Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »In my opinion, no one will be harmed in the least if they attempt to follow the advice to eat real food and avoid processed food--well, almost no one. It might hurt certain industries.
I have more to say in response to your post to me and will tomorrow, but this one was a quicky.
I think people would be. I at one point was obsessed with a LESS restrictive requirement (although oddly enough one I don't think you meet, although you claim falsely to avoid processed foods while suggesting that others who do not are not healthy). Specifically, I was obsessed with foods being "natural" and "homemade" and as local as possible. I think it was my love for coffee and (at the time) wine that prevented me from trying to become a full-scale locavore.
It was stupid. Homemade pasta may or may not taste better than dry, but it was not healthier. Avoiding olive oil for local butter and bacon fat didn't help me in any way. I just was kind of neurotic about food in a way that--FOR ME--was not healthy and made my (ugh) relationship with food worse and I think ultimately affected negatively my weight (i.e., was part of what lead to me getting fatter).
I think me loosening up about food and getting more realistic (and focused on the actual nutrition recs) and less religious (as it worked for me), helped.
And cutting out everything processed -- as I have a quite literal turn of mind -- would leave me with little to eat and a much less convenient lifestyle. Greens I buy bagged and pre washed from the green market are processed. Alll dairy, all meat. All legumes, all grains. Any frozen or smoked fish. Anything pickled. Anything precut or packaged in a convenient manner and any frozen veg. Obviously oils, coffee, and tea. So, yeah, given my lifestyle and how much work and stress that would add (including the inability to ever go out to dinner with friends -- and experience the excellent restaurants in my town, to have a work lunch ordered in with co-workers, and to work with a place that sells/caters healthful meals for those who are interested for lunch), that would not be a neutral decision.
So I choose to focus on the specifics of the food and what I actually think is healthful and not pretend (with no basis) that all processing is bad. I think my keto friends who do the same (and include oils, cheese, butter, meats, jerky, well-made sausages and bacon, etc.), are being sensible too. ;-)4 -
Technically speaking, the only truly unprocessed foods are ones that are picked and eaten directly. "Processed" does tend to be an overly broad word that begs the question as to where one should draw the line. I have the same pet peeve about "toxins" and "inflammation". For the most part, these tend to be buzzwords, bandied about by people who have no idea what they're even referring to. "Oh, I don't eat that. It's full of toxins." Really? Name three, or even one, and be specific. Practically everything we eat -naturally- contains some level of toxic substances. Some more than others. Tomatoes, potatoes and peppers are all members of the same family as deadly nightshade, and have traces of that toxin within them. But we have livers to protect us from such things8
-
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Technically speaking, the only truly unprocessed foods are ones that are picked and eaten directly. "Processed" does tend to be an overly broad word that begs the question as to where one should draw the line. I have the same pet peeve about "toxins" and "inflammation". For the most part, these tend to be buzzwords, bandied about by people who have no idea what they're even referring to. "Oh, I don't eat that. It's full of toxins." Really? Name three, or even one, and be specific. Practically everything we eat -naturally- contains some level of toxic substances. Some more than others. Tomatoes, potatoes and peppers are all members of the same family as deadly nightshade, and have traces of that toxin within them. But we have livers to protect us from such things
And even then you could say the seeds only existed because of millennia of human intervention, i.e. processing.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »And excuse me, but if avoiding refined fat and refined carbohydrates is not clearly tied to "avoiding processed foods," I'm not sure what is.
How about avoiding refined fats and highly refined carbs? That seems much more tied to avoiding those things than claiming to avoid all processed foods, when processed foods include smoked salmon, kimchi, plain greek yogurt, even the pickled vegetables and cheese I buy at my green market, as well as, yes, EEVO (I have previously linked that slate article as well as others on the topic, so I know there is mislabeling and fraud), and of course bacon and sausage and jerky (along with cheese, among the most common foods referenced by advocates of the keto diet). And, sure, it includes pasta, whether I use white or whole grains, whether I make it at home or not, and ice cream, also whether homemade or not.
I believe that's the point winogelato was making.
If you don't actually mean processed foods, why use the term. If the point is that it's generally good to avoid transfats (not inherent in meat) and limit highly refined carbs and so you choose to avoid them entirely (which I think is a valid choice, sure, although not essential to having a healthy diet nor a reason to act superior), why confuse the issue by claiming the best way to do that is to avoid processed foods? The best way to avoid something is to avoid the things you want to avoid, period. I don't really care for most premade meals or packaged foods (with some exceptions), because I prefer to cook from whole foods and have the ability to do that and am a bit of a food snob (neither proud nor ashamed of this, just a personal thing). I don't pretend this means I never eat processed food or that there's some huge virtue to not doing so if one has a good balanced and nutrient dense diet already.
And for the record, I don't think it's harmful to eat a low fat diet like Traveler and others do and I don't think it's harmful to eat a high fat diet, even though neither is how I choose to eat (I like moderate fat, moderate carbs, protein based on LBM). What determines the healthfulness of all these diets is overall food choices and IMO combining them with a healthy lifestyle and ideally an active one. I tend to think the debate about fat and carbs and all that (and the evangelization of low carb and insistence that carbs are less healthy than fat or whatever) tends to be wrongheaded in large part because it obscures the really important things (and also is wrong on its face for most people). That's, again, not an anti LCHF view at all.
But that's the curious thing about refined fats and refined carbohydrates: they don't exist in nature. They are only found in processed food.
This demonization of fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, this laser focus for decades, has allowed refined, unnatural fats with seemingly healthy fatty acid profiles (from margarine to canola oil) and refined carbohydrates like sugar, soft drinks, and other "fat free" products get a complete pass (the foods that are actually killing us), while encouraging people avoid a plethora of nutrient dense, healthy foods.
Let me reiterate: I specifically explained that it was a "big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details)." However, when it comes to health and disease prevention, that big picture is 1. don't fear real food and 2. avoid processed foods.
Refined carbohydrate, as in table sugar literally gets extracted AS IS out of a natural plant. It's as refined as juicing an orange, or getting water out of a cactus. It is the EXACT SAME COMPOUND as the one you find naturally occuring in the foods.
http://nutritiondata.self.com/foods-009009000000000000000.html?maxCount=74
The top 10 fruits here get up to 50% of their calories from those refined sugars you don't find in nature and only in processed foods.5 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Do you know the difference between "absence of evidence for an effect" and "evidence of the absence of an effect" ?
Because that study looking at RCTs you keep mentioning found the first but not the second, due to there just not being many if any RCTs looking at it in the first place, and the ones there were often didn't carry enough statistical power.
Hey, Steven will a Cochrane Review make you feel better about having some cream in your coffee?
This systematic review includes 15 RCTS, over 59,000 participants. The RCTs reduced saturated fat or replaced it with other types of fat for at least 24 months.
Result? No statistically significant effects of reducing saturated fat, in regard to heart attacks, strokes or all-cause deaths.
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26068959
"The findings of this updated review are suggestive of a small but potentially important reduction in cardiovascular risk on reduction of saturated fat intake."
???
Why can I literally do a 15 second skim of the studies you provide and find where it doesn't say what you claim it does?
Risk reduction was noted, but no effect on hard end points, honey
(Aka it says what I said it says
)
It says what it says but you say it only says half of what it says, if even. We call that lying by omission, honey.10 -
MarkusDarwath wrote: »Technically speaking, the only truly unprocessed foods are ones that are picked and eaten directly. "Processed" does tend to be an overly broad word that begs the question as to where one should draw the line. I have the same pet peeve about "toxins" and "inflammation". For the most part, these tend to be buzzwords, bandied about by people who have no idea what they're even referring to. "Oh, I don't eat that. It's full of toxins." Really? Name three, or even one, and be specific. Practically everything we eat -naturally- contains some level of toxic substances. Some more than others. Tomatoes, potatoes and peppers are all members of the same family as deadly nightshade, and have traces of that toxin within them. But we have livers to protect us from such things
Nice post.2 -
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." Yet here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.
Would it make if you feel better if we said it like this:
All heart harmful foods are processed foods, but not all processed foods are heart harmful.1 -
aqsylvester 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." Yet here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.
Would it make if you feel better if we said it like this:
All heart harmful foods are processed foods, but not all processed foods are heart harmful.
Millions where more harmed by convenience, lack of exercise and bigger portions. Albeit fat, carbs and protein. Not all of us got fat on carbs... i sure didnt.3 -
aqsylvester 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." Yet here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.
Would it make if you feel better if we said it like this:
All heart harmful foods are processed foods, but not all processed foods are heart harmful.
Actually I have no idea what that means either. What is a heart harmful food? Is it harmful imminently upon consumption, regardless of the dosage?
What's wrong with just suggesting people limit specifically the foods you think are harmful: refined fats and ultra refined carbohydrates and/or that in moderation, all foods can be part of a healthy diet?5 -
Additionally, my posts are not in defense of processed food. My posts are in defense of not demonizing a particular food or type of food with no regard to context or dosage. OP you started this thread because you are so bothered by people's fear of healthy fats, which you attribute to the efforts made to make fat the bad guy 20-30 years ago. You wish people could accept that healthy fat can be part of a healthy diet, yet you turn around and are villifying carbs and sugars. Why do we have to have a fear of any type of food, if we are focusing on eating a primarily nutrient dense diet, at a healthy weight, and with physical activity thrown in as well?13
-
aqsylvester 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." Yet here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.
Would it make if you feel better if we said it like this:
All heart harmful foods are processed foods, but not all processed foods are heart harmful.
Your own link from earlier where I pointed something out pretty clearly said that lowering saturated fat reduced risk of getting a heart problem, ergo more sat fat increases your risk, making it a "heart harmful food".
As do all official recommendations and a plethora of studies those official recommendations are based on, yet you keep ignoring them because you found a few that haven't seen a huge effect.5 -
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.3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Here we are again, another thread hijacked in defense of processed food.
Correction, a thread hijacked for the sake of common sense...9 -
OP - Debate only works if you have an open mind and are prepared to consider what people who disagree with you are saying and understand why they are saying it.
You may well still not agree but at least you have a chance to learn something about the subject from another perspective.
Otherwise it's just the internet version of 'listening to respond' and the forum becomes a cross between a soapbox and a battleground.13 -
aqsylvester wrote: »@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!
So do you, considering it's even some of your own links saying that lowering SF has a positive effect.5 -
aqsylvester 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.
Are you actually reading my posts because it doesn't seem like you are...7 -
aqsylvester 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 skewed 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.7 -
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=tQbgdRoAfOo0
-
aqsylvester 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/269798400 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »aqsylvester 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%1 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »aqsylvester 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.2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »aqsylvester 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?
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.
2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »aqsylvester 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?
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.2 -
Gianfranco_R wrote: »aqsylvester 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.0 -
-
aqsylvester wrote: »
If your biased view thinks 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.7 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »aqsylvester 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.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
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.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »
Hardly...0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions