5 ms·

You want them to get a heart attack instead? Lots of cultures have good breakfast that don't rely on sugar or cholesterol. Look to the Mediterranean/Middle East

by z_open 8y ago

You want them to get a heart attack instead? Lots of cultures have good breakfast that don't rely on sugar or cholesterol. Look to the Mediterranean/Middle East/Central Asia/Far East.

otabdeveloper2 8y ago
I'm pretty sure that the idea that cholesterol causes heart attacks is fake news.
- will_brown 8y ago
  Correct dietary cholesterol is unrelated to high cholesterol in people. It’s a myth invented by...the sugar industry.
  - KIFulgore 8y ago
    I've read that lean, cholesterol-laden meats like shrimp, oysters, and liver do not raise cholesterol, but meats high in saturated fat will (ie, butter and ribeye steak).
- chongli 8y ago
  Yeah. The problem with bacon is the nitrites, not the cholesterol.
  - TACIXAT 8y ago
    Yea, I'm celiac and sodium nitrite is one of the foods I cut out. Might not affect everyone but it definitely messes with me. The uncured bacon products usually have celery powder which also contains sodium nitrite. Plain pork belly is the way to go.
    - NikolaeVarius 8y ago
      So you can't eat celery?
      - TACIXAT 8y ago
        Correct. I've identified the following as triggers for sinus headaches in myself and cut them out; gluten, caffeine, sodium nitrites, monsodium glutamate, sugar. I also don't eat fruit because of sugar. I just take vitamins to get the good stuff out of them. I mostly eat meat. Rice, corn, or potato based carbs. Broccoli is my go to veggie which I should eat more of.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  No need to throw around such a hollow and repurposed phrase. Dietary cholesterol’s role in heart attacks has been largely disproven, but “fake news” is malicious disinformation, not mistaken conclusions from flawed decades-old research.
JumpCrisscross 8y ago
OP’s point is even bacon and eggs is healthier than boxed cereal. (My preferred breakfast is miso soup.)
- PenguinCoder 8y ago
  I don't know about other families, but my child won't eat bacon and eggs or other non sugar laden breakfast. I eat bacon and eggs every morning. My child wants cereal, or poptarts, or frozen waffles/pancakes etc. When I removed these items in an effort to have him eat other healthier foods, he decided to not eat anything at home - he'd go to school and instead eat their sugar and carb breakfast. So while I can understand the thought process and well meaning of OP comment, it's one of a non parent attempting to give advice on parenting.
  - ericd 8y ago
    He'd rather pay his own money for a sugary breakfast at school? Or do they provide it for free?
    - PenguinCoder 8y ago
      Neither. He'd rather have the school sugary breakfast than to eat at home. The school will not refuse him (or any child) food. So they'll send a bill home that we now owe them money for the breakfast. I have repeatedly asked and responded to them to deny him breakfast at school, which... did not go over well and caused some other issues. So he eats sugar at school, because he won't eat at home, and I'm required to pay for it as his guardian, although I do not want it.
      - 0xJRS 8y ago
        It sounds like another strongly worded letter to the school along with a note/email from a doctor explaining the situation might fix this. I don't think trying once and then saying "Well i guess i cant stop my kid from doing something" is a good idea. As someone who grew up with 0 restrictions on what I ate and when I ate it pains me now to think back on what my parents fed me/allowed me to consume.
lhl 8y ago
Dietary cholesterol consumption has almost no direct relationship with serum cholesterol and in fact has been removed from dietary guidelines. [1] Also, "A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults.1 Similarly in the secondary prevention of CHD there is no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.2 It is instructive to note that in an angiographic study of postmenopausal women with CHD, greater intake of saturated fat was associated with less progression of atherosclerosis whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression.3" [2] There's plenty of evidence, however that sugar is a much more dangerous driver of CVD [3], which is obvious when you look at the pandemic levels of obesity and metabolic syndrome (and co-morbidity and lack of decline in CVD) that coincided with the demonization of saturated fats (and replacement with much worse trans-fats and high n6 PUFAS [4])... [1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-... [2] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111 [3] https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000729 https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000729 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/
- will_brown 8y ago
  I would also add that hdl (the “healthy cholesterol”) in fact helps: 1. Prevent plaque build up; 2. Lowers risk of heart disease; and 3. Lowers risk of stroke. The problem with industries muddy the water by claiming “cholesterol” is bad without distinguishing between ldl and hdl. It’s similar to what the sugar industry does with “diabeties” when they don’t distinguish between type 1 and type 2.
  - lhl 8y ago
    To me, it's interesting to see first hand, having now done tons of primary literature research over the past few months. What I've pieced together is that driven primarily by Ancel Keys and a few other strong personalities (eg McGovern and his aides), the "lipid hypothesis" was implemented as public policy based on scant epidemiological/associational (and no clinical) evidence to try to stem the heart disease crisis. This of course, happened during a time when tobacco companies was actively suppressing the health impacts of smoking. Since then, and because the lipid hypothesis was deemed as institutional truth, we've been chasing a white rabbit that didn't exist. First it was saturated fats, then cholesterol, then LDL, now LP(a) and Ox-LDL... In the meantime, since saturated fat was public enemy number one, even worse replacements (trans-fats, industrial seed oils, even potentially worse and unstudied new FA isomers now) were introduced as replacements and sugar consumption increased dramatically from fat-phobia (as the defacto remaining macro as red meat and protein were also tarred with the same brush), leading to where we are now (a global metabolic disease pandemic). What's interesting is in the past two decades especially, the amount of very interesting nutritional and metabolic research (biomechanistic research in animal models, RCTs and other human trials) has been staggering, and I think there's overwhelming evidence (and now some momentum even) in scientific/medical circles strongly pointing out that nutritional policies and "common wisdom" as being flat out wrong, but in the general public (which includes most medical practitioners, sadly) there's a huge lag. Which is too bad, considering obesity rates are likely above 40% in US adults now (39.8% in 2015-2016 [1]). [1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html
gnulinux 8y ago
This sort of pseudo science is usually upvoted/supported only because of bacon's popular conception to be unhealthy. That may be true, but your logic is still flawed since there is no correlation between cholesterol or fat consumption and heart diseases (as pointed out by other commenters). However, high glycemic nature of sugar is still based on facts.
slenk 8y ago
That's what Big Sugar wants you to think. Who do you think pushed that fat was the worst? Sugar

