Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?

11012141516

Replies

  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.
    edited May 2016
  • pagey231pagey231 Posts: 11Member Member Posts: 11Member Member
    Sat fats,, no problem ,, Trans fats= poison .. mix fats and sugars = a myriad of problems ,,, If into sports /if not still watch this .. ..I have personally noticed a huge difference .. suggest you watch the entire vid .. https://youtube.com/watch?v=tQbgdRoAfOo
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Posts: 1,297Member Member Posts: 1,297Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840

    "Subgroup analysis indicated that higher SFA intake was associated with reduced stroke risks for East-Asians [RR = 0.79 (95 % CI 0.69-0.90)], for dose <25 g/day [RR = 0.81 (95 % CI 0.71-0.92)], for males [RR = 0.85 (95 % CI 0.75-0.96)], and for individuals with body mass index (BMI) <24 [RR = 0.75 (95 % CI 0.65-0.87)], but not for non East-Asians, females, and individuals with dose ≥25 g/day and BMI ≥24."

    Removing the fluff:
    East Asians with high SFA intake: RR 0.79
    Eating < 25 g SFA per day: RR 0.81 (that's the SFA recommendation btw)
    being a male: RR 0.85
    not being overweight: RR 0.75

    being non-east asian, female, overweight or eating above 25g SFAs per day: no reduced risk.

    It's a bit funny that they apparently call 25 g a high intake.


    Not that that says too much when their average stroke risk was 2% and the relative risks would lead to changes of at most 0.25%
    edited May 2016
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,875Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,875Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840

    It's not ignoring the latest research. It's understanding the parameters in which they conducted a study (btw, you can't because the full article is behind paid walls) and seeing if it can be replicated. Testing a hypothesis is one thing, proving it multiple times is another. Personally, I limit my saturated fat to sources, not grams. I only eat sat fat from red meats (1-3x a week) and dairy. But I also incorporate plenty of unsaturated fats (peanut butter, chicken, fish), plant based carbs and whole grains/oats.

    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,440Member Member Posts: 5,440Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Indeed...
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Posts: 1,297Member Member Posts: 1,297Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840

    It's not ignoring the latest research. It's understanding the parameters in which they conducted a study (btw, you can't because the full article is behind paid walls) and seeing if it can be replicated. Testing a hypothesis is one thing, proving it multiple times is another. Personally, I limit my saturated fat to sources, not grams. I only eat sat fat from red meats (1-3x a week) and dairy. But I also incorporate plenty of unsaturated fats (peanut butter, chicken, fish), plant based carbs and whole grains/oats.

    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Full fat diary? :smile:
    BTW:
    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/146/1/81.short

    Lets face reality, SFA intake recommendations are going to change sooner or later, because... science.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840

    It's not ignoring the latest research. It's understanding the parameters in which they conducted a study (btw, you can't because the full article is behind paid walls) and seeing if it can be replicated. Testing a hypothesis is one thing, proving it multiple times is another. Personally, I limit my saturated fat to sources, not grams. I only eat sat fat from red meats (1-3x a week) and dairy. But I also incorporate plenty of unsaturated fats (peanut butter, chicken, fish), plant based carbs and whole grains/oats.

    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Full fat diary? :smile:
    BTW:
    http://jn.nutrition.org/content/146/1/81.short

    Lets face reality, SFA intake recommendations are going to change sooner or later, because... science.

    Let's face reality, no they won't if the research you guys have shown in this thread are all there is.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840

    It's not ignoring the latest research. It's understanding the parameters in which they conducted a study (btw, you can't because the full article is behind paid walls) and seeing if it can be replicated. Testing a hypothesis is one thing, proving it multiple times is another. Personally, I limit my saturated fat to sources, not grams. I only eat sat fat from red meats (1-3x a week) and dairy. But I also incorporate plenty of unsaturated fats (peanut butter, chicken, fish), plant based carbs and whole grains/oats.

    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Peanut butter, chicken, and fish all have saturated fat.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Indeed...

    Bro science
  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,875Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,875Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    psuLemon wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    The reality is that millions of people of have been harmed by this institutionalized fear of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and lack of awareness of truly detrimental foods--not by a misunderstanding of the term "processed foods."

    @psulemon it seems your logic is that other things have been more harmful, so that minimizes the harm (I disagree, but regardless the logic is flawed)

    @winogelato it seems you don't really have much logic, except that we shouldn't demonize refined fats and refined carbohydrates because they won't kill you instantly and if you consume them in moderation, it will take a really long time and maybe something else will kill you (maybe tell that to the FDA, who finally starting putting a ban on trans fats)

    @stevencloser it seems your logic is that some of the data says replacing SF with PUFA lowers CHD risk; however, you ignore vast quantities of data, including data that points directly to trans fats and high glycemic foods, and defend sugar as an unprocessed food!

    Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.

    I would disagree. Nothing is more harmful and greater a cause for obesity and cvd than too many calories and too little exercise.

    Your reality is a bit sckewed and i feel bad you only recognize science to support your position as opposed to all the other science supporting other lifestyles and thr benefits of whole grains, fruit and other highly nutritious carbs. Because unlike you, i fully recognize the benefits of fats, especially unsaturated.

    I would say that is "skewed" the reality of those who decide to simply ignore the latest research.
    BTW, in another thread AlabasterVerve posted this other meta-analysis:
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26979840

    It's not ignoring the latest research. It's understanding the parameters in which they conducted a study (btw, you can't because the full article is behind paid walls) and seeing if it can be replicated. Testing a hypothesis is one thing, proving it multiple times is another. Personally, I limit my saturated fat to sources, not grams. I only eat sat fat from red meats (1-3x a week) and dairy. But I also incorporate plenty of unsaturated fats (peanut butter, chicken, fish), plant based carbs and whole grains/oats.

    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Peanut butter, chicken, and fish all have saturated fat.

    They do have a few grams each but no where in comparison to thinks they red meats and dairy which make up 20%+ of the total grams of fat.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Indeed...

    Bro science

    If your biased view things that way, you are more than welcome to believe that. The biggest driver for most diseases, including CVD, type II diabetes, and so much more are obesity and inactivity. Thinking otherwise is only shows your lack of understanding.

    Fat people eat too much and move too little. They are just lazy gluttons. Got it.

    Cool story, bro.
  • J72FITJ72FIT Posts: 5,440Member Member Posts: 5,440Member Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    psuLemon wrote: »
    But lets face reality, the diet you follow has less impact, in most case, than how good your body composition is, whether or not you exercise and your genetics. And then the specific types of foods, is even further down the list.

    Indeed...

    Bro science

    Hardly...
Sign In or Register to comment.