9 ms·
Eating kills you. Heart disease kills 614,348 people per year & cancer kills 591,699 per year [i]. Heart disease has been linked to saturated fat for years. Ca
by ransom1538 9y ago
Eating kills you. Heart disease kills 614,348 people per year & cancer kills 591,699 per year [i]. Heart disease has been linked to saturated fat for years. Cancer is your own cells that have mutated. Each new cell is just ticket to the cancer lotto. Obesity = more cells. Cancer & Heart disease kill over a million per year. But we spend most of our media time on shootings and snake bites, in reality it's that bag of Cool Ranch Doritos (which are a curse on humanity).
[i] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php
- artellectual 9y agoDose of reality most people don’t want to hear right there.
- jtmarmon 9y agoa bag of cool ranch doritos has 1 gram of saturated fat. saturated fat is not linked with heart disease http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2817%2932252-3/fulltext?ex_cid=SigDig http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-67... Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality.
- andrewflnr 9y agoRather the opposite, in fact, which is kind of hilarious to me. > Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality...
- jtmarmon 9y agoIt is hilarious, although I left it the lower risk of all type mortality since OP was specifically talking about saturated fat being linked to heart disease. But yes people should probably eat less pasta and more steak
- KitDuncan 9y agoYeah. Lets all go on a Keto diet and sustain 400 million americans on steak. Do you people ever stop and think about the consequences of your diet?
- michaelhoney 9y agoI think it’s the number of people which is the problem. Also, there are not 400m Americans. Yet.
- maloney 9y agoKeto is a high fat diet not a high protien diet. Replace "keto" with "Atkin's" and I have no issue with your comment, in fact i would agree.
- Cheezmeister 9y agoFunny, if you flip to any recent thread about climate change, you're likely to come across someone advocating less steak and more pasta. Why? Producing meat is incredibly resource-intensive; cows are the biggest offenders. They literally shit greenhouse gas. Which is not to say I don't enjoy a nice juicy cheezburger. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
- maxerickson 9y ago1 gram per serving. Most of their packages contain multiple servings. Even the smaller packages that you usually see on the shelf are 3 servings, at least in the US.
- log_base_login 9y agoThe fun size bags have one serving, but even so I doubt that doritos, en masse, are to blame for obesity. It's the accompanying sedentary lifestyle that is the real culprit. If we want a food source to blame, look at high sugar content foods like soda or the slew of 'Little Debbie' type snacks (I'm preferential to Nutter Butters) that can be consumed in one or two sittings if you aren't calorie conscious. But, just to reiterate what's important, if we all just got a solid hour of exercise each day the rate of cancer and heart disease would drop appreciably.
- matwood 9y ago> if we all just got a solid hour of exercise each day the rate of cancer and heart disease would drop appreciably. But people really want a magic bullet, "X is bad, Y is good". People generally do not like to exercise so they'll keep looking for something else.
- novia 9y agoConversely, junk food companies love to shift the blame to the consumers not getting enough exercise.
- mattnewton 9y agoI don’t disagree that the sedantary lifestyle is the primary cause. However the processed food industry is a dangerous trap; Doritos and their ilk are almost as dangerous as those other sugary snacks, they are just a different kind of addictive, using fats, salt and MSG instead of sugar http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-graphic.html?=ref=dining http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/10/01/dining/nacho-g...
- 9y ago
- runeks 9y agoThe link between saturated fats and disease is dubious at best. Here’s[1] a meta-analysis with 350,000 subjects that failed to show a link between saturated fat, coronary heart disease, stroke and cardiovascular disease. Many meta-analyses[2] fail to show a correlation, and many remain unpublished. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/ [2] http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978 http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978
- ISL 9y agoand many remain unpublished. Citation?
- legulere 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias
- ransom1538 9y agoThe scientific consensus is that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease, having been endorsed by many medical, scientific, heart-health, governmental and intergovernmental, and professional authorities, such as the World Health Organization,[1] the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Medicine,[2] the American Dietetic Association,[3] the Dietitians of Canada,[3] the British Dietetic Association,[4] American Heart Association,[5] the British Heart Foundation,[6] the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada,[7] the World Heart Federation,[8] the British... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovasc...
- walshemj 9y agoActually a lot of these xx Is bad for you are dubious or just well marketed fads eg lo salt as my specialised NHS dietician (for chronic kidney failure) commented they don't tell you what C$%^ the put in to replace salt
- 9y ago
- kmm 9y ago> Obesity = more cells That's not true. Not only do fat cells just grow bigger (a skinny person has just as many as a fat person), you'd expect the increase in cancers to be mostly liposarcomas ("fat cell cancer"), which stay very rare. Other organs might be distended or enlarged, but they don't contain more cells. The reason obesity leads to cancer is not very well understood, but it's probably a complicated process involving abnormal hormone levels usual in obese people, and the constant low-grade inflammation their body is usually suffering from
- killjoywashere 9y agoThe low grade inflam and hormones are definitely causal. Another that biologists don't really from is the simple increased temp these people live at due to fat being insulation: Simple thermodynamics starts to creep in over 50 years.
- mcculley 9y agoHow can that be true? Don't fat people at least have more skin cells than skinny people? Also, I can't imagine that enormously obese people just have larger fat cells than skinny people. I have read that it is harder to get rid of fat cells once they shrink, but not that we don't get more of them.
- ztjio 9y agoA common misunderstanding is that organs are made up entirely of "cells" but, they are not. There are other materials involved, such as collagen. We call these names like "connective tissues" and they take up a lot of the space. That doesn't mean they aren't involved, proteins can go wrong, but, that is usually associated with other types of diseases besides cancer.
- mcculley 9y agoThat still leaves me confused. A skinny adult who becomes obese has the same number of skin cells? That sounds hard to believe.
- aviv 9y agoAdd to that #3 on the list, the 250,000 Americans that die each year from medical errors.
- jasonwelk 9y agoThis might be completely inaccurate, but I've always thought of the body as a machine, and it has moving parts. And as with any machine, the more its parts move and get used over time, the sooner the machine will wear out. And if you eat more, regardless of whether it's healthy or not, just the quantity itself, you are going to make the parts inside you move more to process the digestion. Eating less puts less stress on your system over time, as long as you are of course not under p-eating by an alarming amount.
- bachaco 9y agoBut that would mean a direct relationship between physical exercise and death, which I believe is not the case.
- jasonwelk 9y agoI don't follow. The body spends much more time digesting food than is normally spent exercising. I've read that constant digesting gets in the way of the body doing nightly internal cleanup processes that detox your system, as energy is diverted to process food instead. That might be another source of problems.
- bachaco 9y agoThe more exercise you do the more you have to eat to maintain your body. If you are following a healthy diet you will need to increase even more your total amount of food due the fact that generally healthy food has less calories. Also, there is nothing more stressful for the body than exercise.
- jasonwelk 9y ago> there is nothing more stressful for the body than exercise I think you are postulating. There was an article here a week or two ago that showed how bodies frequently in motion tend to live longer and be healthiest. There are different types of effects on the body from activities, and I'd be willing to bet that a body that's constantly in a state of digestion is stressed more than one in natural motion. However, I say this with a disclaimer that I'm guessing based on recent articles posted here. But if you really think otherwise, you should just provide a source. Also, unless you are training for the Olympics, you do not need to linearly scale your food intake in proportion to your exercise. The average diet for many people does not need to change much after introducing exercise because the average diet already is usually too many calories.
- FLUX-YOU 9y ago>But we spend most of our media time on shootings and snake bites, in reality it's that bag of Cool Ranch Doritos (which are a curse on humanity). We really going to worry about a bag of chips when so many people still smoke?
- evgen 9y agoSmoking has been falling constantly and it is now 1/3 the level it was 40 years ago. Not only is it falling, but the rate at which it is declining is increasing. OTOH Americans apparently cannot, under any circumstances, stop shoveling Oreos and Twinkies into their mouths. There are far more obese Americans than there are Americans who consume tobacco products and the obesity rate is going up. Any resources spent on reducing obesity will deliver greater returns than that spent on reducing smoking, even given the greater risk that smoking represents at the individual level.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- chiefalchemist 9y agoMore cells + a compromised system* = Problems. The problem is people aren't interested in health. Oreos are a God given right, evidently. And it's easier to blame the healthcare system than to face the truth. That is, you are what you consume. *The report is just cancer, but diabetes will be just as happy to kill too.