Good news for people who like eating fat!

Options
rprussell2004
rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
in Food and Nutrition
SCIENCE!

"New research links diabetes, heart disease risk to diet high in carbs, not fat."

I'm gonna do them a few better and quadruple it.
«134567…23

Replies

  • tennisdude2004
    tennisdude2004 Posts: 5,609 Member
    Options
    well that's news from left field!!!
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    Interesting study. Thanks for posting.
  • ladymiseryali
    ladymiseryali Posts: 2,555 Member
    Options
    Science is a great thing, isn't it?
  • TropicalParaMonster
    TropicalParaMonster Posts: 151 Member
    Options
    It's true because fats aren't broken down into sugar in our bodies, carbs are (apart from sugar itself of course). Love my fats ;) haha
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    I've known this for awhile. It's great to see some good research going on around it.
  • warblerofdoom
    warblerofdoom Posts: 11
    edited November 2014
    Options
    So eating chicken skin is OK now? I was taught to remove the skin.. it's a habit now.
  • JoRocka
    JoRocka Posts: 17,525 Member
    Options
    warblerofdoom wrote: »
    So eating chicken skin is OK now? I was taught to remove the skin.. it's a habit now.
    well that defeats the whole purpose of buying a rotisserie chicken. that crisp delicious skin is where it is at!!!
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    warblerofdoom wrote: »
    So eating chicken skin is OK now? I was taught to remove the skin.. it's a habit now.
    You were taught that dietary fat makes you fat and that dietary fat leads to heart disease.
  • redfisher1974
    redfisher1974 Posts: 614 Member
    Options
    Whats proven today will be dis-proven tomorrow... Doctors use to think smoking was good for you....
  • JazzFischer1989
    JazzFischer1989 Posts: 531 Member
    Options
    Guess I'm done for. I love carbs.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Options
    redfisher1974 wrote: »
    Whats proven today will be dis-proven tomorrow... Doctors use to think smoking was good for you....

    +1
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    redfisher1974 wrote: »
    Whats proven today will be dis-proven tomorrow... Doctors use to think smoking was good for you....
    I guess I don't get this comment. Given that science is always "learning something new", do we ignore all science and do what we've always done?
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    I wonder what sort of results would come about if conducted on those who don't have metabolic disorders.
  • jrline
    jrline Posts: 2,353 Member
    Options
    I believe it. I prefer less of a regular item to low fat or no fat. Bacon is Delicious.

    29509743.png
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    edited November 2014
    Options
    LolBroScience wrote: »
    I wonder what sort of results would come about if conducted on those who don't have metabolic disorders.

    A great question. Hasn't Volek done studies on that as well? Limited, granted...

    I'd also wonder: what percentage of Americans (for example) has metabolic syndrome based on their descriptor: "defined as the presence of at least three of five factors that increase the risk for heart disease and diabetes (excess belly fat, elevated blood pressure, low “good” cholesterol, insulin resistance or glucose intolerance, and high triglycerides)".

    I'm gonna bet it's not an insignificant percentage.
  • SueInAz
    SueInAz Posts: 6,592 Member
    Options
    LolBroScience wrote: »
    I wonder what sort of results would come about if conducted on those who don't have metabolic disorders.
    Agreed. I'd actually prefer if they used more than 16 subjects, too. I always have a problem with studies that use such a statistically small group of people.
  • PwrLftr82
    PwrLftr82 Posts: 945 Member
    Options
    redfisher1974 wrote: »
    Whats proven today will be dis-proven tomorrow... Doctors use to think smoking was good for you....

    I'm pretty sure no one ever thought smoking was "good for you," maybe just not "bad for you." Difference.
  • rprussell2004
    rprussell2004 Posts: 870 Member
    Options
    SueInAz wrote: »
    LolBroScience wrote: »
    I wonder what sort of results would come about if conducted on those who don't have metabolic disorders.
    Agreed. I'd actually prefer if they used more than 16 subjects, too. I always have a problem with studies that use such a statistically small group of people.

    I think we're building up to a more widespread and thorough test. (Or at least, I'd like to believe we are...)

    The ball's just starting to get rolling on this stuff, after ~40 years of going the wrong direction.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    I mean it is what it is... You just have to take it for what it's worth given the population they carried it out on.

    It may not have practical application to average, healthy individuals etc..
  • Sabine_Stroehm
    Sabine_Stroehm Posts: 19,263 Member
    Options
    LolBroScience wrote: »
    I mean it is what it is... You just have to take it for what it's worth given the population they carried it out on.

    It may not have practical application to average, healthy individuals etc..

    This is what we have now. We take it for what it is now, yep.

Categories