taking refuge in silent downvoting. They would rather not confront the overwhelming body of scientific evidence which disproves their "diets" and puts low-carb nonsense to shame. > cholesterol doesn't pass through the gastric system into blood in any meaningful amounts. Food is a packaged deal. You can't eat cholesterol-laden meals without also consuming vast amounts of saturated fat, for instance. What's clear beyond any shadow of a doubt is consuming a diet high in fat and cholesterol will massively increase your risk of heart disease, diabetes, etc. Whatever nit-picked understanding you have of how cholesterol works in the human physiology will not refute this fact. > I feel much more satiated when eating higher fat foods. No surprise there, considering fat has 9 calories per gram, whereas other macronutrients only have 4. But what you've done by feeling satiated is miss out on nutritionally-dense foods and replace them with poor quality foods which just fill you up.

strathmeyer 11y ago
hint: the fats we're eating are high an nutrients, and such diets existed long before Atkins
HelloMcFly 11y ago
> There's isn't any conflicting data. I don't read blogs or HuffPo, I try to find the research, and I find plenty of - if-not-conflicting - difficult to fully reconcile evidence. My wife is a pediatrician who tries to keep up with this stuff, and she would disagree with you as well. I'm not just talking about diet comparisons alone, I'm talking about the merits and dangers of individual foods and food types. There's a lot of research, not all of it saying the same thing. It's not easy to parse all of the caveats, confounding factors, and unique populations. > I challenge you to post some actual links to articles here which advocate a high-fat or low-carb diet. Here's one [1], [2]. Your criticism of [1] will be "low sample size", which is fair. But then most studies with large sample sizes are retrospective, which is the other major criticism. Your criticism of [2] will be the population type, which is also fair. > You can't eat cholesterol-laden meals without also consuming vast amounts of saturated fat, for instance. There's much said about the evil of saturated fat, and some of it is clearly true such as a link to heart disease (or is it? suggests one of many not-hard-to-find conflicting sources [3]; [4]) other evils are less clear. Much early criticism at it was given because it was thought to increase cholesterol, which isn't the case for most individuals; when cholesterol is impacted, it's primarily impacting the HDL:LDL ratio (or alternatively, Total:HDL). This study [5] suggests little difference in saturated vs. other types of fat, though it relied on self-reporting. The story is more nuanced, as [6] suggests, with some clear influence on some things and mixed results elsewhere. [7] is interesting though as it indicates a link between saturated fat and heart disease, but suggests replacing saturated fat with carbs slightly increases that risk. > Whatever nit-picked understanding you have of how cholesterol works in the human physiology will not refute this fact. It's hardly fair to deride someone for accurately pointing out the small connection between dietary and bodily cholesterol. That's not a nit-picked understanding, it's something worth knowing. > But what you've done by feeling satiated is miss out on nutritionally-dense foods and replace them with poor quality foods which just fill you up. I'm not the OP, but it's certainly not one or the other for me. I eat high-fat foods (dairy, nuts, legumes, olive oil, eggs), and nutritionally dense foods (leafy greens, root vegetables). I don't disagree with your conclusions in general, but do think it is a bit over-dismissive. -- [1] http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/full/ejcn20094a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/full/ejcn20094a.ht... [2] (PDF WARNING) http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1475-2840-8-35.pdf http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1475-2840-8-35.pdf [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlu... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlu... [5] http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M13-1788&an_fo_ed http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M13-1788&an_fo_ed [6] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4/fulltext.html http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4/f... [7] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1425.abstract?ijkey=99ecdbcda47e1604f229ec5e7225596119769c60&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1425.abstract?ijkey=9...
- noondip 11y ago
  Thanks for taking the time to provide those citations. 1 - This study has a tiny sample size of 9 sedentary, slightly overweight people and did not seek out to exonerate a low-carb, high-fat diet. Rather, it compared a paleolithic-type diet (30% of calories from proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from carbohydrates.) to SAD - the standard American diet - not exactly a high standard to beat. 2 - It's clearly written right in the study: "results of this study do not address the occurrence of rare adverse events, nor can they be extrapolated to all patients seen in general clinical practice." Again, an n=13 sample size is just insignificant. Let's bring out some meta-analyses and systematic reviews, not case reports and case-crossover studies. 3 - I am familiar with this Patty Siri-Tarino et al. paper - it gets cited all the time by fat apologists. I don't have time to go into all the details, but you can watch this short presentation pointing out its faults - https://www.youtube.com/embed/a-Tx9dCbv-g https://www.youtube.com/embed/a-Tx9dCbv-g. Let's also not forget Patty works with/for the animal agriculture shill Ronald Krauss - a guy who gets massive paychecks from the beef industry, Monsanto and Coca Cola to downplay the risks of unhealthy food. 4 - "Assuming that the inverse association between SFA and stroke mortality is causal, it would nevertheless be inappropriate to recommend an increased consumption of SFA-containing products to the general Japanese population, because it might increase population levels of total cholesterol and the risk of IHD" 5 - Read the article replies. Here is one from Frank Sacks of Harvard: "The meta-analysis of dietary fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease by Chowdhury et al. contains multiple errors and omissions, and the conclusions are seriously misleading [and should be disregarded]." Uh oh! 6 - Wow, this one is quite brazen. "Nutrition Impact is a small consulting firm that specializes in helping food & beverage companies develop and communicate aggressive, science-based claims about their products and services." Still, the only reasonable conclusion they were able to squeeze out was: "Thus, policies that prioritize the reduction of SFA [saturated fat] consumption without specifically considering the replacement nutrient may have little or no effects on disease risk, especially as the most common replacement in populations is often CHO [carbohydrate]." Sure, replacing saturated fat with straight table sugar is probably not a good idea, this is a no-brainer and doesn't lead me to the conclusion low-carb, high-fat diets are superior in any way. 7 - "This study suggests that to prevent CHD, SFA intake should be replaced with PUFA intake rather than MUFA or carbohydrate intake. However, the effects of substitution of carbohydrates may vary depending on the quality of the carbohydrates consumed. [...] In this study, only type of fat, not type of carbohydrates, was considered" Well, isn't that convenient! Let's lump all carbohydrate-rich foods into one category! No way that'll bias the results! > I don't disagree with your conclusions in general, but do think it is a bit over-dismissive. You're right and I apologise. I'll try to do better next time. Obviously, this is a topic I feel very heated about.
kefka2 11y ago
> I challenge you to post some actual links to articles here which advocate a high-fat or low-carb diet. I can personally guarantee you it will 1) be sponsored by the Atkins foundation and/or animal agriculture business and 2) have obvious flaws in methodology which I'll gladly point out to you. That's easy. I have my own data. I've been keeping track of it since I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. I have not followed an "Atkins" diet, but converged upon it with regards to my own health. I only recently actually read up about that after talking with an RN at the local hospital's Diabetes school. https://mega.nz/#!JwcSEAwC!zPqA1zVhA3zcLwLLZRJucc6AtT9zlHfNYOM1jWXqfX4 https://mega.nz/#!JwcSEAwC!zPqA1zVhA3zcLwLLZRJucc6AtT9zlHfNY... > Food is a packaged deal. You can't eat cholesterol-laden meals without also consuming vast amounts of saturated fat, for instance. And your trite unsubstantiated opinion matters not. What does matter are the lab tests. If your assertion is true, then my LDL will show unhealthiness. As of the test 3 weeks ago, only triglycerides, fasting glucose, and a1c were out of spec. And you also ignore with "vast amounts of saturated fat": I have been eating much less. So your 'vast amounts' are also unsubstantiated. In the end, more blood tests (data) will confirm whether I am right or not. Not silly bickering on HN.

by noondip 11y ago

strathmeyer 11y ago

hint: the fats we're eating are high an nutrients, and such diets existed long before Atkins

HelloMcFly 11y ago

> There's isn't any conflicting data. I don't read blogs or HuffPo, I try to find the research, and I find plenty of - if-not-conflicting - difficult to fully reconcile evidence. My wife is a pediatrician who tries to keep up with this stuff, and she would disagree with you as well. I'm not just talking about diet comparisons alone, I'm talking about the merits and dangers of individual foods and food types. There's a lot of research, not all of it saying the same thing. It's not easy to parse all of the caveats, confounding factors, and unique populations. > I challenge you to post some actual links to articles here which advocate a high-fat or low-carb diet. Here's one [1], [2]. Your criticism of [1] will be "low sample size", which is fair. But then most studies with large sample sizes are retrospective, which is the other major criticism. Your criticism of [2] will be the population type, which is also fair. > You can't eat cholesterol-laden meals without also consuming vast amounts of saturated fat, for instance. There's much said about the evil of saturated fat, and some of it is clearly true such as a link to heart disease (or is it? suggests one of many not-hard-to-find conflicting sources [3]; [4]) other evils are less clear. Much early criticism at it was given because it was thought to increase cholesterol, which isn't the case for most individuals; when cholesterol is impacted, it's primarily impacting the HDL:LDL ratio (or alternatively, Total:HDL). This study [5] suggests little difference in saturated vs. other types of fat, though it relied on self-reporting. The story is more nuanced, as [6] suggests, with some clear influence on some things and mixed results elsewhere. [7] is interesting though as it indicates a link between saturated fat and heart disease, but suggests replacing saturated fat with carbs slightly increases that risk. > Whatever nit-picked understanding you have of how cholesterol works in the human physiology will not refute this fact. It's hardly fair to deride someone for accurately pointing out the small connection between dietary and bodily cholesterol. That's not a nit-picked understanding, it's something worth knowing. > But what you've done by feeling satiated is miss out on nutritionally-dense foods and replace them with poor quality foods which just fill you up. I'm not the OP, but it's certainly not one or the other for me. I eat high-fat foods (dairy, nuts, legumes, olive oil, eggs), and nutritionally dense foods (leafy greens, root vegetables). I don't disagree with your conclusions in general, but do think it is a bit over-dismissive. -- [1] http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/full/ejcn20094a.html http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v63/n8/full/ejcn20094a.ht... [2] (PDF WARNING) http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1475-2840-8-35.pdf http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1475-2840-8-35.pdf [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlu... [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlus http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlu... [5] http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M13-1788&an_fo_ed http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/M13-1788&an_fo_ed [6] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4/fulltext.html http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11745-010-3393-4/f... [7] http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1425.abstract?ijkey=99ecdbcda47e1604f229ec5e7225596119769c60&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1425.abstract?ijkey=9...

