4 ms·

I think the longevity of dietary advice is pretty low. Remember when eggs were the enemy, when fat was the enemy, when carbs were the enemy? Meat had to have it

I think the longevity of dietary advice is pretty low. Remember when eggs were the enemy, when fat was the enemy, when carbs were the enemy? Meat had to have it's turn sometime.

arisAlexis 7y ago
didn't you hear that eggs are again an enemy? it's like politics
cproctor 7y ago
Dietary advice lives longer when it contains less processed food.
cageface 7y ago
Huge sums are being spent to confuse consumers. Reliable research has actually been pretty consistent for decades and repeatedly implicates dietary cholesterol and saturated fat in a variety of diseases.
- hvidgaard 7y ago
  > Reliable research has actually been pretty consistent for decades and repeatedly implicates dietary cholesterol and saturated fat in a variety of diseases. That is simply not true. Cholesterol are split in at least 2 different groups. HDL and LDL, the good and the bad respectively. But it's not the whole picture, a subgroup of LDL is considered mostly harmless as it rarely crosses into the bloodstream. The number that you really want to minimize is called LDL-p (LDL particles) in your blood, and surprisingly many saturated fats play a role in reducing that number, and increasing the HDL, which has been shown to be good for your health. This article is well sourced, and covers almost everything. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-good-or-bad https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-good-or-b...
  - _nosaj 7y ago
    I don't understand why this is getting down voted. Here's a clip of Dr Rhonda Patrick, who is incredibly well informed on the effects of dietary cholesterol, basically saying the same thing: https://youtu.be/VnYeuES3joc https://youtu.be/VnYeuES3joc
- nunb 7y ago
  This is simply incorrect. Dietary cholesterol intake isn't even correlated with blood cholesterol.
emadb 7y ago
Research and science advance and find new evidences that invalidates the past belief.
Ensorceled 7y ago
Eating processed meat has been consistently "bad for you" since at least the late 60's, when I remember being told that bologna and hot dogs weren't healthy but ok as a treat.
jsjolen 7y ago
Perhaps we can judge the statements on the evidence behind them? The reason that processed meat (that is meats which are smoked, salted, etc.) is recommended to not be eaten is because it has been shown to be carcinogenic. The egg thing is based on the idea (I actually don't know enough to know if this is correct or not) that dietary cholesterol intake affects blood cholesterol levels, and eggs have a bit of dietary cholesterol in them. I get that we're not very educated within this area but perhaps we should stay quiet then? What's the point in writing comments on HN about things we know very little about?
- leereeves 7y ago
  Perhaps the media should stay quiet until the research is done. And any science news headline containing the word "may" should probably be ignored. That's a good sign that they're exaggerating a single study. The media makes money by sensationalizing research, not reporting it accurately.
- nunb 7y ago
  All these results (re 'shown to be carcinogenic') are based on surveys as opposed to experiments. In other words, unlike randomized, double-blind studies, they cannot be said to demonstrate causation, but at best may point to interesting hypotheses. As for eggs and cholesterol, about 80% + of cholesterol is produced in the liver, and increasing dietary cholesterol by HUGE amounts at best changes blood cholesterol by 2-4% Sorry I can't dig up the study right now, but perhaps searching pubmed may find it.

I think the longevity of dietary advice is pretty low. Remember when eggs were the enemy, when fat was the enemy, when carbs were the enemy? Meat had to have it's turn sometime.

arisAlexis 7y ago

didn't you hear that eggs are again an enemy? it's like politics

cproctor 7y ago

Dietary advice lives longer when it contains less processed food.

cageface 7y ago

Huge sums are being spent to confuse consumers. Reliable research has actually been pretty consistent for decades and repeatedly implicates dietary cholesterol and saturated fat in a variety of diseases.

hvidgaard 7y ago
> Reliable research has actually been pretty consistent for decades and repeatedly implicates dietary cholesterol and saturated fat in a variety of diseases. That is simply not true. Cholesterol are split in at least 2 different groups. HDL and LDL, the good and the bad respectively. But it's not the whole picture, a subgroup of LDL is considered mostly harmless as it rarely crosses into the bloodstream. The number that you really want to minimize is called LDL-p (LDL particles) in your blood, and surprisingly many saturated fats play a role in reducing that number, and increasing the HDL, which has been shown to be good for your health. This article is well sourced, and covers almost everything. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-good-or-bad https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/saturated-fat-good-or-b...
- _nosaj 7y ago
  I don't understand why this is getting down voted. Here's a clip of Dr Rhonda Patrick, who is incredibly well informed on the effects of dietary cholesterol, basically saying the same thing: https://youtu.be/VnYeuES3joc https://youtu.be/VnYeuES3joc
nunb 7y ago
This is simply incorrect. Dietary cholesterol intake isn't even correlated with blood cholesterol.

emadb 7y ago

Research and science advance and find new evidences that invalidates the past belief.

Ensorceled 7y ago

Eating processed meat has been consistently "bad for you" since at least the late 60's, when I remember being told that bologna and hot dogs weren't healthy but ok as a treat.

jsjolen 7y ago

Perhaps we can judge the statements on the evidence behind them? The reason that processed meat (that is meats which are smoked, salted, etc.) is recommended to not be eaten is because it has been shown to be carcinogenic. The egg thing is based on the idea (I actually don't know enough to know if this is correct or not) that dietary cholesterol intake affects blood cholesterol levels, and eggs have a bit of dietary cholesterol in them. I get that we're not very educated within this area but perhaps we should stay quiet then? What's the point in writing comments on HN about things we know very little about?

leereeves 7y ago
Perhaps the media should stay quiet until the research is done. And any science news headline containing the word "may" should probably be ignored. That's a good sign that they're exaggerating a single study. The media makes money by sensationalizing research, not reporting it accurately.
nunb 7y ago
All these results (re 'shown to be carcinogenic') are based on surveys as opposed to experiments. In other words, unlike randomized, double-blind studies, they cannot be said to demonstrate causation, but at best may point to interesting hypotheses. As for eggs and cholesterol, about 80% + of cholesterol is produced in the liver, and increasing dietary cholesterol by HUGE amounts at best changes blood cholesterol by 2-4% Sorry I can't dig up the study right now, but perhaps searching pubmed may find it.