4 ms·

> Link 3 you cited says that saturated fats should be consumed in moderation. Nobody ever said that saturated fats should be consumed excessively. That would b

by bryans 4y ago

> Link 3 you cited says that saturated fats should be consumed in moderation. Nobody ever said that saturated fats should be consumed excessively. That would both fly in the face of logic and isn't true for any nutrient. So you're not actually arguing a point here. > You claim You just quoted a different HN user and claimed it was something I said, then concocted another argument around it. That's beyond ridiculous and you should be ashamed of yourself. > The implication, when you say you shouldn’t eat large quantities of sugar+carbs, and that that is totally different from saturated fat, is that you should eat large quantities of saturated fat. Even though I wasn't the one you quoted and you're arguing with nobody, you're still wrong about this. What you're saying is completely illogical. Saying that you shouldn't do one thing doesn't inherently imply that you should do another. In reality, the original commenter was stating that you shouldn't eat large quantities of sugar and carbohydrates, and that it's not nearly as harmful to consume large quantities of saturated fat. They never stated that you should consume large quantities of saturated fat. > It is your opinion that high quantities of saturated fat are desirable Stop lying. I never said or implied anything about saturated fats being desirable. It's disgusting that you feel so comfortable lying about other people. > but most research I’ve seen says that the emphasis should be on Whole Foods and unsaturated fats, with some saturated fat tolerated to achieve that. That is the entire point of my last comment, so I can only presume you didn't actually read it at all. I literally said "Saturated fats contain more LDL than HDL, but their ultimate effect on the total HDL ratio and mortality is negligible. Unsaturated fats contain only HDL, making them inherently healthy presuming an appropriate level of consumption." I linked the research and then described it to you. Now you're claiming that I said the opposite, and that your research (which you haven't provided) is somehow more correct. Do you not realize that we're on a forum where all of the previous commentary is public? It's clearly visible that I've said absolutely none of the things you just claimed.

n8cpdx 4y ago
Apologies, I missed the username change. I thought it was fair game given the context of the comment chain but missed that a different person made the original claim. Most of what you’re writing about is sort of a silly basis for an argument though, by definition excess consumption of anything is bad. The issue is what counts as excess. I don’t disagree on the findings. I repeated points of agreement not because I didn’t read your comment, but to highlight the shared understanding. I agree with your opinions on nutrition as shared, I just don’t think it’s right to claim that the specific underlying research is enough to support the overall nutrition guidance opinion as settled science or fact-based. I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake.
- bryans 4y ago
  > I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake. Yes, all of the ways. It's the only interpretation. It is literally what both the research and my comments state. You're still arguing against things that nobody said, while also redefining science and nutrition. I'm unsure of what you're trying to accomplish, but you're strictly making bad-faith arguments which don't reflect reality, and it's obnoxious.

by bryans 4y ago

n8cpdx 4y ago

Apologies, I missed the username change. I thought it was fair game given the context of the comment chain but missed that a different person made the original claim. Most of what you’re writing about is sort of a silly basis for an argument though, by definition excess consumption of anything is bad. The issue is what counts as excess. I don’t disagree on the findings. I repeated points of agreement not because I didn’t read your comment, but to highlight the shared understanding. I agree with your opinions on nutrition as shared, I just don’t think it’s right to claim that the specific underlying research is enough to support the overall nutrition guidance opinion as settled science or fact-based. I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake.

bryans 4y ago
> I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake. Yes, all of the ways. It's the only interpretation. It is literally what both the research and my comments state. You're still arguing against things that nobody said, while also redefining science and nutrition. I'm unsure of what you're trying to accomplish, but you're strictly making bad-faith arguments which don't reflect reality, and it's obnoxious.