5 ms·

The most unhealthy part of a burger is the bun. This does nothing to help that.

by mangix 9y ago

KozmoNau7 9y ago
No, that would still be the red meat and saturated fat (cancer risk increase and calories). Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science. But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation.
- Shikadi 9y ago
  Saturated fat got a bad rap because of butter. More recently studies have brought it into question how bad it is, and as it turns out, replacing saturated fats with carbs increases your risk of heart disease. Unsaturated fats are better, but saturated isn't necessarily bad for you. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of different types of saturated fat either. Not sure why you think carbs being bad is bro science, simple carbs are almost as bad as eating sugar. Eating carbs (preferably complex) is probably fine with a balanced diet including fats proteins and fiber and all, but most people don't do that. It's worth noting that general Mills basically makes the food pyramid (new and old) and it doesn't agree with modern science Edit: Decided to grab a quick source online that seems pretty unbiased since this is can be a pretty heated and opinionated topic. Other more in depth sources exist, feel free to dig in https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo...
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Carbs have been demonized, just like fats used to be, but both are wrong. Fats are calorie-dense, which is their primary danger (ignoring trans-fats here). Simple carbs give you plenty of calories too, and basically nothing else. People are quick to demonize all carbs, but it's only really the simple ones that are dangerous. Whole carbs are generally fine in moderation, like everything else. A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists. It's not black/white, good/bad.
    - alexkavon 9y ago
      > "A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists." Vegetables. Raw.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        Sure, but people want something satisfying, not 50lbs of kale. Especially not raw. I love veggies, but eating only raw veggies is absolute nonsense.
      - kbutler 9y ago
        I was thinking that, too, but remember that feeding babies excess carrots actually changes skin color from the beta carotene, and then there are issues with gas and bloating from cruciferous vegetables.
    - dh89 9y ago
      Raw fruit can be eaten in virtually any amount. It's incredibly difficult to overeat while plant foods - not so with animal products, since a 500 calorie piece of cheese fits in your hand and offers close to zero nutrition and satiation.
      - KozmoNau7 9y ago
        >"a 500 calorie piece of cheese fits in your hand and offers close to zero nutrition and satiation." Nonsense, there's plenty of nutrition. Like you said, there's 500 calories, that's nutrition. There is also protein, calcium, vitamins (including B12) and other minerals. It's also very filling and satisfying, provided you eat good cheese, and not some "processed cheese product".
        Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Also, raw fruit is chock full of simple sugars ("refined" has nothing to do with it, by the way).
      - 9y ago
  - dh89 9y ago
    There are hundreds of types of saturated fats now? That is hilarious. Carnists (people addicted to animal food consumption) never cease to amaze me with their creativity and drive to bury, distort, or totally twist the truth about the health consequences of their diet.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      >"Carnists" Please don't derail the discussion with ideological pseudoscience and made up scary-sounding manipulative terms. This whole "trying to frame eating meat as an addiction" idea is just silly. Don't fall into that sort of redefining of terms.
      - dh89 9y ago
        Wow, triggered much? Maybe read and research https://www.carnism.org/ https://www.carnism.org/ before getting so upset. Just because you're part of an ideology you yourself don't apprehend, doesn't mean it's "silly" and "pseudoscience". Have more intellectual honesty that this, please.
    - dang 9y ago
      Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here, especially not when the single purpose is ideological. We've banned this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - Shikadi 9y ago
      Wikipedia lists 36 types, I'm not sure where I'm remembering hundreds from, but I posted a comment above correcting myself.
  - Shikadi 9y ago
    I'm not sure where I got the "100s" number from, but wikipedia lists 36 different types of saturated fat
- kbutler 9y ago
  It appears pretty clear that if you eat only the patty to satiation vs eat only the bun to satiation, you will lose fat on the patty diet but gain fat on the bun diet. You'll also get more complete nutrition from the patty. (Not that I'd suggest either of these diets!) Obesity is a greater health risk (death risk) in the US than colorectal cancer.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    The biggest problem is that a lot of people don't want to moderate their appetites, they just want to eat and eat, and they think there's a perfect food out there that you can just eat as much as you want. The media feeds into to this, with the "fat bad carbs good fat good carbs bad protein superfood eat this don't eat that eat that don't eat this" nonsense. Eat a varied diet, avoid added sugars and fats. Boom, 90% done.
- truculation 9y ago
  >But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation. What does 'bro science' mean? e.g. is the work referenced here bro science: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-cardio/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-car... Btw, I think the thing that makes the meaty part of burgers a bit dodgy is the fact that the meat has been ground up which means that bacteria can grow throughout its bulk at fridge temperature. As opposed to other cuts of meat where such growth is initially confined to the surface. These organisms won't kill you but they do leave inflammatory waste products behind which are bad for the health of the consumer. Same with chopped onion and various other foodstuffs; dunno about mushrooms. Hence supermarket 'ready meals' which have been fridged for 7+ days are best avoided UPDATE: https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/february/bacterial-molecules-discovered-in-processed-foods-could-unlock-key-to-healthier-diets https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/febr...
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Don't get me wrong, refined carbs (sugars) are certainly bad for you, and the patty/bun comparison depends a lot on the amount of added sugar, which has been growing for decades. But there has been a tendency to demonize all carbs, just like there was demonization of fats in earlier decades. Both are wrong. And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense.
    - truculation 9y ago
      >tendency to demonize all carbs Yeah I would agree with that, however, I think the larger error is in ignoring people's relationship to food. Some people shows signs of addiction, some don't, and we have no idea what the difference is, because we don't understand addiction. >And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense. Heh. Whether one believes in a theory or not has no bearing on whether it's true. The proper name for those inflammatory chemicals is 'Pamps' btw. It's peer-reviewed research from a UK university. More to the point there's a plausible (to me) explanation behind it, unlike a lot of biomedical science. So worth checking out.
- coldtea 9y ago
  >Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science. Actually, deserved or not, there was nothing of "bro" about what gave them the bad rep. Actual doctors, medical organizations, and dieticians have advised so, not some "bros". Like they did against fat before. This is not using Nature to justify some human trend or cultural practice (which would have been a fallacy). This is merely pointing out an evolutionary development that has existed for millions of years (and in humans for hundreds of thousands).
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    Simple carbs are the bad carbs, which is what the research says. But people turn that into "all carbs are bad", which is just blatantly false.

The most unhealthy part of a burger is the bun. This does nothing to help that.

by mangix 9y ago

The most unhealthy part of a burger is the bun. This does nothing to help that.

No, that would still be the red meat and saturated fat (cancer risk increase and calories). Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science. But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation.

Shikadi 9y ago
Saturated fat got a bad rap because of butter. More recently studies have brought it into question how bad it is, and as it turns out, replacing saturated fats with carbs increases your risk of heart disease. Unsaturated fats are better, but saturated isn't necessarily bad for you. It doesn't help that there are hundreds of different types of saturated fat either. Not sure why you think carbs being bad is bro science, simple carbs are almost as bad as eating sugar. Eating carbs (preferably complex) is probably fine with a balanced diet including fats proteins and fiber and all, but most people don't do that. It's worth noting that general Mills basically makes the food pyramid (new and old) and it doesn't agree with modern science Edit: Decided to grab a quick source online that seems pretty unbiased since this is can be a pretty heated and opinionated topic. Other more in depth sources exist, feel free to dig in https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo...
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Carbs have been demonized, just like fats used to be, but both are wrong. Fats are calorie-dense, which is their primary danger (ignoring trans-fats here). Simple carbs give you plenty of calories too, and basically nothing else. People are quick to demonize all carbs, but it's only really the simple ones that are dangerous. Whole carbs are generally fine in moderation, like everything else. A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists. It's not black/white, good/bad.
  - alexkavon 9y ago
    > "A lot of people are looking for foods they can binge on, with no guilty conscience, but no such food exists." Vegetables. Raw.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      Sure, but people want something satisfying, not 50lbs of kale. Especially not raw. I love veggies, but eating only raw veggies is absolute nonsense.
    - kbutler 9y ago
      I was thinking that, too, but remember that feeding babies excess carrots actually changes skin color from the beta carotene, and then there are issues with gas and bloating from cruciferous vegetables.
  - dh89 9y ago
    Raw fruit can be eaten in virtually any amount. It's incredibly difficult to overeat while plant foods - not so with animal products, since a 500 calorie piece of cheese fits in your hand and offers close to zero nutrition and satiation.
    - KozmoNau7 9y ago
      >"a 500 calorie piece of cheese fits in your hand and offers close to zero nutrition and satiation." Nonsense, there's plenty of nutrition. Like you said, there's 500 calories, that's nutrition. There is also protein, calcium, vitamins (including B12) and other minerals. It's also very filling and satisfying, provided you eat good cheese, and not some "processed cheese product".
      - Turing_Machine 9y ago
        Also, raw fruit is chock full of simple sugars ("refined" has nothing to do with it, by the way).
    - 9y ago
- dh89 9y ago
  There are hundreds of types of saturated fats now? That is hilarious. Carnists (people addicted to animal food consumption) never cease to amaze me with their creativity and drive to bury, distort, or totally twist the truth about the health consequences of their diet.
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    >"Carnists" Please don't derail the discussion with ideological pseudoscience and made up scary-sounding manipulative terms. This whole "trying to frame eating meat as an addiction" idea is just silly. Don't fall into that sort of redefining of terms.
    - dh89 9y ago
      Wow, triggered much? Maybe read and research https://www.carnism.org/ https://www.carnism.org/ before getting so upset. Just because you're part of an ideology you yourself don't apprehend, doesn't mean it's "silly" and "pseudoscience". Have more intellectual honesty that this, please.
  - dang 9y ago
    Single-purpose accounts aren't allowed here, especially not when the single purpose is ideological. We've banned this one. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - Shikadi 9y ago
    Wikipedia lists 36 types, I'm not sure where I'm remembering hundreds from, but I posted a comment above correcting myself.
- Shikadi 9y ago
  I'm not sure where I got the "100s" number from, but wikipedia lists 36 different types of saturated fat
kbutler 9y ago
It appears pretty clear that if you eat only the patty to satiation vs eat only the bun to satiation, you will lose fat on the patty diet but gain fat on the bun diet. You'll also get more complete nutrition from the patty. (Not that I'd suggest either of these diets!) Obesity is a greater health risk (death risk) in the US than colorectal cancer.
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  The biggest problem is that a lot of people don't want to moderate their appetites, they just want to eat and eat, and they think there's a perfect food out there that you can just eat as much as you want. The media feeds into to this, with the "fat bad carbs good fat good carbs bad protein superfood eat this don't eat that eat that don't eat this" nonsense. Eat a varied diet, avoid added sugars and fats. Boom, 90% done.
truculation 9y ago
>But there is still no actual proof of these assertions, only speculation. What does 'bro science' mean? e.g. is the work referenced here bro science: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-cardio/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbs-against-car... Btw, I think the thing that makes the meaty part of burgers a bit dodgy is the fact that the meat has been ground up which means that bacteria can grow throughout its bulk at fridge temperature. As opposed to other cuts of meat where such growth is initially confined to the surface. These organisms won't kill you but they do leave inflammatory waste products behind which are bad for the health of the consumer. Same with chopped onion and various other foodstuffs; dunno about mushrooms. Hence supermarket 'ready meals' which have been fridged for 7+ days are best avoided UPDATE: https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/february/bacterial-molecules-discovered-in-processed-foods-could-unlock-key-to-healthier-diets https://www2.le.ac.uk/offices/press/press-releases/2016/febr...
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Don't get me wrong, refined carbs (sugars) are certainly bad for you, and the patty/bun comparison depends a lot on the amount of added sugar, which has been growing for decades. But there has been a tendency to demonize all carbs, just like there was demonization of fats in earlier decades. Both are wrong. And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense.
  - truculation 9y ago
    >tendency to demonize all carbs Yeah I would agree with that, however, I think the larger error is in ignoring people's relationship to food. Some people shows signs of addiction, some don't, and we have no idea what the difference is, because we don't understand addiction. >And no, I don't believe the "inflammatory waste products" theory, that's only one step removed from detox nonsense. Heh. Whether one believes in a theory or not has no bearing on whether it's true. The proper name for those inflammatory chemicals is 'Pamps' btw. It's peer-reviewed research from a UK university. More to the point there's a plausible (to me) explanation behind it, unlike a lot of biomedical science. So worth checking out.
coldtea 9y ago
>Carbs have gotten an undeservedly bad rep, due to bro science. Actually, deserved or not, there was nothing of "bro" about what gave them the bad rep. Actual doctors, medical organizations, and dieticians have advised so, not some "bros". Like they did against fat before. This is not using Nature to justify some human trend or cultural practice (which would have been a fallacy). This is merely pointing out an evolutionary development that has existed for millions of years (and in humans for hundreds of thousands).
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Simple carbs are the bad carbs, which is what the research says. But people turn that into "all carbs are bad", which is just blatantly false.