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?

Options
1…5681011…16

Replies

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    If people are eaten lots of carbs and not getting diabetes it seems pretty relevant. It eliminates carbs as the causal factor.

    It depends. It's not a causal factor on it's own, but in combination with calorie excess and/or micronutrition deficiency a high carb intake absolutely will eventually lead to diabetes. That's a major component of why obesity and Type 2 are such a growing problem. People eat way too much of the overly processed, high calorie, low micronutrient, grain based convenient food... bread, cereal, pasta, etc. And yes, in fairness most of the meat based convenience foods contain way too many calories due to fat compared to micronutrient value, frozen dinners, chicken nuggets and so forth. Of course a lot of them -also- have added carbs from breading and such.

    Too many macros will cause weight gain. Too few, or wrong proportion of micros will cause other problems. Combine the two with a very high percentage of carbs and one of the problems caused will generally be diabetes.

    The problem I personally have with extremely low carb and keto diets are that they cause people to shun things like fruit and milk. These are important sources for much micronutrition, and even though they carry a high percentage of their macros in carbohydrate, the total calorie content is well in line with nutrient density.

    The problem I have with "plant-based" diets is that they generally make a mess of amino acid balance, or they require eating a bunch of stuff that is just unpalatable. They also generally don't support much more than minimal skeletal muscle. Vegans -do- tend to be scrawny and frail, regardless of how good -they- think they look. Then there's also the fact that so many of them are the shrill, "meat is murder" extremists. Sorry, your dietary defiance of nature does not make you morally superior. Human beings evolved as omnivores. We are meant to eat a little bit of pretty much everything that doesn't kill us first.

  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    My favorite part of this thread was the insinuation that if you eat a higher carb diet, you must not have a sex-drive.

    It's just as valid as the veggie activist claim that red meat causes impotence.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    You got it!
  • J72FIT
    J72FIT Posts: 5,948 Member
    Options
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    paulgads82 wrote: »
    If people are eaten lots of carbs and not getting diabetes it seems pretty relevant. It eliminates carbs as the causal factor.

    It depends. It's not a causal factor on it's own, but in combination with calorie excess and/or micronutrition deficiency a high carb intake absolutely will eventually lead to diabetes. That's a major component of why obesity and Type 2 are such a growing problem. People eat way too much of the overly processed, high calorie, low micronutrient, grain based convenient food... bread, cereal, pasta, etc. And yes, in fairness most of the meat based convenience foods contain way too many calories due to fat compared to micronutrient value, frozen dinners, chicken nuggets and so forth. Of course a lot of them -also- have added carbs from breading and such.

    Too many macros will cause weight gain. Too few, or wrong proportion of micros will cause other problems. Combine the two with a very high percentage of carbs and one of the problems caused will generally be diabetes.

    The problem I personally have with extremely low carb and keto diets are that they cause people to shun things like fruit and milk. These are important sources for much micronutrition, and even though they carry a high percentage of their macros in carbohydrate, the total calorie content is well in line with nutrient density.

    The problem I have with "plant-based" diets is that they generally make a mess of amino acid balance, or they require eating a bunch of stuff that is just unpalatable. They also generally don't support much more than minimal skeletal muscle. Vegans -do- tend to be scrawny and frail, regardless of how good -they- think they look. Then there's also the fact that so many of them are the shrill, "meat is murder" extremists. Sorry, your dietary defiance of nature does not make you morally superior. Human beings evolved as omnivores. We are meant to eat a little bit of pretty much everything that doesn't kill us first.

    Love this post!!!!!
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/

    "Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."

    This as stated is utter BS. If energy intake is in balance with expenditure (CI=CO) then you will not have weight gain, unhealthy or otherwise. What percentage comes from which macro is irrelevant.

    The cited sources are

    http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7666
    http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42665/1/WHO_TRS_916.pdf?ua=1
    and
    http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1953e.pdf
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs394/en/

    "Energy intake (calories) should be in balance with energy expenditure. Evidence indicates that total fat should not exceed 30% of total energy intake to avoid unhealthy weight gain (1, 2, 3), with a shift in fat consumption away from saturated fats to unsaturated fats (3), and towards the elimination of industrial trans fats (4)."

    This as stated is utter BS. If energy intake is in balance with expenditure (CI=CO) then you will not have weight gain, unhealthy or otherwise. What percentage comes from which macro is irrelevant.

    The cited sources are

    http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7666
    http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/42665/1/WHO_TRS_916.pdf?ua=1
    and
    http://www.fao.org/3/a-i1953e.pdf

    The source studies did not control for total calorie intake. In fact, the WHO paper makes specific reference to "high consumption of energy dense, micronutrient poor food" which certainly includes high fat convenience food but also would apply to high carb processed foods. The implication that consumption of fats can lead to weight gain in spite of a CICO balanced diet is nonsense. Their recommendation for percentage is based on calorie uncontrolled diets in which the decreased fat percentage is assumed to correspond with a calorie reduction by default. The manner in which the mediacentre/factsheets quote is worded is propaganda, in the same vein as the way one almost always sees saturated fats, red meat and trans-fats lumped together. It gives the general public, ie. casual observer of nutrition reporting, the false impression that red meats are a major source of trans-fat, which is absolutely untrue. Trans-fats come almost exclusively from processed vegetable oils, such as hydrogenated soybean oil, which the 'establishment' convinced everybody back in the '70s and '80s to use instead of far less damaging lard and animal fats/oils.

    You wonder why people don't trust the "experts" and "authorities" when they change their mind and/or get proven wrong almost every time you pick up a newspaper?
  • snikkins
    snikkins Posts: 1,282 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    auddii wrote: »
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    My favorite part of this thread was the insinuation that if you eat a higher carb diet, you must not have a sex-drive.

    It's just as valid as the veggie activist claim that red meat causes impotence.

    Right, all these claims are equally full of *pterodactyl eggs*.

    Yup. In no way did I imply that either claims were correct. But, extreme vegetarianism isn't the topic of this particular thread.
  • MarkusDarwath
    MarkusDarwath Posts: 393 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    Yup. In no way did I imply that either claims were correct. But, extreme vegetarianism isn't the topic of this particular thread.

    Actually, 'fear of animal fats and cholesterol' is a tactic frequently pushed by vegetarian extremists, attempting to convince people that their diet is superior in health to others. This is usually the go-to position when their moralizing against killing animals for food falls on deaf ears.

  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    snikkins wrote: »
    MarkusDarwath wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    Yup. In no way did I imply that either claims were correct. But, extreme vegetarianism isn't the topic of this particular thread.

    Actually, 'fear of animal fats and cholesterol' is a tactic frequently pushed by vegetarian extremists, attempting to convince people that their diet is superior in health to others. This is usually the go-to position when their moralizing against killing animals for food falls on deaf ears.

    I'm not disagreeing with you, but that still isn't what this particular thread is about as established in the OP.

    I don't think we need another thread where we start diet-bashing based on a few loose screws. We already have a few of them going.

    There's even a Freelee thread that is currently active.
  • ForecasterJason
    ForecasterJason Posts: 2,577 Member
    Options
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    aqsylvester wrote: »
    It's not insightful or productive.

    You said: "In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ..."

    I pointed out that exercise improves insulin sensitivity. You think that's neither insightful or productive? Did insulin resistance stop being a risk factor since you typed that?
    In some cases exercise on its own is not enough, and that's where diet comes in.

  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    For your reading pleasure...

    July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
    http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short

    April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995

    March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long

    July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1

    March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

    Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
    http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long

    February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
    http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full
  • Christine_72
    Christine_72 Posts: 16,049 Member
    Options
    Traveler120 wrote: »
    aqsylvester wrote: »

    And @Traveler120 I just saw you explained a breakdown of your diet. I would probably starve/lose my mind.

    Um...no, a 117 lb woman is NOT going to starve eating 1800-2100 calories a day. Don't be ridiculous!

    I'm assuming she meant your macros, eg very low fat and protein. Admittedly, i would struggle big time aswell eating like that. But if it works for, i'm not going to argue :smile:
  • Crisseyda
    Crisseyda Posts: 532 Member
    edited May 2016
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    aqsylvester wrote: »
    For your reading pleasure...

    July 2003, an analysis published in the BMJ by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 43,732 men over 14 years and concluded that "These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
    http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7418/777.short

    April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995

    March 2010, an analysis published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition by the Harvard School of Public Health followed 347,747 people over 5-23 years and concluded that "Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."
    http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.long

    July 2012, a review published in the European Journal of Nutrition concluded that “observational evidence does not support the hypothesis that dairy fat or high-fat dairy foods contribute to obesity or cardiometabolic risk, and suggests that high-fat dairy consumption within typical dietary patterns is inversely associated with obesity risk.”
    http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00394-012-0418-1

    March 2014, the University of Cambridge published an analysis in the Annals of Internal Medicine looking at a total of 643,226 people concluding that "Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
    http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

    Sept 2015, analysis of up to 339,090 people was published in the BMJ concluding that "Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes."
    http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978.long

    February 2015, an analysis published in OpenHeart looked at the evidence available in 1977 when the US (and 1983 when the UK) were first told to restrict fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol concluded that "Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from randomised controlled trials." Also, "[t]o date, no analysis of the evidence base for these recommendations has been undertaken."
    http://openheart.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000196.full

    Ah how nice.
    I took the liberty of choosing one of them at random and checking if what you say is true.
    Imagine how SHOCKED I was to find what you said about the study was not at all what the study said.
    You said this:

    "April 2009, the Annals of Internal Medicine, “A Systematic Review of the Evidence Supporting a Causal Link Between Dietary Factors and Coronary Heart Disease” looked at all trials to date for the link.There was no evidence found to support a link between total fat or saturated fat and heart disease.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19364995"

    Whereas that exact study (The full text of it that is), says the following:

    "A wealth of epidemiologic studies have evaluated associations between dietary exposures and CHD. The general consensus from the evidence currently available is that a reduced consumption of saturated and trans–fatty acids and a higher intake of fruits and vegetables, polyunsaturated fatty acids including ω-3 fatty acids, and whole grains are likely beneficial.21- 23 This is reflected in the revised Dietary Guidelines for Americans 2005 from the US Departments of Health and Human Services and Agriculture.24 However, little direct evidence from RCTs supports these recommendations. In some cases, RCTs have not been conducted, and RCTs that have been conducted have generally not been adequately powered or have evaluated surrogate end points rather than clinical outcomes. Despite this lack of information, evidence-based recommendations derived from cohort studies have been advocated."

    Sounds a bit different from what picture you were trying to paint, doesn't it?

    @Stevencloser

    Firstly, why not try reading all of them?

    Secondly, this analysis looked at all RCTs to date and found no causal link. That's exactly what was stated by me and your excerpt.

Categories