3 ms·

> - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will

> - serum cholesterol is bad for you (truth: it's a marker, not a cause. apparently, the body makes more of it in an attempt to solve other problems, which will manifest faster if you use statins to reduce cholesterol) That's an interesting (and good) point - if it's (mostly) a marker, actively reducing it without addressing the root cause makes no sense as a strategy. But the probability remains that a high reading indicates underlying problems. The uncertainty lies in whether it's only HDL or LDL that's a negative indicator, or the ratio of HDL to LDL, or a particular subtype, etc. My previous reading of bloggers on this topic only left me more confused. > - butter is bad for you. (truth: some is bad, some is good. butter is so ill-defined to make general statements useless. grass-fed organic european style butter is good for you) I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? > - weight change is equal to c*(calories in - calories out). (truth: only in the tautologically useless sense. generally wrong the way 99% of the people apply it. nutrition science is anything but) I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used. That would clarify the apparent conflict, in my mind. > I'm looking for a rigorous study that shows toothpasts are helpful (indeed, that brushing is helpful). Some studies by Weston Price (and his successors) imply that cavities correlate with grain and sugar consumption, and that brushing is not helpful against cavities if the diet is bad. Not heard anything about this, but such studies would be interesting to read. I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though.

beagle3 14y ago
> I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? Apparently, grass fed vs. grain fed does NOT culminate in "high sat-fat" or "low sat fat". There's a lot more, to the point that no one seems to have a better characterization than "healthy cows, grass fed, organic, european style (ver high fat content)". refs: don't have any peer reviewed off hand, but Seth Roberts and Dave Asprey have quite a bit (nothing as high caliber as NEJM or BMJ or nature -- but convincing data nevertheless) > I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. There are well known thermo-generating nutrients, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. But there's also a lot to be said about the biome composition (recently shown to control type 2 diabetes in rats, as in cause and cure by replacing gut cultures). > Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used Oxidation is the dominant energy conversion mode, but it by no means the only one. Glycolysis is about 20-50 times less efficient, and is used under some circumstances (most notably, but thankfully not commonly, cancer); So assumptions about energy availability are kind of flaky. Not to mention, paper (cellulose) is a carbohydrate - if you assume 4kc/1gr of carbs, you should be able to live well on paper. > I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though. I've heard them too - but when they had any specifics, and I tried to verify them, it seemed those doubts were FUD rather than genuine scientific inquiry.

beagle3 14y ago

> I guess it would be easier if it was specified that "high sat-fat butter" is bad for you, or the like. I don't know about the composition or nutritional analysis of grass-fed organic euro-style butter, but I do think it still makes sense to regard saturated fats with suspicion, at least under current studies. Do you have any studies to share on this? Apparently, grass fed vs. grain fed does NOT culminate in "high sat-fat" or "low sat fat". There's a lot more, to the point that no one seems to have a better characterization than "healthy cows, grass fed, organic, european style (ver high fat content)". refs: don't have any peer reviewed off hand, but Seth Roberts and Dave Asprey have quite a bit (nothing as high caliber as NEJM or BMJ or nature -- but convincing data nevertheless) > I've been wondering if the composition of macronutrients affects the metabolic rate significantly, resulting in increased calories-out. There are well known thermo-generating nutrients, I'd be surprised if that wasn't the case. But there's also a lot to be said about the biome composition (recently shown to control type 2 diabetes in rats, as in cause and cure by replacing gut cultures). > Or if macronutrients are somehow wasted as excess heat, or excreted only half-used Oxidation is the dominant energy conversion mode, but it by no means the only one. Glycolysis is about 20-50 times less efficient, and is used under some circumstances (most notably, but thankfully not commonly, cancer); So assumptions about energy availability are kind of flaky. Not to mention, paper (cellulose) is a carbohydrate - if you assume 4kc/1gr of carbs, you should be able to live well on paper. > I've heard doubts and disparagement expressed about the advice given on the Weston Price foundation's website (not about the views of the man himself), though. I've heard them too - but when they had any specifics, and I tried to verify them, it seemed those doubts were FUD rather than genuine scientific inquiry.