6 ms·

I've got to call out the false information in the article: "While fat in the diet is not the best thing for humans". When will the anti-fat brigade stop? Sti

I've got to call out the false information in the article: "While fat in the diet is not the best thing for humans". When will the anti-fat brigade stop? Still an insightful look into possible environmental cycles we've missed because we have devastated the North American bear populations for centuries.

slimsag 9y ago
I have no clue, so could you point out why fat in the human diet is good (or not bad)? I'd like to learn.
- fiblye 9y ago
  http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/01/21/how-to-starve-to-death-while-stuffing-yourself-with-rabbit-meat/ http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/01/21/how-to-starve-to-death-w... A certain degree of fat is essential. People have been reported to actually starve on very high protein/very little fat diets.
  - Laforet 9y ago
    The linked article actually describes limitations with low carbohydrate diets. Attempts to make up yhe caloric deficiency with only protein is bad as the body struggles to keep nitrogen balance. Given plenty of carbohydrates, it is possible to survive long term on very limited supply of essential fatty acids as well as proteons.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      Low carbs and high fat/protein is the essence of the keto diet, which I've heard has worked out well for some people.
      - toomuchtodo 9y ago
        Works incredibly well. https://www.reddit.com/r/keto https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
      - Laforet 9y ago
        Low carb is fine, however one cannot survive on protein alone as the main energy source.
- cropsieboss 9y ago
  Bears, like true omnivores, eat bugs and fruits and animal flesh and grass and practically anything to fill their bellies. Bears also, like true omnivores, can't get atherosclerosis from things they consume. Humans, feeding on primarily fat based diet get atherosclerosis very often. Best epidemiological/history research on that topic is done on Inuits where remains of children showed atherosclerotic plaques in the vessels - their diet, although not ketogenic, contained mostly animal fats and proteins. Other mechanistic studies proved that direct causal mechanism exists but the same thing happens also with sugary diet, or essentially any diet with a caloric surplus (highest effect of course with highly caloric diets or diets rich in cholesterol over long timespans). Essential fatty acids (omega-3 and omega-6), on the other hand, are abundant in animal flesh (if we ignore plant oils). Human reliance on these sources definitely implies we are omnivores but with a certain complex twist. Given the young age of nutrition science, lack of personalized methods, and flawed epidemiological studies (for example, epidemiological studies condemning meat and dietary cholesterol ultimately fail, on the other hand, studies showing that dietary cholesterol has no effect on basline cholesterol are methodologically flawed), a skeptic would conclude we still know little when it comes to long consistent living and the effect of diet on health. We do know a lot about intervention on sick people though. Practically any diet that is more healthy than a diet sick people practice works, best one being the one with highest nutrient to calories ratio (foods that have huge volume but low calories tend to have that characteristic and its mostly just plants - hard to overeat and create a caloric surplus), which is a plant-based diet. Still, it's questionable how this works long term (what's the source of fatty acids? where's B12 etc.).
  - nicholas73 9y ago
    I've read studies that discuss excess cellular energy as the cause of metabolic disease, but are there any studies on athletic people eating high calories over long periods? That is, would Michael Phelps' 10k calorie per day cause a problem, even if he uses all 10k? Because there would be spikes unless one is meticulous about eating small meals over the day.
- rz2k 9y ago
  The Nurses Health Study (NHS) [1][2] is considered one of the best sources of long term data on factors affecting health due to its size. Regarding dietary fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) [3] following 80K women over 14 years, they failed to find a significant correlation between total fat intake and CHD. The linked summary discusses the relative risks of different fats (limit saturated, and completely avoid trans), but it essentially comes down to calories being replaced by carbohydrates. Note that foods labeled low-fat or fat-free do tend to have more sugar. Another NHS study following 40K women over 8 years[4] showed only a weak correlation between fat intake and weight gain. The take away again is probably to care more about which fats. Unsaturated fats tend to be healthier than carbohydrates. Saturated fats tend to be more unhealthy, and transfats should be completely avoided. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study [2] http://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/ http://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366580 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366580 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426332 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426332
  - cropsieboss 9y ago
    Just like you won't demonize meat because [0] says there's increased risk, you won't make conclusions about other things from epidemiological studies. [0] http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2517494 http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2517494
thevardanian 9y ago
I think we're now going in another direction it seems. First it was fat is bad, then it was fat is good, now it seems fat is bad again. I don't know what to think anymore...
- chii 9y ago
  stop relying on others to tell you what to think! Just eat a tiny bit of everything, and make sure you get regular exercise.
  - hnbroseph 9y ago
    but why should they 'eat a tiny bit of everything'?
    - kijin 9y ago
      Suppose you don't know whether something is good or bad for your health. Other people are eating it, so it's probably not insta-deadly, but you suspect that eating too much of it might be bad in the long term. Meanwhile, some people are telling you that it's actually essential for good health (e.g. cholesterol), and some are even worshiping it as some kind of superfood (e.g. wine). Food science is a mess. So you eat a little bit of it just in case it's essential for good health, but not too much of it in case it turns out to be bad in large quantities. Basically, you hedge your bets. Wash and repeat for nearly every type of food that exists.
  - RandomInteger4 9y ago
    I concur, but where I disagree is the sentiment "stop relying on others to tell you what to think!" In order to fix errors and optimize, we need information. Trying to reason about a problem without adequate information is like trying to fix a bug when the only information you have is your QA folks coming back and saying "There's a bug."
- bluedino 9y ago
  Eat moths.
delhanty 9y ago
Worse still is casually lumping together all different types of fat as simply "fat". Different types of fat have different nutritional effects and should be considered as different nutrients.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  Still thinking in the wrong way. The health of a diet can only be considered as a whole, not bit individual contributors. "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    > "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works. Overly reductionist statement and as inaccurate as what you're arguing against. There are absolutely foods we know to be bad for humans.
    - vikiomega9 9y ago
      I think this is meant to be read as a catch-all statement as opposed to considering other factors (lifestyle, mental state etc)
    - throwaway7645 9y ago
      I think you're being excessively critical here like a compiler :) You're not wrong, but I definitely understood the parent comment's point.
      - ethbro 9y ago
        I'd be more inclined to grant linguistic leeway if the parent themselves hadn't jumped on someone else's turn of phrase. Nutrition science has figured out some things to a high probability. It's still unsure and mystified by others. Don't throw the former out because the latter exists.
hnbroseph 9y ago
the sugar industry hates fat. or so i hear.

slimsag 9y ago

I have no clue, so could you point out why fat in the human diet is good (or not bad)? I'd like to learn.

fiblye 9y ago
http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/01/21/how-to-starve-to-death-while-stuffing-yourself-with-rabbit-meat/ http://knowledgenuts.com/2015/01/21/how-to-starve-to-death-w... A certain degree of fat is essential. People have been reported to actually starve on very high protein/very little fat diets.
- Laforet 9y ago
  The linked article actually describes limitations with low carbohydrate diets. Attempts to make up yhe caloric deficiency with only protein is bad as the body struggles to keep nitrogen balance. Given plenty of carbohydrates, it is possible to survive long term on very limited supply of essential fatty acids as well as proteons.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    Low carbs and high fat/protein is the essence of the keto diet, which I've heard has worked out well for some people.
    - toomuchtodo 9y ago
      Works incredibly well. https://www.reddit.com/r/keto https://www.reddit.com/r/keto
    - Laforet 9y ago
      Low carb is fine, however one cannot survive on protein alone as the main energy source.
cropsieboss 9y ago
Bears, like true omnivores, eat bugs and fruits and animal flesh and grass and practically anything to fill their bellies. Bears also, like true omnivores, can't get atherosclerosis from things they consume. Humans, feeding on primarily fat based diet get atherosclerosis very often. Best epidemiological/history research on that topic is done on Inuits where remains of children showed atherosclerotic plaques in the vessels - their diet, although not ketogenic, contained mostly animal fats and proteins. Other mechanistic studies proved that direct causal mechanism exists but the same thing happens also with sugary diet, or essentially any diet with a caloric surplus (highest effect of course with highly caloric diets or diets rich in cholesterol over long timespans). Essential fatty acids (omega-3 and omega-6), on the other hand, are abundant in animal flesh (if we ignore plant oils). Human reliance on these sources definitely implies we are omnivores but with a certain complex twist. Given the young age of nutrition science, lack of personalized methods, and flawed epidemiological studies (for example, epidemiological studies condemning meat and dietary cholesterol ultimately fail, on the other hand, studies showing that dietary cholesterol has no effect on basline cholesterol are methodologically flawed), a skeptic would conclude we still know little when it comes to long consistent living and the effect of diet on health. We do know a lot about intervention on sick people though. Practically any diet that is more healthy than a diet sick people practice works, best one being the one with highest nutrient to calories ratio (foods that have huge volume but low calories tend to have that characteristic and its mostly just plants - hard to overeat and create a caloric surplus), which is a plant-based diet. Still, it's questionable how this works long term (what's the source of fatty acids? where's B12 etc.).
- nicholas73 9y ago
  I've read studies that discuss excess cellular energy as the cause of metabolic disease, but are there any studies on athletic people eating high calories over long periods? That is, would Michael Phelps' 10k calorie per day cause a problem, even if he uses all 10k? Because there would be spikes unless one is meticulous about eating small meals over the day.
rz2k 9y ago
The Nurses Health Study (NHS) [1][2] is considered one of the best sources of long term data on factors affecting health due to its size. Regarding dietary fat intake and risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) [3] following 80K women over 14 years, they failed to find a significant correlation between total fat intake and CHD. The linked summary discusses the relative risks of different fats (limit saturated, and completely avoid trans), but it essentially comes down to calories being replaced by carbohydrates. Note that foods labeled low-fat or fat-free do tend to have more sugar. Another NHS study following 40K women over 8 years[4] showed only a weak correlation between fat intake and weight gain. The take away again is probably to care more about which fats. Unsaturated fats tend to be healthier than carbohydrates. Saturated fats tend to be more unhealthy, and transfats should be completely avoided. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nurses%27_Health_Study [2] http://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/ http://www.nurseshealthstudy.org/ [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366580 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9366580 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426332 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17426332
- cropsieboss 9y ago
  Just like you won't demonize meat because [0] says there's increased risk, you won't make conclusions about other things from epidemiological studies. [0] http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2517494 http://jaoa.org/article.aspx?articleid=2517494

thevardanian 9y ago

I think we're now going in another direction it seems. First it was fat is bad, then it was fat is good, now it seems fat is bad again. I don't know what to think anymore...

chii 9y ago
stop relying on others to tell you what to think! Just eat a tiny bit of everything, and make sure you get regular exercise.
- hnbroseph 9y ago
  but why should they 'eat a tiny bit of everything'?
  - kijin 9y ago
    Suppose you don't know whether something is good or bad for your health. Other people are eating it, so it's probably not insta-deadly, but you suspect that eating too much of it might be bad in the long term. Meanwhile, some people are telling you that it's actually essential for good health (e.g. cholesterol), and some are even worshiping it as some kind of superfood (e.g. wine). Food science is a mess. So you eat a little bit of it just in case it's essential for good health, but not too much of it in case it turns out to be bad in large quantities. Basically, you hedge your bets. Wash and repeat for nearly every type of food that exists.
- RandomInteger4 9y ago
  I concur, but where I disagree is the sentiment "stop relying on others to tell you what to think!" In order to fix errors and optimize, we need information. Trying to reason about a problem without adequate information is like trying to fix a bug when the only information you have is your QA folks coming back and saying "There's a bug."
bluedino 9y ago
Eat moths.

delhanty 9y ago

Worse still is casually lumping together all different types of fat as simply "fat". Different types of fat have different nutritional effects and should be considered as different nutrients.

colechristensen 9y ago
Still thinking in the wrong way. The health of a diet can only be considered as a whole, not bit individual contributors. "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works. Overly reductionist statement and as inaccurate as what you're arguing against. There are absolutely foods we know to be bad for humans.
  - vikiomega9 9y ago
    I think this is meant to be read as a catch-all statement as opposed to considering other factors (lifestyle, mental state etc)
  - throwaway7645 9y ago
    I think you're being excessively critical here like a compiler :) You're not wrong, but I definitely understood the parent comment's point.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I'd be more inclined to grant linguistic leeway if the parent themselves hadn't jumped on someone else's turn of phrase. Nutrition science has figured out some things to a high probability. It's still unsure and mystified by others. Don't throw the former out because the latter exists.

hnbroseph 9y ago

the sugar industry hates fat. or so i hear.