Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

More proof ... by jamesl · 2014-11-22 11:49 · Score: 1

... that the Firesign Theater was right.

Everything you know is wrong.

Re:More proof ... by AbrasiveCat · 2014-11-22 12:41 · Score: 1

... that the Firesign Theater was right.
Everything you know is wrong.
Hell, I learned that in P-Chem, but I suppose I am some sort of bozo.
Re:More proof ... by FatdogHaiku · 2014-11-22 12:50 · Score: 1

When you put on the nose, it grows and grows...
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Actually pretty amazing the concepts these guys were tossing around in 1971...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Re:More proof ... by roc97007 · 2014-11-22 15:40 · Score: 1

... that the Firesign Theater was right.
Everything you know is wrong.
I learned that (TFA) in college biology, and it always seemed strange to me that doctors were advising the opposite of how the mechanisms actually worked.
But I'm sure that there will be another study next week that links saturated fat with erectile dysfunction, toe cancer and bleeding from the eyebrows. And around we go.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re:More proof ... by ArmoredDragon · 2014-11-23 00:25 · Score: 1

But I'm sure that there will be another study next week that links saturated fat with erectile dysfunction, toe cancer and bleeding from the eyebrows. And around we go.
What I hate the most about those "studies" is that a link doesn't tell you much about what is actually happening, and in many cases leads to very bad conclusions. All they really do is indicate a correlation, and diet fanatics go around spouting how what everybody else does is somehow bad. This leads to fad diets and other nonsense, up to and including the craziness that is the anti-GMO movement.
Re:More proof ... by ZipK · 2014-11-23 06:19 · Score: 1

But what if I know that everything I know is wrong?
Then you short-circuit, smoke and ultimately crash.
Re:More proof ... by doccus · 2014-11-23 12:43 · Score: 1

Knowing everything you know is wrong, is right, then?Hmmm.. So one guy always lies, and the other always tells the truth..Must be a politician and a comedian...

So low carb vindicated again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 11:53 · Score: 1

While Americans continue to get fatter following the high-carb diet endorsed by the mainstream.

Re: So low carb vindicated again by bill_mcgonigle · 2014-11-22 12:13 · Score: 1

hey, it reduces end-of-life welfare costs by killing off the population more quickly. The "food pyramid" is good policy if you're a sociopathic bankrupt program.
I got a full blood panel before and after doing a ketosis diet for four months. All my numbers were much better, but to be succinct my total relative risk metric for coronary heart disease (1.0 is average) fell from 0.8 to 0.3. I was using a half gallon of heavy cream and several cups of coconut oil every week. Some bacon and steaks too. Plenty of nuts and cheese.
Most people see similar results. None of these blood tests are new science. All of these studies could have been done in 1980. I wonder if they were.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re: So low carb vindicated again by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 14:11 · Score: 1

I can offer an explanation for the societal duping. It's worse than "we didn't know": We DID know and then "forgot" it.
Before 1960, doctors routinely recommended either low calorie or low carbohydrate diets, as both do indeed work if you stay on them.
Then during that decade, the cholesterol hypothesis for heart disease arose, which became overgeneralized to "fat is bad". Dietary studies would compare hi fat+hi carb against lo fat+hi carb. The "fat is bad" dogma (yes, dogma, where the answers precede the questions -- as opposed to science where the questions precede the answers) helped prevent human studies that included a hi fat+lo carb from being considered "ethical". As is tragically common in matters of dogma, competing dogmas were demonized. A common joke from that time was "How many med students does it take to change a light bulb? Ten -- one to climb the ladder and replace the bulb, and nine others ganging up to kick the ladder over." (One of the least funny light bulb jokes, I know; I'm just illustrating an attitude not going for laughs.)
Hope I haven't depressed anyone!
Re: So low carb vindicated again by dreamchaser · 2014-11-22 15:19 · Score: 1

Diabetic here. I don't exactly follow a ketonic diet but I eat very few carbs. I was amazed when doctors recommended 60 grams of carbs per meal. I do eat some carbs but about a third of that, and since I adopted that practice my need for insulin has dropped dramatically. I still need it, since my body produces little to none, but my blood panels now come back looking better than most non-diabetics. I eat a lot of protein and fat, and most of my carbs come from fruit and vegetables rather than processed grains.
Re: So low carb vindicated again by layabout · 2014-11-22 15:27 · Score: 2

trig history pre hi carb, 400. high carb diet, 600. low carb diet back down to 400 then up to 850.
Re: So low carb vindicated again by roc97007 · 2014-11-22 15:44 · Score: 1

> All of these studies could have been done in 1980. I wonder if they were.
To my foggy recollection, they were. I remember seeing some convincing evidence in the late eighties that only 30% of blood cholesterol comes from fat in the diet, with the other 70% indirectly related to carb consumption. Not exactly what this study is saying, but going the right direction.

--
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Re: So low carb vindicated again by rycamor · 2014-11-22 19:11 · Score: 1

Actually, it's not even good policy for elite sociopaths if they want to reduce costs. Fact is, life expectancy is still high... we can keep sick and unhealthy people alive for decades, due to the incredible diversity of drugs and surgical procedures, paid for by insurance or medicare. In that sense this policy has created a HUGE drain on our society.
So, the only psychopaths this policy really benefits are the subset who own or are bribed by Big Pharma, and to a lesser degree the armies of cardiologists and dieticians who service this system. We are living in an age when heart disease is the #1 cause of early death. This and several of the other top causes are all directly related to a high-carb, high-sugar diet and lack of exercise. Almost 50% of American adults are on some medication permanently, and 20% of American children are on meds. It is pure insanity. Everything is an intervention rather than a prevention. Take, for example diabetes. You can get rid of it simply by a temporary crash diet (600 calories a day--preferably fats, proteins and vegetables), regular exercise, and then gradually moving back to regular caloric intake, punctuated by some intermittent fasting. In fact, we are finding that intermittent fasting is probably good for everyone. But there's very little money in this sort of cure, so instead we pump people full of meds and send them home to sit and watch TV or play video games.
I fume about this topic, because it is the overriding irrationality of our age. Mathematically speaking, our bad diet and lack of exercise is more dangerous to us than forgetting to wear seatbelts, drinking and driving, keeping loaded guns laying about, and dancing on our roofs during thunderstorms, yet we go on about these ways like unthinking cattle.
Re: So low carb vindicated again by itzly · 2014-11-22 20:37 · Score: 2

So, the only psychopaths this policy really benefits are the subset who own or are bribed by Big Pharma, and to a lesser degree the armies of cardiologists and dieticians who service this system
You forget the processed food industry, which has no concerns for your health, and is specifically engineering food to make it as addictive as possible. Unfortunately, a very addictive combination is a 50/50 mixture of sugar and fat. Despite all the dietary science we do, the industry will continue to design food to maximize profits.
Re: So low carb vindicated again by Archtech · 2014-11-23 00:05 · Score: 1

Further to that, I read in Gary Taubes' excellent book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (published in Britain as "The Diet Delusion") that a lot of work in nutrition had been done before WW2 by German scientists. After WW2, it became politically incorrect (as in "career destroying") to acknowledge any German work or influences, so everything started from scratch.
Add to that an observation from the sociology of science (and everything else): the younger generation (especially young males) are compelled to overthrow and despise whatever their fathers and grandfathers did. It's the equivalent of a young male confronting the patriarch/silverback, defeating him, and driving him out. I'm convinced this syndrome accounts for a great deal of the "myth-busting" that goes on - often, as in the case of the "myth" that fat is good for you and carbs make you fat, it is actually the truth.
Thirdly, modern science has degenerated to the point where almost all researchers are being paid by government or corporations to find specific results. However, as Einstein pointed out, "If you know what you're looking for, it's not research". All those eager beavers are under the gun to publish regularly and achieve striking results that are newsworthy. The easiest way of doing that is to assert that "Everything we believed is wrong!"

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re: So low carb vindicated again by rycamor · 2014-11-23 09:37 · Score: 1

Agreed. It really is depressing. At the moment one of my elder extended family members has been rendered completely disabled due to brain trauma and a few other horrifying incidents, so she must be fed through a tube. The tins of liquid diet recommended by the hospital turned out to be primarily high fructose corn syrup (!). That's the recommended diet for someone in constant bed rest (save a few exercises by therapists), and who CANNOT EVEN TASTE THE FOOD, so why would taste even be a consideration in choosing a high sugar diet? The Big Ag and food industries just have so much corn byproduct that they have to find a market for, so they push it everywhere.
Re:So low carb vindicated again by AK+Marc · 2014-11-23 13:35 · Score: 1

I see low carb diets pushed by the mainstream. The push back is the mainstream doesn't endorse the high-calorie high-fat diets.

There's no evidence that a hgh-fat no-carb diet is good for you.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re: So low carb vindicated again by master_kaos · 2014-11-24 03:02 · Score: 1

Yup, just started keto myself early september. Already down 39lbs as of this morning. I eat at least a lb of bacon and a lb of cheese a week. Got my bloodwork done when I started, haven't got another one done yet going to do it early next year. I tried many things in the past, none worked without leaving me starving. First thing I have tried without starving all the time.

Thats science for you .... by cold+fjord · 2014-11-22 11:56 · Score: 2

When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given. Hopefully it isn't actually completely wrong, backwards, missing a key piece of the puzzle, or just plain lethal. It will always be subject to revision, and in 50 years you might get the exact opposite advice. And that is before we get to misunderstandings by the public, or the results of dumbing down the recommendations to make them more easily understood but not completely correct any more.

Eggs? Coffee? Butter v margarine? Vitamin supplements? ....

Having said that, we need to keep at it with the best tools science has since it is the best way forward and has been proven many times despite being wrong at times.

Now about "global warming" ....

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

Re:Thats science for you .... by Ol+Olsoc · 2014-11-22 12:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given.
You make the mistake of thinking that the whole nutrition business is based on what scientists think.
Every time there is a "nutritional discovery", marketing forces take over, and soon we are consuming vast amounts of oatmeal, completely overdosing on carbohydrates, eliminating eggs, eliminating fat, and consuming so many phytoestrogens than men are growing boobs. Which is just a small portion of the food fad industry, and the people who are convinced that if they only eat the right foods - or better put - eliminate the right foods, they'll live happy, healthy, lives in to their mid 100's.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:Thats science for you .... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-11-22 12:12 · Score: 2

Actually, what scientists say is well known since 30 or more years (I'm 47 and know most of that stuff since minimum 30 years!).
Actually most misinformation comes from the US like the climate change denying ...
Bottom line it is super easy to love healthy ... just google for it and get a damn education! (to tired to repeat all the posts I made on this topic already and getting flamed)

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Thats science for you .... by sjames · 2014-11-22 12:48 · Score: 1

Alas, if you DON'T ask, you'll still get the recommendations and even scolding if you ignore the unwanted advice.
Further, 'they' will continue dispensing that advice even as the evidence piles up against it. They won't stop giving that advice until they find an excuse to tell people they must not eat something else that most people enjoy.
To add to the fun, the 'science' behind all of these food and drug fads just isn't there.
Re:Thats science for you .... by drinkypoo · 2014-11-22 20:24 · Score: 1

When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given.
No, you won't — at least not from the FDA or USDA. That's because the "food pyramid" was designed on a specious basis, the idea that eating fat makes you fat. But humans have known for centuries that eating carbs make you fat. And on the basis of one NIH study which showed that taking drugs to reduce your cholesterol levels also reduced your risk of heart disease, we were told that eating cholesterol raised cholesterol levels though there was no evidence for that, and that eating carbs was the way forward though there was no evidence for that.
So no, your central point is nonsense. Scientists actually knew that the ideas put forth were bullshit. Now, doctors didn't know. That's because they're not half as clever as people think they are, but they like to sound clever, so they simply repeated what the government told them.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Thats science for you .... by Archtech · 2014-11-23 00:16 · Score: 1

"When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given".
That's a comforting thought, but I have never understood how it can possibly be true. As long as scientists hold conflicting opinions, how can anyone tell what is "the best" recommendation? (I also wonder how governments get "the best" scientific advice, although they always say they do).
It's a hackneyed example, but consider the situation in Vienna about the time of the American Civil War. Which was "the best" scientific advice: that of Dr Ignaz Semmelweiss (and Louis Pasteur), who said infectious diseases were caused by bacteria - or the huge majority of the medical and scientific professions, who still insisted that an imbalance of bodily humours was to blame? The majority certainly had the upper hand politically, as they had Semmeleweiss removed from his posts and eventually locked up in a lunatic asylum, where he died. It seems to me that any politician or other lay person who inquired about these matters in 1865 would have been given firmly to understand that the traditional theory was the correct one.
So really, to speak of "the best" scientific advice is to beg the question.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Thats science for you .... by gordo3000 · 2014-11-23 00:29 · Score: 5, Insightful

it is amazing to me how SURE everyone is that carbs are bad for you.
carbs are, traditionally, the bedrock of human consumption. Hell, we look at the start of society by farming of a carbohydrate source. And frankly, some of the longest living countries have diets where carbs form the backbone of caloric intake. There may be a huge issue with constantly spiking your blood sugar with sweets (i.e. the american way), but just a little thought would show you how ridiculous it is to claim that carbs are the grim reaper.
Example, Japan. Diets here (I live there so will speak where I have direct experience) are extremely carb heavy. In fact, rice forms the backbone of your ENTIRE DAY. Literally every meal has rice as a central part of your caloric intake. Meats, on the other hand, even fish, are not as common. And very few foods outside of restaurants are high fat. Other places, like Italy, have a high carb, high fat diet.
What do most of the long lived countries have in common? their total calorie intake is low! The one thing that has never had any question mark: caloric restriction is the best indicator for long life. Not carbs, not fats, not saturated fats, not any of those. Just eat less. And it will lower all you blood markers simultaneously. Or, if you want, work out a hell of a lot (not this 3 hour a week BS, I am talking 10-15 hours a week of intense exercise). Then you can basically eat anything and your markers will be amazing.
else, you have to find the diet that works for your genetics. For some, that will be low carb. or some, that will be low fat.
Re:Thats science for you .... by gzuckier · 2014-11-23 10:39 · Score: 1

Science advises to limit your intake of arsenic, strychnine, mercury, lead, and plutonium. Since they are always wrong, I advise everyone to eat as much of these as possible.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Thats science for you .... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-11-23 10:44 · Score: 1

Ofc eating fat makes you fat ... if it is to much of it and especially in combination with the 'wrong' carbs.
Carbs again only make you fat again jf you eat to much of them.
If you need 2500 kcal per day and eat 2500 as carbs, there is no way ye get fat.
If you add 500 more as more carbs, you get a little fat, like the equivalent of perhaps 250 kcal (estimated), otoh if you add 500 kcal fat nearly all of it will get into your fat reservoirs!

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Thats science for you .... by cold+fjord · 2014-11-23 14:25 · Score: 1

What makes you think scientists are "always wrong"?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Thats science for you .... by radio4fan · 2014-11-23 21:17 · Score: 1

carbs are, traditionally, the bedrock of human consumption. Hell, we look at the start of society by farming of a carbohydrate source.

Humans appeared about 200,000 years ago, and agriculture about 12,000 years ago.
Society didn't appear with the development of agriculture; humans lived in social groups from their first appearance. Humans evolved for immediate-return foraging (like our closest relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos), not for agriculture.
Re:Thats science for you .... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-23 21:51 · Score: 1

I hate it when people keep on using Asians as a counterexample for a higher carb diet. Asians may eat a lot of rice, but not as much as westerners think. Rice by itself is disgusting and unpalatable, it is always accompanied by protein and fat (source: am from Philippines and grew up on rice, dried fish, and various traditional foods. Lots of fat Filipinos these days - they're usually middle class and live in urban areas. Rural people are still thin, even those who drink a lot coconut wine). And stop using your useless calorie math. People don't count calories internally, they depend on their body to tell them when they're full. Western prepackaged foods are engineered by diabolical, soulless, food scientists to hijack the body to keep it from getting satiated. I don't know how they do it, maybe through the incomplete proteins, fake nutrients, or overstimulating the taste buds. If you eat the right types of foods, you can end up spontaneously eating fewer calories while feeling full.
Re:Thats science for you .... by drinkypoo · 2014-11-24 10:47 · Score: 1

Ofc eating fat makes you fat ...

Wrong.

if it is to much of it and especially in combination with the 'wrong' carbs.
That's not fat making you fat. That's carbs making fat make you fat. Go read up on Ketosis before you continue spewing ignorance.

If you need 2500 kcal per day and eat 2500 as carbs, there is no way ye get fat. If you add 500 more as more carbs, you get a little fat, like the equivalent of perhaps 250 kcal (estimated), otoh if you add 500 kcal fat nearly all of it will get into your fat reservoirs!
If all you eat is carbohydrates, then your body stores both excess carbs as fat, and excess fat as fat. If all you eat is fat, then your body doesn't store excess fat (again, it's past time for you to read up on Ketosis) and your body doesn't have any excess carbs to store. Your brain does need some glucose, but your body will make all it needs from fat. If that weren't true, then you would die shortly after running out of carbohydrates to process, because your brain would stop functioning. But in fact, if you're plump you can reasonably live for a month without food, and indeed people sometimes do this on purpose without substantial harm.
Virtually nobody is using up 2500 kcal/day in modern Western society. That's farming energy consumption. The average person would be better served targeting something more like 1500 kcal/day, especially if they are employed in some fashion which employs substantial ass-sitting.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Thats science for you .... by gzuckier · 2014-11-24 14:24 · Score: 1

What makes you think scientists are "always wrong"?
because it's impossible that anybody would know more than me, or disagree with me and be correct, that's in the constitution. or maybe the bible.

--
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
Re:Thats science for you .... by angel'o'sphere · 2014-11-25 00:34 · Score: 1

Fat alone makes you fat as well.
I don't get why peope try to neglect this in our days.
Main problem however is the combinaton of fat with carbs.
Your claim: That's carbs making fat make you fat. Is an extreme simplification ... after all it is the fat that is stored in this case, don't eat it: and there is nothing to store. Hence my point.
If all you eat is fat, then your body doesn't store excess fat Ofc it does. It does not store _all_ of it. But it stores as much as it can, giving other stuff it needs to metabolize it.
Sorry, Ketosis has not much to do with it.
Counterexample: Icebears, eating mainly seals. They get fat from the fat of the seals. Escimos/Inuit eating seals or whale meat ... same thing.
Even you get fat if you only eat fatty steaks with Salad and no carbs at all.
Virtually nobody is using up 2500 kcal/day in modern Western society. That's farming energy consumption. The average person would be better served targeting something more like 1500 kcal/day, especially if they are employed in some fashion which employs substantial ass-sitting.
I agree partly. However mental workers also need a lot of callories. I live on something around 1500 when i'm not working. When I work I'm at around 2500. However if you see my other posts regarding this topic in other articles of the previous month: not many agree with you and me here :)
Sorry, ass sittign has not much to do with it ...
Instead of drawing conclusions from one single term (Ketosis e.g.) I suggest to read some books about nutrition :)

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Thats science for you .... by jwhitener · 2014-11-25 12:25 · Score: 1

Hell, we look at the start of society by farming of a carbohydrate source.
Given that modern humans were around for 100,000+ years with little population to show for it, until 10,000-8000 BC'ish when farming took off, says to me that we need to be careful with carbs more than anything. It is any extremely easy way to get a lot of calories fast. That was great for ballooning the population incredibly fast (in evolutionary time frames), but it makes sense to me that it is equally likely to balloon your waistline just as fast.

Calories in, calories out... by ndogg · 2014-11-22 11:57 · Score: 1, Insightful

...is such shit advice because it assumes all calories are equal when more and more evidence is coming out that they're not, especially calories from carbohydrates.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"

Re:Calories in, calories out... by Wonko+the+Sane · 2014-11-22 12:36 · Score: 1, Insightful

And you really really needs carbs to live. What is your point?
You need carbs to live, but it's fine for as little as 0% of those carbs to come from your diet. Your body can manufacture all the glucose it needs given the right protein and fat supplies.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by martas · 2014-11-22 12:42 · Score: 4, Insightful

"Calories in, calories out" is given as a good first order approximation of reality for the purposes of weight loss (at least whenever I've seen it). This article isn't about weight loss, it's about health. It's obvious that being conducive to weight loss and being healthy are not synonymous. I could lose weight by eating nothing but cyanide.

Now, it's true that even for weight loss "calories in, calories out" is only an approximation, but based on the admittedly small amount of information I have it is basically the most practically useful one, and using more complex models is counterproductive. Ultimately for most people trying to lose weight the most limiting factor is psychology. If you have some really nice theory about how different nutrients (or even exercise) affect weight differently, chances are you will be tempted to slack off on the by far much more important "calories in, calories out" equation, because you have a limited amount of mental energy. All the physiological tricks mean jack shit if you're inputting too much energy into yourself. Now of course what you eat still matters a lot, but mainly because it affects your psychology differently -- for instance, I've heard many anecdotal reports that 1200 calories from carbs leaves people feeling much less satisfied than the same amount from fat and protein, which of course is going to make it harder for a person not to eat any more. In other words, a corollary to "calories in, calories out" is "find whichever source of calories makes it easiest for you to maintain the equation", but even then physiology matters only in the way that it affects psychology, and not directly because some sources of calories are metabolized differently than others.

--
weinersmith
Re:Calories in, calories out... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-11-22 12:46 · Score: 1

No you don't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by 101percent · 2014-11-22 13:02 · Score: 1

I'm on keto for a year off-and-on as of Thanksgiving. About calories-in-calories-out; when you do keto you will naturally eat a reasonable amount. I don't weigh my food or count calories at all, and yet I've lost over 60 pounds. I don't starve myself either. I still enjoy cooking and food in general.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by rogoshen1 · 2014-11-22 14:20 · Score: 1

I'd link to a wiki article on essential carbohydrates, but there isn't one. probably because they don't exist.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by ndogg · 2014-11-22 14:23 · Score: 1

> Now of course what you eat still matters a lot, but mainly because it affects your psychology differently
And that's exactly the point. Carbs tend to cause blood sugar spikes, and the body then overproduces insulin, causing a sugar/carb crash, and thus demotivating people from physical activity, but those carbs still end up being converted to fat.

--
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
Re:Calories in, calories out... by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-11-22 15:10 · Score: 1

Hey I'm the last one to use as an example. I just ate two chicken patties, 6 donuts and am starting on a bottle of scotch. But my yearly checkup and blood test always come back normal.

--
Mostly random stuff.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 15:46 · Score: 1

I stay under 20 a day, the idea comes from my doctors telling me that my brain tumour would be better served by starving it of carbs. Since switching I have seen no increase in the tumour's size and I have lost over 180 lbs (I am 6'6 but I was at 450 down to 260 and still dropping) I eat all the meat and fat I want and only count carbs.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by martas · 2014-11-22 15:50 · Score: 1

Yes, which is bad because it leads you to eat more, thus making the "calories in" part bigger. That was my point. What matters most is physiology -> psychology -> fat, not physiology -> fat, so you should optimize a diet for psychology subject to a fixed amount of calories. If you use information about physiology in order to do so then great, but you don't need to, and in fact it may at some point be counterproductive because the more mental energy you use thinking about physiology, the less you have left to enforce the calorie limit. I'm willing to bet many people who have had a long term struggle to lose weight have gone through cycles of "try to implement great idea that helps lose weight -> start slacking off on calorie restriction because there's already a dopamine release from eating/doing 'the right thing' -> don't lose weight -> get discouraged -> say fuck it and eat an entire pizza in one sitting". Not everyone, but many people.

--
weinersmith
Re:Calories in, calories out... by king+neckbeard · 2014-11-22 18:34 · Score: 1

Here you go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

--
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by itzly · 2014-11-22 20:19 · Score: 2

On the other hand, according to the study:

Participants, on average, lost almost 22 pounds by the end of the trial.
So, apparently, more calories went out than in. Which also makes this a poor study. We know that weight loss improves health and risk markers in the blood. Therefore, a study that was designed to measure the effects of macro nutrient distribution now is distorted by the weight loss. What they should have done is pay more attention to keep the total calorie intake the same as the output, so that the overall weight of the test group stays stable.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by itzly · 2014-11-22 22:10 · Score: 1

The caloric rating of food is based on setting it on fire and measuring the heat produced
If that's true, that's not an argument against calories in=out, it just means the measurement has an error.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by bingoUV · 2014-11-23 03:27 · Score: 1

If the measurement is not trivial, that in itself is an argument against calories in=out. Because then it might be accurate but useless as a guiding principle.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by tmosley · 2014-11-23 04:31 · Score: 1

Then you get injured and stop working out and balloon up to 300 lbs like my father (and so many others) did.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by tmosley · 2014-11-23 04:34 · Score: 1

You lose more weight, faster in ketosis because you AREN'T burning calories, but you are metabolizing fat into burnable ketone bodies, which can't be reabsorbed. It's basically biochemical liposuction.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by master_kaos · 2014-11-24 03:18 · Score: 1

Yeah that is interesting. I have a couple of military friends and every single one of them eat very little carbs. They must teach nutrition a lot differently in the military.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by drinkypoo · 2014-11-24 10:50 · Score: 1

If that's true
It is, and if you cared you'd have looked it up already.

that's not an argument against calories in=out, it just means the measurement has an error.
The most obvious argument against calories in=out is that digestion is regularly incomplete. No further argument is necessary, but there are numerous other factors which influence the argument as well, and as none of them can lead to calories out being greater than calories in, there's still no currency to the argument.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Calories in, calories out... by martas · 2014-11-24 11:05 · Score: 1

If it's so hopeless to figure out how much energy you get from foods, how the hell are you going to figure out vastly more complicated things like how they affect your metabolism?

--
weinersmith
Re:Calories in, calories out... by bingoUV · 2014-11-24 14:17 · Score: 1

FYI dictionary doesn't define non-trivial as hopeless. Reading comprehension 101 fail.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:Calories in, calories out... by martas · 2014-11-24 14:27 · Score: 1

Interpreting "non-trivial" as anything but "hopeless" in your post voids your argument, so I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt. Sorry.

--
weinersmith

What about a low-food diet? by KiloByte · 2014-11-22 12:01 · Score: 1

You want to lose weight? Stop stuffing your pie hole.

Both of these diet fads, low-carb and low-fat, fail at providing balanced food intake. An unhealthy diet can make you lose weight fast, but that's not a good idea.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

Re: What about a low-food diet? by PatrickNarkinsky · 2014-11-22 12:43 · Score: 1

Show me a common, chronic disease cause by not enough carbs and I might concede that we need some. Until then, I'll enjoy my 4.6 a1c as a type 1 diabetic.
Re:What about a low-food diet? by martas · 2014-11-22 12:45 · Score: 1

Being 100lbs overweight is an even worse idea. Obesity is so bad for health in so many ways, that I think losing weight by any means necessary, as long as it works, is overall better for you, even if in the short term it means eating a less than ideal diet.

--
weinersmith
Re:What about a low-food diet? by sgt+scrub · 2014-11-22 14:13 · Score: 1

It should be, "You want to reduce the amount of fat on your body?" The answer is not how much you eat or what you eat. It is the relationship between how much work your body does for a given action and how affective it is at utilizing calories from the food you eat.
If you eat a lot of food and burn a lot of calories and your body is not very good at turning the food you eat into energy, you will be thin. If the first are the same and your body is good at utilizing the food you eat, you will be muscular.
Manipulate those factors and you will find a simple formula that will determine food to work to weight to muscle.
My body just happens to do no work, consume lots of food, and is great at converting it to be used.

--
Having to work for a living is the root of all evil.
Re:What about a low-food diet? by rogoshen1 · 2014-11-22 14:22 · Score: 1

show me a single nutrient (other than vitamin C) that you can't get from meat/dairy/eggs. If you're paranoid, sure toss in some green veggies -- but the idea that you can only get 'balanced' nutrition from vegetables doesn't compute.
Re: What about a low-food diet? by melted · 2014-11-22 15:35 · Score: 1

Brain fog. Your brain needs glucose to function properly. Your muscles need glucose to sustain an active lifestyle, which you need to sustain to not collect a whole host of chronic diseases caused primarily by lack of physical activity and poor cardiovascular health.
Re: What about a low-food diet? by martas · 2014-11-22 15:58 · Score: 1

You're claiming everyone on a keto diet is hypoglycemic? I'm pretty sure someone would have noticed that by now... It happens when first starting such a diet, but within one or two days the body adjusts and starts producing its own sugars from fat and protein.

--
weinersmith
Re: What about a low-food diet? by demonlapin · 2014-11-22 16:45 · Score: 1

But none of that glucose has to come from your diet. The liver is a marvelously capable organ.

Been in ketosis for two and a half years. My mental function is far sharper in ketosis than out of it. This isn't the only way, but it's definitely not harmful.
Re: What about a low-food diet? by PatrickNarkinsky · 2014-11-22 20:44 · Score: 1

Wrong. Your body converts protein to glucose just for those few cells of the nervous system that can't burn ketone bodies.
Re: What about a low-food diet? by PatrickNarkinsky · 2014-11-22 20:55 · Score: 1

Nope. Many studies have shown that it's possible to be overweight, active, and healthy. The key thing for health is activity... Granted, there is a correlation between overweight and inactive,but it's weak.
Re: What about a low-food diet? by itzly · 2014-11-22 22:15 · Score: 1

Muscles work just fine burning fat. You only need glucose for your muscles to get peak performance, because metabolising fat requires about 10% more oxygen per unit energy than glucose. If you don't need peak performance (which is 99% of the time, unless you're engaged in competitive sports), fat is perfect fuel. There are other parts of your body that need glucose as fuel, but the minimum daily requirement is low enough that your body can synthesise it from fats and proteins.
Re:What about a low-food diet? by itzly · 2014-11-22 22:22 · Score: 1

You can even get vit C from meat, as long as you don't cook it.
Re: What about a low-food diet? by gordo3000 · 2014-11-23 00:41 · Score: 1

this I've seen in action. my friends into iron man workouts did great on a super low carb diet.
I tried it as they claimed "I have more than enough energy" but I power lift. My number collapsed and after a month, gave it up. You CANNOT get anywhere near 100% without a decent carb intake. Anything under 100 grams and my ability to get through a hard workout drops dramatically. Several other lifters trying to learn to lift big have noted exactly the same thing.
On the other hand, when I was doing primarily long distance biking, basically any diet that got me XX calories worked great. Whether fat or sugar, or multiple beers, my body didn't care. It just needed fuel to get me through the next 70-100 miles.

Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by zerofoo · 2014-11-22 12:17 · Score: 4, Informative

I tried a "low-cholesterol" diet and it made my lipid profiles worse. I went on cholesterol drugs, and they had awful side effects. Finally I gave up the cholesterol meds and started restricting carbs. My lipid profiles got much better and I've decided to simply live as a "borderline" case without cholesterol meds.

I'm 20 pounds lighter, and I feel a hell of a lot better than on the meds.

I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease. The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations.

We still let cereal manufacturers pitch their wares as "heart-healthy" - what a joke.

Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by DigiShaman · 2014-11-22 13:01 · Score: 1

So beans and rice is bad?
IMHO, I think the whole obesity and diabetes epidemic stems from a sedentary lifestyle. Kids these days are not as outdoor active as they used to be. Blame consoles, PCs, phones...whatever. No actually, blame the parents. Anyways, this coupled with the fact working families are having to put in longer hours just to make ends meet. I suspect this is pushing people to eat on the fly rather than to take the time properly prepare and cook healthy foods. And if parents are no longer eating healthy or preparing for their kids, how can the next generation expect to learn healthy eating habits?

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by turbidostato · 2014-11-22 13:32 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations."
As a foreigner I can easily see where USA's obesity epidemy comes from and it is not from any given food pyramid: have you paid attention lately to the ridiculously big rations you ingest? The ridiculously high levels of processed food? The ridiculously high comsumption of snacks and soda drinks?
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by stoploss · 2014-11-22 14:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

"The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations."
As a foreigner I can easily see where USA's obesity epidemy comes from and it is not from any given food pyramid: have you paid attention lately to the ridiculously big rations you ingest? The ridiculously high levels of processed food? The ridiculously high comsumption of snacks and soda drinks?
No, it really doesn't matter how much you consume on a low carb, high fat diet as long as you remain in nutritional ketosis.
Here, one guy used himself as a guinea pig:
5,800 kcal/day low carb high fat diet, then he repeated the experiment with a 5,000 kcal/day diet with high carb intake.
These results make sense because the biochemical pathway signals are overloaded: the same hormones/substrates are used to signal more than one condition. That is to say, while your body is burning fat in nutritional ketosis it disables the pathways for laying down new fat stores. Essentially, a high fat/low carb diet tricks the body into thinking it is starving when it is not (the overloaded signals can't distinguish between the diet and true starvation), and it obviously makes no sense to store more fat if you're starving/burning fat. So, the body doesn't do it.
But, yeah, all the soft drinks and shit are killing people. No argument from me there. Drop the carbs.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-22 14:12 · Score: 1

As a foreigner I can easily see where USA's obesity epidemy comes from and it is not from any given food pyramid:
Wow. What a complete logic failure. First off, obviously there can be more than one cause to anything. There could be a number of trends that relate to obesity problems, and dietary advice with the old "food pyramid" could in fact be one of them. In fact, it might even relate to other apparent issues.
To wit:

have you paid attention lately to the ridiculously big rations you ingest?
The food pyramid recommended lots of carbs, while downplaying things like fat. Many, many studies have shown that carbs tend to lead to less of a feeling of satiety than fats or proteins (because carbs are generally more easily digested), so emphasizing carbs tends to make people hungry more... hence, larger portions are required to feel "full."

The ridiculously high levels of processed food?
You know where a lot of processed foods came into vogue? -- all the "low-fat" food crazy beginning in the 1980s or so, which forced food manufacturers to stop using so many less-processed ingredients (which generally had things like fat in them) and instead replace them with -- you guessed it -- carbs. The grains in the big part of the pyramid grew to excess, while processing removed the fats that were claimed to be evil. While sure it is possible to consume processed foods that are not carbs, the vast majority of heavily processed foods seem to be about throwing in extra carbs to replace flavor removed by less emphasized elements in the old food pyramid.

The ridiculously high comsumption of snacks and soda drinks?
Uh, once again -- look at most snack foods. Derived from grains. I.e., carbs. Soda is generally made from sugar... derived from grain... more carbs.
Whether or not all of these are connected directly to the food pyramid, the emphasis on grains and other carbs (and avoidance of fat and excess protein, particularly high-fat protein) led to increased reliance on and production of carb-centric foods... which are definitely related to all of the trends in your rhetorical questions.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by dinfinity · 2014-11-22 14:28 · Score: 1

I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease
Sadly, medical science has, for decades, had a better understanding than you seem to think. The problems arise from advisory organs (from the individual dietitian to the WHO) having to justify their existence by coming up with some kind of advice.
"In general, we're not really sure about a lot of things, but it is pretty obvious that nutrition raises your blood sugar levels, with the speed of the increase related to the glycemic index of the food and that both very high and very low blood sugar levels have negative effects on your body, so you should manage your nutritional intake based on your blood sugar levels. Oh yes, and don't forget the buffering effects of glycogen storage in your muscles and liver" makes for great but very unmarketable advice.
"Fat is bad, mmkay" and "High cholesterol will kill you" are a lot more palatable.
Who cares about scientific accuracy nowadays? Most 'journalists' don't. Most politicians don't. The average Joe certainly doesn't (at this point he doesn't even trust those scientist fuckers, always 'saying' different things in the papers).
Take it from me: the science is out there and has been for a while. Believe nothing you read about the subject of dietary advice, unless it is actual research or the stating of hard facts:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/s...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...
(note the years of publication)
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by dinfinity · 2014-11-22 15:18 · Score: 1

So beans and rice is bad?
Maybe. Sometimes. It depends.
Your question is like asking "So, is water bad?"
The worst thing in dietary advice is trying to shove individual types of food into some ill-conceived set of two boxes labeled 'bad' and 'good'. It really destroys the discussion.

I think the whole obesity and diabetes epidemic stems from a sedentary lifestyle
1. Depends on what you mean with sedentary life style. IIRC, 30 minutes of daily mild exercise (walking) is enough to let almost all the increased risk of being (reasonably) overweight disappear (it is enough to move the caches of visceral fat to the more external fat storage locations). Link: http://news.aces.illinois.edu/...
2. Diabetes is a disruption of insulin response that is brought about by insulin spikes. Insulin spikes are generally caused by food with a high insulin index (generally proportional to the glycemic index, with dairy as a clear exception to the rule). Although this depends in part on whether your blood sugar is low before eating (and a number of other factors). See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
3. I believe the prevalence of engineered foods is higher in the US than in other developed countries, simply because people in other countries tend to be chauvinistic about (the purity of) their traditional food. Engineered foods are bound to elicit effects in the body that are driven by outdated but powerful mechanisms in our bodies ('engineered' means getting you to want more of it, either right then and there or the next time you're buying food). As it happens, sugar and carbs in general are one of the if not the most physically rewarding things to ingest. Just try to do a little bit of your own food engineering: it doesn't always work, but 9/10 times you can make pretty much anything self-prepared taste better by adding sugar. There's a reason pretty much every sauce in existence has a very high sugar content (20+% for ketchup and Sriracha).
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by pnutjam · 2014-11-22 15:38 · Score: 1

I totes agree, blaming people is so much easier then doing science.

--
Cheap storage VM.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by trout007 · 2014-11-22 15:42 · Score: 1

Same results here as I'm drinking a coffee with heavy cream. I now get about 50% of calories from fat (mostly saturated).
Everything improved with the exception of LDL which is still high 160. HDL went from 40's to 60's. Triglycerides in the 70-80's, glucose in the 60's and I'm down from 210 lb to 170 lb.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by adolf · 2014-11-22 17:18 · Score: 2

Your numbers are off by a factor of one thousand.

--
Kid-proof tablet..
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by stoploss · 2014-11-22 17:26 · Score: 1

Feel free to elaborate upon the error you perceive.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by suutar · 2014-11-22 20:07 · Score: 1

perhaps he's referring to your use of "kcal" when the article uses "Calorie", not realizing that capital-C "Calorie" means 1000 little-c "calories", as does "kilocalorie" or "kcal". (since those are the only numbers I see at all in your post :)
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by drinkypoo · 2014-11-22 20:19 · Score: 1

I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.
Well enough for what purpose?

The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations.
The reality is that the people pushing those recommendations knew they were bullshit 30 years ago. How can you say they were a failure? They accomplished their given goal of pushing money towards Big Pharma and the processed foods industry at the expense of the health of the American public. We don't need a smoking gun to understand that there could have been no benevolent goal because the science did not support the recommendations. Since we live under capitalism, we simply follow the money. Who got rich, and at whose expense?

We still let cereal manufacturers pitch their wares as "heart-healthy" - what a joke.
Yes, and meanwhile the milk that goes on the cereal still carries a note about how the FDA has stated that milk from cows given rBGH is just as good as the real thing and you can't tell the difference, even though it's been shown in court since that it isn't and that you can tell the difference, for fear of a lawsuit from Monsanto. It's crony capitalism all the way down.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by itzly · 2014-11-22 20:27 · Score: 1

No, it really doesn't matter how much you consume on a low carb, high fat diet as long as you remain in nutritional ketosis.
Except that the "ridiculously high levels of processed food" as the parent mentions are not low carb. Processed food contains a well-engineered mix of fat, sugar, salt and flavor purposely designed to make you want to eat more of it. Combined with ubiquitous advertising (50% of the TV commercials in the USA is about food), and easy access (for instance the insane portion sizes), this is the main cause of the obesity epidemic. The reason that low-carb/high fat works is because people don't feel like eating too much of that. There's only so much steak you can eat, but there's always room for dessert.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by itzly · 2014-11-22 22:30 · Score: 1

You know where a lot of processed foods came into vogue? -- all the "low-fat" food crazy beginning in the 1980s
There are still plenty of high fat processed foods that are very popular. Candy bars, pizza, cookies, and ice cream to name a few.

Uh, once again -- look at most snack foods. Derived from grains
Plain old grains are too boring. People are unlikely to overeat on them. In snack foods, the grains are usually combined with extra sugar, (usually) some fat, salt, and aromas. These things combined make the snack food very hard to resist. In itself, grains aren't bad, as long as you eat them in moderation.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by stoploss · 2014-11-22 23:54 · Score: 1

The reason that low-carb/high fat works is because people don't feel like eating too much of that. There's only so much steak you can eat, but there's always room for dessert.
Did you read the links?
The guy didn't gain weight even on a massive surplus of caloric input while in ketosis (an excess of thousands of kcal/day), whereas he gained the expected amount of fat for his caloric surplus while on a carb diet. The fat deposition pathways are effectively disabled while in ketosis; this isn't really news.
In other words, the well-known anorectic effect of nutritional ketosis is notwithstanding. It just doesn't matter how much a person eats while in nutritional ketosis, they simply won't gain fat.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by itzly · 2014-11-23 00:48 · Score: 2

The links are just an anecdote of one person, set out to prove his own opinion. Not convincing.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-23 00:56 · Score: 1

Uh, you know, while on the surface you are saying you disagree with him, the actual content of your writing is agreeing with him.
How so? The primary claim of the post I was replying to was that the "USA's obesity epidemy ... is not from any given food pyramid." I then go on to show how the alternative explanations may actually be RELATED TO the food pyramid.
How is that agreeing with the original post?
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-23 01:00 · Score: 1

No, grain does not equal carbs. Grain has quite a bit of carbs, but also other things.
And even that is a simplification.
You probably want to re-read the beginning of my post. My whole point started with the oversimplification of the post I was responding to by claiming that the food pyramid wasn't involved in the obesity epidemic. I then proceeded to show how it might be connected, i.e., pointing out a FEW of the complex issues involved which actually show connections between various threads.
You bring up some other issues. Congratulations.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-23 01:14 · Score: 1

You know where a lot of processed foods came into vogue? -- all the "low-fat" food crazy beginning in the 1980s
There are still plenty of high fat processed foods that are very popular. Candy bars, pizza, cookies, and ice cream to name a few.
You may want to look up the definition of "a lot of." Hint: it does not mean ALL. The trend to mass produce snack foods which conformed to a low-fat diet most certainly led to more innovative and complex food processing. That in no way implies that ALL processed foods are low-fat -- only that engineering low-fat foods actually required significantly more processing in ways that could trick your body into thinking it was eating things it wasn't. Also, things like pizza, cookies, and ice cream can be made at home with relatively few ingredients which are significantly less "processed" than many of the new low-fat or no-fat snack foods designed to fit the new dietary trends of the 1980s and 1990s.

Uh, once again -- look at most snack foods. Derived from grains
Plain old grains are too boring. People are unlikely to overeat on them. In snack foods, the grains are usually combined with extra sugar, (usually) some fat, salt, and aromas.
Uh, yeah. So? When people see "grains" in the food pyramid, what do you think they're going to eat? Plain rice, plain wheat berries, plain buckwheat? No -- at a minimum, even if they got those "plain old grains," they would generally cook them and -- you guessed it -- add "some fat, salt, and aromas [spices, herbs, etc.]". Probably not as much sugar as snack foods, but most people won't eat "plain old grains" even if they are served looking like grains -- they put in salt, spices, and a few pats of butter on top.
So, I'm not sure I understand what the great distinction you're drawing here is. Snack foods "doctor up" grains to make them palatable; people do the same thing if they were to prepare grains for themselves.

In itself, grains aren't bad, as long as you eat them in moderation.
See the first point I responded to in my previous post. I never said grains were bad -- but they do provide lesser feelings of satiety, hence often requiring more calories consumed before people feel full. A diet that excludes other sources of calories and emphasizes carb sources (like grains) can have a tendency to promote more overeating. It isn't necessarily true, but the triggers are there.
Anyhow, I think you may have missed the overall point of my post, which was to respond to another posts claim that the food pyramid had no influence on obesity levels. I didn't say grains were evil. I said that the desire to emphasize grains and carb-based foods, while demonizing fats, contributed to some of the trends mentioned by GP. My whole point was that the causes are complex and may be interrelated.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by Charliemopps · 2014-11-23 02:23 · Score: 1

So beans and rice is bad?
IMHO, I think the whole obesity and diabetes epidemic stems from a sedentary lifestyle. Kids these days are not as outdoor active as they used to be. Blame consoles, PCs, phones...whatever. No actually, blame the parents. Anyways, this coupled with the fact working families are having to put in longer hours just to make ends meet. I suspect this is pushing people to eat on the fly rather than to take the time properly prepare and cook healthy foods. And if parents are no longer eating healthy or preparing for their kids, how can the next generation expect to learn healthy eating habits?
No... Beans and rice are ok. It's a Low carb diet... not a No carb diet. If you take the most famous of them, the Adkins diet... you get basically no carbs the first week or two then you slowly add them back in. This is the weight-loss part. Once you're down to the weight you want, you can eat them again.
What's bad is processed sugar. Plain and simple. It's in nearly every processed food now. If you could your own meals you can eat pretty much anything you want short of cake and cookies. But these days, the industry is nuts. Even sugar free candy is sweetened with "Sugar Alcohols" which are still carbs! I wanted to get my sick wife some Chicken noodle soup but the can had corn syrup on the label. Why in soup?!!?
In my experience, I just avoid sugar... Cookies, cakes, icecream, etc... Don't eat anything factory made. Cook my own meals. I eat high fat dairy like whole milk, whole yogurt, etc... because it fills me up so I dont eat more. And that keeps me around 200lbs which I think is a pretty good weight for me (my doctor would like me down another 10lb) It also took care of my cholesterol. It wasn't gradual either. I basically wasn't eating fat and it just kept going up up up... that's why I tried lower carbs... withing about 6 weeks it was back down to less scary numbers.
Everyone's different though, but I'd say it's worth a shot if you haven't tried it.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2014-11-23 03:43 · Score: 1

> I'm not sure medical science understands (well enough) the relationship between carbs/blood sugar/cholesterol and cardiovascular disease.
Unfortunately it seems to be a simple cause and effect assumption, as a first start. High fat, ergo cut back on it.
That niacin-like drug study that forced HDL (the good cholesterol) higher did exactly that -- and had no net benefit in hard outcomes (strokes, heart attacks, deaths.) Oh, thin people had lots of HDL, I guess that's it.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by tmosley · 2014-11-23 04:44 · Score: 1

The average Mexican is terribly overweight, so yes, that is probably bad.

I did low carb for the last 6 months, and lost more than 60 pounds, while living a mostly sedentary lifestyle, aside from some yardwork once a week or so. Haven't felt this good since high school.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by tmosley · 2014-11-23 04:49 · Score: 1

Sorry, but you are a fool. High carb diets promote hunger, which is what leads to larger portion sizes. It's a vicious cycle, and you aren't going to stop it by attacking the portion size. That just leaves people hungry, and they are going to cheat on their "diet" and it gets worse. You are spouting the EXACT SAME BS that has been spouted in the US for 30+ years to the exact opposite effect. I try low carb and in six months I lose what it took my 13 years to gain, no hunger, no exercise. Sure, I eat less than I did, but that is BECAUSE THE FOOD IS MORE FILLING, not due to some superhuman feat of willpower on my part.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by tmosley · 2014-11-23 04:56 · Score: 1

"Since we live under capitalism"

That's where you fucked up. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism. Words have meaning, and use of the wrong words leads to terrible, horrible results, like getting more of the thing you hate, ie an increasingly fascist state.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by stoploss · 2014-11-23 07:11 · Score: 1

Great! You want to read even more detailed explanations for why this is the case. Most people tl;dr when presented with technical details, so the anecdotal links tend to work better.
Here's one post by Dr. Peter Attia, an MD with an engineering/applied math background. Thanks to that, he is very good at explaining biochemistry concepts to the stereotypical Slashdotter.
http://eatingacademy.com/weigh...
(I suggest also reading the three part ketosis series he published as well if you're unfamiliar with the biochemistry of nutritional ketosis)
Once you have read that, if have specific objections I'll be happy to discuss further.
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by drinkypoo · 2014-11-24 10:52 · Score: 1

"Since we live under capitalism"
That's where you fucked up. This is the definition of fascism/corporatism.
Corporatism is just a variety of capitalism. Maybe you should look up "capitalism" in the dictionary to see why this is true. Any kind of capitalism which is not "free market" (in which the government assures freeness, not the kind where it's hands-off) will inevitably support fascism. HTH, HAND.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Control the carbs and you control blood lipids by turbidostato · 2014-11-24 11:42 · Score: 1

"Wow. What a complete logic failure. First off, obviously there can be more than one cause to anything. There could be a number of trends that relate to obesity problems, and dietary advice with the old "food pyramid" could in fact be one of them."
Since I state a fact-based hypothesis there can't be a logic failure. My assertion may be wrong but can't be logically fallacious because it's only that: an assertion.
And then again, what you do is putting, as already others have said, an explanation on why happens the cause I call immediate, not a demonstration that my assertion is false: big rations, processed food and soda comes from the food pyramid the... FDA? throws at American people.
My claim is that even that is wrong: big portions, processed food and soda comes from capitalism, not any given pyramid food. Everybody wants to sell their stuff above the competition and it happens that poor nutritional choices are both cheap to produce, easy to distribute, easy to consume and palatable for a great majority. Given USA is a big, big (both in terms of population and avaliable money) basically homogeneus market, unless you have strong market control the output is almost unavoidable.
Even more: even the food pyramid in use is heavily strongarmed by capitalism: just look who's backing this or that food campaign and you'll find greed and money.
Even even more: even all those diets, most of them promising the cure for everthing, from obesity to bad breath, from vascular illnesses to teenage pimples, are also pushed to gullible masses by greed and money.
So, to an extent, given that USA is the paramount of capitalism as seen if our world, it is no wonder that USA reaps both the benefits and the maladies of capitalism in an extreme way.

This guy was probably right by zerofoo · 2014-11-22 12:21 · Score: 2

Entertaining movie about this:

http://www.fathead-movie.com/

"Low food" doesn't work either by melted · 2014-11-22 12:44 · Score: 2

All of this has been studied in great detail in the area of sports nutrition. All those athletes whose physiques we all admire eat a lot of food, and they do also eat a lot of carbs. The key to weight loss is two fold:

1. Maintain a _moderate_ caloric deficit given your level of physical activity. Moderate means no more than 300-500 calories deficit per day. You go over that (or go on a diet for too long) and your metabolism adapts to the new calorie intake. Life starts to suck, you have no energy, you get sick more easily.
2. Eat a balanced diet. That includes carbs. If you're physically active, eat 40% of your daily carb intake immediately after you exercise.

Easy right? Nope. #1 requires counting calories. Both #1 and #2 require you to consume meals you've pre-cooked yourself and carried with you, you can't just eyeball the balance of nutrients or calorie contents in a restaurant. That's mostly how athletes get their physiques (the other 40% of it being hard-ass training routine and genetics). Anyone can do it, very few people bother. It's much easier to yo-yo diet on a diet du jour, even though it doesn't help.

Re: "Low food" doesn't work either by PatrickNarkinsky · 2014-11-22 20:52 · Score: 1

I'm a competitive weightlifter. And I coach others. (Not a body builder. It's not the same thing.) Most of my guys seem to do best with carb cycling -- ie only eating carbs in quantity on training days. (Oversimplified.) Higher carbs work okay for people like distance runners who will burn off the resulting triglycerides. Even then, they're lousy for getting in shape and people tend to gain weight unless they're training at least ten hours a week. Your argument is way oversimplified. In any case if you look at what science IS, one key point is that ten theories are worth less than one observation. I can tell you at when my guys need to cut for competition, they go zero carb and it works,and th can do it without losing muscle. The odd trainee who tris to do it high carb loses muscl and rarely succeeds.
Re:"Low food" doesn't work either by itzly · 2014-11-22 22:17 · Score: 1

It is physically impossible to sustain a permanent caloric deficit without dying.
Re: "Low food" doesn't work either by itzly · 2014-11-22 22:21 · Score: 1

Exactly. The body basically refuses to grow muscle unless there's a calorie surplus. As a competitive weightlifter it is necessary to overeat on a regular basis to stimulate muscle growth.
Re:"Low food" doesn't work either by countach · 2014-11-22 22:49 · Score: 1

You can't really compare what is good for an athlete to what is good for the rest of us couch potatoes.
Re: "Low food" doesn't work either by PatrickNarkinsky · 2014-11-23 03:39 · Score: 1

But you can cut with only 3% of the loss bring lean mass IF you do it low carb.
Re: "Low food" doesn't work either by melted · 2014-11-24 18:17 · Score: 1

You can't cut carbs without losing muscle. That's just not physically possible. You lose _some_ muscle inevitably. Every single book or study on sports nutrition will tell you that. The best environment for growth ("bulking phase" in bodybuilder terminology) is when you have significant caloric surplus, and increased body fat in 15%+ range.
Let's consider an example. Take a strong 220lb male athlete. His daily protein intake should be about 200-220 grams. That's only 880 calories at the upper end of the range. You still need at least 2500 if the guy is undergoing intensive training. You don't want to be eating too much fat. Let's say you consume 90g of fat per day (that's roughly in line with recommendations). That's another 810 calories. Mmmmkay, you still need 1690 calories. And that just happens to be a tiny bit over your 400g of daily recommended carb intake. So there you go. And this is not what I'd call an "excessive" diet for someone who trains and wants to actually see any kind of a result. I'm heavier, and I eat proportionally more than that. To "cut", this athlete will have to eat a bit more fat and significantly less carbs to create a small caloric deficit wrt his daily nutritional needs without becoming too catabolic. He will do that for 4-6 weeks after which his metabolism will begin to slow and he will have to start bringing in carbs into his diet again through "reverse dieting". If further weight loss is needed, the athlete will then undergo another "cut" cycle, _after_ metabolism returns back to normal.
Now granted, this is for someone who trains a lot, given to a sedentary adult this diet will result in massive amounts of fat gain. Adjusting it is just a matter of scaling these numbers down to the desired calorie intake (as well as taking up exercise to boost the basal metabolic rate).
Trouble with most athletes is they _think_ they don't eat a lot of carbs or fat, but unless you pre-make your meals with a scale and a spreadsheet, there's just no way to know how much of each macronutrient you're eating. That's what I do, anyway, it works for me.
Besides, even if your trainees really do cut carbs on their "off" days, they're still eating a ton. It's difficult to consume 200+ grams of protein per day, especially if you try to do so via food and not protein powder.
Re:"Low food" doesn't work either by melted · 2014-11-24 18:22 · Score: 1

Being a coach potato is not good for you in general. In fact, studies have shown that even obesity is not as bad for you as being physically inactive. Au contraire, moderate obesity in physically active men is correlated with longer lifespan.

Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by quantaman · 2014-11-22 12:50 · Score: 3, Insightful

Before everyone jumps on the low-carb bandwagon there are a few caveats to note:

1) All the participants had metabolic syndrome so the results might not be generally applicable.

2) The meals were fixed portions, so we don't know how it affected appetite or how it compared to previous eating habits.

3) We don't know what would happen long term. For instance all the participants followed the same pattern of steadily increasing carbs and decreasing fat, so it could be the body reacting to the delta.

I just mention because most people are really interested in the question "if I want to lose weight and/or reduce my risk of heart disease should I eat more/less fat and more/less carbs". But that question is incredibly specific to one person and very poorly defined beyond that. This study says in these very specific circumstances the answer is more fat and less carbs, but that's not necessarily true in general. To think it does give the general answer only sets one up for a future accusation that science is always wrong when a future study with slightly different parameters seems to reach a different conclusion.

--
I stole this Sig

Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by phantomfive · 2014-11-22 13:35 · Score: 1

Indeed. It's more important to get high quality nutrients than to try to demonize one or the other.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by AthanasiusKircher · 2014-11-22 14:30 · Score: 3, Interesting

Before everyone jumps on the low-carb bandwagon there are a few caveats to note:
Thanks for this list -- yes, it's important to note the limitations of this study.
However, one broader issue that this study should point out is the continued stupidity of the medical profession in assuming that because the quantity of X in diet is increased, it will necessarily increase the quantity of X in one's blood or other chemical markers.
We've seen this for many years with cholesterol studies -- the body manufactures most cholesterol, so dietary consumption has little relation to blood cholesterol levels. But that hasn't stopped decades of doctors demonizing any food with cholesterol (e.g., eggs) with no actual basis. I know doctors who still give out this crap advice to focus on a "low cholesterol diet" to lower cholesterol. It just doesn't work that way for many (most?) people, and there's no reason it should.
Now we have a study showing clearly that dietary saturated fat intake does not necessarily relate to the levels that ultimately end up in the bloodstream. Once again, this is common sense -- given that the body PRODUCES fat to store energy. If you're throwing fat into a system that is capable of producing fat, you have to actually consider what causes the system to produce fat... rather than just assuming it's only about how much fat is taken into the system.
Anyhow, more studies like this will hopefully cause clueless doctors to realize this. Once again, when a system produces the vast majority of X, dietary intake of X is probably not the most important variable -- you need to figure out what regulates the production of X.
Again, this seems like an intuitively obvious element for isolating what's going on in a system with such characteristics. But it seems beyond the comprehension of medical science -- hence all of the crappy dietary advice with no proven basis.
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by Slugster · 2014-11-22 14:41 · Score: 1

1) All the participants had metabolic syndrome so the results might not be generally applicable.
...Except that the Eskimos have been eating zero-carb for 5000+ years. (search "zero carb diet" on wiki) Conversely, vegetarian diets have been a fad for thousands of years, but there has never been an established vegetarian or vegan culture for any sustained period. The only times ancient people didn't eat lots of animals was when there wasn't any animals to eat.

2) The meals were fixed portions, so we don't know how it affected appetite or how it compared to previous eating habits.
One of the odd effects of eating low-carb is that you can go much longer periods without eating, and yet you don't feel hungry. You have to try it for at least a few weeks to understand it.
Going 12 hours without eating isn't unusual, and even 18 hours is easily possible without discomfort. It kinda destroys the concept of meals as social settings, because you aren't eating every ~5 hours like everyone else is.

3) We don't know what would happen long term.

See #1 above

Eating low-carb all the time is still considered an extreme diet by medical standards, so (US) doctors won't tell you to try it. And they think you're borderline nuts if you ask about a zero-carb diet.... It is helpful to be under medical care to get your blood numbers tested because there are some conditions that it could easily aggravate instead of improve. Don't be too surprised if they get better however.

If you do try it, the easy rule to remember is that anything from plants is carbs, and is to be avoided--even fresh fruits and vegetables. Basically you can eat any meat (with fat!), milk, cheese and eggs. Lean meat is to be avoided; the traditional Inuit diet was over 50% fat.

The health books in school lied to you. If low-carbs and high-fat was bad for you, there wouldn't be any Eskimos today.
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 15:38 · Score: 1

Eskimos are a very tiny minority group with a very common set of genes. Humans are highly variable and general conclusions from such a small genetic sample would be poor science.
There exist large groups of humans that have been on almost entirely vegetarian diets for 1000s of years. Please visit India.
The evidence is there. One can live a long healthy life on a vegetarian diet. You most likely will not get very muscular though
>The health books in school lied to you. If low-carbs and high-fat was bad for you, there wouldn't be any Eskimos today.
This conclusion is logically false. All they have to do is live long enough to reproduce. Even in miserable health.
Low-carbs and high-fat could be very bad for Eskimos and shorten their lives to just after the point of successful child rearing.
Once again generalizing from such a small genetic sample is very poor science. In fact could you cite these Eskimo sources?
The material I found indicates that Eskimo diets had already begun to modify to include carbs when the survey's where done and that life expectancy for Eskimo's was quite poor and short.
High fat diet might be great for you. It's helped me immensely. However I've also had great success with a low-carb heavy vegetable non-processed food diet as well.
Humans response to food varies tremendously and has a much wider range than we are willing to accept.
Eat real food, eat in moderation, and get plenty of healthy physical activity.
The rest is probably beyond your control.
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by trout007 · 2014-11-22 15:46 · Score: 1

Right on the money with #2. During the work week when I'm not moving much I have 2-3 coffees with cream from 5am to 5pm with no discomfort. At 5pm I eat a big meal and I'm good until the next day.

--
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by itzly · 2014-11-22 20:31 · Score: 1

...Except that the Eskimos have been eating zero-carb for 5000+ years
The study may be correct in its conclusions, but it's still poorly designed to have the test subjects combine weight loss with dietary changes. It would have been better if the weight was kept stable throughout the study, and just vary the diet. And, even better if the test was done on both slim, healthy people, and overweight people with metabolic syndrome.
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by dunkelfalke · 2014-11-22 20:51 · Score: 2

Eskimos were selectively bred for that kind of a diet. There is some foodstuff that these zero-carb-eating indigenous tribes eat (rotten meat for example), that would be deadly poison to any other human.

--
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by countach · 2014-11-22 22:52 · Score: 1

Those are valid questions, but the results seem to fit the generally emerging consensus that fat doesn't make you fat or do you harm. Until someone gets a counter result, that seems to be the reality.
Re:Interesting though not to be overinterpreted by quantaman · 2014-11-24 11:26 · Score: 1

Those are valid questions, but the results seem to fit the generally emerging consensus that fat doesn't make you fat or do you harm. Until someone gets a counter result, that seems to be the reality.
There's also a general consensus that complex carbs and protein don't do you harm either. That would be my biggest hesitation about interpreting this study in light of weight loss advice, food is much more complex than macronutrient breakdown and obesity much more complex than diet.

--
I stole this Sig

16 people? by cmdr_tofu · 2014-11-22 12:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

It seems awfully unscientific to come to any kind of conclusion based on a study of 16 people over a 3 week period with engineered diets.

There is a saturated fat plateau. When you consume enough saturate fats, you cannot absorb them, but that doesn't mean it's a healthy amount to eat.

Add this to the list of misleading studies: http://nutritionfacts.org/vide...

Re:16 people? by cmdr_tofu · 2014-11-22 12:59 · Score: 2

Ooops sorry wrong link. This one talks about risk plateau: http://nutritionfacts.org/vide...
Re:16 people? by LF11 · 2014-11-22 14:35 · Score: 1

It may be unscientific to come to that kind of conclusion based on an n=16 study.

However, what this study DOES show is that the existing paradigm of saturated fat == heart disease ought to be questioned and thoroughly re-examined. Frankly, if I had metabolic syndrome, I'd be experimenting on myself the moment I heard about this.
Re:16 people? by suutar · 2014-11-22 20:15 · Score: 1

One conclusion that I think can be safely made is "the prevailing wisdom was not confirmed by this test". Which always leads to the most interesting questions.
Re:16 people? by cmdr_tofu · 2014-11-22 23:25 · Score: 1

Yeah in a 3 week study with 16 people on carefully controlled diets. The doesn't invalidate significant findings of studies like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N...
Re:16 people? by gordo3000 · 2014-11-23 01:16 · Score: 1

this study says NOTHING about heart disease. it says something about markers that roughly correlate with heart disease, but are in no way common to all heart disease patients (hospital data shows at least half of all heart attacks are of people with normal cholesterol levels).
You would need to follow this group in a randomized trial for DECADES to find out anything about heart disease.
Re:16 people? by bingoUV · 2014-11-23 15:30 · Score: 1

It doesn't invalidate the nurses' study because it doesn't try to? The nurses study , at least from its better known results, is about processed carbohydrates and trans fats. This one is about carbohydrates and saturated fat.
Nurses' study is "better" in rigor, but it's subject being different, has no bearing on this discussion.

--
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Re:16 people? by rdnetto · 2014-11-25 04:39 · Score: 1

While I agree with your point, it is worth noting that there have been several studies over the last half-century disproving the diet-heart hypothesis.

--
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.

Re:Calories in/out, but nobody measures OUT by Anonymous Coward · 2014-11-22 13:13 · Score: 1

The big problem with the simple calorie counting approach is that most people (and researchers) only count the calories going in and do not count the calories being excreted. If you eat 5000 calories, but most passes through your gut and you excrete 4500 calories, you will lose weight, very quickly. This is before we get into discussions about sugar vs fat vs protein vs complex vs simple carbohydrates, etc.

And how much of a nutrient is absorbed is VERY dependent on what your gut flora are doing, which in turn depends on what drugs you've been taking, what other foods you've been eating, etc.

You can eat all the spinach (high in iron) you want, but if you're not also consuming heme form iron or something that can cause you to metabolize the iron in the spinach, you can still become anemic.

Re:Treat mental illness before it's too late by fyngyrz · 2014-11-22 13:55 · Score: 1

Obviously, GP had consumed too many carbs.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.

Saturated demons by manu0601 · 2014-11-22 13:59 · Score: 1

Saturated fats have been demonized because they increase cholesterol, and cholesterol is statically linked to heart disease.

But we now know we confused a statistic link with a causality link: drugs that lower cholesterol do not lower heart diseases (see cardiologist Michel de Lorgeril work on this for instance). It means saturated fats are not such a problem.

The new (more legitimate) demons are trans fats, skewed omega 3/omega 6 fat ratios, and carbs excess

Get thee to a Bagel Nosh by RogueWarrior65 · 2014-11-22 14:01 · Score: 1

So I shouldn't feel too guilty about eating a bagel with a mountain of cream cheese on it. Woohoo!!!

Re:Get thee to a Bagel Nosh by demonlapin · 2014-11-22 16:52 · Score: 1

Actually, anyone who favors this would tell you the bagel was the worst thing to eat.

Was this settled science before the report ? by Crashmarik · 2014-11-22 14:24 · Score: 1

Or just another example of how people could continuously claim to know something with certainty all while giving disastrously wrong advice ?

your choice: science or superstition by swell · 2014-11-22 14:28 · Score: 1

This is one study of thousands worldwide that essentially say the same thing. Reduce carbs, increase dietary fat. Over 30 years ago Dr. Atkins began that mantra and well over 30 million people have verified that it works. Atkins followers typically eat more calories than before they began the high-fat lifestyle. It's not just for fat people, diabetics or other sick people- this diet will make most people healthier and live longer. It is difficult to find any measurable health indicator that doesn't improve with low carb, high fat diets. As mentioned elsewhere, there are very large corporations that don't want you to improve your diet and they have elected officials on their payroll (thus the Food Pyramid, unlabelled ingredients, etc).

It's not easy to avoid donuts, bread, cereal, rice, potatoes, bananas, candy, etc. But what value do you put on your health and the health of your children?

If you choose to believe the Food Pyramid or the 'common sense' that eating fat will make you fat, it's your choice. But do consider science, which has offered this correct answer for many decades.

--
...omphaloskepsis often...

Re:your choice: science or superstition by demonlapin · 2014-11-22 16:55 · Score: 1

Actually, it's pretty easy to avoid carbs. When eating in, don't buy them. When eating out, ask for broccoli or asparagus as your side.
Re:your choice: science or superstition by gordo3000 · 2014-11-23 01:21 · Score: 1

no, no it's not.
we know the standard American diet is horrid. But really I can show you large cultures that engage in high carb, low fat, modest protein intake, hundreds of millions of people, who live long, healthy, active lives. I can also show you high carb and fat, with only modest protein intake countries as well.
The one thing long lived groups seem to have in common is low overall calorie intake. That's about it.
But if low carbs work for you, your genetics, and your lifestyle more power to you. But thinking it is the be all, end all, of dietary advice is just shortsighted (or willfully ignorant).

Comical comments... by QuietLagoon · 2014-11-22 15:05 · Score: 1

You really need to read the article to understand the numbers involved here. Don't go on a saturated fat binge.

.
RTFA

There are conditions around increasing the saturated fat intake.

Inhaling pizza still is not healthy.

Re:Calories in/out, but nobody measures OUT by 50000BTU_barbecue · 2014-11-22 15:11 · Score: 1

"Nobody measures OUT because on the grand scale of things, OUT is inconsequential."

Um, do you know what Innu feed their dogs?

--
Mostly random stuff.

Overall effect of phytoestrogens: Still unknown. by Futurepower(R) · 2014-11-22 15:17 · Score: 2

"... consuming so many phytoestrogens than men are growing boobs."

From the National Institutes of Health, a free PDF: The pros and cons of phytoestrogens. The author considered 308 scientific sources and came to the conclusion that not enough is known to indicate that phytoestrogens are good or bad for humans.

Have a big protein blast for breakfast by See+Attached · 2014-11-22 15:28 · Score: 1

Want a good morning? protein load for breakfast, and you will not want more food. Seems that eating carbs (and not burning them off) leads to bad stuff in your blood. Not news: http://articles.mercola.com/si...

--
Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.

Heart Attacks & Strokes by eric31415927 · 2014-11-22 15:40 · Score: 1

Obesity, Smoking, Exercise, Genetics, Diet

Diet is only one small part of the problem
Genetics - well you're stuck with them - your children are stuck with yours
Smoking is hard to quit for some
Exercise - well nobody like to exercise
Obesity - on the rise - due to sugar, salt, and fat in boxed foods - who cooks from scratch?

My rant is over

Re:Heart Attacks & Strokes by rycamor · 2014-11-22 19:33 · Score: 1

There have been some studies lately suggesting that genetics are not quite the set-in-stone-for-life thing that we once thought: in fact optimal diet and exercise does improve one's genetics to a small degree. WHICH, has interesting societal implications over the long haul...

Ho hum by InterGuru · 2014-11-22 16:03 · Score: 1

Nutrition, like education, is fad driven. Whatever we "know" will be displaced in the future for something else.

Re:Ho hum by itzly · 2014-11-22 20:33 · Score: 1

Saturated or unsaturated fad ?

Woody Allen in Sleeper by ShanghaiBill · 2014-11-22 16:22 · Score: 1

This reminds me of the scene from Sleeper, where Woody Allen wakes up after 200 years. When he asks for granola, they are surprised that in the past, that was considered healthy.

Dr. Melik: You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
Dr. Aragon: Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
Dr. Melik: Incredible.

The funny thing is, all this has actually happened, and we now know that the steak and deep fat is better for you than carbohydrate laden granola.

Re:Woody Allen in Sleeper by AK+Marc · 2014-11-23 13:30 · Score: 1

The candy-granola bars that are mostly sugar are bad, but "pure" granola is not considered bad.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Trans fats next? by turning+in+circles · 2014-11-22 16:25 · Score: 1

Saturated fats are all well and good, but I want trans fats back in the diet in addition to saturated fats (think Crisco). How many studies are needed before hippy liberal places like New York City and California go back on their stupid trans fat bans?

--
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.

Re:Trans fats next? by DirePickle · 2014-11-22 21:07 · Score: 1

The demonization of saturated fats was specifically because they used to not differentiate between trans fats and saturated fats in studies. Trans fats made sat. fats look bad. They are bad for you, full stop.
Re:Trans fats next? by turning+in+circles · 2014-11-28 03:19 · Score: 1

I'm out of date: Crisco is now made entirely from saturated fats and has no trans fats in it any more. So take an extra slice of leftover thanksgiving pie.

--
Might as well face it I'm addicted to data.

Start the countdown by PopeRatzo · 2014-11-22 17:04 · Score: 1

How long will it be before "scientists" say exactly the opposite again?

I've lived long enough to see everything become unhealthy and then healthy and then unhealthy again. And it's always based "on science".

The fact is, everything will kill you. That's why I only eat bacon, chocolate ice cream and bourbon whiskey. I may start smoking again, just to be ahead of the curve.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:Start the countdown by PopeRatzo · 2014-11-24 14:33 · Score: 1

Fundamentally, science is about factual observation and "logical" reasoning.

Not the way I do it.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Unbiased? by Tony+Isaac · 2014-11-22 17:05 · Score: 1

I Googled Jeff Volek, the author of the study, and immediately noticed that he is all over the Nutrition Express site, which sells nutritional supplements. He also features prominently at True Health Unlimited, a commercial personal trining company.

Good nutrition and personal fitness are good things...but all this commercial involvement makes me wonder just how unbiased Mr. Volek really is.

What about eggs... by tomhath · 2014-11-22 17:13 · Score: 1

Are they good or bad this week? I keep losing track.

Re:What about eggs... by Bruinwar · 2014-11-23 03:06 · Score: 1

Depends on who you ask. Those whom get there main income from Big Pharma will say eggs are bad. Others seem to be saying they are good. Still others are saying they are bad unless the are free range organic.
I say they are good! I just had three & they tasted delicious! They just happened to be organic as my wife bought them. Personally I would balk at the price & buy the factory eggs. But that makes her unhappy so I opt for the expensive ones. Happy wife=happy me.

--
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT

Re:Calories in/out, but nobody measures OUT by blackiner · 2014-11-22 17:42 · Score: 1

Very true. I eat quite a bit some days. I work out quite a bit. I actually want to gain weight, so that I can lift more, but no matter how much I eat in a day (sometimes I will eat an entire pizza for dinner), it all evens out... I am always within a couple pounds when I weigh myself. The days I eat a lot of food? I have massive shits the next morning. The days I eat very little? Very little poo. My body is simply too good at regulating itself I guess.

Re:Calories in/out, but nobody measures OUT by kamapuaa · 2014-11-22 19:18 · Score: 1

Your body is extremely efficient at digesting calories. Do you look down at your shit and see undigested pieces of hot dog? If not, congratulations, your body has digested the food you ate (and supposedly competitive eaters get that after 9000 calories or so). Micronutrients are different than macronutrients. Iron, like you mention, or many vitamins are only fat soluble. However, they have basically no calories to them and should not have been brought up.

If there's any efficiency, it's in using calories to digest calories. Your body has to supply your stomach with calories, after all!

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.

It works. by Anonanonaon · 2014-11-22 22:40 · Score: 2

Been on this diet for a couple of years now. Works great. I feel awesome and I look awesome, and it doesn't take any real effort. (Though, you have to give blood to keep your iron down, take your magnesium and keep your vitamin C levels up). But if you DO a little training.., wow! Super hero muscles for nothing.

I don't buy the, "Oh, this time next decade, they'll be telling you the exact opposite!" apathetic complaints. People last decade were fat and unhealthy and heart disease was a problem. All the vegetarians I know are either too skinny and malnourished or fat and grey, and all of them are suffering from the brain fog of early onset dementia. God love 'em for their ethics, but honestly! I'd rather kill a cow than have a heart attack at 55. Sorry. I do promise to kill it nicely.

There is a fundamental truth which reality orbits around regardless of what you happen to believe or what the science magazines say. They may tell us the opposite next year, but they'll be wrong at best, and liars at worst.

Ye Olde Science Magazines are no better than religious pamphlets these days, so I'm going to go ahead and trust logic, my own research, community information sharing initiatives and my own five senses on this one, thanks.

I'm sick of trusting authority-based science when they tell me I'm the victim of magic show antics and that my senses are unreliable; that I can only trust my leaders. Fuck that! I know I'm not infallible, but I'm also pretty smart; I'm not a slave to my ego, scared to be wrong. I know how to correct for errors once I detect them. -Like if my gut started expanding and my heart started feeling fluttery and if my skin wasn't glowing with health on this high fat diet, I'd stop and go back to eating wheat and sugar. I don't need some fool in a government lab coat or some pill-salesman to tell me what to think.

I'm just amazed that acceptance of high fat/low carb diets is taking hold. The fact that something works usually means people are running in the opposite direction.

It makes me wonder if perhaps there isn't something worse we're missing which makes the optimal health we're learning to enjoy invalid; what could make lots of strong and healthy people a non-threat to the power establishment I wonder..?

close! by blogagog · 2014-11-22 22:49 · Score: 1

"Volek continued, "People believe 'you are what you eat,' but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat."
No, you are what you CREATE from what you eat.

Gary Taubes spelled much of this out by swb · 2014-11-22 23:36 · Score: 2

...in "Good Calories, Bad Calories".

Some of it is historical -- prior to the Ancel Keys bad science about diet, it was a commonly held understanding that cutting carbohydrate consumption contributed to weight loss. Taubes cites numerous sources, some dating back hundreds of years. IIRC, even the science was trending this way before WWII but a lot of it was German-led science which the war lost and competitiveness from American scientists chose to bury.

The science behind insulin as the primary hormonal regulator of fat accumulation has been known since the 1960s.

Most troubling from Taubes' book is the weird politics of dietary science and how senior people who control funding for studies get wed to particular theories and hang on to them even when evidence doesn't support them, even suppressing promising science that tends to discredit these ideas.

Not really a proper study by EagleRider70 · 2014-11-23 01:57 · Score: 1

At 16 participants, this isn't much of a study. You need at least a few hundred people to get anything this is even slightly useful. With 16 participants how many were in the control group?

Quick, somebody call Moochelle Obama! by reboot246 · 2014-11-23 02:32 · Score: 1

She's starving the school children with those pathetic new lunch rules, while she chows down on mile-high bacon cheeseburgers.

Learn this: Growing children need more nutrients than adults.

Re:Humans are supposed to be vegan by Bruinwar · 2014-11-23 03:14 · Score: 1

Killing a rabbit likely was done with the cooperation of a few people to corner it & hitting it in the head with a rock. Plus thanks to our sweat glands humans are the only creatures that can run for hours & hours in 90+ heat. That is how you catch an antelope! & hit in the head with a rock.

Yes, if that antelope was female & had milk, we consumed it.

--
SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT

Look at Volek's funding. by zenaida_valdez · 2014-11-23 04:02 · Score: 1

From TFA "This work was supported by the Dairy Research Institute, the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association and the Egg Nutrition Center."

A study finding that saturated fat is not bad for you is what they paid him for.

Next up: CO2 is not causing AGW, funded by Exxon Mobil.

Re:Half of all Americans are ....what? by tmosley · 2014-11-23 04:42 · Score: 1

I would guess he means that many are diabetic or pre-diabetic.

Funding.... by frohro · 2014-11-23 06:27 · Score: 1

I found the following information interesting: Funding: This work was funded by a grant from Dairy Research Institute, The Beef Checkoff, the Egg Nutrition Center, and the Robert C. And Veronica Atkins Foundation. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Partial funding for Open Access provided by The Ohio State University Open Access Fund. The problems with this are that the Dairy, Beef, and Atkins people may not have a say how this research was done and or published, but they certainly can decide if they will fund any future research by these particular scientists. Good research should be very careful where its funding comes from. It becomes suspect when the funding parties have high financial stakes in the results.

Obese people need to lose weight. by mspohr · 2014-11-23 06:59 · Score: 1

These people were all obese and had metabolic syndrome to start:

Sixteen overweight/obese men and women 30-66 years old, with a BMI between 27–50 kg/m2 participated in this controlled dietary intervention (Table 1). Participants had metabolic syndrome defined as having three or more of the following criteria: waist circumference (101.6 cm men, 88.9 cm women), blood pressure (130/85 mm Hg) or current use of antihypertensive medication, and fasting plasma glucose (100 mg/dL), triglycerides (150 mg/dL), and HDL-C (40 mg/dL men, 50 mg/dL women).

Hard to draw any conclusions from this study for normal people. If you're fat, you have bad numbers and you need to lose weight and going on a high fat or low fat diet doesn't make much difference.

--
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?

The Jeanne Calment by clovis · 2014-11-23 10:10 · Score: 1

I'm going with the proven winner's diet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

olive oil, wine, and a kilo of chocolate a week, plus a laid-back attitude.

From the wiki article

Calment ascribed her longevity and relatively youthful appearance for her age to a diet rich in olive oil[4] (which she also rubbed onto her skin), as well as a diet of port wine, and ate nearly one kilogram (2.2 lb) of chocolate every week. She also credited her calmness, saying, "That's why they call me Calment."[18] Calment reportedly remained mentally intact until her very end.

Calment's remarkable health presaged her later record. At age 85 (1960), she took up fencing, and continued to ride her bicycle up until her 100th birthday. She was reportedly neither athletic nor fanatical about her health.[9] Calment lived on her own until shortly before her 110th birthday, when it was decided that she needed to be moved to a nursing home after a cooking accident (due to complications with sight) started a small fire in her house. However, Calment was still in good shape, and continued to walk until she fractured her femur during a fall at age 114 years 11 months (January 1990), which required surgery.[5][14]

Calment smoked cigarettes from the age of 21 (1896) to 117 (1992),[2][16] though according to an unspecified source, she smoked no more than two cigarettes per day towards the end of her life.[17] After her operation, Calment needed to use a wheelchair. In 1994, age 119, she weighed 45 kilograms (99 lb).

Re:Overall effect of phytoestrogens: Still unknown by ChrisMaple · 2014-11-23 16:39 · Score: 1

Just what do you think phyto-estrogens are, if not hormones?

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate

Best news EVER! by sabbede · 2014-11-24 00:40 · Score: 1

For my tummy that is.

Re:Humans are supposed to be vegan by VanessaE · 2014-11-24 08:17 · Score: 1

Just because YOU say humans are somehow supposed to be vegan does not make it "normal" either; humans don't have razor sharp teeth and claws, but we evolved the intelligence to develop simple weapons and tools to make killing for food and cooking it efficient enough for humanity to thrive.

Your argument is invalid.

Slashdot Mirror

Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood

167 of 252 comments (clear)