Start the new year out right! Don't fear the tasty fatty meaty goodness!
rprussell2004
Posts: 870 Member
0
Replies
-
I'm already sold on this idea from the title.0
-
I would need more information than that; it barely skims over the topic. I'm eating or avoiding specific types of fat according to my doctor's orders. Olive oil yes, crisco no. My liver cranks out crazy amounts of cholesterol, so I'm on a statin. I eat eggs. I never did believe the BS about eggs being bad.0
-
I would need more information than that; it barely skims over the topic. I'm eating or avoiding specific types of fat according to my doctor's orders. Olive oil yes, crisco no. My liver cranks out crazy amounts of cholesterol, so I'm on a statin. I eat eggs. I never did believe the BS about eggs being bad.
Well, it points at a book that contains the MEAT (hurr hurr) of the info.
This guy's website has a bunch of stuff too. The short version is that cholesterol doesn't appear to be the demon it was once thought to be. Or, at least, not ALL cholesterol types. Anyway, go read up. And good luck with your liver :-/0 -
People are always looking for the easy, all-or-nothing solution when it's more complicated than that. Yes, recent research indicates that obesity and metabolic syndrome are probably more linked to over-consumption of carbohydrates than over-consumption of fats but that doesn't mean that now one can eat all the fat one wishes and be healthy.
Here's a good analysis: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/0 -
HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »People are always looking for the easy, all-or-nothing solution when it's more complicated than that. Yes, recent research indicates that obesity and metabolic syndrome are probably more linked to over-consumption of carbohydrates than over-consumption of fats but that doesn't mean that now one can eat all the fat one wishes and be healthy.
Here's a good analysis: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/
That's a great article, thanks. I wonder when it was published - it doesn't talk about the different sizes of LDL particles, for example.
What frustrates me, though (and your reply falls into this category, alas) is the misinterpretation that "fats aren't bad for you as previously thought" means "eat all you want!" Who said anything about overconsumption?0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »People are always looking for the easy, all-or-nothing solution when it's more complicated than that. Yes, recent research indicates that obesity and metabolic syndrome are probably more linked to over-consumption of carbohydrates than over-consumption of fats but that doesn't mean that now one can eat all the fat one wishes and be healthy.
Here's a good analysis: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/
That's a great article, thanks. I wonder when it was published - it doesn't talk about the different sizes of LDL particles, for example.
What frustrates me, though (and your reply falls into this category, alas) is the misinterpretation that "fats aren't bad for you as previously thought" means "eat all you want!" Who said anything about overconsumption?
It's at least a year or so old, I know that. Beyond that, I'm not sure, though.
The saturated fat section of that article bugs me, though. It massively downplays the conclusions from the meta-analysis, despite the fact that the combination of the studies results in one of the largest subject pools in nutrition science. If you can't be convinced by consistent results from studying the equivalent of 10% of the US population, then you probably won't be convinced by any amount of evidence.
I looked at it a while back in more detail, and as I recall, too, they used a lot of studies with a couple fatal flaws -- namely, combining saturated fat and trans fat vs unsaturated fats (then concluding that saturated fats are a problem), and/or lumping all kinds of meat together and treating them as equal, despite the fact that processed meats are known to have additives that can affect the outcome of the studies (there is a world of difference between a Vienna sausage and a fresh cut of steak from a pastured cow). Even the article itself states that most of the US's saturated fat intake "comes from cheese and pizza." Given that pizza is a combination food that can have any amount of ingredients that can add any kinds of fats, including trans fats, that's comparing apples and oranges, at best.
Then, there's the fact that polyunsaturated fats are heat-sensitive and easily oxidize when exposed to heat, yet the article recommends them as a replacement in cooking. If you want to insist on using unsaturated fats for cooking, then you're better off with monousaturated-dominant fat sources.
It also ignores the fact that while saturated fat raises LDL as measured by the standard test, it does so by converting the existing particles to "large, fluffy" ones, which are harmless. This has been verified by numerous accounts where LDL-P is measured in addition to "total" LDL.
The general tone of it still very much strikes me as sort of acknowledging that fats are necessary, but still trying to stay on the status quo side of the AHA/USDA ruling, especially regarding saturated fat, despite the lack of evidence for the current status quo. As a result, the article spends more time criticizing the wording of newpaper headlines than it does actually addressing the role of saturated fats in the diet.0 -
I am trying to stay up to date with cholesterol research because heart disease runs in my family. The most in depth explanation I have seen so far is from Dr. Attia: The Straight Dope on Cholesterol:
http://youtu.be/dAWdHYSrh7M. It's a little above me, but from what I've seen this man has a lot of integrity. He shows that the size of apoB lipoproteins doesn't appear to matter, rather the number. See approximately minutes 18-28 (though I recommend watching the whole video). I don't wish to argue with anyone, as I said, the science is a bit above me, just thought I'd share this info which I believe--at the very least--should not be disregarded 
0 -
So far, so Keto.
Which is great, I love butter, eggs, meat and cheese.
I could easily inhale lots of refined carbs (such as sweets, chocolates, bread and cake) until the packet is empty and go looking for more, but there are only so much steak, eggs or butter I wanna eat!
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »
Why are you posting a link to an article about a pseudoscience book?0 -
This would be the same Economist that was convinced oil prices would never again get above $40...?
0 -
Yesss, yesss... shoot the messenger, ignore the message. Par for you guys. Yadda yadda dark side.
Now, as requested, "Please discuss."0 -
I feel much better when I don't eat red meat or ice cream or butter. Im not missing out so I'll stick with foods that make me feel good.0
-
rprussell2004 wrote: »Yesss, yesss... shoot the messenger, ignore the message. Par for you guys. Yadda yadda dark side.
Now, as requested, "Please discuss."
Already talked about
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/1288924/why-butter-meat-and-cheese-belong-in-a-healthy-diet0 -
I think you misinterpreted "discuss" to mean "mock." Also, that was 8 months ago. Seriously, man, if you've got nothing constructive to say here, go find something useful to do. Crack walnuts with your pecs or something.
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »
I think you misinterpreted "discuss" to mean "mock." Also, that was 8 months ago. Seriously, man, if you've got nothing constructive to say here, go find something useful to do. Crack walnuts with your pecs or something.
The author is a quack and wrote a pseudoscience book, is that not a discussion point?
Another thing the author totally glosses over
http://gibneyonfood.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-big-fat-debate-dont-blame-nutrition.html
And insulin as the culprit? Wonder why she suggests upping protein, which is highly insulinogenic.
Again what is the point of posting links for a pseudoscience book?
0 -
Interesting article - When tackling the issue of heart disease it could focus more on the overeating of inflammatory foods, such as wheats and sugar and the subsequent oxidization of the LDL particles, which make them a threat to health.
Also I'm sure studies have proven diets high in saturated fats and low in carbs raise HDL levels, decrease triglycerides and increase LDL particle sizes.
So more meat and cream please!0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »
I think you misinterpreted "discuss" to mean "mock." Also, that was 8 months ago. Seriously, man, if you've got nothing constructive to say here, go find something useful to do. Crack walnuts with your pecs or something.
The author is a quack and wrote a pseudoscience book, is that not a discussion point?
Another thing the author totally glosses over
http://gibneyonfood.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-big-fat-debate-dont-blame-nutrition.html
And insulin as the culprit? Wonder why she suggests upping protein, which is highly insulinogenic.
Again what is the point of posting links for a pseudoscience book?
Unless it's whey and unless protein is all you're eating (and you're forcing your body to depend on gluconeogenesis), protein has a significantly lower insulinogenic effect than refined carbohydrates and even some complex carbohydrates (whey is on par with white bread for it insulinogenic effect, which makes sense in the intended context of milk). So even replacing carbs with protein, you're still reducing the insulinogenic effect of the food you consume, and for some people, that may be enough to increase body fat metabolism where they were previously having trouble.
I can't speak for the author you linked (especially since the article you linked has little to do with her dietary recommendations, but rather is lamenting how the media twists facts and distorts the actual conclusions of science), but the insulin thing has also been grossly oversimplified (as has just about everything else in nutrition). The issue with insulin isn't so much with insulin itself -- insulin is required for life and it so important that nearly every animal creates it -- but with pathologically high levels of insulin, which is the case of every person with Metabolic Syndrome. A diet with at least adequate fats (as the author you linked noted, 35% of calories from fat) and complex carbs as one's primary carb source, can help stave off or reverse disordered insulin secretion.
Keep in mind, too, that a large number (dare I say most) of the people advocating low carb for purposes of insulin control do not advocate high protein, but "adequate protein" -- that is, enough to meet one's protein needs to retain or build lean mass -- and high fat, which has the least effect on insulin levels.0 -
Dragonwolf wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »
I think you misinterpreted "discuss" to mean "mock." Also, that was 8 months ago. Seriously, man, if you've got nothing constructive to say here, go find something useful to do. Crack walnuts with your pecs or something.
The author is a quack and wrote a pseudoscience book, is that not a discussion point?
Another thing the author totally glosses over
http://gibneyonfood.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-big-fat-debate-dont-blame-nutrition.html
And insulin as the culprit? Wonder why she suggests upping protein, which is highly insulinogenic.
Again what is the point of posting links for a pseudoscience book?
Unless it's whey and unless protein is all you're eating (and you're forcing your body to depend on gluconeogenesis), protein has a significantly lower insulinogenic effect than refined carbohydrates and even some complex carbohydrates (whey is on par with white bread for it insulinogenic effect, which makes sense in the intended context of milk). So even replacing carbs with protein, you're still reducing the insulinogenic effect of the food you consume, and for some people, that may be enough to increase body fat metabolism where they were previously having trouble.
I can't speak for the author you linked (especially since the article you linked has little to do with her dietary recommendations, but rather is lamenting how the media twists facts and distorts the actual conclusions of science), but the insulin thing has also been grossly oversimplified (as has just about everything else in nutrition). The issue with insulin isn't so much with insulin itself -- insulin is required for life and it so important that nearly every animal creates it -- but with pathologically high levels of insulin, which is the case of every person with Metabolic Syndrome. A diet with at least adequate fats (as the author you linked noted, 35% of calories from fat) and complex carbs as one's primary carb source, can help stave off or reverse disordered insulin secretion.
Keep in mind, too, that a large number (dare I say most) of the people advocating low carb for purposes of insulin control do not advocate high protein, but "adequate protein" -- that is, enough to meet one's protein needs to retain or build lean mass -- and high fat, which has the least effect on insulin levels.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/66/5/1264.full.pdf
0 -
Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."
Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."
What's your definition?
Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.0 -
Blaming insulin is shooting the messenger0
-
Blaming insulin is shooting the messenger
Well, except that insulin has the known side-effect of blocking leptin's signal that you're satiated and should stop eating.
I agree that this is a digression, though.
The point is simply that the decades-long paranoia of saturated fats is misplaced.
0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."
Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."
What's your definition?
Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.
Pseudoscience would also include misrepresenting studies and drawing conclusions from said studies that data does not support in order to bolster your hypothesis. See Wheat Belly, Grain Brain, Good Calories Bad Calories etc.
See group means for carb rich foods and cereals vs protein rich foods? Not sure how that confirms the assertion that protein's response isn't nearly that of starches or sugars0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."
Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."
What's your definition?
Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.
Pseudoscience would also include misrepresenting studies and drawing conclusions from said studies that data does not support in order to bolster your hypothesis. See Wheat Belly, Grain Brain, Good Calories Bad Calories etc.
See group means for carb rich foods and cereals vs protein rich foods? Not sure how that confirms the assertion that protein's response isn't nearly that of starches or sugars
Does not the mean include outliers on the extreme end of the spectrum? We don't need to throw them out, but they can misrepresent the bulk of the group. Mean doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture in many circumstances, in situations where there are extreme outliers. A box plot may be a more accurate tool if you are wanting to get a more detailed picture of what is going on. Just because beef's extreme insulinogenic effect is so large, doesn't make those proteins with much lower affects on insulin suddenly have higher effects just because they are proteins, too. Guilt by association is what that logic is and that is not accurate.0 -
"Don't fear steak." Seriously, sometimes I think the people who write these articles are nearly brain-dead. I know they have to write about what they're told to write, but "Don't fear steak"?
WhatTheHellEver.0 -
"Don't fear steak." Seriously, sometimes I think the people who write these articles are nearly brain-dead. I know they have to write about what they're told to write, but "Don't fear steak"?
WhatTheHellEver.
Sensationalist BS pisses me off. Are they determined to not be taken seriously? Because that's what they are doing. Journalism isn't supposed to sound like rejected submissions for the middle-school newspaper. :rollingmyeyes:
0 -
baconslave wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."
Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."
What's your definition?
Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.
Pseudoscience would also include misrepresenting studies and drawing conclusions from said studies that data does not support in order to bolster your hypothesis. See Wheat Belly, Grain Brain, Good Calories Bad Calories etc.
See group means for carb rich foods and cereals vs protein rich foods? Not sure how that confirms the assertion that protein's response isn't nearly that of starches or sugars
Does not the mean include outliers on the extreme end of the spectrum? We don't need to throw them out, but they can misrepresent the bulk of the group. Mean doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture in many circumstances, in situations where there are extreme outliers. A box plot may be a more accurate tool if you are wanting to get a more detailed picture of what is going on. Just because beef's extreme insulinogenic effect is so large, doesn't make those proteins with much lower affects on insulin suddenly have higher effects just because they are proteins, too. Guilt by association is what that logic is and that is not accurate.
Can you give some of these proteins that have much lower effects?
If you were to ask your average low carber about relative insulin responses how many would say pasta is lower than steak or cod0 -
baconslave wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."
Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."
What's your definition?
Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.
Pseudoscience would also include misrepresenting studies and drawing conclusions from said studies that data does not support in order to bolster your hypothesis. See Wheat Belly, Grain Brain, Good Calories Bad Calories etc.
See group means for carb rich foods and cereals vs protein rich foods? Not sure how that confirms the assertion that protein's response isn't nearly that of starches or sugars
Does not the mean include outliers on the extreme end of the spectrum? We don't need to throw them out, but they can misrepresent the bulk of the group. Mean doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture in many circumstances, in situations where there are extreme outliers. A box plot may be a more accurate tool if you are wanting to get a more detailed picture of what is going on. Just because beef's extreme insulinogenic effect is so large, doesn't make those proteins with much lower affects on insulin suddenly have higher effects just because they are proteins, too. Guilt by association is what that logic is and that is not accurate.
Can you give some of these proteins that have much lower effects?
If you were to ask your average low carber about relative insulin responses how many would say pasta is lower than steak or cod
Hah. Leading question FTW! I'ma say NONE. I sure wouldn't have.
To give examples though, from the big list of the insulin indices (p.1269) based on the white bread standard, it looks like, frankly, ALL OF THEM.
Except baked beans, which I don't consider a proper low-carb food anyway. It was purchased at a supermarket and there's no list of ingredients. Googling the nutrition facts of navy beans has them with twice as many grams of carbs as protein.
Indeed, if you eliminate the obvious outlier baked beans, the group average becomes ~40, which is about half of the carb-rich section.
Looking at the graphs on page 1274 as well, the trend lines show that more protein per serving indicate less insulin, and more carbs/sugar mean more insulin.
I note that they didn't test egg WHITES, or refined sugar, or plain butter or lard, for example - i.e. pure samples of each macro type. Whole foods (and even the dreaded PROCESSED foods, boogaboogabooga!) are made up of a host of different ingredients.
I think your label of pseudoscience is misplaced here. By your argument, empirical conclusions are also verboten. Bad or misapplied science, perhaps. Certainly nothing you agree with. But pseudo? No.
And if an author can explain their conclusions, how is this 'misrepresenting,' other than the simple statement that you don't agree with them?
Now, all that said...
I have a host of friends and family - not to mention online cohorts - who confirm the theory that saturated fat is not harmful, and high-carb diets lead directly to T2D.
Bottom line, I don't understand your mental block here. Everything I see from you in any of these threads isn't "Yes, that's interesting BUT..." - instead it's "NO YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND HERE'S WHY!"0 -
rprussell2004 wrote: »baconslave wrote: »rprussell2004 wrote: »Okay, so while I'm willing to concede that (a) the interviewer at the link you posted is asking leading questions, and (b) correlation is not causality, I still would like to know how you consider meta-analyses to be "pseudoscience."
Pseudoscience is a special word for me, reserved for things like homeopathy and astrology that have no basis whatsoever in reality and have invented their own lingo to explain themselves. Drawing conclusions by analyzing other studies doesn't seem to be a "pseudoscience."
What's your definition?
Also: The insulin PDF seemed to me to quite neatly confirm that protein's response isn't nearly the level of sugars and starches. Thanks for that.
Pseudoscience would also include misrepresenting studies and drawing conclusions from said studies that data does not support in order to bolster your hypothesis. See Wheat Belly, Grain Brain, Good Calories Bad Calories etc.
See group means for carb rich foods and cereals vs protein rich foods? Not sure how that confirms the assertion that protein's response isn't nearly that of starches or sugars
Does not the mean include outliers on the extreme end of the spectrum? We don't need to throw them out, but they can misrepresent the bulk of the group. Mean doesn't necessarily paint an accurate picture in many circumstances, in situations where there are extreme outliers. A box plot may be a more accurate tool if you are wanting to get a more detailed picture of what is going on. Just because beef's extreme insulinogenic effect is so large, doesn't make those proteins with much lower affects on insulin suddenly have higher effects just because they are proteins, too. Guilt by association is what that logic is and that is not accurate.
Can you give some of these proteins that have much lower effects?
If you were to ask your average low carber about relative insulin responses how many would say pasta is lower than steak or cod
Hah. Leading question FTW! I'ma say NONE. I sure wouldn't have.
To give examples though, from the big list of the insulin indices (p.1269) based on the white bread standard, it looks like, frankly, ALL OF THEM.
Except baked beans, which I don't consider a proper low-carb food anyway. It was purchased at a supermarket and there's no list of ingredients. Googling the nutrition facts of navy beans has them with twice as many grams of carbs as protein.
Indeed, if you eliminate the obvious outlier baked beans, the group average becomes ~40, which is about half of the carb-rich section.
Looking at the graphs on page 1274 as well, the trend lines show that more protein per serving indicate less insulin, and more carbs/sugar mean more insulin.
I note that they didn't test egg WHITES, or refined sugar, or plain butter or lard, for example - i.e. pure samples of each macro type. Whole foods (and even the dreaded PROCESSED foods, boogaboogabooga!) are made up of a host of different ingredients.
I think your label of pseudoscience is misplaced here. By your argument, empirical conclusions are also verboten. Bad or misapplied science, perhaps. Certainly nothing you agree with. But pseudo? No.
And if an author can explain their conclusions, how is this 'misrepresenting,' other than the simple statement that you don't agree with them?
Now, all that said...
I have a host of friends and family - not to mention online cohorts - who confirm the theory that saturated fat is not harmful, and high-carb diets lead directly to T2D.
Bottom line, I don't understand your mental block here. Everything I see from you in any of these threads isn't "Yes, that's interesting BUT..." - instead it's "NO YOU'RE ALL WRONG AND HERE'S WHY!"
All the longest living populations in the world follow higher carb diets. You won't find any populations known for good health and longevity that get a large portion of their diet from fats.0 -
-
rprussell2004 wrote: »
Keep playing the guinea pig-1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions