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: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...12 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...
This.1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...
Dudd, they eat too much and move too little. No one forces you to be fat. It's clearly a conscious choice. Ergo, if you are fat, you must be 1. Too lazy to move enough and 2. Too gluttonous to stop eating. Sorry, but no other options there when it comes to bro science... unless you have another explanation??2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Cute. That isn't what I said. I am not saying people are lazy gluttons. But if you are looking at contributing factors, those are two of the biggest drivers. If you want to ignore that, it's on you.
Lifestyle choices that affect the development of type 2 diabetes include:- Lack of exercise: Physical activity has many benefits—one of them being that it can help you avoid type 2 diabetes, if you’re susceptible.
- Unhealthy meal planning choices: A meal plan filled with high-fat foods and lacking in fiber (which you can get from grains, vegetables, and fruits) increases the likelihood of type 2.
- Overweight/Obesity: Lack of exercise and unhealthy meal planning choices can lead to obesity, or make it worse. Being overweight makes it more likely that you’ll become insulin resistant and can also lead to many other health conditions.
What are the risk factors for cardiovascular disease?
The most important behavioural risk factors of heart disease and stroke are unhealthy diet, physical inactivity, tobacco use and harmful use of alcohol. The effects of behavioural risk factors may show up in individuals as raised blood pressure, raised blood glucose, raised blood lipids, and overweight and obesity. These “intermediate risks factors” can be measured in primary care facilities and indicate an increased risk of developing a heart attack, stroke, heart failure and other complications.
Cessation of tobacco use, reduction of salt in the diet, consuming fruits and vegetables, regular physical activity and avoiding harmful use of alcohol have been shown to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. In addition, drug treatment of diabetes, hypertension and high blood lipids may be necessary to reduce cardiovascular risk and prevent heart attacks and strokes. Health policies that create conducive environments for making healthy choices affordable and available are essential for motivating people to adopt and sustain healthy behaviour.
There are also a number of underlying determinants of CVDs or "the causes of the causes". These are a reflection of the major forces driving social, economic and cultural change – globalization, urbanization and population ageing. Other determinants of CVDs include poverty, stress and hereditary factors.
So please, keep thinking you know better than the large amounts of research because you have an agenda to protect fats. Which BTW, I think fats are beneficial.
3 -
Wow.... This thread has gone on for days with thinly veiled insults hurled at anyone who dares disagree with OP, which is fine, most of us here can handle ourselves with decorum and resolve in a heated debate about science. But this latest turn toward fat shaming is truly deplorable OP.
Edited because words escaped me at first...12 -
Obviously fat people are fat because they're not eating enough saturated fat.7
-
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...
Dudd, they eat too much and move too little. No one forces you to be fat. It's clearly a conscious choice. Ergo, if you are fat, you must be 1. Too lazy to move enough and 2. Too gluttonous to stop eating. Sorry, but no other options there when it comes to bro science... unless you have another explanation??
Maybe no one showed them what a balanced diet was. Maybe no one showed them how to exercise. Maybe they had a rough childhood and use food as a comfort. I find your attitude very distasteful by the way. Your lack of compassion for the obese is awful...
Also, your deducting reasoning stinks...13 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...
Dudd, they eat too much and move too little. No one forces you to be fat. It's clearly a conscious choice. Ergo, if you are fat, you must be 1. Too lazy to move enough and 2. Too gluttonous to stop eating. Sorry, but no other options there when it comes to bro science... unless you have another explanation??
There are a variety of reason for why people become overweight and obese. In any case, I never blame them for the choices they have made and I understand that there are many physical and psychological factors that come into play. Your interpretation of my words and my thoughts couldn't be any further from the truth.
The fact is, you fail to recognize any science that isn't supported by your personal position. There are hundreds of studies that support and do not support SFA. I agree that if you are getting your SFA from meats and dairy, then there should be less concern for them, but I still believe you shouldn't allow for reckless regard when it comes from SFA because a few studies haven't shown the correlation between CVD and SFA, especially if your diet is also high in PUFA and MUFA.
And more importantly, a person should have a well rounded diet with a variety of foods to ensure nutritional completeness. This includes diets that incorporate plant based whole grains, oats, fruits and veggies, as well as diets that are adequate in protein to address your physical goals as well as adequate fats for maximum nutrient absorption and health.
And of all the people that are on this forum, I am probably one of the most agnostic as I support all lifestyles and help people get started with them. In fact, I have helped my wife with her LCHF journey due to her medical requirements and I live a moderator/flexible style diet.
Edit: fixing grammar9 -
WinoGelato wrote: »Wow.... This thread has gone on for days with thinly veiled insults hurled at anyone who dares disagree with OP, which is fine, most of us here can handle ourselves with decorum and resolve in a heated debate about science. But this latest turn toward fat shaming is truly deplorable OP.
Edited because words escaped me at first...
It reminds me of a recent college grad who thinks they have it all figured out but isn't mature enough to debate without hurling insults. Kinda that crossroads between college student and adulthood. Hence, why I have let this thread go. Lol
6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...
Dudd, they eat too much and move too little. No one forces you to be fat. It's clearly a conscious choice. Ergo, if you are fat, you must be 1. Too lazy to move enough and 2. Too gluttonous to stop eating. Sorry, but no other options there when it comes to bro science... unless you have another explanation??
This is not true because of the use of the word "and". It's possible to become overweight while not moving too little. It's quite easy to eat so much that no amount of movement will prevent fat gain, and even more possible to eat so much that the amount and intensity of movement required to prevent fat gain would be unhealthy.2 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.9
-
Sugar. The answer is clearly supposed to be sugar.
The debate tactic is so bad that I can't even, but if you want to deny that people are fat only because they are lazy gluttons, you're supposed to acknowledge that there's something outside of their control that is making them fat. Perhaps something white and "addictive."
Not that people might have different priorities or a lack of knowledge or anything. It's either lazy and gluttonous or sugar. Obviously.
ETA: /sarcasm because I'm not sure it's clear.6 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »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.
Why must you add lazy glutton? Why would you say something so mean? That said the reality is yes, the obese eat too much and move to little. There is no need to fat shame...
Dudd, they eat too much and move too little. No one forces you to be fat. It's clearly a conscious choice. Ergo, if you are fat, you must be 1. Too lazy to move enough and 2. Too gluttonous to stop eating. Sorry, but no other options there when it comes to bro science... unless you have another explanation??
Your statements on why people are fat are particularly odious and at the same time disingenuous. Why the sarcasm? There's no room for it in a reasoned debate.7 -
Sugar. The answer is clearly supposed to be sugar.
The debate tactic is so bad that I can't even, but if you want to deny that people are fat only because they are lazy gluttons, you're supposed to acknowledge that there's something outside of their control that is making them fat. Perhaps something white and "addictive."
Not that people might have different priorities or a lack of knowledge or anything. It's either lazy and gluttonous or sugar. Obviously.
ETA: /sarcasm because I'm not sure it's clear.
I thought the answer is supposed to be because they don't consume enough dietary cholesterol since that's supposedly the topic at hand. I'm having a hard time seeing what OP is getting at with her questioning of why people get fat.3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all.
If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth
because I used to be that person.
Well one area I certainly agree with you on is not being afraid of saturated fat. That said, I have no desire to make it the bulk of my calories. 30% is enough IMO.
Humans are multi variant creatures living in a multi variant environment. To that point, I think we have the capacity to thrive on many diets, some high carb and some high fat. Which is best? I guess we really won't know until the end.
I do appreciate your passion on this topic (albeit a little one sided) as I am passionate on the topic as well. My take: eat mostly whole real nutrient dense food, get adequate protein, fat and fiber and fill in the rest with carbs. Get plenty of exercise and sleep. Try to live in the moment and keep stress at bay. I think stressing about eating a perfect diet is probably worse then eating a not so perfect diet and not stressing about it.
As I tell all my friends and clients, "train hard, eat well, get plenty of rest and go live your life..."
I believe the rest will take care of itself.
What's funny is, it sounds like we are basically in agreement.
I also think humans do well eating mostly whole real nutrient dense food. I never once said, nor do I think everyone needs to eat a ketogenic diet. I do, however, believe it is a highly effective treatment for IR and obesity, among other things--and also excellent for disease prevention.
The state of ketosis is very beneficial to the human body, but even just going in and out of it can still provide substantial benefits. I imagine our ancestors went in and out of it depending on the time of day or the season of the year (whether or not starchy foods were available). In fact, most normal, healthy people go into a mild ketosis during the prolonged fast of sleeping (after 14 hrs or so). I'm sure I often go out of ketosis after meals, but quickly get back into it. Eating nutrient dense, whole foods probably does just as much for me as regular ketosis does when it comes to the newfound ease (did not have at all on a low fat plant-focused diet--no butter, no eggs, only lean meats and fish) I have with skipping meals or fasting.
I agree with much of what you're saying but I think it's important to point out that everyone does not respond favorably to forced nutritional ketosis. Or saturated fat. Regardless of the recent reviews and favorable low carb studies I think a little less certainty is in order.
Here's some thoughts from Peter Attia:
March 2015
Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
May 2016
23:30: Ketogenic diets do not work for everyone. The efficacy of the ketogenic diets may have a genetic basis and it does not seem appropriate for everyone.
It's frustrating to a lot of patients because they just want this so badly to work and it doesn't. And there's no denying that. When you see their LDL-P skyrocket to 3500nmol/L, when you see their CRP skyrocket, when you see all of these changes that go in the wrong direction from a lipoprotein standpoint, inflammatory standpoint, from a hormonal standpoint. You can tweak it all you want you can say maybe there's too much omega 6 or maybe you gotta go more monounsaturated versus saturated fat but, you know, you've only got a handful of levers to pull there and in the end you sometimes just acknowledge that this diet is not optimal for this person. And yet, interestingly, I'll take that patient and I'll put them on a relatively carbohydrate restricted non-ketogenic diet and can have amazing results.
Episode 1: Peter Attia on how to live longer and better
http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode001/
4 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
11 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Lol I've never been in the southern US but I'm kinda afraid of it because of everything I hear about the ladies there.
1 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Bless your heart...11 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Lol I've never been in the southern US but I'm kinda afraid of it because of everything I hear about the ladies there.
Op would have her *kitten* handed to her if she acted like this in the South.
I am lurker, but after seeing so much hate here for anyone who dares eat a freaking carb (or doesn't care for high fat), I realize this is not the place for me. Op and others like her are not helping anybody and at this point. If I would have joined when I first started losing weight, I would have failed. The amount of b.s. on here is astounding. I feel bad for members who are new to fitness and nutrition. I am glad I have not told any of my friends about this place.
8 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Lol I've never been in the southern US but I'm kinda afraid of it because of everything I hear about the ladies there.
Op would have her *kitten* handed to her if she acted like this in the South.
I am lurker, but after seeing so much hate here for anyone who dares eat a freaking carb (or doesn't care for high fat), I realize this is not the place for me. Op and others like her are not helping anybody and at this point. If I would have joined when I first started losing weight, I would have failed. The amount of b.s. on here is astounding. I feel bad for members who are new to fitness and nutrition. I am glad I have not told any of my friends about this place.
It's funny you say that... I've been using MFP for about 3 years now (I had an account before that I deleted when I wanted a fresh start) but I've only been reading the forums for a couple of months because whenever I would see the app recommended for counting calories almost always without fail the person recommending would add the caveat to stay away from the forums.
1 -
AlabasterVerve wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »@aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.
@J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.
In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.
If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.
I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)
I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth because I used to be that person.
Well one area I certainly agree with you on is not being afraid of saturated fat. That said, I have no desire to make it the bulk of my calories. 30% is enough IMO.
Humans are multi variant creatures living in a multi variant environment. To that point, I think we have the capacity to thrive on many diets, some high carb and some high fat. Which is best? I guess we really won't know until the end.
I do appreciate your passion on this topic (albeit a little one sided) as I am passionate on the topic as well. My take: eat mostly whole real nutrient dense food, get adequate protein, fat and fiber and fill in the rest with carbs. Get plenty of exercise and sleep. Try to live in the moment and keep stress at bay. I think stressing about eating a perfect diet is probably worse then eating a not so perfect diet and not stressing about it.
As I tell all my friends and clients, "train hard, eat well, get plenty of rest and go live your life..."
I believe the rest will take care of itself.
What's funny is, it sounds like we are basically in agreement.
I also think humans do well eating mostly whole real nutrient dense food. I never once said, nor do I think everyone needs to eat a ketogenic diet. I do, however, believe it is a highly effective treatment for IR and obesity, among other things--and also excellent for disease prevention.
The state of ketosis is very beneficial to the human body, but even just going in and out of it can still provide substantial benefits. I imagine our ancestors went in and out of it depending on the time of day or the season of the year (whether or not starchy foods were available). In fact, most normal, healthy people go into a mild ketosis during the prolonged fast of sleeping (after 14 hrs or so). I'm sure I often go out of ketosis after meals, but quickly get back into it. Eating nutrient dense, whole foods probably does just as much for me as regular ketosis does when it comes to the newfound ease (did not have at all on a low fat plant-focused diet--no butter, no eggs, only lean meats and fish) I have with skipping meals or fasting.
I agree with much of what you're saying but I think it's important to point out that everyone does not respond favorably to forced nutritional ketosis. Or saturated fat. Regardless of the recent reviews and favorable low carb studies I think a little less certainty is in order.
Here's some thoughts from Peter Attia:
March 2015
Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.
"And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.
