4 ms·

Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?

by hannob 9y ago

jdavis703 9y ago
Here's some science then. Based on analyzing food groups controlled with total calorie consumption, it was found that meat availability is most highly correlated with obesity: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-016-0063-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...
- okket 9y ago
  So you are saying that when you eat the same amount of calories, meat is better at getting you fat? How does this debunk the problems with sugar in your view?
  - DrScump 9y ago
    Note that it studies meat availability, not meat consumption.
    - okket 9y ago
      You get more likely fat by looking at meat? Besides that, I agree that meat is a superior food compared to sugar and it will get you more easily fat, if compared on calorie by calorie base. But this does not say anything about the addictiveness of sugar or the health problems that come from overconsumption (diabetes, etc). Will say, most people can control their meat intake (some not), but most can not control how much sugar they consume. Especially if it is omnipresent and hidden in many foods you might not suspect.
      - DrScump 9y ago
        meat... will get you more easily fat if compared on calorie (for) calorie (basis) I think that's exactly wrong. I can think of no mechanism by which, say, 1000 calories of excess fat+protein would cause more net fat gain than 1000 calories of excess carbohydrate.
        lkbm 9y ago
        How about if one results in you later consuming fewer calories than the other by affecting the production (and reception) of leptin, insulin, and maybe a dozen other hormones?
        DrScump 9y ago
        Yes, that's exactly the point -- meat/fat have much higher satiety than carbohydrate and less effect on insulin.
dang 9y ago
Please don't post snarky dismissals to Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. This sort of comment is pure regression to the mean, which is not what we want HN to be.

Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?

by hannob 9y ago

Do you know the difference between anecdotes and science?

Here's some science then. Based on analyzing food groups controlled with total calorie consumption, it was found that meat availability is most highly correlated with obesity: https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-016-0063-9 https://bmcnutr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40795-01...

okket 9y ago
So you are saying that when you eat the same amount of calories, meat is better at getting you fat? How does this debunk the problems with sugar in your view?
- DrScump 9y ago
  Note that it studies meat availability, not meat consumption.
  - okket 9y ago
    You get more likely fat by looking at meat? Besides that, I agree that meat is a superior food compared to sugar and it will get you more easily fat, if compared on calorie by calorie base. But this does not say anything about the addictiveness of sugar or the health problems that come from overconsumption (diabetes, etc). Will say, most people can control their meat intake (some not), but most can not control how much sugar they consume. Especially if it is omnipresent and hidden in many foods you might not suspect.
    - DrScump 9y ago
      meat... will get you more easily fat if compared on calorie (for) calorie (basis) I think that's exactly wrong. I can think of no mechanism by which, say, 1000 calories of excess fat+protein would cause more net fat gain than 1000 calories of excess carbohydrate.
      - lkbm 9y ago
        How about if one results in you later consuming fewer calories than the other by affecting the production (and reception) of leptin, insulin, and maybe a dozen other hormones?
        DrScump 9y ago
        Yes, that's exactly the point -- meat/fat have much higher satiety than carbohydrate and less effect on insulin.

dang 9y ago

Please don't post snarky dismissals to Hacker News, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. This sort of comment is pure regression to the mean, which is not what we want HN to be.