US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol

An anonymous reader writes: The Washington Post reports on news from the U.S.'s top nutrition advisory panel, which plans to stop warning consumers about the amount of dietary cholesterol in foods. The government has been issuing these warnings for over 40 years, and they reaffirmed that decision as recently as five years ago. "[T]he finding, which may offer a measure of relief to breakfast diners who prefer eggs, follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that for a healthy adult cholesterol intake may not significantly impact the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats. ... But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice."

Comments

Unsettling science

[mi]

But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows [...] the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research

Awesome. And, while we are it, the War on Fat was in error too. Decades after telling us one thing — coercing and outright forcing us to follow its "scientifically proven" and "common sense" guidelines, the government now admit to have been full of shit. Will anybody prosecuted?

One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?

Re:Unsettling science

[nitehawk214]

Will anybody prosecuted?

Yes, you, for crimes against grammar.

Re:Unsettling science

[thesupraman]

You know, if you had done just a little critical thinking, and perhaps a touch of research yourself then you would know that blaming fat for fatness was pure stupidity, mainly pushed by promoters of diets and 'healthy foods' (usually high in carbs instead).

How fat was metabolized, and what was used to produce body fat, have been well known for a long time.
So, who do you plan to sue? the media for jumping on a profitable bandwagon? people themselves for believing everything they are told?

Hell, next you are going to tell me you still believe fruit juice is a 'healthy alternative'
Or that energy/sports drinks are somehow good for normal people (not only active atheletes)
Perhaps you also believe that sugar alternatives are a perfectly safe alternative?
Or that calorie intake doesnt matter if you 'balance' it by exercising it back off?
Maybe that breakfast is somehow 'the most important meal of the day'?
OR that small snacks continuously are better than larger means somehow?
Hell, perhaps you even buy pesticide free foods, while having one of these horrors in your house: http://www.raidautomatic.com.au/index.html
Or hammer down a handful of supplements every day, when the tiny trace amounts you actually need are present in all your food?
You could even be crazy enough to think Vitamin C somehow kills viruses!

Its usually not too hard to see through the bs, rhetoric, and marketing and work out whats obvious BS..
And if you thought there was much settled 'science' behind government and market food recommendations, then sorry, you are beyond hope.
Its called MARKETING, and its not science.

Science has well and truly made available everything you need to know about fat, quite some time ago.

Re:Unsettling science

[meglon]

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you are actually as stupendously ignorant about science as you're post portrays you to be.... it's very hard to tell in writing. I generally try to give people the benefit of doubt, but i get the vibe you're not trying to be funny.

Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.

Re:Unsettling science

[jandersen]

One can't help, but wonder, what other famously "settled" science will come apart?

Don't blame the science - this is about taking science's name in vain and claiming something is proven when science has always been very up front about the limitations in what, for want of a better word, is called current knowledge. This is what always happens; people don't understand how science works or how scientists think and communicate. When the scientist says 'To the best of current knowledge, eating eggs is probably bad for you, although we really haven't researched that enough' it translates into 'Science says egg is bad for you'.

I would have hoped we, as engineers, or at least as individuals interested in science, would have a clearer understanding of this - it lies at the very heart of science. Unlike religion, science is not about absolute truth - it is all about improving accuracy by means of the scientific method. If you want certainty, go to your church/synagogue/mosque/temple/... - if you want something that is likely to work, go to science.

Re:Unsettling science

[Rei]

Even in this case, it should be pointed out that for about one in three adults, levels of dietary cholesterol do have a significant effect on the levels of cholesterol in the blood. But even for them, the effect is half as much as the effect of saturated fat intake on blood cholesterol.

There's all sorts of potential health info one could write on a package. Every additional bit you add takes attention off every other that's already there. Mandating listing cholesterol when it's not as major of an issue as other information on there, like saturated fat, trans fat, salt, etc is probably not justified.

As for the GP, anyone who lumps all fats together as if they're one substance is an idiot. Different fats need to be treated differently. If you think eating mainly saturated and trans fats comprises a healthy diet and will lead to a long lifespan, you're flatly in contradiction to the overwhelming body of research. But if you eat a lot of monounsaturated and omega 3 fats**, this could well be true (though there's lots of niggling details - for example, mono is probably great if you're heart-risk prone but not if you're breast cancer prone). And even these sorts of categories are still broad generalizations; each is comprised of many different individual fat molecules, and each one may carry its own benefits and risks.

Note on omega 3s... this means as a general rule uncooked omega-3 rich foods. Omega-3s are heat-unstable, they break down under cooking (not to mention it ruins the flavor). They should ideally be stored refrigerated as well. There have been some studies that certain herbs, such as rosemary, can help heat-stabilize omega-3s - but its a limited effect. Also, as mentioned above, not all omega-3s are identical. For example, the EPA and DHA from oily fish or krill are believed to be more effective than the APA from plants, which the body has to convert at low efficiency. But the usually bad taste of the former has discouraged use, while most omega-3 rich plant oils (flax, walnut, hemp, etc) are quite flavorful (really, I have no clue why they're not used more often in salad dressings and the like just for that reason alone). Also, you aren't just what you eat, but also what what you eat eats. For example, eggs from hens fed green plants and omega-3 rich feeds generally are several times higher in omega-3s than hens fed a standard grain feed. The same applies to levels in meats.

Re: Unsettling science

[Rei]

Really? You don't believe in acid rain damage? So who's been f*ing up statues? Is it evil environmentalists? Are they also the ones rigging the pH meters? Did they fake the science about how SO2 oxidizes to SO3 and then hygroscropically forms H2SO4 droplets? Damn them!

What about ozone don't you believe? That humans were extensively emitting CFCs? That CFCs have been measured in the stratosphere via sounding rockets, balloons, and aircraft? That CFCs at the levels measured demonstrably catalytically destroy ozone, and that it's a rather simple lab experiment to prove it? That ozone was on a demonstrably measurable decline and UV demonstrably measured on the rise? That the decline has significantly tapered off and even started to reverse a little since there was a crackdown on CFCs? Or, contrarily, do you accept all that but think that UV is harmless to humans?

Peak oil and peak food are not sciences. They're common in the popular press, in books, etc (and nowadays on blogs and forums), but have received rather limited review in scientific journals. Don't get me wrong, there have been some, but compared to other fields rather little, and the results have been mixed to say the least.

Re: Unsettling science

[RabidReindeer]

Science isn't just about what you know. It's about what you suspect and finding ways to prove OR disprove your suspicions. And a lot of things out there are not so simply linked as CFCs and ozone destruction.

As a classic example, I usually point out smoking and lung cancer, since everyone's familiar with it. Lots of people smoke and live to be 98. Some smoke and die of lung cancer. I've known both. The main thing is that the people I've known who died of lung cancer were almost exclusively smokers, but the centennarians and near-centennarians are mostly non-smokers. Because smoking is a contributor to, but not sole cause of, nor guaranteed cause of lung cancer.

The other common case where the science is not clear-cut is climate change. It isn't that the jury is still out. Like smoking, there will never be a "verdict point" where everyone agrees, but the movement of scientific opinion has continued to trend towards man-made acceleration.

Even in cases where there are distinctly provable connections, it can take time - and false starts - to get them straight. For ages people thought that stomach ulcers were basically caused by nervous stress and that milk would ameliorate them. It took a certain amount of shouting and argument before science determined that they were caused not by nervous stress, but by bacteria. and that milk was anything but effective. AND, mind you, this wasn't something that came about in Lister's day when people were discovering bacterial illnesses right and left, but in very recent times.

The difference between science and religion is that science can admit to mistakes and change, but most religions consider themselves to be based on eternal and immutable truths. If you think that human-spawned CO2 is wreaking havoc, but observations don't hold up, that's religion. If you think that and the observations do hold up, that's science - at least until some other better model can be found. Then it, too becomes religion.

Religion says that if you have just a tiny smidgen of faith, you can order a mountain to leap into the sea and it will do so, although if that's true, people have faith that makes mustard seeds look like galactic clusters. Science says that the mountain has more than enough faith to stay right where it is, regardless of what you believe. But that high explosives have more faith than either you OR the mountain.

Re:Unsettling science

[ferespo]

I can't tell if you're trying to be funny, or if you are actually as stupendously ignorant about science as you're post portrays you to be.... it's very hard to tell in writing. I generally try to give people the benefit of doubt, but i get the vibe you're not trying to be funny.

    Science is based on observation and experimentation. What that means is, the more exacting observations we make, and the more fine tuned our experimentation, the more precise our knowledge becomes... that's pretty basic, 4th-6th grade level science. If you want something that once said never, ever changes, regardless of new information, then stick to religion.

This is not science, is public health policy. One is supposed to be based in the other, but it is now always like that.

Re:Unsettling science

[Opportunist]

They usually can, but have learned that explaining it to their patients makes their eyes glaze over and they don't get even a tiny fraction of what they have told them. So they resort to the "good cholesterol, bad cholesterol" sock puppet play so people at least understand what they should do.

It's a bit like we explain computer stuff to non-techy people. We don't always use the technically correct terms, but we've simply learned that if we do, they not only don't understand at all but they also can't even figure out what the heck we want them to do.

Re:Unsettling science

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Do not teach your grammar how to suck eggs.

Re: Unsettling science

[jbengt]

The difference between science and religion is that science can admit to mistakes and change, but most religions consider themselves to be based on eternal and immutable truths.

Nonetheless, most religions have still managed to mutate, diverge, and evolve over time, even as they declare their eternal truths. (except for maybe some of the religions that have gone extinct)

Re:Unsettling science

[ceoyoyo]

Most MDs aren't biochemists. The extent of their understanding of things like cholesterol's role in the body depends entirely on whether they were paying attention in class that day. They almost certainly know the good cholesterol-bad cholesterol thing, but they may not know, or may not know well, that HDL and LDL aren't cholesterol at all, or that the latest research shows dietary cholesterol usually has very little effect on either. Several studies have shown that the average MD doesn't learn much past about five years post med school. For many that's while they're still doing their residencies.

To go with your computer stuff simile, while there's a guy in the back who actually knows the difference between a north bridge and a south bridge, the guy you're talking to in the showroom may or may not have just memorized the specs.

Re:Unsettling science

[Chandon Seldon]

It's not clear that saturated fat is bad for you either. That leaves trans fats as bad, and Omega-6's as questionable.

The trick is that "the level of cholesterol in the blood" is not a meaningful health indicator. The ratio of LDL to HDL is much more useful. And saturated fat actually makes that ratio slightly better (while raising the values of both). Thus, the best evidence indicates that saturated fat is *good* for you.

Re:Unsettling science

[Bonzoli]

Omega 3 is generally picked up when creatures are browsing different seeds. Our current farms feed them, corn and antibiotics. Go with Flax seeds, Walnuts, and oddly Chia.
Farm raised fish sadly doesn't have it, as it requires Krill to be fed to them. Which farms do not feed the fish.
Hydrogenated oil and High fructose crap and aspartame, these 3 products combined pretty much are going to shut down every important system in your body over time. GMO'ing your food so it can absorb more roundup pesticides which in the end you eat, is also a winner. Hexane also gets a big thumbs down.

Try walking 30 minutes a day at lunch. Does it really take an hour to eat? It takes me 5 minutes to eat lunch. Eat more plain nuts unroasted or glazed if your feeling like a snack.
Another sad fact is, most of those fresh vegetables/fruits are not fresh. They were picked green and completely lacking most of those trace elements a mature fruit/vegetable has when picked. Notice all the studies say, we tested a mature fruit or vegetable. Perhaps try frozen fresh vegetables and fruits, those are packed and frozen after ripening vs before. Salads without those saturated/hydrogenated dressings vs that pizza slice(I love pizza. Which also has hydrogenated oil and high fructose corn syrup. I guess because its whipped up in a lab to trigger all my love for food sensors.).
Avoid Hydrogenated oil and High fructose crap and aspartame.

I wish I had listened to those old grey beards that told me to question more, before I became one. I'd be great deal healthier now.

Re:Unsettling science

[bhspencer]

3 data points does not make a pattern significant.

Re:Unsettling science

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not clear that saturated fat is bad for you either. That leaves trans fats as bad, and Omega-6's as questionable.

The trick is that "the level of cholesterol in the blood" is not a meaningful health indicator. The ratio of LDL to HDL is much more useful. And saturated fat actually makes that ratio slightly better (while raising the values of both). Thus, the best evidence indicates that saturated fat is *good* for you.

Actually, they're finding while LDL to HDL on average is a good indicator, there are outliers who are at risk, even though those two numbers look good. They're now starting to do tests that break those two categories (LDL and HDL) up further into, I believe, 4 categories that can more accurately show problems the traditional blood tests don't.

Re:Unsettling science

[Rich0]

Most MDs aren't biochemists. The extent of their understanding of things like cholesterol's role in the body depends entirely on whether they were paying attention in class that day.

Add to this the fact that real biochemists don't really understand all the nuances of what is going on. I think our biggest virtue is understanding our own ignorance better and not boldly making statements we can't substantiate.

Sure, we can correlate HDL/LDL levels/ratios/etc to disease rates, but we really only have a foggy sense of how changing those levels impacts health. Statins seem to work really well, and they definitely lower LDL, but the nature of that relationship is unclear. We know that people with higher HDL seem to be healthier, but on the other hand taking niacin doesn't seem to have much impact on outcomes.

Much of biochemistry as it applies to humans tends to be like hitting a computer case in a certain spot with a hammer and observing the effects. Maybe we can look at the pieces that fly out under an electron microscope and get a sense for some circuits that used to go somewhere, and maybe we can see what the chips they were a part of look like, but there are lots of details at both the micro and macro scale that we really don't appreciate.

That isn't a reason to give up on science. We just have to recognize just how little science goes into modern medicine. It isn't that people don't try - it is just really hard to do real science on human beings for ethical reasons. If we could breed humans like we do mice and treat them in the same way, then we'd probably have figured a lot of stuff out by now.

Cereal Killers

[labnet]

My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst...

Re:Cereal Killers

[drinkypoo]

My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!

Nope. They changed the food pyramid from horizontal layers to vertical pie slices. Now inverting it won't fix anything. They saw you coming...

Re:Cereal Killers

[Opportunist]

Just make sure that your diet contains all of the four main food groups: Salt, sugar, fat and caffeine.

Re:Cereal Killers

[jd2112]

Just make sure that your diet contains all of the four main food groups: Salt, sugar, fat and caffeine.

You forgot alcohol.

Good news

[manu0601]

This is good news. We have known for a while that if you reduce cholesterol intake, your liver will produce more so that you get back to your equilibrium.

But some voices told us recently that a high cholesterol could not the root cause for heart diseases, but just an hint that something is wrong, like fever is not the reason why your are sick, but a consequence.

The Greater Danger

[bill_mcgonigle]

The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats

Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.

Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.

The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.

All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.

The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.

Re:The Greater Danger

[SuricouRaven]

The sugar lobby is a powerful force in US politics - fructose is produced from corn. The government is going to be very reluctant to upset the agricultural industry - not only are they a major source of campaign contributions, but some of the swing states have substantial agricultural industries employing a lot of people.

The Science is Settled Damnit!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing but a bunch of deniers funded by big Butter

When will Lactose make it to Nutrition Facts?

[ConstantineM]

Most adults, worldwide, are lactose intolerant. http://skeptics.stackexchange....

Given the above, it's kind of amazing that Nutrition Facts still have no words about lactose content. Why?

Wouldn't it be nice to know how much lactose each food has?

Re:When will Lactose make it to Nutrition Facts?

[ledow]

Strangely, when I was a child, so few people were "intolerant" (which does not have a strict meaning at all) of any food that you'd never heard of it. Kids with REAL allergies couldn't leave home in case they came into contact with a nut.

Nowadays, I work in schools, and the last time I asked the school nurses about 50% of children had notes that they were intolerant or allergic to some food. I asked them how many were ever likely to actually have a reaction in class unless someone shoved something down their throat - the answer was, unofficially, less than 1%. The number of times the epipens were required? Once or twice a year among 400+ children.

And the "intolerant" ones were ones who didn't like milk, and so their parents classed that as intolerant or bothered their doctor until he said that magic word for them. It means precisely zip.

Above and beyond that, even the strictest of severe allergies can be tamed by - guess what - controlled exposure to the substance in question. Give a nut-allergy sufferer sufficiently small injections of nuts and build it up gradually and the allergy goes away. (Oh, and P.S. peanuts are legumes - literally peas - not nuts, and hence someone who has a "nut" allergy to peanuts and other genuine nuts is quite difficult to explain in those terms).

How many people are genuinely lactose-intolerant? Those from cultures who don't consume lactose. For the same reason that Westerners smell of rotten milk to the Eastern cultures where much less dairy is consumed, they are likely to not be able to stomach lactose because it's not been in their diet since their birth. Diet is as much about established gut cultures as it as anything else.

Consume lactose and you won't be lactose intolerant. Scaremonger and we'll ALL be lactose intolerant in a couple of generations. In the same way, that many more people are genuinely allergic to nuts now because mothers refuse to consume them during pregnancy. Why? Scaremongering.

Kiwi is the biggest one now, they say, and that's because - well, who eats a lot of kiwi?

Everything in moderation, and don't impose your diet problems on me and my children. And in return I promise I'll never shove a hamburger down your throat, or ban vegetables, if you're vegan.

No wonder people stop "believing in science"

[MrKrillls]

When government and or media don't interpret and disseminate science results faithfully, things like this happen. The story changes and changes again and then ordinary people, who once listened and took what information came out of government and media to heart, stop believing the public explications of science and start doubting experts of all kinds. I have a suspicion that long ago, the folks who did the underlying science on nutrition tried to tell the bureaucrats that the work is complex and not yet certain, but that such precautions were lost on the decision makers at the agencies. Scientists in general are pretty careful with sweeping generalities. Maybe bureaucrats (and me) not so much. Result: antivaxxers who trust nothing they dislike or that worries them; climate change denial, tin hat behaviour of all sorts.

Cholesterol not bad?

[LynnwoodRooster]

There goes my investment in Cheerios!

Finally the idiots stop believing sympathic magic

[chromaexcursion]

That consuming cholesterol actually causes an increase in someone's cholesterol level was never well founded.
It has always fallen in the sympathetic category from any evidence I've ever seen. Tropical oils, which have no cholesterol seem to cause far more problems than butter and eggs.
Diet is the least well understood health issue. Worse, it varies widely between individuals. Perhaps the in'duh'viduals in the FDA have finally caught on.
Given the number of times they've revised dietary recommendations, one can only assume doctors must have been (maybe still are) really ignorant; at least about diet.

NOTE: I said ignorant. For a profession that likes to present itself as all knowing that is an issue. To deny it is stupid.

Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD.

[meglon]

I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation. The "government" doesn't market products as gluten-free, low-fat, or reduced fat, nor do they go around throwing extra water and various thickeners into foods.... private companies do. So while the government puts forth guidelines to help people based on the CURRENT best nutritional science, it's PRIVATE COMPANIES who do everything you're blaming the government for.

Tell you what though, that big nasty corrupt government also has guidelines for the limits of pesticides, arsenic, and all sorts of toxic substances found in your drinking water too. If you want to really impress on me how much you think our government is always wrong, please be my guest to start drinking water with massive amounts of those things in it, and get back to us in a month of two.

time for an anecdotal dog and pony.

[nimbius]

diet and exercise are important determinants of your cholesterol and overall health. as a vegan, I typically find getting enough saturated fat to be a challenge but this hasnt been the case in the american diet for the last 40 years.

the book, sugar salt fat by Michael Moss highlights important and often uncontrolled changes in the american diet over the past 50 years. the combination of ever greater amounts of these 3 ingredients in a race toward addiction and market dominance created a crisis in american health that was only compounded by our ever sedentary lifestyles. at its peak, a lunchable had 300% of the RDA of sodium in a single serving and a hungry man dinner was approaching 3000 calories. This trend was abated largely due to tobacco companies entering the prepared and processed foods industry with dire warnings. Just like cigarettes, food products that contribute directly toward high levels of preventable disease can be regulated into oblivion and entire brands can go extinct in the public interest. Manufacturers have pulled back, but generally where one declines another rises. Less salt? more fat. less sugar? more salt. manufactured, processed foods without these additives generally taste very similar to the machines theyre made on

another contribution to the obesity epidemic is the inability to cook a healthy meal. this is due partly to the USDAs dual mandate to promote as well as police the industry, but its also partly because home economics was supplanted by the Kraft corporation largely to ensure boxed meals, prepared casserole dishes, stir fry and rice seasonings had a section in the market. Betty Crocker and Sarah Lee became surrogate homemakers people could aspire to; they never existed outside of a marketing meeting. And so the average grocery store is just a clever arrangement of corn, soy, and rice products not because people crave these items, but because theyre durable commodities that store and trade well. Most americans wouldnt know a jicama from a yucca root, or a rutabaga from a turnip, because the US grocery store has no discernable season.

Re: food pyramid vs calories

[labnet]

calorific intake is too simplistic. Gut bacteria greatly effects HOW the food we eat is metabolised. Some of the energy is consumed by bacteria, and some shoots out the backside. There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.

Re:It was U.S. government supported FRAUD.

[Rockoon]

I would suggest that, once again, things mentioned as "government fraud" are actually that great free market taking advantage of a situation.

Its not the free market which forced this specific food labeling. Are you following along at all?

The title of this story isnt "Free Market To Withdraw Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol"

Every other year another boogeyman

[Opportunist]

What has not been the root of all evil in our food yet? For a time eggs were the evil. Then suddenly the protein was great and the fat in the yolk was essential. Then of course fat was the big killer with cholesterol being the worst since Hitler died. Then we suddenly had "good" and "bad" cholesterol, kinda like devil and angel sitting on our back, with them now swirled into our bread spread. Then it was the bread itself that was killing us. And just recently I learned that milk, which we've always been told to be the epitome of healthy drinking, may well be quite literally poisonous for adults.

You know what this reminds me of? Advertising in the communist world. No, really, there was advertising in Commie countries. Of course to make you buy stuff, but not what's most profitable (that would be capitalist), no, to make you buy whatever crap was available. Supported all the times with new and important scientific findings. Depending on whatever stuff was plentiful and whatever was scarce, you could set your watch that no moment later some scientist will jump up and declare that whatever we are stockpiling is healthy for you but whatever was in short supply could well kill you.

Translated to capitalist terms, I'd guess that whatever is declared healthy is whatever produces the most revenue for whoever invented and patented some new "healthy" product, and lethal would be anything that can't be sold with a huge profit margin.

Re: food pyramid vs calories

[Rich0]

I 100% agree in the law of conservation of mass/energy. If you feed somebody less, they'll lose weight at some point. That would work just fine if people were kept in cages like mice (individual cages, at that).

The problem is that this neglects the whole behavior side of nutrition. If I put 5000kcal worth of bacon on a plate in front of you, and 5000kcal worth of chocolate chip cookies on a plate in front of you, and left you in the room with them all day long, I can practically guarantee that you'll end up eating more calories worth of cookies than bacon, even if on a per-mass basis the bacon is more calorie-dense (I'm actually not 100% sure on that though - cookies have plenty of fat).

I've been eating low carb for the most part and I find that when all I have handy is meat/cheese/etc I really don't tend to snack much. I want to snack for sure, but I really don't care to cook up a pound of bacon and munch on it. However, when I used to bake cookies I could go through a can of them in a day. It isn't that I don't like bacon - I love it. You just don't get the same kinds of cravings and satisfaction physiologically when you eat it, and there is a lot of evidence that insulin/serotonin/etc fit into that.