However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."
Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:
Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi
May 2016
23:30: Ketogenic diets do not work for everyone. The efficacy of the ketogenic diets may have a genetic basis and it does not seem appropriate for everyone.
It's frustrating to a lot of patients because they just want this so badly to work and it doesn't. And there's no denying that. When you see their LDL-P skyrocket to 3500nmol/L, when you see their CRP skyrocket, when you see all of these changes that go in the wrong direction from a lipoprotein standpoint, inflammatory standpoint, from a hormonal standpoint. You can tweak it all you want you can say maybe there's too much omega 6 or maybe you gotta go more monounsaturated versus saturated fat but, you know, you've only got a handful of levers to pull there and in the end you sometimes just acknowledge that this diet is not optimal for this person. And yet, interestingly, I'll take that patient and I'll put them on a relatively carbohydrate restricted non-ketogenic diet and can have amazing results.
Episode 1: Peter Attia on how to live longer and better
http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode001/
Seems reasonable. It's potentially why the NIH and many mainstream research institutes recommend eating a maximum of 10% of calories from SFA.1 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.4 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
+10 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?0 -
I've been following this thread for the last few days with the intention of going back and reading it from the start, but now I've lost interest in doing so. Once someone starts with belittling language and over simplifications of opposing arguments, they've already lost in my eyes. It doesn't matter if they are right or not; I'll look elsewhere for information on the subject.
I keep reading to find out who OP will next call honey. It's like being in a room full of Southern women.
Lol I've never been in the southern US but I'm kinda afraid of it because of everything I hear about the ladies there.
Op would have her *kitten* handed to her if she acted like this in the South.
I am lurker, but after seeing so much hate here for anyone who dares eat a freaking carb (or doesn't care for high fat), I realize this is not the place for me. Op and others like her are not helping anybody and at this point. If I would have joined when I first started losing weight, I would have failed. The amount of b.s. on here is astounding. I feel bad for members who are new to fitness and nutrition. I am glad I have not told any of my friends about this place.
The funny thing is usually low carbers accuse the moderate eaters of this.2 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?
Can't answer for Gamliela, but my concern is that simple and reliable information such as "posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health" gets buried in unnecessary debates.
Edited for clarity3 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?
Can't answer for Gamliela, but my concern is that simple and reliable information such as "posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health" gets buried in unnecessary debates.
Edited for clarity
This is the debate forum, though, so it seems like a strange complaint for this particular location on the site. From what I took away, moving the debate to its own forum was meant to stop what you're concerned about from happening.0 -
Right, that's what I thought as well.Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?
Can't answer for Gamliela, but my concern is that simple and reliable information such as "posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health" gets buried in unnecessary debates.
Edited for clarity
This is the debate forum, though, so it seems like a strange complaint for this particular location on the site. From what I took away, moving the debate to its own forum was meant to stop what you're concerned about from happening.
0 -
Yeah, I've been reading along and wondered about the newcomers to this site myself. Lots of fear probably enters into their thoughts on how to eat, whats safe, whats not. That sort of thing.
Eating less calories than you need every day requires some attention to nutritional health and safety. I hope that information is available here sometimes. Or that it might take precedence over winning an argument at least.
To imply that the information you're referring to is not here is to ignore the people you are putting down about "winning an argument." So, I know you've read their posts and I guess my question for you is why are you choosing to ignore the part of these poster's posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health?
Can't answer for Gamliela, but my concern is that simple and reliable information such as "posts that say calories are for weight loss, macros for satiety and preference, and micros for health" gets buried in unnecessary debates.
Edited for clarity
This is the debate forum, though, so it seems like a strange complaint for this particular location on the site. From what I took away, moving the debate to its own forum was meant to stop what you're concerned about from happening.
I know what you mean but I see these debates happening on smaller scales in other forums here. That's why I said the debates are unnecessary. There's a place and time for them. When NewDay16 said "this is not the place for me", he/she was referring to the MFP forums in general, not just the debate forum. @NewDay16 can correct me if I'm wrong.
Any way, I'm not looking to start anything and I'm deeper into this tangent than I intended. My posts about the state of the forums can be taken or ignored. They're simply opinions that I'm not too concerned about defending.1 -
OK I definatly concede to that. Debate section is for debate. I actually hadn't made that connection. Awareness blip on my part.
I hope newcomers are also aware that this is a thread for debate than for those of us seeking the most nutritious use of the calories we are eating per day. I apologize and meant no harm. I was just wondering why everyone was debating, in the debate forum. You know, just not watching carefully those headings reading DEBATE. Won't happen again probably.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