12 ms·

I think there are a number of issues: 1 - People relate fat the nutrient to fat the body type because they share the word "fat". Not much to do there. In high

I think there are a number of issues: 1 - People relate fat the nutrient to fat the body type because they share the word "fat". Not much to do there. In high school I was taught that carbohydrates were "energy" and fat was "waste". People should probably be taught the right way our biological systems operate. 2 - Medical authorities have worked with the best science they had available at the time, and are almost always managed by bureaucrats, not physicians. This isn't limited to the governmental level; hospitals, medical organizations, medical schools... the people in charge often have administrative training, not medical training. As a subpoint; sure, medical authorities have led us astray with nutrition information, but let's not jump to the conclusion that they have done something intentionally evil here. 3 - It's hard to prove any one way is the right way because of so many variables, including genetics, activity level, co-morbidities, and so on. More importantly, when something is right for 95% of people, that also means it is wrong for 5% of people. In the absence of easily testable datum, those anecdotes get a lot of attention. And even if it were easily testable, 5% of the time it would be wrong. To me, the key is two-fold: 1 - People need to be educated about the facts of how their biological systems function. They need to know how calories work, insulin and blood sugar regulate, and gain a general appreciation of the science of their bodies. 2 - People need to be willing to "listen to their bodies" and experiment. That's the only way to know what really works for you, because you ARE different than everyone else. A healthy diet isn't just about finding mathematically optimal foods, it's about finding stuff you like to eat, that fills you up, that you can eat in moderation, that is easy to make. You need to be willing to mix health and convenience, taste and availability, etc... and that takes a bit of time to figure out.

terio 15y ago
My strategy is simple: in general I avoid food that a hunter-gatherer would not be able to find. I said "in general" because I eat cheese, some hams and preserved meats and sausages, and I also drink wine. After a short learning curve it became very easy. In terms of convenience, I still find a sandwich and a canned juice pretty convenient, but I avoid them anyway. I have not had the need for other "convenient" foods like cereals, rice, noodles, and so on.
- mcantor 15y ago
  There happens to be an entire nutritional philosophy based on exactly that approach: http://thepaleodiet.com/ http://thepaleodiet.com/
  - terio 15y ago
    I know, that's was one of my starting points. My comment addresses the last part of the parent comment: you should experiment and find what works best your yourself. Although I consider myself a paleo, I am not a purist.
    - mcantor 15y ago
      Well-said. Lately one of my mantras has been "Do What Works For You". We tend to broadcast our opinions as if they were the only possible approach for all people, because our insecurities make us fear being wrong every time we see someone with a different solution. Or, worse; we choose to take the "easy way" of following someone else's belief system to avoid the uncertainty of nurturing our own, even if it obviously doesn't work for us. Each individual person experimenting and drawing their own conclusions seems like the most reliable way for everyone to actually see results. If only everyone would just be quiet and follow my opinions about that...
- troels 15y ago
  Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that prehistoric man was optimised for a much shorter life-span than present day man has? In that case, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that pre-historic diet isn't good in the long term?
jpk 15y ago
Related to your key #1, this[1] talk by Robert Lustig (who's work has seen some exposure on HN in the past) has a pretty good run-down of how some of the carbohydrates are metabolized. Specifically, he points to fructose as the culprit when it comes to obesity. I recommend watching the whole thing, but skip to about 36:00 to see the biochemistry. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
- matwood 15y ago
  Sigh. A good criticism of Lustigs demonizing fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... Key takeaway that Lustig ignores - USDA numbers by the way: Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
  - djackson 15y ago
    And Lustig responds to those criticisms here: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000 http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000 Key takeaway is that Lustig doesn't make any claim that you can't get fat by eating too many calories, regardless of the source. Lustig's research is on the metabolic pathways for fructose and glucose, and they are substantially different.
    - matwood 15y ago
      I'll listen when I have some time later. Does he also address the dose dependent problem in his cited studies? Of course if I'm drinking 6-7 sodas a day that's generally going to be a problem, but it doesn't mean sugar is evil. Too much water can kill me also, but I don't see people saying water is evil.
      - djackson 15y ago
        Like I said, he talks about metabolic pathways, which are independent of dose, though not your body's current state of glycogen deficiency. He also speaks to the effect of insulin resistance, and how the very rapid metabolism of fructose in the liver (7x faster than glucose) can lead to insulin resistance. Insulin spikes redirect calories eaten directly to fat, without them ever being metabolized into energy. As a result you gain fat and have less energy available, leaving you both fatter and hungrier.
Alex3917 15y ago
"People relate fat the nutrient to fat the body type because they share the word 'fat'." That's like when people think that alcohol makes you depressed because it's a depressant.
- Travis 15y ago
  To be fair, alcohol (ab)use is highly correlated with depression symptoms. The nervous system depression, however, is not necessarily the same mechanism that causes psychological depression. (lots of available articles on alcohol and depression, e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=alcohol%20depression http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=alcohol%20depression)
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "The nervous system depression, however, is not necessarily the same mechanism that causes psychological depression." Alcohol causes depression because of its longterm effects on the brain, as well as the fact that it causes cytokine inflammation. (And possibly for other reasons as well.) This definitely has nothing to do with the fact that it temporarily slows down your heart rate and breathing, otherwise we'd all be suicidal every morning when we woke up.

terio 15y ago

My strategy is simple: in general I avoid food that a hunter-gatherer would not be able to find. I said "in general" because I eat cheese, some hams and preserved meats and sausages, and I also drink wine. After a short learning curve it became very easy. In terms of convenience, I still find a sandwich and a canned juice pretty convenient, but I avoid them anyway. I have not had the need for other "convenient" foods like cereals, rice, noodles, and so on.

mcantor 15y ago
There happens to be an entire nutritional philosophy based on exactly that approach: http://thepaleodiet.com/ http://thepaleodiet.com/
- terio 15y ago
  I know, that's was one of my starting points. My comment addresses the last part of the parent comment: you should experiment and find what works best your yourself. Although I consider myself a paleo, I am not a purist.
  - mcantor 15y ago
    Well-said. Lately one of my mantras has been "Do What Works For You". We tend to broadcast our opinions as if they were the only possible approach for all people, because our insecurities make us fear being wrong every time we see someone with a different solution. Or, worse; we choose to take the "easy way" of following someone else's belief system to avoid the uncertainty of nurturing our own, even if it obviously doesn't work for us. Each individual person experimenting and drawing their own conclusions seems like the most reliable way for everyone to actually see results. If only everyone would just be quiet and follow my opinions about that...
troels 15y ago
Wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that prehistoric man was optimised for a much shorter life-span than present day man has? In that case, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume that pre-historic diet isn't good in the long term?

jpk 15y ago

Related to your key #1, this[1] talk by Robert Lustig (who's work has seen some exposure on HN in the past) has a pretty good run-down of how some of the carbohydrates are metabolized. Specifically, he points to fructose as the culprit when it comes to obesity. I recommend watching the whole thing, but skip to about 36:00 to see the biochemistry. [1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

matwood 15y ago
Sigh. A good criticism of Lustigs demonizing fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-about-fructose-alarmism/ http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... Key takeaway that Lustig ignores - USDA numbers by the way: Total energy intake in 1970 averaged 2172 kcal. By 2007 this hiked up to 2775 kcal, a 603 kcal increase.
- djackson 15y ago
  And Lustig responds to those criticisms here: http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000 http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201104211000 Key takeaway is that Lustig doesn't make any claim that you can't get fat by eating too many calories, regardless of the source. Lustig's research is on the metabolic pathways for fructose and glucose, and they are substantially different.
  - matwood 15y ago
    I'll listen when I have some time later. Does he also address the dose dependent problem in his cited studies? Of course if I'm drinking 6-7 sodas a day that's generally going to be a problem, but it doesn't mean sugar is evil. Too much water can kill me also, but I don't see people saying water is evil.
    - djackson 15y ago
      Like I said, he talks about metabolic pathways, which are independent of dose, though not your body's current state of glycogen deficiency. He also speaks to the effect of insulin resistance, and how the very rapid metabolism of fructose in the liver (7x faster than glucose) can lead to insulin resistance. Insulin spikes redirect calories eaten directly to fat, without them ever being metabolized into energy. As a result you gain fat and have less energy available, leaving you both fatter and hungrier.

Alex3917 15y ago

"People relate fat the nutrient to fat the body type because they share the word 'fat'." That's like when people think that alcohol makes you depressed because it's a depressant.

Travis 15y ago
To be fair, alcohol (ab)use is highly correlated with depression symptoms. The nervous system depression, however, is not necessarily the same mechanism that causes psychological depression. (lots of available articles on alcohol and depression, e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=alcohol%20depression http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=alcohol%20depression)
- Alex3917 15y ago
  "The nervous system depression, however, is not necessarily the same mechanism that causes psychological depression." Alcohol causes depression because of its longterm effects on the brain, as well as the fact that it causes cytokine inflammation. (And possibly for other reasons as well.) This definitely has nothing to do with the fact that it temporarily slows down your heart rate and breathing, otherwise we'd all be suicidal every morning when we woke up.