Slashdot Mirror
Large-Scale Dietary Study: Fats Good, Carbs Bad (cbsnews.com)
An anonymous reader quotes CBS:
New research suggests that it's not the fat in your diet that's raising your risk of premature death, it's too many carbohydrates -- especially the refined, processed kinds of carbs -- that may be the real killer... People with a high fat intake -- about 35 percent of their daily diet -- had a 23 percent lower risk of early death and 18 percent lower risk of stroke compared to people who ate less fat, said lead author Mahshid Dehghan. She's an investigator with the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Ontario... At the same time, high-carb diets -- containing an average 77 percent carbohydrates -- were associated with a 28 percent increased risk of death versus low-carb diets, Dehghan said...
For this study, Dehghan and her colleagues tracked the diet and health of more than 135,000 people, aged 35 to 70, from 18 countries around the world, to gain a global perspective on the health effects of diet. Participants provided detailed information on their social and economic status, lifestyle, medical history and current health. They also completed a questionnaire on their regular diet, which researchers used to calculate their average daily calories from fats, carbohydrates and proteins. The research team then tracked the participants' health for about seven years on average, with follow-up visits at least every three years.
For this study, Dehghan and her colleagues tracked the diet and health of more than 135,000 people, aged 35 to 70, from 18 countries around the world, to gain a global perspective on the health effects of diet. Participants provided detailed information on their social and economic status, lifestyle, medical history and current health. They also completed a questionnaire on their regular diet, which researchers used to calculate their average daily calories from fats, carbohydrates and proteins. The research team then tracked the participants' health for about seven years on average, with follow-up visits at least every three years.
When I switched to keto I felt much better. My blood pressure dropped along with my weight. I also don't get as hungry between meals, even when it's a long time in between.
After a year I've started to add back in some carbs but not refined sugars. I have fruit, like blueberries, a couple times a week, maybe lentils. I try to keep my total carbs below 100 grams on any one day.
Not every diet works for every person. The key is finding the one that's the best match for your metabolism. I had one funny issue, Splenda was causing me problems. When I cut that out, it made a world of difference. What works is what works for you.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I don't know about sugar being good, but I know I dropped 15 lbs switching to Mt Dew Throwback from normal Mt Dew without a change in consumption or activity.
around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
That would be around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, right?
As a matter of fact, no. I think it was Dr John Yudkin, in his fine book "Pure, White and Deadly" who pointed out that in Elizabethan England refined sugar was about as expensive as cocaine is today. It was definitely a drug for the wealthy.
Everything changed when the New World was discovered and exploited. It was found that the West Indies provided ideal conditions for growing sugar cane in vast amounts. Then the only problem was finding human workers who could survive the conditions - Europeans died (in the classic phrase) "like flies". Eventually it was discovered that West Africans tended to do much better, and could indeed provide many years of labour before dying. That kicked the slave trade into high gear, which in turn flooded Western markets with cheap sugar. Ironically, the horrible treatment of slaves led - as one of its by-products - to the sickness, suffering and premature death of millions who consumed the "product". And manufacturers like Messrs Tate & Lyle, who now appear in the light of mass murderers, became extremely rich.
There was one serious problem with slavery. It seems incompatible with Christianity (at least with the New Testament). An ingenious way around this objection was soon found: to claim, with all kinds of spurious arguments, that black people were not fully human. Thus the demand for sugar led to slavery, which led to racism as we know it.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Well, one thing that has changed over time is how starchy vegetables are treated. I grew up with a diet where corn and potatoes where my primary source of vegetables.
Corn isn't a vegetable, it's a grain. Corn is basically just sugar, not much nutrition there (our obesity levels actually can be measured against subsidies for corn in the US making both corn syrup and animal feed cheaper- if we have to subsidise farming- subsidizing corn is about the worst thing we can do).
Potatoes shouldn't be overdone because they have a lot of starch, but they are better than white bread, especially if you eat the skin, which does have some nutrients.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
TFA says:
"All foods contain three major macronutrients essential for life -- fat, carbohydrate and protein".
That, too, turns out not to be the case. Protein and fat are necessary for life, but carbohydrate isn't. You will not be able to find any requirement for carbohydrate itself, nor for anything that comes with it. But if you examine carefully the constituents of a nice piece of fatty meat, you might be surprised to find how very nourishing it is. Vitamins A, D, E, K2 and the whole range of B vitamins are there, plus most of the essential minerals - and, what's more, in the appropriate proportions. That's not surprising, as the meat came from an animal that was in good health (until it was slaughtered).
And by the way, the proportions of saturated and unsaturated fats in red meat are almost exactly the same as in olive oil.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
"For example, eating a healthy carb like an apple is more nutrient dense and better for you than eating a bag of processed potato chips," O'Dea said.
It depends very much on what you understand by "nutrient dense". A bag of potato crisps/chips has a lot more calories than an average apple - and weighs a lot less - so it is much more "calorie dense". Those calories come about equally from carbs and fat in the chips, from sugar only in the apple (mostly fructose, with varying admixtures of glucose and sucrose), making the chips again slightly better.
The apple contains about twice as much fibre, but has no protein or fat whereas the chips contain both. The bag of crisps will typically have slightly more Vitamin C than an apple, and also provides some iron and calcium - and of course a good shot of sodium - whereas the apple lacks those but does offer some potassium and a little Vitamin B6.
So on the basis of facts it's not quite clear which is "better for you". But notice how the dietitian simply declares that the apple is better for you, rather as a priest might pass down dogma to his congregation.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
I also have neckbeard in my name, so perhaps you should not take my /. handle so seriously, you silly coward. I also likely eat more greens than you (lacto-ovo-vegetarian out of personal preference), and my health is excellent by every measurement, to the extent that people tend to think I'm considerably younger than I actually am.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The presence of trans fats in the study would seem to strengthen their main result: even during the study period, where people were exposed to quite a bit of trans fat, eating more fat came out as being good for you. If trans fat is harmful, which seems likely, it suggests that eating a decent amount of fat today would be even better for you.
Those don't really seem like significant limitations at all. The two you mentioned have fairly minor bearing on the main conclusion.
There is an additional difference in that sucrose has the glucose and fructose bonded together, while HFCS has free fructose and glucose. Therefore sucrose is inherently slower to digest and the spike in absorption is flattened out.
Why not? Sugar is a poison, even the simple ones. But so is oxygen.
Also, to bring up a car analogy, if your gas measure is too rich in your carburetor you'll foul your cylinders.
As with everything, it's pretty much a matter of proportions and quantity. A tiny bit of sugar is no problem. Too much and things start to go to hell. But the same is true of proteins (kidney problems) and fats (triglyceride levels). The body is designed to cope with these things, and with large variations in the food supply, but coping generally comes at a cost, and the cost is measured in life expectancy.
In my case I OD'ed on sugars and carbs for decades before it caught up with me, so for me it's important that I *really* limit the proportion of sugars and carbs (except fiber) in my diet. I tried the Atkins diet for 6 months, and while it helped me lose a bit of weight it sent my triglycerides through the roof. Strangely, that's when I was diagnosed with diabetes. I've modified my diet now to something where sugar is essentially absent, non-fiber cars are *strongly* limited, and fats, especially saturated fats, are limited. Limiting fats has as an immediate result also limiting animal protein. (I suppose I could eat lots of rabbit or some such, but that's too much bother.) My triglycerides are back under control. Cholesterol was never a problem (my body chemistry generates low cholesterol as the problem). Etc.
If you do this right you can even have breads, though you need to cook them yourself, as no commercial version is low in starches. My preferred mix is to replace flour with a combination of wheat bran, wheat germ, and wheat gluten....all essentially free of starch. You make things interesting by using different mixes of spices with each batch. Cocoa is good, but I prefer either pumpkin pie spice or curry. If you want to make yeast bread you need to pick ingredients that don't bother the yeast. With tomato sauce you need to add a bit of xanthan gum to avoid having bubbles that are so sharp you cut your mouth when you eat the bread. Some people like to add nut flours, but I prefer peanut butter.
But note that this is necessary because I was an ice cream junkie for a long time. And cookies. Etc. If you have a different dietary history, you'll need a different correction, and it's easier if you can do it before you have a breakdown...of course, after the breakdown motivation is stronger.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Fats are popularly divided into 3 categories, saturated (like lard), mono-unsaturated (some components of olive oil), and polyunsaturated (the main component of sunflower oil). You've probably also heard of omega-3 and omega-6 oils (fatty acids), which are polyunsaturated. Many fats are essential to human survival.
Without knowing the details of the kinds and quantities of fats and sugars involved in each group of this study, the results are not very informative.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate