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.
I've known for a long time from personal experience that sugar is a very, very bad thing. The best thing you can do in your diet is severely restrict the amount of sugar you consume. And then go from there, but start with that.
Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years. Funny that the obesity epidemic started in earnest right around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
Until next week!
Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
I think this is a HUGE misnomer in forever it seems like when it comes to diets --- but really we should call them 'lifestyle eating habits'. I'd say buy and large, most people eat like complete assholes because it's convenient. What's easier going to a restaurant or cooking yourself a healthy meal? I'd even go a step further, what's cheaper? A restaurant or buying your healthy meal at a grocery store? It's not a trick question, anyone who has, leads or carries out any sort of modesty and good eating habits will tell you it's expensive to keep up with buying raw fruits and vegetables (organic to boot) and stay on budget with it. (that's if you don't have a community garden, access to a farmers market that's reasonable or something of your own to offset it a bit)
A lot of daily diets leads to common sense IMHO. I can't speak for other countries, but in the US, I know any health class I took in grade/high school and undergrad taught me any raw vegetables, grains and fruits that are high in fiber carry out cholesterol out of the body. So you balance it --- that doesn't mean you eat the shit out of foods that are highly set in saturated/trans (e.g. processed foods most of the time) because you ate a single carrot stick. It's all in moderation and balance. These studies seem obvious over the general haul of health education any common person has --- it's too bad most don't follow it.
Eat to live. Not live to eat.
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
The longer you live, the more likely you will die.
No, I think the likelihood of dying is unity no matter how long you have lived.
Not just fats less bad - fats good (up to a point). The study found that your risk of early death goes down the more fat you eat, right up to 2.5 times the current recommended fat intake.
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
There have just been too many situations like this where scientists say one thing, as if they're 100% sure they're right, and then sometime latter they have to backtrack on their claims. Sometimes it even turns out that the exact opposite of what they're saying is actually true!
The problem isn't that scientists are retracting their incorrect claims. That's exactly what they should be doing, and it's what science as a practice requires be done. The problem is that they should not be making claims that they can't substantiate, and they surely shouldn't be making claims that they'll need to retract just a few years later, especially if any sort of political policy will be based on their claims.
Nutrition science and climate science have shown themselves to be two fields where claims are made too easily, and what is claimed either ends up being obviously wrong, or the predictions being made do not come to pass.
Scientists in other fields, especially ones that have a much better track record of consistently being right, should try to publicly separate themselves from scientific fields like nutrition science and climate science. Greater denouncing of scientific fields and scientists with poor track records may be the only way to maintain, never mind restore, any trust that the public at large may have in science.
The obesity epidemic really started when the government told us to start taking fat out of the diet and replace it with bread.
I was in high school and college when this really started to kick off (late 1970s), and the comment was "don't eat meat and butter, eat bread and rice. It's good for you."
When the Food Pyramid hit, the diagrams always had a small chunk for meat and fish, with the entire base was made up of bread and rice and potatoes, and a tiny part at the top for sweets and fats. It was usually something like "2-3 servings of meat, fish, and nuts, 6-11 servings of bread, cereal, rice."
That's the problem, not sugar. While people say "sugar is poison," plain old carbs aren't much different, especially in those proportions.
It does not say fat == good. The study says that it's better to be on the upper normalized end (quintile 5) when compared to quintile 1 of the fat intake distribution. The study does in no way advocate switching to an all-fat diet to live forever, nor does it suggest that you should eat at McDonalds every day (though TFS seems to do this). It should also be noted that this has been known for a long time. Fat is a slow energy source and has always been considered healthy when consumed within reason. The quick energy sources (such as refined sugars and other carbs) have also been considered health risks in larger doses for a long time.
The study is also facing a major hurdle that I do not see controlled for anywhere - 18 countries are included (from NA an EU). This means that different fat diets can mean different things (i.e. a high fat intake in the US is not necessarily the same proxy as a high fat intake in Norway, nor are the needs necessarily the same in those countries). It would be much better to check these things in regional studies (though it can be damned hard to get the numbers high enough for any kind of power), and to keep cultural backgrounds separate (as those would likely affect the diet).
That said, it's a good story and it certainly casts the dietary effects on lifestyle in a different light (it's unlikely that the reality is completely opposite of this study even though there definitely are flaws). I would however be very skeptical of the bad fats results since that one has previously shown to have a potent non-linear relationship to health (up to a certain point it's fine, after that it quickly tapers off into *calamity* territory). Or, as stated in the study
The uncertainty regarding the effect of saturated fatty acids on clinical outcomes in part might be due to the fact that most observational cohort studies have been done in high-income countries where saturated fatty acid intake is within a limited range (about 7–15% of energy)
Other than that, very interesting.
And remember, it's energy in - energy out that matters.
I'll eat whatever I want. And I'll die happy.
America's entire food supply is simply awash in carbohydrates, especially sugars and refined grains. I walk into a grocery store, run my eyes across the shelves, and mentally tick off the items I can consume: no, no, hell no, no, maybe, no, no, ok, no, no, are you kidding, no, and no. And restaurant food? Don't make me laugh. Carbs piled on top of carbs on a bed of sugared fat topped with sugar sauce.
"We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
You know what made us "civilized"? What allowed us to become what we are today? Cooking. No, really. Cooking. When we learned to process food so we have to spend less energy on digesting because we "outsourced" this problem to food preparation. That allowed us to gain more nutrition from our food. Without, we'd do what our distant cousins do, spend most of our time finding food and eating it. Simply to stay alive.
This frees up a lot of time. Just ponder how much time you actually spend eating. Probably less than an hour per day.
The problem here is that we still want to eat more than that. And provided food, which is really not the problem in the modern world, we will stuff our face.
Now, I don't say we should eat only raw stuff. That's certainly not going to be too healthy either. But if we manage to stay away from overprocessed, overrefined food, it would be a good start.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe it's not as simple as which macronutrient you eat? Maybe it has to do with the fact that people eating 77% (!!!) of their diet from carbs aren't eating whole grans. It's 64oz Thirst Busterz filled with Coca Cola. With that said, I think 30% fat is good amount of fat to have in your diet along with 20% protein and 50% carbs. Seems reasonable from my experience.
The key is to live to be 100.
Very few people die over the age of 100.
Carbohydrates are peasant food.
love is just extroverted narcissism
sciences-biggest-failure-everything-about-diet-and-fitness ...https://science.slashdot.org/story/15/02/03/0016243/sciences-biggest-failure-everything-about-diet-and-fitness
Time to swap that bowl of pasta for a bowl of bacon!
Professional Genius
The news media hardly helps. I can't count the number of times I've read some story where they've grabbed on to some result and misrepresented what the science actually says or use it to draw conclusion that aren't supported by the research.
A lot of money is involved in selling different brands of lifestyle, 'health' food, supplements, diets etc etc, so every time there is a new story about 'A Study' concerning what is good for you, it is advisable to be skeptical - there is boud to be a hidden agenda behind most of these reports. A couple of things I immediately note are:
The research also found that eating fruits, vegetables and legumes can lower your risk of dying prematurely. But three or four servings a day seemed to be plenty.
I know that there is an ongoing campaign in UK to get people to eat at least 5 portions of fruit or vegetables per day, which is probably a bit less than three servings, depending on what exactly those units are. IOW, people should certainly eat more vegetables than they do at the moment.
...high fat intake -- about 35 percent of their daily diet...
So, we are talking about %, not absolute numbers, and although they fail to clarify, this means % of calory intake, not weight or volume. And this should be seen in relation to the recommended, daily intake, something like 2500 kcal per day if you are male and exercise moderately. 30% of that is 750 kcal, corresponding to ~84 g fat per day. So, what the article says, really, is that you should eat 3 - 4 servings of vegetables per day and about 84 g fat, to have a healthy diet. Unfortunately what most people will read is that "it is OK to eat loads of fat and never mind eating vegetables, since they are not all that healthy after all".
In other words: be skeptical - and by skeptical I don't mean "reject anything you hear, that you don't like the sound of"; it means think, double check with other sources, and think again. And when it comes to diet - do you even know how many calories you eat in a day? How? Did you actually weigh your food, each ingredient separately, etc? You can't have a qualified opinion about it unless you did. Simple science: you measure, you calculate.
They have a high compliance culture. We have a long history of rebellion and insurrection whereas they're more used to getting their heads lopped off at the slightest infraction.
The Japanese are very good at doing what they're told.
They outdo even the Scandanavian Socialist Utopias when it comes to the relevant "health care statistics".
That said, even they are beginning to succomb to the McJuggernaut.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
This study doesn't really show carbohydrates are a bad thing, it shows that an excessive amount of carbohydrates are a bad thing. The average US male adult diet is about 57.5% carbohydrates, 27.5% fat, 15% protein. To get to a 77% carbohydrate intake it would require removing 50% of the protein and fat from that diet. It isn't a big shock that this is bad for you.
Like you said, the results of high carbohydrate side of the study make sense. We shouldn't be gravitating to low fat food which pile on sugar to maintain an attractive taste. But it goes too far when it says carbohydrates are bad for you. Vegetables and fruit are both carbohydrates. Even a significant amount of grains isn't bad either unless you are cutting out most of your protein and fat, or increasing your overall calorie intake.
The interesting and non-intuitive part of the study is that people with a 25% increased fat intake are actually more healthy than those with a more average fat intake. I guess I need to put more gravy on my food.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
Who you AC's define as scientists are people with an agenda. Pro-vegan people, Pro industry groups. Vegans would have us eating tofurky forever, and pro-industry groups would have us bathing in pink slime.
Any you yourself have an agenda, or else are too dim to understand that.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
> Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
So Mulligan's Stew being replaced with that obviously and highly unbalanced "food pyramid" must have just been my imagination then.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
It has been shown by many writers that science was not to blame. Even while charismatic scientists like Ancel Keys were making their controvesial claims that fat kills and we must all eat more "healthy whole grains", their own research results demonstrated otherwise. It's well worth reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories"/"The Diet Delusion", or alternatively Nina Teicholz's "The Big Fat Surprise" or any of the other good books on the subject. Otherwise you simply wouldn't believe the depths of duplicity (or possibly self-deception) to which scientists can stoop.
One conclusion is completely unavoidable. Just as sugar (in any but small quantities) is poisonous to humans, money is poisonous to good science.
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
On /. we have been discussing this for at least 5 years now. I lost count how many times I laid my personal experience which was nothing short of profound. When you have suffered for 7 years, being on daily medication and it all goes away in 5 days!!! once you change the diet ...well that is what I call "enlightenment"
The healthy pyramid is (starting from the fondaiton) Protein-->Fat-->Carbs.
Eat proper butter, not any kind of skimmed, low-fat, and margarine type shit.
Eat eggs; lots of them
Eat veggies; lots of them
Eat diary; either lots or moderate (that actually is rather person specific so test yourself)
Eat meat; moderately (more chicken, less beef but have your rib eye every now and then - it's good for ya)
Eat fish; moderately (because of pollution, alas, otherwise you can hardly eat too much fish)
Do not eat sugar in any form (a bit of honey occasionally is OK)
Eat fruits; moderately (sugar!)
Do not eat grain in any form (as this is almost impossibly expensive at least try to minimize it)
However, the biggest news is that universal recipes do not exist. Nuts a good food, eh? No, not fo me, but for Sara they are excellent. So what to do:
1. Univariate analysis - create a diet (consisting of the simplest, basic, one size fits all approach) per week and repeat it for a month. Then start introducing 1 variation per day and monitor the outcome. Over time you fill the database with foods that are good for you. If you want to go deeper include as variable the method os preparation (e.g. boiled potatoes are bad for me, but baked are OK).
2. Multivariate analysis - assign responses rated for example 1-10 on: gas; bloating; stool hardness; skin response (itching, eczemas), pain in gut, burning sensation while pissing etc. Your doctor can help you with that (e.g. my skin reacts within 1 hour after meal; if I ate something that disagrees with me I get attack of itching). Collect food vs outcome for a couple of months. Run PCA/PLS analysis or something like that and figure out the good and bad foods. Over time you emerge with a "basket" of what works best for you and you eat this until the end.
Best of luck!
Is it ok to shovel that down your fat pie hole?
The steak is good, although fatter cuts of meat are preferable. It has often been observed that carnivores, when they have killed, begin by eagerly devouring the liver, intestines and other fatty parts of their prey and often leave when sated, abandoning the muscle meat - what we call "steak" and the like - to scavengers. Likewise the Inuit, Masai and other carnivorous humans have always tended to prefer fatty meat and organs.
Needless to say, you should avoid ketchup because it is about half sugar - like most manufactured condiments. By all means eat tomatoes with your meat, though!
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Everything is a poison, even water if you abuse it. We went to low fat and replaced it with ton of sugar to add "taste". I agree that we cannot swing pendulum the other way but there needs to be public scrutiny over amount of sugar we consume.
stop being retarded. There was no "healthcare system" in Japan until the 1960s so that doesn't account for 100+ year olds.
One key aspect of physical health is activity. Look how few people walk. There are many people who consider 10,000 steps a day to be "wow". For these people diet is not going to make it. 10,000 steps a day should be a drop-dead minimum (pun not intended).
If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
We've known since the 1950s that fat intake has fuckall to do with cholesterol levels and heart disease, because fat intake does not result in the kinds of fats in your bloodstream that cause plaque.
Refined sugar, however, in excess of what is required by the body, gets processed by the liver into VLDLs and Triglycerides as an intermediate step to being linked into longer fatty acids for energy storage. It is the VLDL that causes arterial plaque and CV disease.
Add insulin resistance and diabetes to the mix and you have a recipe for early death.
Until man discovered agriculture, he lived on meats and whatever fruits, nuts, and vegetables could be foraged, but it was mostly meats. Fat and protein. Carbs were few and far between, and the carbs that were available were linked with high amounts of fiber so man did not eat sugar in excess.
Then he discovered agriculture, and he made bread and sugar and alcohol, all of which concentrate and magnify the effects of sugars on the body, having stripped the fiber component away and allowed man to consume large amounts of sugar with no moderation.
Refined sugar is fucking evil and should be outlawed.... that goes for corn syrup, granular sugar, and all forms of bread and pasta.
Why not try to live to be 140? Not a single person has never died over 140, except highly suspect tales in the bible.
I didn't read TFA, but do they have an explanation for the old rice-eating Japanese?
For one, they're not eating processed and refined rice. For another, it is supplemented by a lot of vegetables, legumes especially soya. They're also not eating a lot of meat and what they do eat is mainly fish.
Yes, they eat rice, but they also eat a lot of vegetables, getting a lot of exercise. That's the key.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
There have just been too many situations like this where scientists say one thing, as if they're 100% sure they're right, and then sometime latter they have to backtrack on their claims. Sometimes it even turns out that the exact opposite of what they're saying is actually true!
The problem isn't that scientists are retracting their incorrect claims. That's exactly what they should be doing, and it's what science as a practice requires be done. The problem is that they should not be making claims that they can't substantiate, and they surely shouldn't be making claims that they'll need to retract just a few years later, especially if any sort of political policy will be based on their claims.
Nutrition science and climate science have shown themselves to be two fields where claims are made too easily, and what is claimed either ends up being obviously wrong, or the predictions being made do not come to pass.
The problem is the news is good at reporting new stuff, bad at reporting on how a single study has shifted the overall consensus.
How does the rest of the field interpret this study? How do the authors think the field should respond? A naive reading of the results suggests I should cut my carbs down to almost nothing and eat a ton of fat, I doubt that's a good approach to take. This result may be an outlier, it may shift the consensus slightly, or it might be completely in line with the current understanding, I don't really know which and it might take a while for the field to find out.
Scientists in other fields, especially ones that have a much better track record of consistently being right, should try to publicly separate themselves from scientific fields like nutrition science and climate science. Greater denouncing of scientific fields and scientists with poor track records may be the only way to maintain, never mind restore, any trust that the public at large may have in science.
And you just couldn't resist a global warming shot...
I stole this Sig
First, congrats on losing the weight. You feel great. I know, I did about the same thing you did. Lost 42 kg (90+ lbs) in seven months. Maintained it for about two years. Felt amazing.
Then, slowly, ever so slowly, I started eating carbs in excess amounts. My weight crept up slowly. No biggy, I just proved to myself I could easily loose it. Yeah, no, I couldn't.
Now I've almost gained all the weight I had lost. Feel terrible. Look terrible.
Moral to this story: do not be me. Keep vigilant of your weight. When you gain a pound, get rid of it immediately.
Hope you fare better than I did. Hope I find the mental strength to start all over.
In the 1973 file Sleeper by Woody Allen two of his caretakers in the future discuss his breakfast request and then start a riff on "deep fat". You mean there was no deep fat etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Yay, another observation study that tries to mask its uselessness by oversimplifying the results. Correlation doesn't mean causation, no matter how many studies you do. Just because women over 50 rarely get pregnant, it doesn't mean they rarely have sex... but that's exactly the quality of results you get from observational studies and the fact that the results are easier to get mentioned in the media when you oversimplify them (fat good, carbs bad) means you get more research funding for more pointless studies. People should stress less about eating, have everything in moderation (which comes kind of naturally if there is no "forbidden" food that you end up binge-eating) and have an active lifestyle - we all die of something, we might as well live a happy life until we do and not make our lives miserable by focusing on what foods are allowed...
Mod parent up.
There are essential proteins you'll die without, and there are essential fatty acids you'll die without.
There are no essential carbohydrates because your body can create glucose from proteins and fats.
Carbs are cheap, but it's healthier to feed them to animals, and then eat the animals.
Here's another fly in the soup - not everybody is as sensitive to insulin (or resistant to insulin) as other people. Different people may be able to tolerate different diets.
I, for one, cannot tolerate apples well. The fructose in a single apple, even if eaten whole rather than juiced, causes me health problems.
I'm sure there are some people who can tolerate lots of refined sugar. But I'll tell you this - those people who have obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, or other chronic diseases are of the body type that should significantly reduce carbohydrate intake. If your biomarkers are great, and all you eat are pop tarts, bully for you. If you are having problems, 99% of the time carbohydrate restriction will benefit you.
I think you will find out that the scientists usually made no such claims in the first place. It is almost always the media making the claims and people that dress up as scientists (with no actual science degree) trying to sell fad diets that are the problem.
Most of the research that you read makes very few claims. What you will see is a paper where x% carbohydrates correlates to a death rate in y% under z circumstances and everything is a tradeoff. Many things you can eat don't really decrease your overall lifespan but instead change what you are likely to die from. This is not to say that diet does nothing. What you eat matters quite a lot but science is not at the stage for food that it can make really good recommendations. In general we know that highly processed foods correlated with worse health outcomes. We don't really know why this is. In general you want to eat fruits and vegetables (some cooked, some raw to extract different vitamins and minerals), meat and fats. You don't need processed carbohydrates but if you eat them try to keep it to a minimum.
Computer modeling for biotech drug manufacturing is HARD!
Stress is a real killer. On the plus side, I am now going to live even longer, as I do not need to feel bad anymore for all that olive oil and butter I use when cocking.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
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
This is good to know. But keep in mind that your chance of dying from one of those is still quite small in the context of all the other things that kill people (cancer, accidents, etc). So the actual increase in your risk of death is pretty small.
Mmm..cheekan. - Leeloo
Imagine you've been invited to a gourmet meal. The host tells you to "bring your appetite!" What might you do to make yourself hungrier?
Maybe skip a meal or two earlier in the day? (less calories)
Maybe go out for a brisk run, or workout? (more exercise)
So, we know, categorically, that less calories and more exercise creates increased hunger.
How does this help a fat person eat less?
Now, if you understand the biochemistry, and how for a fat person, their fat cells are stealing all the energy from their muscle cells, then you understand the thing driving them to 5000 calories a day is starvation (from the muscle point of view). You don't need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their mouth, you need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their fat cells.
How do fat cells get bigger? Under the influence of insulin.
How do insulin levels get higher? Under the influence of blood sugar (literally to keep you from dying of sugar poisoning - it's a feature, not a bug).
How is blood sugar raised? High glycemic foods, like carbohydrates.
So if you want the fat man to stop being hungry, so he'll eat less calories, and therefore lose weight, you have to focus on the root cause, not just the proximate cause. It's the fat cells that are "overeating" - the fat man is eating 5000 calories because given the glycemic load of whatever he's eating, he needs that much to keep his muscle cells fed.
Reduce the glycemic load, you'll reduce the hunger, and *that* will reduce caloric intake.
tl;dr - getting hungrier doesn't help you eat less.
The hard part would be concealing the Katana.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
The thing with science is that the science never made any absolute claims here, just bad scientists and the press did. Nobody competent claimed that this was the last word.
Of course, things are more complex that the story tells us. For example, if those carbohydrates are mostly sugar, the result is not surprising and even in line with the older state, as sugar in larger quantities is really, really bad for you, much more so than fat.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Having an eating disorder that is apparent called ARFID I am unable to eat most things that are genuinely healthy (can't do green vegetables, most fruits, or any red fish... About 40% of my diet is from sandwiches, usually peanut butter, and sometimes cheese.
If high carbs mean an early death, I'm hooped.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Asians have been exposed to hazardous diets and toxins longer than Europeans, a good example is they are significantly less effected by ill effects from tobacco. So perhaps they are better able to adjust to a starchy diet.
love is just extroverted narcissism
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
There have just been too many situations like this where scientists say one thing, as if they're 100% sure they're right, and then sometime latter they have to backtrack on their claims. Sometimes it even turns out that the exact opposite of what they're saying is actually true!
People don't trust science or studies because they are far too often bought and paid for by those who profit the most from "results", which the competition is often found buying the backtracking counter-argument.
Wading through the lies and bullshit to find truth and fact is the only true science left.
Probably the carbs talked about are mostly refined sugar. That one is a lot worse than fat. Rice and other grains behave differently. "No carb" is nonsense.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Did you read the paper? I'm guessing no....
Even the summary is fairly well written. There are no absolute statements, just a presentation of the evidence and a fairly cautious interpretation.
Don't confuse pop-health TV and your own desire for certainty with science or what scientists are saying.
The study ignores that the Japanese and the Italians, whose diets are both known for very high carbs intake (rice and pasta), have the highest and second-highest life expectancy in the world respectively (I'm excluding Hong Kong because it is not a country): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
And the Italians have just been named the healthiest people in the world by Bloomberg: https://www.weforum.org/agenda...
Long story short: if the research in the article was supposed to make me go back to mcdonald's, then nope, it failed.
I'm pretty sure it's not going to go down, no matter what you eat.
j'ai découvert une démonstration vraiment admirable (de ce théorème général) que cette si
The people who told us about sun block were the same people who told us, when I was a kid, that eggs were good. So I ate a lot of eggs. Ten years later they said they were bad. I went, "Well, I just ate the eggs!" So I stopped eating eggs, and ten years later they said they were good again! Well, then I ate twice as many, and then they said they were bad. Well, now I'm really fucked! Then they said they're good, they're bad, they're good, the whites are good, th-the yellows - make up your mind! It's breakfast I've gotta eat!
- Louis Black
My family has a pretty simple method of deciding what to eat. If there's a commercial for it, we don't eat it. There are a few exceptions, such as my kid is addicted to a specific brand of macaroni and cheese. But for the most part, moderation is the key.
Fast food always gets painted as a villain in food nutrition. For those who have seen "Super Size Me" about a person who only consumed McDonald's food for a period of time, the message from the film was strongly against fast food. However, that person not only ate a Big Mac, he ate fries and drank a large sugared drink.
What if that person only ate two big macs and drank water for his meals? I suspect his outcome would have been far better.
This is what happens to "Science" when government gets involved.
For anyone interested, here is the actual paper (paywalled).
Links from the CBS article were worthless and it took a little searching to find that, so I figured I'd post it for anyone looking.
" if they are causing you to gain weight, it means your consumption of them vs. your activity level is out of balance"
This is total and complete horseshit based on false assumptions. Your weight is NOT EQUAL TO Calories in - Calories out. Your weight is REGULATED by hormones. Your body will reduce your metabolic rate to compensate for reduced calories or increased activity. This is why almost every "diet" starts off with successful weight loss, but over time almost all of that weight is regained. https://intensivedietarymanage...
Wrong. Just wrong.
You are heavily exaggerating the differences between populations so far as dietary needs, and really, you're going to find distributions even within a population, but the reality is that hunter-gatherer populations simply did not have access to high-carb diets, and in particular there were no refined sugars. Whether you're from Western European heritage, East African, Japanese, Inuit, Native American, the fact is that caloric needs are fairly consistent, and no one has evolved the ability to deal with highly refined sugars. Full stop.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Actually, there were a good many studies that conflicted with the "low fat" diet, but unfortunately the sugar industry has enough money and power that it was able to put out enough misinformation and put enough pressure on public health officials in many countries that they got the mantra of "get rid of fat", while they did everything in their power to make sure the amount of refined sugars in foods skyrocketed. But the fact that refined sugars are bad for you has been known for decades.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
A calorie may not always be the same as any other, but when you're consuming four or five thousand every day, it doesn't matter all that much.
Exactly. The effects seen in this study (23% etc) are pretty darn small compared with the huge detrimental health effects of being overweight. And you can become overweight by eating too many fat calories or too many carbohydrate calories.
The best suggestion still is limit calories of all kinds and exercise.
So.... Those who can afford meat and steak live longer?
Did they account for income discrepancies?
Every few years new research results come out saying that the old research was wrong. That's fine because this is science, but when it concerns diet and health, it can make a huge difference in your life expectancy.
Can we just refrain from saying what's good or bad for you until we know for near certainty?
I'm planning to live forever . . . . or die trying.
How much longer will it be before all the deniers start believing Atkins was correct? He knew this. His diet works, and it saves lives. He wasn't a quack or killing people telling them to eat bacon and meat. It's the food industry that is killing people with carbs, carbs and more carbs, topped with sugar and more carbs.
I"m still looking into this whole turning into a vampire thing....sounds like a good deal to me, but I wanna lose weight first, I'd rather not go through eternity with my current gut.
But sure, I'd like to live forever.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
A few notes to keep in mind with the interpretation of the results:
1. The macronutrient consumption data are based on food frequency questionaires, a somewhat unreliable means to measuring food consumption. How accurate do you think you'd be if asked about how much of each type of food you ate over the past few months? For more disucssion of problems with food frequency questionaires and other general issues with studies on nutrition see: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea...
2. The study is an observational study that can only assess correlation, not causation. People who reported eating more carbohydrates had higher mortality. Was eating more carbohydrates the cause of the higher mortality, or were there other differences between people who ate more carbohydrates and those who ate less? A common problem with these studies is that people who follow dietary guidelines are more likely to follow other guidelines for healthy living, so one could just be picking up a signal from decreased mortality of those who pay attention to their health in general. Socioeconomic factors are another potential confounding factor in the results. In many of the third world countries studied, a diet higher in animal protein would likely be more expensive than a diet higher in carbohydrates. These confounding variables make inferring causation difficult. Randomized controlled trials would provide a gold standard for assessing whether there is a causal relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, though these are notoriously difficult to perform (how do you get a large cohort of people to change their diets for long periods of time?).
3. Even if the differences in diet are causally related to the changes in mortality and CV events, the exact mechanism is unclear. For example, in a commentary published in the Lancet along side the research paper (I would recommend reading the commentary if you are interested in the subject), the authors note:
Micronutrient malnutrition is an important problem in many of the countries included in PURE. Animal products are rich sources of zinc, bioavailable iron, vitamin K2, and vitamin B12, which might be suboptimal in populations consuming high carbohydrate diets. Therefore, one potential explanation for the PURE results is that nutrient-dense meats corrected one or more nutrient deficiencies
http://www.thelancet.com/journ...
If the results are partly due to consumption of animal products alleviating micronutrient malnutrition, it is unclear whether the results would be as applicable in populations where micronutrient malnutrition is not an issue.
Overall, the study is a very important piece of evidence in determining the best amount of carbohydrates, proteins and fats to include in one's diet. However, it is not a definitive study, so one needs to consider the entire body of evidence including observational studies (such as this one) done in a number of different populations, randomized clinical trials, and laboratory experiments that get at the mechanisms involved.
The key culprit here is refined carbohydrates, both refined sugar and refined starches. Why are they so bad? Well just look at what the refining process removes. For sugars, not only does the refining process remove all vitamins and minerals, but also all dietary fiber, which is needed to help reduce the absorption rate of refined sugars. Consuming refined sugars, for example in sodas, can play merry hell with your blood sugar and blood chemistry, while eating a banana and an apple that have the equivalent sugar, will do no such thing and are in fact good for you. At the same time, that soda is empty calories with no vitamin or mineral contribution to your daily needs.
This article almost completely misses the point. The problem is not sugar or carbs, it is refined foods that have had all vitamins, minerals and other beneficial accompaniments found in nature striped away.
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
Nutrition studies are notoriously difficult to make accurate. Take, for example, this study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0076632) that found that the reported nutrition intake for survey participants was "not physiologically plausible." And this was for one of the most well-regarded U.S. surveys of nutritional intake.
Now, I haven't reviewed the study listed in this article, but I am highly, highly skeptical because of how hard it is to get accurate food consumption information from the public.
Consider, for instance, what you've eaten so far today - what have you eaten, and exactly how many servings of each item have you consumed? If this is hard to do for a couple of meals in one day, imagine how hard it is to make that accurate over an extended period of time.
Next week, fat will be bad, and carbs good. MODERATION, unless you have an underlying disease...is the key.
How much carbs one can tolerate is actually easy to measure: http://www.phlaunt.com/diabete...
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
I remember reading one of his books and hearing us radio show many years ago. People said he was nuts. Nowadays he might have been called a "fat denier" for going against the mainstream.
The USDA food pyramid was not conceived or supported by nutritionists. The original food pyramid actually contradicted the nutrition science of that time. The USDA does a lot of good things, but they have never accurately represented the nutrition content of food.
Not true. Nobody over the age of 130 has ever died.
No sig today...
Actually, if all you eat is meat and you cut out (e.g. stop buying) the massive volume of cheap carb crap, you'll save money, won't be hungry much at all, and you'll be a lot healthier.
...yet the longer you live, the slower the rate of increase in your age...
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
I have been Paleo + some dairy for 5 years now. It is NOT impossible, but it does take effort. It is absolutely worth it though.
1. Educate yourself. I know that many people don't even really know what a carb is, because when it comes up that I eat a low-carb diet, they assume I mean high-protein. They say things like "but you don't even eat bread?". Read "Good Calories Bad Calories, The Primal Blueprint, The Case Against Sugar, and Grain Brain. Listen to Dr Peter Attia. There are lots of resources out there. Learn WHY carbs are bad, why grains and grain-based products are bad for you. Don't just look for a quick-fix pre-packaged diet plan.
2. Learn about food. Buy ingredients, not pre-made things.
3. Learn to cook and make your own food.
4. Make smart choices. You should be able to order in about any restaurant and get a decent low-carb meal. Get a burger without the bun. Veggies instead of fries. Just eat the toppings off the pizza. Lots of ways to avoid the carbs. Maybe not 100%, but once you largely eliminate them from your diet, a few on occasion won't kill you.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
In Taubes' "The Case Against Sugar" he reveals quite a bit about the Sugar Industry.
There are even ties with the tobacco industry, they aren't that dissimilar. They've had some of the same marketing people over the years, convincing people that their product isn't harmful (and in fact, promoting it as healthy)
Here's a short article to consider...
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
Nope, that isn't even remotely in the right ball park. The number of people alive today is about 7% of the total number of people that have ever lived, according to some estimates.
So.... Those who can afford meat and steak live longer?
Did they account for income discrepancies?
Income discrepancies related to food are correlated but not causal. There's a whole world mittigating factors between e.g. lack of education about food, and lack of time to cook food properly because they are ironically working to put food on the table.
When I stopped eating shit, I not only lost weight but I also ended up with more disposable income. What do you think is cheaper, a potato dug out of the ground, or a potato dug out of the ground, bought by some company, processed, packaged and resold?
Tip: if people in the process are making money then it's costing you more.
Who knew.
Look, all the medical studies pretty much always say the following:
1. Get mild to moderate exercise. Yes, just park your car and walk an extra block or take an extra flight of stairs. That's all.
2. Eat a varied diet, low in red meat, that you mostly cook yourself from scratch. Don't eat out (processed foods) too often. Don't add salt etc until you actually serve the food, and do so to taste.
3. Reduce stress. Stop worrying about studies. Stop worrying about the cold hard fact that one day you will be on a slab with a tag on your toe, no matter what you do. Stop obsessing about stuff you can't change, or how hard it is to change, and change things halfway or in part. Small changes matter more than you think. A 20 percent reduction in harmful stuff usually gets you 80 percent of the positive change that an 80 percent reduction would. So aim for 20 percent. Get used to 20 percent.
4. Stop the fad diets. Too much of anything is bad for you. You know that.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
> Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
So Mulligan's Stew being replaced with that obviously and highly unbalanced "food pyramid" must have just been my imagination then.
Watch where this goes. People with pecuniary interests have long held sway over things that are purported as science. And sometimes people step outside their boundaries when presumably conducting science Ancel Keys was the main perpetrator of the idea that eating fat was bad for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... He for lack of a better term, fudged data. Keys had gained some credit with one of his first books, The Biology of Human Starvation, published in 1950. It was pretty creepy, but based on the idea that the post World War 2 global situation was going to have a lot of people starving, and finding the best way to rehabilitate them.
Then we move onto Key's Seven Countries Experiment. This turned out to be a flawed study, in which Keys "found" a correlation between fat intake and coronary disease.
But there were problems. Keys had 21 countries with data too look at. He selected 6. When all of the different countries data was analyzed any correlation was much less clear.
Many other scientists at the time were very much in disagreement with Keys conclusion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
While you might find this confirms your dislike of science, hold on a moment.
How does this conclusion turn into some sort of food pyramid dogma? Enter politicians, the pecuniary interests that are own the politicians and some other odd bedfellows that show up.
Just so we know where we were, here is a nice version of the 1992 food pyramid. http://growmap.com/usda-food-p...
Luise Light who was a nutritional expert, made recommendations based upon valid food science from the 1980's and who was overruled in the 1992 to make the 1992 pyramid conform to the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture and the food industry. Here is her text "A fatally Fflawed Food Guide". http://www.whale.to/a/light.ht...
So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, you can hate the scientists all you like. But when the Scientists are not making the decisions, and politicians and their owners are cherry picking what they decide is allowable based on profit, well you can kill every scientist, create a national "No more Scientists holiday", and the problem will still exist. You'll just have to find another group to blame.
Regardless, we should just have a vote on what is healthy or not. That will fix the problem. It won't be easy though - Congress tried to repeal Ohm's law, but it was met with some resistance.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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
How many times must there be conflicting results in these "studies" before they decide that they are going about studying this all wrong?
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
For decades the USDA and local governments not only promoted low-fat diets, but threatened people over use of butter — because when Stastists dislike something, they do not simply avoid it themselves, they seek to ban it for all others...
Now we are getting the opposite guidance and very convincing evidence, the earlier imploring and coercion were harmful.
Who will be punished for causing the harm, when, and how?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Stop spouting pseudo science rubbish.
Big complicated words that actually carry very little meaning in this context just flag you as part of the far nutritionist cabal I'm afraid.
The fact is that there is very little wrong with the chips as part of a balanced diet, but certain people can not get the 'oh no they are not natural!' rubbish it of their heads, and think that is science.
There is exactly zero better about the Apple as a source. It happens to contain more of some things and less of others. Get over it.
This is the number one problem in for sciences, it had devolved into a bunch of touchy feely 'facts' that actually are very far from the truth. Much if this is because marketing lies to you, and you believe it. That makes you a sucker, not a scientist.
The anti dairy far is an almost perfect example of this, not to mention the decades long cholesterol/eggs bs.
There is nothing at all special about fruit, except that it is easy to market and sell. I know several fruitarians, they are terribly unhealthy people who get stuck with great regulatory - but they cannot understand the concept of a balanced diet.
The number one factor these days is just eating too damn much. Eating is an addiction for many, and making your drugs of choice more fancy and exclusive (which is almost modern diets do) is the oldest trick In the pushers game.
Eat a wide range of things, avoid sweet things in general, and eat less! Accept that being hungry from time to time is good for health, eat until you are not hungry, not until you are full.
Then get on with other things that actually matter.
Pretty much every nutritionist I know believe religiously in the food pyramid.
By an enormous factor they have bought in to the far terrible, meat bad, grains good cute of the world.
They are also hardly ever scientists. In fact most nutritionist qualifications involve exactly zero science or medical training.. Because it is not a damn science, it is a job title, more closely related to marketig, and not unlike economics.
Go talk to a research human biologist some time. Suggest a nutritionist is a scientist to them, then listen.. You may learn something.
So no. You are talking bullshit. They are very involved in this, and have made a ton of money out of people's misery.
Ooops.....
Never post in haste here....
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
People made such a big deal out of this it's crazy. How much time and money gets spent on this topic.
Everything in moderation.. is the saying.
If you moderate and balance your intake of everything, you're good to go. Everything in life has balance, and stuffing yourself full of sugar, preservatives and various other crap (read: 0.5l can of coke and greasy pizza) every week is definitely not balance, why do we need science to tell us this ? Is this not common sense in the western world ?
For eg. Eating a loaf of bread every day is not going to make you fat, or sick, if you have a balanced meal that consists of good quality meat, fat, vegetables and fruit + physical exercise. I'm mentioning this because people are vilifying carbs like they vilified fat before, and it's just dumb, it's not true at all.
For example, South Eastern Europe. No meal goes in without eating bread, and i mean a lot of bread. Average 4 member family eats 2 kilo of bread per day. And not that sliced crap either people buy in the stores, that's loaded with all kind of preservatives to keep it fresh 'looking', but bread often homemade, or bought in bread stores 2 hours after it's made, 6 am in the morning, that you have to cut yourself. The crust keeps the air out so it keeps the freshness naturally, you cannot have it sliced unless you add ton of chemicals to it. If you want to see good looking people, go to SE Europe. One out of 50 people or less are fat, and obesity ? There's no even word for that.
All I'm saying is, eat natural food (the closer to it's original form the better), eat balanced, eat a lot of vegetables and fruit after meals, and you'll be fine.
Stuff yourself with fat, protein, sugar, bread, preservatives, or whatever, and you'll not be fine. Common, fucking, sense.
"Maximum life span" here means the mean life span of the most long-lived 10% of a given cohort. Caloric restriction has not yet been shown to break mammalian world records for longevity. Rats, mice, and hamsters experience maximum life-span extension from a diet that contains all of the nutrients but only 40–60% of the calories that the animals consume when they can eat as much as they want. Mean life span is increased 65% and maximum life span is increased 50%, when caloric restriction is begun just before puberty. For fruit flies the life extending benefits of calorie restriction are gained immediately at any age upon beginning calorie restriction and ended immediately at any age upon resuming full feeding
Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Don't be silly. Laws are just meant for us, not for "them".
Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Gold_King_Mine_waste_water_spill
93% according to statistics. There are 100 billion humans in all of history and 7 billion are still alive.
eat fresh, varied & excersize, problem solved.
On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
The scientists almost never say that though. They qualify their results, mentioning the potential error in the data, sample size, sample representation, etc. The media then take that and restate it as it it is a 100% certain claim applicable to all people in every case.
"So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, "
But since the medical profession is supposed to be "science," why did they promulgate the same bullshit? It seems they should have blown the whistle on low-fat at least a decade ago.
I think the problem is much deeper. The institutions of science are themselves corrupted when political outcomes hinge on their conclusions, and when the direction of scientific research is consequently influenced by past findings.
This doesn't imply, of course, that policies should *not* be guided by science.
Science can't be at fault because it is merely a methodology. What is at fault are the human implementations of institutions which carry out (or fail to carry out) proper science, for various reasons.
It is estimated that of these 100 billions or so, 40% did not live to see their first birthday.
"So when policy, not science dictates what is healthy for you, "
But since the medical profession is supposed to be "science," why did they promulgate the same bullshit? It seems they should have blown the whistle on low-fat at least a decade ago.
Because that isn't how we operate in America. The long green buys plenty of air time, and many people don't think very critically.
The data has been out there, and is easy to find. I've known that the food pyramid adopted in the 1990's was complete bullshit. I've known that the data considered in adopting it was bullshit, and I've known that the results of the eat more processed carbs were exactly what was going to happen. And you or I can pull up the science to show it. Way back from the early 1950s.
I think the problem is much deeper. The institutions of science are themselves corrupted when political outcomes hinge on their conclusions, and when the direction of scientific research is consequently influenced by past findings.
There is something that your reply tells me, and that is that you seem to think that scientists have the same clout as politicians. And that you believe that the corrupt element is not the politicians, but the scientists who advise them.
How this can be when the politics is based on flawed data that was known as flawed data, that was denounced as flawed data, that was fought against as flawed data, and that the flawed data that was accepted and promoted just happened to make for a profitable venture for industries that send money to the politicians is very interesting to me. It's the scientists who are corrupt. Sounds legit.
You need science, if only to have a group to blame for your politician's failures.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
BTW, I'm a scientist ;-)
No, I'm trying to say that I think the problem is *systemic* and rooted in the nature of people. Scientists mostly do the right thing, but the degree to which they deviate from the ideal appears to be a function of corrupting incentives. Of course, the political system is a complete pile of shit. I don't have the answer for that. I suspect there may be no answer as long as people are involved.
What disturbs me in this case (and some other that I won't get into...) is that Doctors, who are supposed to be applied scientists, did *nothing* to correct this.
In fact, by some interpretations which may be reasonable, they fed into it. They gave pills to people, to treat the consequences of obesity (diabetes, etc.), instead of calling foul and stating to their patients that they should lower carbs and get ketogenic if they want to have any hope of loosing the weight.
So there are 2 possibilities (or some combination of both), neither of which are pretty:
1. Doctors were oblivious to the research indicating likely flaws in the "accepted wisdom" of low-fat diets, and also that they blew off a *pattern* of anecdotal evidence of people experiencing dramatic turnarounds on ketogenic diets, that should have led any competent scientist to say "hmm, maybe there is something wrong with this picture? I need to investigate if this pattern constitutes reproducible data that may falsify the low-fat hypothesis..."
So if you are correct that the right information has been available for a long time, then at a minimum Doctors have been incompetent, by not paying attention to the research and the shaky basis of the low-fat doctrine.
2. Else, they were complicit in giving patients bad advice because the regulatory system defined "standards of care" making low-fat followed by treatment of long-term terrible health consequences with lots of pharmaceuticals something doctors could do without fear of legal consequences. They then proceeded to practice so-called "evidence based medicine" in this unethical manner for decades just to collect paychecks and kickbacks from drug corps. knowing full-well that they were killing people.
I've found that Dave's Killer 21-Grain bread is pretty good. It has never gone mouldy on me, even if it takes me a month to eat the whole loaf. It has a lot of fibre and one slice with real peanut butter (just ground peanuts and sea salt) and some no sugar added preserves makes a filling breakfast of lunch. You must chew it well though: it's not like cake.
PlaynBass