4 ms·

>I do the same for fats. The way I look at it, I want to maximize the "enjoyment per kcalorie". :) We are increasingly moving away from looking at fat as an in

>I do the same for fats. The way I look at it, I want to maximize the "enjoyment per kcalorie". :) We are increasingly moving away from looking at fat as an indulgence, towards understanding it as an essential nutrient, with a large variance in fat types and their benefits. E.g. some people would avoid eating nuts, because they are high in fat, and not as tasty as something similarly fatty, like a pastry. This seems wrong both intuitively, but also from empirical findings about the impact of certain omega-3 fatty acids (such as in nuts) versus that of, say, omega-6 fats, which are way overrepresented in our diets due to being so cheap.

presentation 2y ago
I mostly avoid nuts because they’re so tasty I overconsume them every time. Those things pack a lot of calories into a small package!
- datavirtue 2y ago
  Your body can only access about 40% of the calories.
rroblak 2y ago
This. People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads. It's sad, because as you mentioned some days are indeed essential nutrients. Especially for kids and pregnant women.
- mlyle 2y ago
  I mean, the "fat is bad" thing isn't completely wrong: it is definitely possible to overdo it. It's extremely calorically dense, and most fats are bad for us in other ways. But society didn't replace some of the fat with increased intake of vegetables and lean meats. Food manufacturers compensated for less fat with more sugars and salt, which we've been finding are even worse.
- hilbert42 2y ago
  "People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads." If this is true then what the hell is going on? We knew this about sugar with certainly at absolute minimum a half century ago when I was a kid (I know as I remember the message). The message—even as told at school—was that 'excessive and repeated amounts of sugar (especially the refined type as in drinks and sweets) causes diabetes'. QED! So what the fuck has happened, how was this once well-established message erased from the collective consciousness of more recent generations? The message back then was so all pervasive that everybody knew it. So many important facts have been lost to recent generations that I'm beginning to think education is going backwards fast. What happened to health lectures in primary school where we were told these facts?
  - TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
    The sugar industry spent a lot of money on PR to shift the blame to fat. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co... Also, it's "obvious" (but completely wrong) that if you don't want to be fat, you shouldn't eat fat. So "low-fat" products were (still are...) sold as a "diet" option. In fact processed carbs, and sugar in particular, are a far more direct cause of weight gain. Fats do contribute to weight gain, but they're much more complicated. Sat vs unsat, trans vs ordinary, and so on all have very different health effects. Put directly, the sugar industry lied and is now responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
    - hilbert42 2y ago
      "Put directly, the sugar industry lied and is now responsible for tens of millions of deaths." Frankly, the dishonesty of the Sugar Industry and the effects of its deception are utterly appalling. Tragically, this industry is not alone in deceiving both public and supposedly august (professional) authority—the tobacco industry is yet another, and there are many more. The question I keep asking myself is why are both experts and governments so easily hoodwinked by these miserable Cretans when it's not that difficult to see though or undermine their bad arguments. Scratch the surface of false and or propped up arguments and they quickly fall apart. If any key proposition is proven false then it's likely the whole argument/case is a sham. With regard to sugar, I'd have thought the long history of diabetes together with patient histories and their lifestyles ought to have been enough evidence alone to bring the Sugar Industry edifice down. No doubt the playing field wasn't level. Re the Guardian article in your link, why for example was the author of Pure, White, and Deadly, John Yudkin so ostracized by his professional colleagues? If they had his or similar training and had checked the evidence then they would have known that he was correct and come to his defense. Given the enormous implications—the death of millions—they all should have been up in arms against the Sugar Industry, but they didn't act. In a way I hold these professionals almost as culpable as the Industry itself. I've asked myself for years what motivates people to be such utter bastards (trouble is one of my subjects was philosophy but unfortunately I didn't study its other half—psychology, perhaps if I had I'd be somewhat the wiser). You've mentioned millions dead, little doubt this is correct, although it'd be good to firm up those numbers with factual evidence. Perhaps over time AI could crunch the numbers together with all relevant docs and history and we could end up with a statistically accurate number of deaths together with error bars. A definitive number of deaths would put an actual measure on the Sugar Industry's culpability and those companies still in business would be forever tarnished. But to conclude the Sugar Industry alone is responsible for the harm and deaths is not good enough, we also need to link to those people who were actually responsible. Whether dead or alive we need to tarnish and destroy their reputations as a lesson for others. These corporate bullies need to learn that they can no longer hide behind corporate walls. This is not the first time this week I've raised this matter, if interested see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42629712 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42629712. Also, note its thread below. Incidentally, the post received both up and down votes and currently stands at just one vote. It seems the notion of holding those responsible to account isn't overly popular with a significant percentage of the population. Perhaps guilt racks too many and this could be part of the reason why so many professionals failed to come to John Yudkin's defence. I've also posted a similar rave about this in reply to mlyle.

presentation 2y ago

I mostly avoid nuts because they’re so tasty I overconsume them every time. Those things pack a lot of calories into a small package!

datavirtue 2y ago
Your body can only access about 40% of the calories.

rroblak 2y ago

This. People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads. It's sad, because as you mentioned some days are indeed essential nutrients. Especially for kids and pregnant women.

mlyle 2y ago
I mean, the "fat is bad" thing isn't completely wrong: it is definitely possible to overdo it. It's extremely calorically dense, and most fats are bad for us in other ways. But society didn't replace some of the fat with increased intake of vegetables and lean meats. Food manufacturers compensated for less fat with more sugars and salt, which we've been finding are even worse.
hilbert42 2y ago
"People are getting the message that "sugar is bad" but the public health messaging of "fat is bad" still lingers in many people's heads." If this is true then what the hell is going on? We knew this about sugar with certainly at absolute minimum a half century ago when I was a kid (I know as I remember the message). The message—even as told at school—was that 'excessive and repeated amounts of sugar (especially the refined type as in drinks and sweets) causes diabetes'. QED! So what the fuck has happened, how was this once well-established message erased from the collective consciousness of more recent generations? The message back then was so all pervasive that everybody knew it. So many important facts have been lost to recent generations that I'm beginning to think education is going backwards fast. What happened to health lectures in primary school where we were told these facts?
- TheOtherHobbes 2y ago
  The sugar industry spent a lot of money on PR to shift the blame to fat. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074... https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co... Also, it's "obvious" (but completely wrong) that if you don't want to be fat, you shouldn't eat fat. So "low-fat" products were (still are...) sold as a "diet" option. In fact processed carbs, and sugar in particular, are a far more direct cause of weight gain. Fats do contribute to weight gain, but they're much more complicated. Sat vs unsat, trans vs ordinary, and so on all have very different health effects. Put directly, the sugar industry lied and is now responsible for tens of millions of deaths.
  - hilbert42 2y ago
    "Put directly, the sugar industry lied and is now responsible for tens of millions of deaths." Frankly, the dishonesty of the Sugar Industry and the effects of its deception are utterly appalling. Tragically, this industry is not alone in deceiving both public and supposedly august (professional) authority—the tobacco industry is yet another, and there are many more. The question I keep asking myself is why are both experts and governments so easily hoodwinked by these miserable Cretans when it's not that difficult to see though or undermine their bad arguments. Scratch the surface of false and or propped up arguments and they quickly fall apart. If any key proposition is proven false then it's likely the whole argument/case is a sham. With regard to sugar, I'd have thought the long history of diabetes together with patient histories and their lifestyles ought to have been enough evidence alone to bring the Sugar Industry edifice down. No doubt the playing field wasn't level. Re the Guardian article in your link, why for example was the author of Pure, White, and Deadly, John Yudkin so ostracized by his professional colleagues? If they had his or similar training and had checked the evidence then they would have known that he was correct and come to his defense. Given the enormous implications—the death of millions—they all should have been up in arms against the Sugar Industry, but they didn't act. In a way I hold these professionals almost as culpable as the Industry itself. I've asked myself for years what motivates people to be such utter bastards (trouble is one of my subjects was philosophy but unfortunately I didn't study its other half—psychology, perhaps if I had I'd be somewhat the wiser). You've mentioned millions dead, little doubt this is correct, although it'd be good to firm up those numbers with factual evidence. Perhaps over time AI could crunch the numbers together with all relevant docs and history and we could end up with a statistically accurate number of deaths together with error bars. A definitive number of deaths would put an actual measure on the Sugar Industry's culpability and those companies still in business would be forever tarnished. But to conclude the Sugar Industry alone is responsible for the harm and deaths is not good enough, we also need to link to those people who were actually responsible. Whether dead or alive we need to tarnish and destroy their reputations as a lesson for others. These corporate bullies need to learn that they can no longer hide behind corporate walls. This is not the first time this week I've raised this matter, if interested see here: https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42629712 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=42629712. Also, note its thread below. Incidentally, the post received both up and down votes and currently stands at just one vote. It seems the notion of holding those responsible to account isn't overly popular with a significant percentage of the population. Perhaps guilt racks too many and this could be part of the reason why so many professionals failed to come to John Yudkin's defence. I've also posted a similar rave about this in reply to mlyle.