by z_open 8y ago

You want them to get a heart attack instead? Lots of cultures have good breakfast that don't rely on sugar or cholesterol. Look to the Mediterranean/Middle East/Central Asia/Far East.

otabdeveloper2 8y ago

I'm pretty sure that the idea that cholesterol causes heart attacks is fake news.

will_brown 8y ago
Correct dietary cholesterol is unrelated to high cholesterol in people. It’s a myth invented by...the sugar industry.
- KIFulgore 8y ago
  I've read that lean, cholesterol-laden meats like shrimp, oysters, and liver do not raise cholesterol, but meats high in saturated fat will (ie, butter and ribeye steak).
chongli 8y ago
Yeah. The problem with bacon is the nitrites, not the cholesterol.
- TACIXAT 8y ago
  Yea, I'm celiac and sodium nitrite is one of the foods I cut out. Might not affect everyone but it definitely messes with me. The uncured bacon products usually have celery powder which also contains sodium nitrite. Plain pork belly is the way to go.
  - NikolaeVarius 8y ago
    So you can't eat celery?
    - TACIXAT 8y ago
      Correct. I've identified the following as triggers for sinus headaches in myself and cut them out; gluten, caffeine, sodium nitrites, monsodium glutamate, sugar. I also don't eat fruit because of sugar. I just take vitamins to get the good stuff out of them. I mostly eat meat. Rice, corn, or potato based carbs. Broccoli is my go to veggie which I should eat more of.
stochastic_monk 8y ago
No need to throw around such a hollow and repurposed phrase. Dietary cholesterol’s role in heart attacks has been largely disproven, but “fake news” is malicious disinformation, not mistaken conclusions from flawed decades-old research.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago

OP’s point is even bacon and eggs is healthier than boxed cereal. (My preferred breakfast is miso soup.)

