Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?

11011121416

Replies

  • psuLemonpsuLemon Posts: 35,888Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator Posts: 35,888Member, MFP Moderator, Greeter, Premium MFP Moderator
    J72FIT wrote: »
    J72FIT 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.
  • GamlielaGamliela Posts: 2,487Member Member Posts: 2,487Member Member
    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.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.

    +1
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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?
  • stevencloserstevencloser Posts: 8,917Member Member Posts: 8,917Member Member
    NewDay16 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    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. :D

    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.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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
    edited May 2016
  • snikkinssnikkins Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Posts: 2,582Member Member Posts: 2,582Member Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.
    Right, that's what I thought as well.

  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    snikkins wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.
  • GamlielaGamliela Posts: 2,487Member Member Posts: 2,487Member Member
    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.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.
    I tend to agree with you. That being said, I think it's fine as long as it stays in the this forum. I feel like the ones that participate here are only a small subset of the overall forum membership. Some of us seem unable to walk away from debates outside of here, and I think that is unfortunate. On the other hand, a lot of the more belligerent comments on the outside come from people who are not regular participants in these debates.
  • moe0303moe0303 Posts: 933Member Member Posts: 933Member Member
    NewDay16 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    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. :D

    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.

    People who post with tones similar to the OP fall on both sides of almost any debate seen on these boards.
  • auddiiauddii Posts: 15,410Member Member Posts: 15,410Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    NewDay16 wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    zyxst wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    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. :D

    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.

    I've recommended the app to several friends; I also told them to stay out of the forums.
  • Poweredbycoffee06Poweredbycoffee06 Posts: 39Member Member Posts: 39Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    snikkins wrote: »
    Gamliela wrote: »
    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.

    I was referring to MFP forums in general. The general forums are full of debates and are just as bad.
  • RobertusRobertus Posts: 558Member Member Posts: 558Member Member
    Experts disagree. That's what they do. Pretty much everyone agrees on the benefits of exercise and sport. But then the petty arguments focus on cardio vs strength-training. Both are good.
  • NorthCascadesNorthCascades Posts: 9,598Member Member Posts: 9,598Member Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Posts: 1,282Member Member Posts: 1,282Member Member
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?
  • vingoglyvingogly Posts: 1,785Member, Premium Member Posts: 1,785Member, Premium Member
    Nuke_64 wrote: »
    I'm curious why they still have cholesterol on the new nutritional information labeling requirements.

    Because getting something produced by a government agency changed is like getting the Titanic to make a 90 degree turn.
Sign In or Register to comment.