5 ms·

CVD and links to saturated fats is a long, long established phenomenon and has a lot of science behind it. A single study or even studies should not invalidate

CVD and links to saturated fats is a long, long established phenomenon and has a lot of science behind it. A single study or even studies should not invalidate or discount it. Before people misinterpret what this is saying. Sugar may also contribute some to CVD but most cardiologists still think fats are the main driver of CVD.

giacomoforte 9mo ago
? Every health authority mentions both cholesterol/saturated fat and blood sugar as contributing factors.
- jorblumesea 9mo ago
  not sure where people have been for the last year but MAHA and rfk have been on the "fat is good train" and seem to completely ignore entire decades of science.
  - kypro 9mo ago
    Fat is good if you eat the right kinds of fats and your consumption of unhealthy fat is limited. The issue is more that people eat too much fatty food, a specifically unhealthy fats. On the other hand sugar is probably never good for you and you should aim to reduce it as much as possible.
aldarion 9mo ago
Those studies however generally put beef and sausages into the same "red meat" category. So yeah... that science is, from what I've seen, basically worthless.
- jjk166 9mo ago
  Why would beef and sausages not be in the same category? A large percentage of sausage literally is beef.
  - aldarion 9mo ago
    Large percentage, yes. The issue is the "not large percentage" part. Sugar, additives, preservatives, colors... all of these are toxic. And when you mix up beef steak with sausage... you won't get realistic results. That's like asking "what's the issue if somebody salts the soup with cyanide, most of the meal will still be soup". Yeah, but the cyanide will still kill you, even if it is the small percentage.
- jorblumesea 9mo ago
  there are literally thousands of studies. there's no real scientific debate amongst people that know what they are talking about. Red meat, and any food high in saturated fats, are awful for your heart. full stop. that includes sausage, steak, ham, butter, etc. the people eating "lean steaks" are fooling themselves. There's no such thing as "clean beef" it all has high amounts of bad fats. Are some worse than others? of course but let's not kid ourselves.
  - tsimionescu 9mo ago
    There is very little science in nutrition, despite the existence of thousands of studies. There are huge gaps in even the basics of nutrition understanding, and we are constantly discovering new confounding variables. Some dietary fibers were being counted as carbs as late as the 2000s. The huge impacts of the gut microbiome on digestion of food has barely been recognized in the last 10 years, and we still basically know nothing about it. Inter-personal variations in base metabolic rates and/or absorption of nutrients from food is gigantic, with basically no known reasons for it (some of the difference is tied to muscle mass, but even if you eliminate differences in muscle mass, there are still large differences that remain), and no inclusion in common models and dietary recommendations. I'm not trying to say that red meat is good for you. I'm just saying we have no real idea, and you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot. Try things out, see if you can eat similarly to people you know who are in good health, and get blood work done regularly to see if you're ok. Probably avoid highly synthesized foods.
    - jorblumesea 9mo ago
      Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question. You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so? > you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot. This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot. I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern.

giacomoforte 9mo ago

? Every health authority mentions both cholesterol/saturated fat and blood sugar as contributing factors.

jorblumesea 9mo ago
not sure where people have been for the last year but MAHA and rfk have been on the "fat is good train" and seem to completely ignore entire decades of science.
- kypro 9mo ago
  Fat is good if you eat the right kinds of fats and your consumption of unhealthy fat is limited. The issue is more that people eat too much fatty food, a specifically unhealthy fats. On the other hand sugar is probably never good for you and you should aim to reduce it as much as possible.

aldarion 9mo ago

Those studies however generally put beef and sausages into the same "red meat" category. So yeah... that science is, from what I've seen, basically worthless.

jjk166 9mo ago
Why would beef and sausages not be in the same category? A large percentage of sausage literally is beef.
- aldarion 9mo ago
  Large percentage, yes. The issue is the "not large percentage" part. Sugar, additives, preservatives, colors... all of these are toxic. And when you mix up beef steak with sausage... you won't get realistic results. That's like asking "what's the issue if somebody salts the soup with cyanide, most of the meal will still be soup". Yeah, but the cyanide will still kill you, even if it is the small percentage.
jorblumesea 9mo ago
there are literally thousands of studies. there's no real scientific debate amongst people that know what they are talking about. Red meat, and any food high in saturated fats, are awful for your heart. full stop. that includes sausage, steak, ham, butter, etc. the people eating "lean steaks" are fooling themselves. There's no such thing as "clean beef" it all has high amounts of bad fats. Are some worse than others? of course but let's not kid ourselves.
- tsimionescu 9mo ago
  There is very little science in nutrition, despite the existence of thousands of studies. There are huge gaps in even the basics of nutrition understanding, and we are constantly discovering new confounding variables. Some dietary fibers were being counted as carbs as late as the 2000s. The huge impacts of the gut microbiome on digestion of food has barely been recognized in the last 10 years, and we still basically know nothing about it. Inter-personal variations in base metabolic rates and/or absorption of nutrients from food is gigantic, with basically no known reasons for it (some of the difference is tied to muscle mass, but even if you eliminate differences in muscle mass, there are still large differences that remain), and no inclusion in common models and dietary recommendations. I'm not trying to say that red meat is good for you. I'm just saying we have no real idea, and you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot. Try things out, see if you can eat similarly to people you know who are in good health, and get blood work done regularly to see if you're ok. Probably avoid highly synthesized foods.
  - jorblumesea 9mo ago
    Says you? because that's not what cardiologists, nutritionists and doctors say. around the world. there's a ton of real, good science from many countries that show a very clear link between increased saturated fat intake, CVD and LDL-C levels. It's not really in question. You are essentially hand waving away 80+ years of scientific studies and data because...you said so? > you really shouldn't trust a doctor about any of this stuff any more than you should trust the latest health influencer crackpot. This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot. I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern.