3 ms·

The link is not well established at all, esp. considering the studies of the last decade or two. https://lifeforbusypeople.com/2016/08/24/why-anti-fat-is-compl

by DiThi 9y ago

The link is not well established at all, esp. considering the studies of the last decade or two. https://lifeforbusypeople.com/2016/08/24/why-anti-fat-is-completely-misguided/ https://lifeforbusypeople.com/2016/08/24/why-anti-fat-is-com... Industrial meat is not exactly good, though, it has all kinds of issues but the fat and cholesterol aren't a problem.

cageface 9y ago
Fat and cholesterol are very much a problem, despite what a lot of vested interests would like you to believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKv1m2SVio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKv1m2SVio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o
- DiThi 9y ago
  The vast majority of the studies mentioned in those videos are old, where most researchers could get away with hacking the P values [0]. A lot of studies done in the last decade contradict the older ones (the article I linked earlier is full of sources). Also correlation is not causation. In how many of those studies controlled the amount of carbs? Because the combination is very important [1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831224 Edit: Looking at the last link of your first video, it acknowledges low carb diets are beneficial short and medium term, but there's very little literature for long term. It concludes low carbs are bad long term... but you must see the table on page 13 to see how they reached that conclusion. The "low carb score" group still had a crazily high 37-42% of carbs (compared to LCHF diets which are usually 5% carbs), it had more smokers and all of them had trans fats (very dangerous but can be easily avoided altogether).
  - cageface 9y ago
    There are plenty of studies from the last few years that back all this up in detail. If you go to nutritionfacts.org you'll find more references than you can handle.
    - DiThi 9y ago
      Did you search enough within those sources to refute the ones of the article I linked? I barely find any in nutritionfacts made in the last 10-15 years, and of those I can't find even a single one that points to fat and cholesterol as the main cause of heart disease.

by DiThi 9y ago

cageface 9y ago

Fat and cholesterol are very much a problem, despite what a lot of vested interests would like you to believe: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKv1m2SVio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qmKv1m2SVio https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBtfzd43t8o

DiThi 9y ago
The vast majority of the studies mentioned in those videos are old, where most researchers could get away with hacking the P values [0]. A lot of studies done in the last decade contradict the older ones (the article I linked earlier is full of sources). Also correlation is not causation. In how many of those studies controlled the amount of carbs? Because the combination is very important [1] [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42QuXLucH3Q [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831224 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14831224 Edit: Looking at the last link of your first video, it acknowledges low carb diets are beneficial short and medium term, but there's very little literature for long term. It concludes low carbs are bad long term... but you must see the table on page 13 to see how they reached that conclusion. The "low carb score" group still had a crazily high 37-42% of carbs (compared to LCHF diets which are usually 5% carbs), it had more smokers and all of them had trans fats (very dangerous but can be easily avoided altogether).
- cageface 9y ago
  There are plenty of studies from the last few years that back all this up in detail. If you go to nutritionfacts.org you'll find more references than you can handle.
  - DiThi 9y ago
    Did you search enough within those sources to refute the ones of the article I linked? I barely find any in nutritionfacts made in the last 10-15 years, and of those I can't find even a single one that points to fat and cholesterol as the main cause of heart disease.