PenguinCoder 8y ago
I don't know about other families, but my child won't eat bacon and eggs or other non sugar laden breakfast. I eat bacon and eggs every morning. My child wants cereal, or poptarts, or frozen waffles/pancakes etc. When I removed these items in an effort to have him eat other healthier foods, he decided to not eat anything at home - he'd go to school and instead eat their sugar and carb breakfast. So while I can understand the thought process and well meaning of OP comment, it's one of a non parent attempting to give advice on parenting.
- ericd 8y ago
  He'd rather pay his own money for a sugary breakfast at school? Or do they provide it for free?
  - PenguinCoder 8y ago
    Neither. He'd rather have the school sugary breakfast than to eat at home. The school will not refuse him (or any child) food. So they'll send a bill home that we now owe them money for the breakfast. I have repeatedly asked and responded to them to deny him breakfast at school, which... did not go over well and caused some other issues. So he eats sugar at school, because he won't eat at home, and I'm required to pay for it as his guardian, although I do not want it.
    - 0xJRS 8y ago
      It sounds like another strongly worded letter to the school along with a note/email from a doctor explaining the situation might fix this. I don't think trying once and then saying "Well i guess i cant stop my kid from doing something" is a good idea. As someone who grew up with 0 restrictions on what I ate and when I ate it pains me now to think back on what my parents fed me/allowed me to consume.

lhl 8y ago

Dietary cholesterol consumption has almost no direct relationship with serum cholesterol and in fact has been removed from dietary guidelines. [1] Also, "A landmark systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies showed no association between saturated fat consumption and (1) all-cause mortality, (2) coronary heart disease (CHD), (3) CHD mortality, (4) ischaemic stroke or (5) type 2 diabetes in healthy adults.1 Similarly in the secondary prevention of CHD there is no benefit from reduced fat, including saturated fat, on myocardial infarction, cardiovascular or all-cause mortality.2 It is instructive to note that in an angiographic study of postmenopausal women with CHD, greater intake of saturated fat was associated with less progression of atherosclerosis whereas carbohydrate and polyunsaturated fat intake were associated with greater progression.3" [2] There's plenty of evidence, however that sugar is a much more dangerous driver of CVD [3], which is obvious when you look at the pandemic levels of obesity and metabolic syndrome (and co-morbidity and lack of decline in CVD) that coincided with the demonization of saturated fats (and replacement with much worse trans-fats and high n6 PUFAS [4])... [1] https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-worry-about-cholesterol-in-food/ https://health.clevelandclinic.org/why-you-should-no-longer-... [2] https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111 https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111 [3] https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000729 https://openheart.bmj.com/content/4/2/e000729 [4] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3335257/

will_brown 8y ago
I would also add that hdl (the “healthy cholesterol”) in fact helps: 1. Prevent plaque build up; 2. Lowers risk of heart disease; and 3. Lowers risk of stroke. The problem with industries muddy the water by claiming “cholesterol” is bad without distinguishing between ldl and hdl. It’s similar to what the sugar industry does with “diabeties” when they don’t distinguish between type 1 and type 2.
- lhl 8y ago
  To me, it's interesting to see first hand, having now done tons of primary literature research over the past few months. What I've pieced together is that driven primarily by Ancel Keys and a few other strong personalities (eg McGovern and his aides), the "lipid hypothesis" was implemented as public policy based on scant epidemiological/associational (and no clinical) evidence to try to stem the heart disease crisis. This of course, happened during a time when tobacco companies was actively suppressing the health impacts of smoking. Since then, and because the lipid hypothesis was deemed as institutional truth, we've been chasing a white rabbit that didn't exist. First it was saturated fats, then cholesterol, then LDL, now LP(a) and Ox-LDL... In the meantime, since saturated fat was public enemy number one, even worse replacements (trans-fats, industrial seed oils, even potentially worse and unstudied new FA isomers now) were introduced as replacements and sugar consumption increased dramatically from fat-phobia (as the defacto remaining macro as red meat and protein were also tarred with the same brush), leading to where we are now (a global metabolic disease pandemic). What's interesting is in the past two decades especially, the amount of very interesting nutritional and metabolic research (biomechanistic research in animal models, RCTs and other human trials) has been staggering, and I think there's overwhelming evidence (and now some momentum even) in scientific/medical circles strongly pointing out that nutritional policies and "common wisdom" as being flat out wrong, but in the general public (which includes most medical practitioners, sadly) there's a huge lag. Which is too bad, considering obesity rates are likely above 40% in US adults now (39.8% in 2015-2016 [1]). [1] https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.html

gnulinux 8y ago

This sort of pseudo science is usually upvoted/supported only because of bacon's popular conception to be unhealthy. That may be true, but your logic is still flawed since there is no correlation between cholesterol or fat consumption and heart diseases (as pointed out by other commenters). However, high glycemic nature of sugar is still based on facts.

slenk 8y ago

That's what Big Sugar wants you to think. Who do you think pushed that fat was the worst? Sugar