noondip 11y ago
Thanks for taking the time to provide those citations. 1 - This study has a tiny sample size of 9 sedentary, slightly overweight people and did not seek out to exonerate a low-carb, high-fat diet. Rather, it compared a paleolithic-type diet (30% of calories from proteins, 32% from fat (mainly unsaturated) and 38% from carbohydrates.) to SAD - the standard American diet - not exactly a high standard to beat. 2 - It's clearly written right in the study: "results of this study do not address the occurrence of rare adverse events, nor can they be extrapolated to all patients seen in general clinical practice." Again, an n=13 sample size is just insignificant. Let's bring out some meta-analyses and systematic reviews, not case reports and case-crossover studies. 3 - I am familiar with this Patty Siri-Tarino et al. paper - it gets cited all the time by fat apologists. I don't have time to go into all the details, but you can watch this short presentation pointing out its faults - https://www.youtube.com/embed/a-Tx9dCbv-g https://www.youtube.com/embed/a-Tx9dCbv-g. Let's also not forget Patty works with/for the animal agriculture shill Ronald Krauss - a guy who gets massive paychecks from the beef industry, Monsanto and Coca Cola to downplay the risks of unhealthy food. 4 - "Assuming that the inverse association between SFA and stroke mortality is causal, it would nevertheless be inappropriate to recommend an increased consumption of SFA-containing products to the general Japanese population, because it might increase population levels of total cholesterol and the risk of IHD" 5 - Read the article replies. Here is one from Frank Sacks of Harvard: "The meta-analysis of dietary fatty acids and risk of coronary heart disease by Chowdhury et al. contains multiple errors and omissions, and the conclusions are seriously misleading [and should be disregarded]." Uh oh! 6 - Wow, this one is quite brazen. "Nutrition Impact is a small consulting firm that specializes in helping food & beverage companies develop and communicate aggressive, science-based claims about their products and services." Still, the only reasonable conclusion they were able to squeeze out was: "Thus, policies that prioritize the reduction of SFA [saturated fat] consumption without specifically considering the replacement nutrient may have little or no effects on disease risk, especially as the most common replacement in populations is often CHO [carbohydrate]." Sure, replacing saturated fat with straight table sugar is probably not a good idea, this is a no-brainer and doesn't lead me to the conclusion low-carb, high-fat diets are superior in any way. 7 - "This study suggests that to prevent CHD, SFA intake should be replaced with PUFA intake rather than MUFA or carbohydrate intake. However, the effects of substitution of carbohydrates may vary depending on the quality of the carbohydrates consumed. [...] In this study, only type of fat, not type of carbohydrates, was considered" Well, isn't that convenient! Let's lump all carbohydrate-rich foods into one category! No way that'll bias the results! > I don't disagree with your conclusions in general, but do think it is a bit over-dismissive. You're right and I apologise. I'll try to do better next time. Obviously, this is a topic I feel very heated about.

kefka2 11y ago

> I challenge you to post some actual links to articles here which advocate a high-fat or low-carb diet. I can personally guarantee you it will 1) be sponsored by the Atkins foundation and/or animal agriculture business and 2) have obvious flaws in methodology which I'll gladly point out to you. That's easy. I have my own data. I've been keeping track of it since I was diagnosed with T2 diabetes. I have not followed an "Atkins" diet, but converged upon it with regards to my own health. I only recently actually read up about that after talking with an RN at the local hospital's Diabetes school. https://mega.nz/#!JwcSEAwC!zPqA1zVhA3zcLwLLZRJucc6AtT9zlHfNYOM1jWXqfX4 https://mega.nz/#!JwcSEAwC!zPqA1zVhA3zcLwLLZRJucc6AtT9zlHfNY... > Food is a packaged deal. You can't eat cholesterol-laden meals without also consuming vast amounts of saturated fat, for instance. And your trite unsubstantiated opinion matters not. What does matter are the lab tests. If your assertion is true, then my LDL will show unhealthiness. As of the test 3 weeks ago, only triglycerides, fasting glucose, and a1c were out of spec. And you also ignore with "vast amounts of saturated fat": I have been eating much less. So your 'vast amounts' are also unsubstantiated. In the end, more blood tests (data) will confirm whether I am right or not. Not silly bickering on HN.