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: »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
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.5K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.2K Fitness and Exercise
- 382 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.6K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 878 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions