Large-Scale Dietary Study: Fats Good, Carbs Bad (cbsnews.com) 477
An anonymous reader quotes CBS:
New research suggests that it's not the fat in your diet that's raising your risk of premature death, it's too many carbohydrates -- especially the refined, processed kinds of carbs -- that may be the real killer... People with a high fat intake -- about 35 percent of their daily diet -- had a 23 percent lower risk of early death and 18 percent lower risk of stroke compared to people who ate less fat, said lead author Mahshid Dehghan. She's an investigator with the Population Health Research Institute at McMaster University in Ontario... At the same time, high-carb diets -- containing an average 77 percent carbohydrates -- were associated with a 28 percent increased risk of death versus low-carb diets, Dehghan said...
For this study, Dehghan and her colleagues tracked the diet and health of more than 135,000 people, aged 35 to 70, from 18 countries around the world, to gain a global perspective on the health effects of diet. Participants provided detailed information on their social and economic status, lifestyle, medical history and current health. They also completed a questionnaire on their regular diet, which researchers used to calculate their average daily calories from fats, carbohydrates and proteins. The research team then tracked the participants' health for about seven years on average, with follow-up visits at least every three years.
For this study, Dehghan and her colleagues tracked the diet and health of more than 135,000 people, aged 35 to 70, from 18 countries around the world, to gain a global perspective on the health effects of diet. Participants provided detailed information on their social and economic status, lifestyle, medical history and current health. They also completed a questionnaire on their regular diet, which researchers used to calculate their average daily calories from fats, carbohydrates and proteins. The research team then tracked the participants' health for about seven years on average, with follow-up visits at least every three years.
Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)
This is why I stopped drinking Pepsi and started drinking gravy instead.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
"The researchers noted that their study did not look at the specific types of food from which nutrients were derived. And, that, said Bethany O'Dea, constitutes a "major flaw from a nutrition standpoint." O'Dea is a cardiothoracic dietitian with Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City. "For example, eating a healthy carb like an apple is more nutrient dense and better for you than eating a bag of processed potato chips," O'Dea said. "Furthermore, the study did not take trans fats into account, which hold heavy evidence of being unhealthy and contributing to cardiovascular disease," she pointed out."
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
"For example, eating a healthy carb like an apple is more nutrient dense and better for you than eating a bag of processed potato chips," O'Dea said.
It depends very much on what you understand by "nutrient dense". A bag of potato crisps/chips has a lot more calories than an average apple - and weighs a lot less - so it is much more "calorie dense". Those calories come about equally from carbs and fat in the chips, from sugar only in the apple (mostly fructose, with varying admixtures of glucose and sucrose), making the chips again slightly better.
The apple contains about twice as much fibre, but has no protein or fat whereas the chips contain both. The bag of crisps will typically have slightly more Vitamin C than an apple, and also provides some iron and calcium - and of course a good shot of sodium - whereas the apple lacks those but does offer some potassium and a little Vitamin B6.
So on the basis of facts it's not quite clear which is "better for you". But notice how the dietitian simply declares that the apple is better for you, rather as a priest might pass down dogma to his congregation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The presence of trans fats in the study would seem to strengthen their main result: even during the study period, where people were exposed to quite a bit of trans fat, eating more fat came out as being good for you. If trans fat is harmful, which seems likely, it suggests that eating a decent amount of fat today would be even better for you.
Those don't really seem like significant limitations at all. The two you mentioned have fairly minor bearing on the main conclusion.
Re:Another tiny "limitation"... (Score:5, Funny)
As the old joke goes - both the Italians and the Japanese eat like that and have a greater life expectancy than Americans, British, Canadians and Australians.
Therefore, diet doesn't matter. It's speaking English that kills you.
Re: (Score:3)
Harvey was advertised as being unusually dangerous because it combined wind with water (though perhaps that theory was all wet).
In any case, harm is not always a single factor condition.
In paleolithic terms, getting a belly full of carbs (fruit grove that ripens all in a day) or a belly full of cholesterol (goodbye now-extinct megafauna) wasn't that rare, but managing both as the same time was a real trick.
Insulin is a storage hormone that directs excess carbs into fat storage. Might complicate mopping up
Flawed article and/or study (Score:2)
This study doesn't really show carbohydrates are a bad thing, it shows that an excessive amount of carbohydrates are a bad thing. The average US male adult diet is about 57.5% carbohydrates, 27.5% fat, 15% protein. To get to a 77% carbohydrate intake it would require removing 50% of the protein and fat from that diet. It isn't a big shock that this is bad for you.
Like you said, the results of high carbohydrate side of the study make sense. We shouldn't be gravitating to low fat food which pile on sugar to m
Re: (Score:3)
I've posted this before, but seems like a good time for it again - very technical, but also very interesting.
90 minute lecture, Sugar: The Bitter Truth [youtube.com] by Robert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, explores the damage caused by sugary foods. He argues that fructose (too much) and fiber (not enough) appear to be cornerstones of the obesity epidemic through their effects on insulin. Series: UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public [7/2009]
Describes in detail how f
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel. The issue is the quantity, the level of refinement, and the relative difficulty in obtaining food not saturated in it.
This whole epidemic is the result of trying to simplify the complexities of nutrition into a short sentence like "fats good, carbs bad." There's no need to repeat that mistake.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Get over yourself. When people talk about sugar, NOBODY is talking about naturally occurring fructose or lactose.
They are talking about the highly refined white stuff that looks a bit like a narcotic.
Also, most of our "cellular fuel" isn't consumed in the form of simple sugars.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, most of our "cellular fuel" isn't consumed in the form of simple sugars.
Correct. We mostly burn ribose (long term) and glycogen (short term), which sugars can be converted to (along with by-products) through multi-step processes.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)
Bananas are nazis.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Eating 6 or so oranges sounds kind of gross and gluttonous but that's exactly what you are doing when you drink a restaurant sized glass of orange juice, and the majority of people in the USA don't think twice about this.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Alle Dinge sind Gift, und nichts ist ohne Gift, allein die Dosis macht dass ein Ding kein Gift ist.
All things are poison, and nothing is without poison, the dosage alone makes it so a thing is not a poison.
Paracelsus
in 1538
Re: (Score:3)
Get over yourself. When people talk about sugar, NOBODY is talking about naturally occurring fructose or lactose.
Actually, they do.
Your body does not directly burn fructose, natural or otherwise (unless you're a plant). In humans, it is mostly metabolized in the liver.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
Why not? Sugar is a poison, even the simple ones. But so is oxygen.
Also, to bring up a car analogy, if your gas measure is too rich in your carburetor you'll foul your cylinders.
As with everything, it's pretty much a matter of proportions and quantity. A tiny bit of sugar is no problem. Too much and things start to go to hell. But the same is true of proteins (kidney problems) and fats (triglyceride levels). The body is designed to cope with these things, and with large variations in the food supply, but coping generally comes at a cost, and the cost is measured in life expectancy.
In my case I OD'ed on sugars and carbs for decades before it caught up with me, so for me it's important that I *really* limit the proportion of sugars and carbs (except fiber) in my diet. I tried the Atkins diet for 6 months, and while it helped me lose a bit of weight it sent my triglycerides through the roof. Strangely, that's when I was diagnosed with diabetes. I've modified my diet now to something where sugar is essentially absent, non-fiber cars are *strongly* limited, and fats, especially saturated fats, are limited. Limiting fats has as an immediate result also limiting animal protein. (I suppose I could eat lots of rabbit or some such, but that's too much bother.) My triglycerides are back under control. Cholesterol was never a problem (my body chemistry generates low cholesterol as the problem). Etc.
If you do this right you can even have breads, though you need to cook them yourself, as no commercial version is low in starches. My preferred mix is to replace flour with a combination of wheat bran, wheat germ, and wheat gluten....all essentially free of starch. You make things interesting by using different mixes of spices with each batch. Cocoa is good, but I prefer either pumpkin pie spice or curry. If you want to make yeast bread you need to pick ingredients that don't bother the yeast. With tomato sauce you need to add a bit of xanthan gum to avoid having bubbles that are so sharp you cut your mouth when you eat the bread. Some people like to add nut flours, but I prefer peanut butter.
But note that this is necessary because I was an ice cream junkie for a long time. And cookies. Etc. If you have a different dietary history, you'll need a different correction, and it's easier if you can do it before you have a breakdown...of course, after the breakdown motivation is stronger.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel.
Sugar is not our primary fuel. Glucose is our primary fuel. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup can be as high as 80% fructose. Fructose is not the same as glucose. Fructose is processed by the liver the same way as alcohol and other poisons. The only difference between fructose and alcohol is that fructose doesn't cause you to get drunk. Very few people would dream of giving their 8 year old multiple glasses of alcohol a day but millions of people give their 8 year olds multiple glasses of HFCS every day.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if I had mod points.
When I first heard of high fructose corn syrup, I thought it would have much more fructose in it than sucrose does. But, according to wikipedia, it's a bit more complicated than that. For example, the typical proportion of fructose in HFCS in soft drinks is "only" 65%, which is "only" 15% more than sucrose. I'm not saying that 15% more than sucrose doesn't matter, of course, I'm just saying that the amount of fructose in HFCS varies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
There is an additional difference in that sucrose has the glucose and fructose bonded together, while HFCS has free fructose and glucose. Therefore sucrose is inherently slower to digest and the spike in absorption is flattened out.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not really. Sucrose is cleaved by sucrase in the small intestine almost immediately upon ingestion, like within 5 minutes.
Studies show no difference in the absorption rate of sucrose vs. HFCS.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually this is not quite true. The fructose from high fructose corn syrup does get processed in the liver but that is due to the concentration levels. The fructose from fruit is not normally processed that way. when you eat fruit it takes time for your body to break it down and get to the sugars in it. This causes the amount in your bloodstream to be lower at any given time and a different chemical pathway is used. When you have purified sugars your blood sugar level spikes to dangerous levels and while cells can rapidly pull glucose out of your blood they can't handle all the fructose and so your liver gets handed the job.
Also just to be pure 100% fruit juice is JUST AS BAD as soda in terms of the sugars. It makes the sugars extremely available to your body and causes your blood sugar levels to spike. It is far better to eat the fruit than to drink the fruit and this includes smoothies. In general you want to avoid drinking your calories.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Sugar is not our primary fuel. Glucose is our primary fuel. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose.
You two are talking past each other. Sucrose, glucose, and fructose are all sugars.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel.
Sugar is not our primary fuel. Glucose is our primary fuel. Sugar is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. High fructose corn syrup can be as high as 80% fructose. Fructose is not the same as glucose. Fructose is processed by the liver the same way as alcohol and other poisons. The only difference between fructose and alcohol is that fructose doesn't cause you to get drunk. Very few people would dream of giving their 8 year old multiple glasses of alcohol a day but millions of people give their 8 year olds multiple glasses of HFCS every day.
Maybe someone who knows more about this topic can answer why we don't have high glucose sugar? That wouldn't be as unhealthy it seems yet it would still taste sweet. It seems better than the various artificial sweeteners at least.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Glucose (dextrose) is roughly half as sweet as fructose. People use HFCS because it's sweeter than normal syrup.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Funny)
This is why we should ban fructose. It's useless.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Informative)
Oh, quit with the "poison" nonsense. Sugar is our primary cellular fuel. The issue is the quantity, the level of refinement, and the relative difficulty in obtaining food not saturated in it.
That turns out not to be the case. It is well known, and has repeatedly been demonstrated, that the body's cells run equally well on fat. See, for example, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov] For further copious details, including case studies, see Gary Taubes' excellent summary "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (published in the UK as "The Diet Dilemma" for reasons unknown to all but the publisher).
The only cells that appear to need glucose are those of the brain. However, it is easy to get the wrong idea even here. After a few days' fasting, the brain starts to use ketones which are produced as a by-product of metabolozing fat for fuel. A rather small minimum amount of glucose still seems necessary, but the liver manufactures this through gluconeogenesis. Indeed, the paper cited above clearly implies that the body can manufacture everything it needs for full health in the absence of any food intake at all, provided fat reserves are adequate. If the only source of protein were the body's own muscles, etc., no fast could possibly extend longer than a few months at most.
The only reason why we have all been told that glucose is the body's normal fuel source is that we live in a grain- and sugar-fed society. Hunter-gatherers obtain much less glucose and regularly fast for varying periods. As long as one does not eat carbohydrates, fasting does not cause hunger. For instance, as I write this I have eaten no solid food (only some coffee with cream and soup) for over 40 hours. I feel great, and have absolutely no desire for food.
Re:Makes sense. (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA says:
"All foods contain three major macronutrients essential for life -- fat, carbohydrate and protein".
That, too, turns out not to be the case. Protein and fat are necessary for life, but carbohydrate isn't. You will not be able to find any requirement for carbohydrate itself, nor for anything that comes with it. But if you examine carefully the constituents of a nice piece of fatty meat, you might be surprised to find how very nourishing it is. Vitamins A, D, E, K2 and the whole range of B vitamins are there, plus most of the essential minerals - and, what's more, in the appropriate proportions. That's not surprising, as the meat came from an animal that was in good health (until it was slaughtered).
And by the way, the proportions of saturated and unsaturated fats in red meat are almost exactly the same as in olive oil.
Re: (Score:3)
Ah, well lack of vitamin C leads to Scurvy. So there are reasons for some plants. (Carnivores get their rounded diet by eating the whole animal not just the meat, the digestive tract)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone doesn't have to be part of a 'keto circle jerk' to be wary of sugar and excess carbs. Surely there's a reason the body tries so very hard to maintain a low level of blood glucose (several teaspoons-- or table spoons? either way, ridiculously small amount). Maybe because it IS toxic at higher concentrations? But that is precisely why insulin is released -- to drive down that blood glucose level.
Given that mechanism though, does it make sense why a diet that includes 64+ ounce sodas laden with sug
Moderate (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense. (Score:4, Interesting)
No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years."
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts. You know the ones that have yet to experience puberty, much less a weight problem. I know expressing contempt for the issue makes you feel smart but it makes you look stupid.
Until someone experiences what another does every day due to long term diet problems, they will insist it doesn't exist. As the experts have told us, fat people are fat because they are inferior people, because they want to be. We all know from these same experts that sugar is perfectly good, it's HFCS that's bad. These experts will spew their "knowledge" here as well, kids just don't get up this early.
Re:No shit (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about sugar being good, but I know I dropped 15 lbs switching to Mt Dew Throwback from normal Mt Dew without a change in consumption or activity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No shit (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No shit (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine the mess if he kept dropping the Mt Dew?
I dropped a Mt Dew on the kitchen floor before and it just splattered everywhere. I cleaned it up as best I could but I still come across sticky spots here and there weeks later.
Re: (Score:2)
> While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Carbs mess up some people's sense of saeity.
Knowing what to do was always easy. Actually doing it has always been hard.
Sabotaging yourself with your diet makes it harder. It doesn't change the math.
Different people have different triggers. Some of us have no problems self-regulating with a higher carb diet. Most people don't.
It turns out that the old "Eat a little bit of everyt
Re: (Score:2)
"Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years."
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Well, so much for the experts. A calorie is a calorie is a calorie is true as far as measuring different things energy via combustion, but if a calorie was a calorie regarding nutrition, we would be able to eat 3000 calories of wood pulp or 3000 calories of fuel oil and it would be the same thing as eating steak or kale.
But it isn't. One of the important things to remember is that the body is not a test cell where 1100 of the amount of energy required to warm one gram of air-free water from 0 to 100 C a
Re: (Score:2)
While that may be true, other threads in Slashdot, even recently, have been dominated by the "a calorie is a calorie" experts.
Most people who believe this still feel a generally balanced diet is part of a healthy lifestyle. They don't really believe 10 bags of skittles is a good daily diet, but they will claim that a diet of 50% carbs can be just as healthy as one of 15% carbs. It isn't until you go to significant extremes (like the 77% in this study) where you get into trouble. I'm willing to bet those with a 77% daily fat intake would also have health problems. I'm not completely on the "a calorie is a calorie" bandwagon, but I
Advice for fat people (Score:5, Insightful)
Imagine you've been invited to a gourmet meal. The host tells you to "bring your appetite!" What might you do to make yourself hungrier?
Maybe skip a meal or two earlier in the day? (less calories)
Maybe go out for a brisk run, or workout? (more exercise)
So, we know, categorically, that less calories and more exercise creates increased hunger.
How does this help a fat person eat less?
Now, if you understand the biochemistry, and how for a fat person, their fat cells are stealing all the energy from their muscle cells, then you understand the thing driving them to 5000 calories a day is starvation (from the muscle point of view). You don't need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their mouth, you need to focus on getting them to put less calories in their fat cells.
How do fat cells get bigger? Under the influence of insulin.
How do insulin levels get higher? Under the influence of blood sugar (literally to keep you from dying of sugar poisoning - it's a feature, not a bug).
How is blood sugar raised? High glycemic foods, like carbohydrates.
So if you want the fat man to stop being hungry, so he'll eat less calories, and therefore lose weight, you have to focus on the root cause, not just the proximate cause. It's the fat cells that are "overeating" - the fat man is eating 5000 calories because given the glycemic load of whatever he's eating, he needs that much to keep his muscle cells fed.
Reduce the glycemic load, you'll reduce the hunger, and *that* will reduce caloric intake.
tl;dr - getting hungrier doesn't help you eat less.
Earlier than that (Score:5, Insightful)
The obesity epidemic really started when the government told us to start taking fat out of the diet and replace it with bread.
I was in high school and college when this really started to kick off (late 1970s), and the comment was "don't eat meat and butter, eat bread and rice. It's good for you."
When the Food Pyramid hit, the diagrams always had a small chunk for meat and fish, with the entire base was made up of bread and rice and potatoes, and a tiny part at the top for sweets and fats. It was usually something like "2-3 servings of meat, fish, and nuts, 6-11 servings of bread, cereal, rice."
That's the problem, not sugar. While people say "sugar is poison," plain old carbs aren't much different, especially in those proportions.
Re: (Score:3)
When the Food Pyramid hit, the diagrams always had a small chunk for meat and fish, with the entire base was made up of bread and rice and potatoes,
Well, the longest lived communities in the world have one thing in common. They DO eat very little meat and fish (and most of their meat IS fish). The main difference between their diet and the Food Pyramid is instead of eating grains they eat vegetables.
Too many calories from grains is not a good thing. The more refined the worse they are for you.
The one thing that has remained constant in our understanding of a healthy diet in between all the different health fads is that vegetables are good. Whether
Re: (Score:2)
> Well, the longest lived communities in the world have one thing in common. They DO eat very little meat and fish
Completely untrue.
Re:Earlier than that (Score:4, Informative)
> Well, the longest lived communities in the world have one thing in common. They DO eat very little meat and fish
Completely untrue.
It's very true! Sardinia, Okinawa, and Icaria in Greece are the three places with the longest life spans. All three locations have a legume based diet and traditionally eat almost no meat other than occasional fish. Importantly, they also don't eat any refined grains either.
Re:Earlier than that (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry, but not really true.
The "Mediterranean people don't eat meat" thing started when an American researcher decided to prove vegetarianism is better for you than eating meat. So he went there to do a health study, since they were known at the time to have long, healthy lives.
He chose to do his study during Lent. Which, especially at the time, meant the Catholics (almost all of the study subjects) were "giving up meat for Lent."
So that study was bogus, and he KNEW it. ...and, by the way, he later went on to be very influential in Washington, and was behind the whole movement that later pushed the Food Pyramid and other bad ideas.
On a similar note, the actual Okinawan diet (that people live a long time on) is very meat-heavy, and the trendy "Okinawan diet" doesn't have much to do with it other than the way they cook things. The actual Okinawan diet "starts with pig and ends with pig."
Re: (Score:3)
The one thing that has remained constant in our understanding of a healthy diet in between all the different health fads is that vegetables are good. Whether you're doing low sugar, low fat, low calorie, low gluten, low processed, low anything... Eat vegetables.
Well, one thing that has changed over time is how starchy vegetables are treated. I grew up with a diet where corn and potatoes where my primary source of vegetables. Later I thought green leafy vegetables were the only healthy options and shunned starchy vegetables. Now that I have educated myself I feel you want all kinds of vegetables, but you shouldn't just stick to one type exclusively.
Vegetables being an important part of your diet has always held constant, but what types of vegetables you should eat
Re:Earlier than that (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, one thing that has changed over time is how starchy vegetables are treated. I grew up with a diet where corn and potatoes where my primary source of vegetables.
Corn isn't a vegetable, it's a grain. Corn is basically just sugar, not much nutrition there (our obesity levels actually can be measured against subsidies for corn in the US making both corn syrup and animal feed cheaper- if we have to subsidise farming- subsidizing corn is about the worst thing we can do).
Potatoes shouldn't be overdone because they have a lot of starch, but they are better than white bread, especially if you eat the skin, which does have some nutrients.
Re: (Score:3)
Corn isn't a vegetable, it's a grain.
Corn, as we eat it anyway, is a vegetable, grain, and fruit. Certain ways we eat it, such as corn syrup, it is just a sugar. But you can make glucose syrup from potatoes and any other source of starch, corn is just a very efficient source.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm diabetic (Type 3 - pancreas removed last year). The only difference between sugar carbs and starchy carbs for me is that the sugar is processed faster by my digestion, so it causes quicker blood sugar spikes. Not higher spikes, just quicker.
It should also be noted that I've been told to eat more fats, since that slows the uptake of carbs.....
Re: (Score:2)
I have induced type 2 diabetes from the drugs I am currently taking.
ANY carb will trash my blood sugar. it doesn't matter if it's a good carb or not. Strangely enough I have found that carbs spiked with some fat work out the best.
This leads to some interesting "counter intuitive" results. (Junk food for breakfast)
The whole sugar+fat thing probably clears itself out faster in my case too.
I eat more fats simply because I have to avoid carbs and I need to eat something. I also have to mind my protein intake be
Re: (Score:2)
around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
That would be around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, right?
Re: (Score:2)
No, actually just after Eisenhower had a heart attack in 1957 is when this began
Re:No shit (Score:5, Interesting)
around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
That would be around the time of the Neolithic Revolution, right?
As a matter of fact, no. I think it was Dr John Yudkin, in his fine book "Pure, White and Deadly" who pointed out that in Elizabethan England refined sugar was about as expensive as cocaine is today. It was definitely a drug for the wealthy.
Everything changed when the New World was discovered and exploited. It was found that the West Indies provided ideal conditions for growing sugar cane in vast amounts. Then the only problem was finding human workers who could survive the conditions - Europeans died (in the classic phrase) "like flies". Eventually it was discovered that West Africans tended to do much better, and could indeed provide many years of labour before dying. That kicked the slave trade into high gear, which in turn flooded Western markets with cheap sugar. Ironically, the horrible treatment of slaves led - as one of its by-products - to the sickness, suffering and premature death of millions who consumed the "product". And manufacturers like Messrs Tate & Lyle, who now appear in the light of mass murderers, became extremely rich.
There was one serious problem with slavery. It seems incompatible with Christianity (at least with the New Testament). An ingenious way around this objection was soon found: to claim, with all kinds of spurious arguments, that black people were not fully human. Thus the demand for sugar led to slavery, which led to racism as we know it.
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years. Funny that the obesity epidemic started in earnest right around the time they started taking fat out of everything and replacing it with sugar.
Exactly. While there are likely other factors involved too, The demonization of fat and protein in favor of carbohydrates does correlate pretty well with obesity becoming the new norm.
At least in my own experience, I have never been able to regulate my weight on a high carbohydrate diet. I would be perpetually hungry. Volume intake was way off. On a diet higher in protein and fat, I eat less, I am not hungry again until the next meal, instead of two hours after the last one. I have a lot less flatulence,
Re: (Score:2)
Anybody with an IQ over room temperature has known this for years.
In Canada, that actually includes quite a few people!
Normal room temperature there would be about 20 Celsius
Re: (Score:2)
Troll misses obvious problem of mutually contradictory scientific conclusions.
It's like the weather in some places. If you don't like it, don't worry. It will change in a few minutes.
Large-Scale Dietary Study: Fats Good, Carbs Bad! (Score:5, Funny)
This is why average people no longer trust science (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
There have just been too many situations like this where scientists say one thing, as if they're 100% sure they're right, and then sometime latter they have to backtrack on their claims. Sometimes it even turns out that the exact opposite of what they're saying is actually true!
The problem isn't that scientists are retracting their incorrect claims. That's exactly what they should be doing, and it's what science as a practice requires be done. The problem is that they should not be making claims that they can't substantiate, and they surely shouldn't be making claims that they'll need to retract just a few years later, especially if any sort of political policy will be based on their claims.
Nutrition science and climate science have shown themselves to be two fields where claims are made too easily, and what is claimed either ends up being obviously wrong, or the predictions being made do not come to pass.
Scientists in other fields, especially ones that have a much better track record of consistently being right, should try to publicly separate themselves from scientific fields like nutrition science and climate science. Greater denouncing of scientific fields and scientists with poor track records may be the only way to maintain, never mind restore, any trust that the public at large may have in science.
Re:This is why average people no longer trust scie (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a good example of why average people, who maybe only have a rudimentary background in science, no longer trust it or what scientists are claiming.
Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
Who you AC's define as scientists are people with an agenda. Pro-vegan people, Pro industry groups. Vegans would have us eating tofurky forever, and pro-industry groups would have us bathing in pink slime.
Any you yourself have an agenda, or else are too dim to understand that.
Re:This is why average people no longer trust scie (Score:5, Insightful)
> Nutritionists, the real scientists in this field, have not wavered from the idea of the balanced diet. While adjustments have been made, the basics of what makes for good nutrition have not.
So Mulligan's Stew being replaced with that obviously and highly unbalanced "food pyramid" must have just been my imagination then.
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much every nutritionist I know believe religiously in the food pyramid. By an enormous factor they have bought in to the far terrible, meat bad, grains good cute of the world.
They are also hardly ever scientists. In fact most nutritionist qualifications involve exactly zero science or medical training.. Because it is not a damn science, it is a job title, more closely related to marketig, and not unlike economics.
Go talk to a research human biologist some time. Suggest a nutritionist is a scientist to them, then listen.. You may learn something.
So no. You are talking bullshit. They are very involved in this, and have made a ton of money out of people's misery.
I see. Well, you need take it up with Luise Light, a nutritional expert, who made recommendations based upon valid food science from the 1980's and who was overruled in the 1992 to make the 1992 pyramid conform to the demands of the Secretary of Agriculture and the food industry. Here is her text "A Fatally Flawed Food Guide". http://www.whale.to/a/light.ht [whale.to]... [whale.to]
Go tell her what nutritionists believe in.
Re: (Score:3)
It has been shown by many writers that science was not to blame. Even while charismatic scientists like Ancel Keys were making their controvesial claims that fat kills and we must all eat more "healthy whole grains", their own research results demonstrated otherwise. It's well worth reading "Good Calories, Bad Calories"/"The Diet Delusion", or alternatively Nina Teicholz's "The Big Fat Surprise" or any of the other good books on the subject. Otherwise you simply wouldn't believe the depths of duplicity (or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What's easier going to a restaurant or cooking yourself a healthy meal?
If you know how to cook, the former. Driving to and from a restaurant easily takes more time and concentration than cooking a meal.
The problem is that a growing number of people can't cook, and at most manage to cobble together something from pre-processed packaged food, which isn't cooking. When faced with actual cooking, they spend way too much time and effort, because they have no clue what they're doing, and which steps can be done in parallel or prepared in advance.
I feel better (Score:5, Interesting)
When I switched to keto I felt much better. My blood pressure dropped along with my weight. I also don't get as hungry between meals, even when it's a long time in between.
After a year I've started to add back in some carbs but not refined sugars. I have fruit, like blueberries, a couple times a week, maybe lentils. I try to keep my total carbs below 100 grams on any one day.
Not every diet works for every person. The key is finding the one that's the best match for your metabolism. I had one funny issue, Splenda was causing me problems. When I cut that out, it made a world of difference. What works is what works for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I feel better (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look back at the start of the low fat movement you will find money. Always follow the money. At the time people were starting to use coconut oil more and soybean farmers got scared. Grease the right palm and viola...saturated fats are the cause of heart disease. This has since been completely debunked scientifically. But experts in the field have been beating the drum for so long they are having a hard time accepting that they have been wrong so their cognitive dissonance kicks in and they dig their heels in when presented with evidence.
Interesting study, but flawed (Score:2)
It does not say fat == good. The study says that it's better to be on the upper normalized end (quintile 5) when compared to quintile 1 of the fat intake distribution. The study does in no way advocate switching to an all-fat diet to live forever, nor does it suggest that you should eat at McDonalds every day (though TFS seems to do this). It should also be noted that this has been known for a long time. Fat is a slow energy source and has always been considered healthy when consumed within reason. The quic
Re: (Score:2)
"nor does it suggest that you should eat at McDonalds every day"
Based on the numbers presented in the article it would be fun to see what kinds of eating habits actually conform better to the stated "ideal". I'm betting it won't be any of the currently trendy "healthy" diets.
Happiness (Score:3)
I'll eat whatever I want. And I'll die happy.
Impossible to avoid carbs in the US (Score:3)
America's entire food supply is simply awash in carbohydrates, especially sugars and refined grains. I walk into a grocery store, run my eyes across the shelves, and mentally tick off the items I can consume: no, no, hell no, no, maybe, no, no, ok, no, no, are you kidding, no, and no. And restaurant food? Don't make me laugh. Carbs piled on top of carbs on a bed of sugared fat topped with sugar sauce.
Re: (Score:2)
Funny how our civilization kills us (Score:2)
You know what made us "civilized"? What allowed us to become what we are today? Cooking. No, really. Cooking. When we learned to process food so we have to spend less energy on digesting because we "outsourced" this problem to food preparation. That allowed us to gain more nutrition from our food. Without, we'd do what our distant cousins do, spend most of our time finding food and eating it. Simply to stay alive.
This frees up a lot of time. Just ponder how much time you actually spend eating. Probably less
Maybe (Score:2)
peastant food (Score:2)
Bacon? (Score:4, Funny)
Time to swap that bowl of pasta for a bowl of bacon!
Re:Bacon? (Score:5, Funny)
Oh no, I'm not falling for that all or nothing approach again. I'm having Penne Carbonara for dinner.
People with an agenda (Score:2)
A lot of money is involved in selling different brands of lifestyle, 'health' food, supplements, diets etc etc, so every time there is a new story about 'A Study' concerning what is good for you, it is advisable to be skeptical - there is boud to be a hidden agenda behind most of these reports. A couple of things I immediately note are:
The research also found that eating fruits, vegetables and legumes can lower your risk of dying prematurely. But three or four servings a day seemed to be plenty.
I know that there is an ongoing campaign in UK to get people to eat at least 5 portions of fruit or vegetables per day, which is probably a bit less than three servings, depe
Re:People with an agenda (Score:4, Informative)
Suggests? (Score:2)
On /. we have been discussing this for at least 5 years now. I lost count how many times I laid my personal experience which was nothing short of profound. When you have suffered for 7 years, being on daily medication and it all goes away in 5 days!!! once you change the diet ...well that is what I call "enlightenment"
The healthy pyramid is (starting from the fondaiton) Protein-->Fat-->Carbs.
Eat proper butter, not any kind of skimmed, low-fat, and margarine type shit.
Eat eggs; lots of them
Eat veggies;
Limitations of Study (Score:3)
A few notes to keep in mind with the interpretation of the results:
1. The macronutrient consumption data are based on food frequency questionaires, a somewhat unreliable means to measuring food consumption. How accurate do you think you'd be if asked about how much of each type of food you ate over the past few months? For more disucssion of problems with food frequency questionaires and other general issues with studies on nutrition see: http://fivethirtyeight.com/fea... [fivethirtyeight.com]
2. The study is an observational study that can only assess correlation, not causation. People who reported eating more carbohydrates had higher mortality. Was eating more carbohydrates the cause of the higher mortality, or were there other differences between people who ate more carbohydrates and those who ate less? A common problem with these studies is that people who follow dietary guidelines are more likely to follow other guidelines for healthy living, so one could just be picking up a signal from decreased mortality of those who pay attention to their health in general. Socioeconomic factors are another potential confounding factor in the results. In many of the third world countries studied, a diet higher in animal protein would likely be more expensive than a diet higher in carbohydrates. These confounding variables make inferring causation difficult. Randomized controlled trials would provide a gold standard for assessing whether there is a causal relationship between carbohydrate intake and mortality, though these are notoriously difficult to perform (how do you get a large cohort of people to change their diets for long periods of time?).
3. Even if the differences in diet are causally related to the changes in mortality and CV events, the exact mechanism is unclear. For example, in a commentary published in the Lancet along side the research paper (I would recommend reading the commentary if you are interested in the subject), the authors note:
Micronutrient malnutrition is an important problem in many of the countries included in PURE. Animal products are rich sources of zinc, bioavailable iron, vitamin K2, and vitamin B12, which might be suboptimal in populations consuming high carbohydrate diets. Therefore, one potential explanation for the PURE results is that nutrient-dense meats corrected one or more nutrient deficiencies
http://www.thelancet.com/journ... [thelancet.com]
If the results are partly due to consumption of animal products alleviating micronutrient malnutrition, it is unclear whether the results would be as applicable in populations where micronutrient malnutrition is not an issue.
Overall, the study is a very important piece of evidence in determining the best amount of carbohydrates, proteins and fats to include in one's diet. However, it is not a definitive study, so one needs to consider the entire body of evidence including observational studies (such as this one) done in a number of different populations, randomized clinical trials, and laboratory experiments that get at the mechanisms involved.
Which fats? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fats are popularly divided into 3 categories, saturated (like lard), mono-unsaturated (some components of olive oil), and polyunsaturated (the main component of sunflower oil). You've probably also heard of omega-3 and omega-6 oils (fatty acids), which are polyunsaturated. Many fats are essential to human survival.
Without knowing the details of the kinds and quantities of fats and sugars involved in each group of this study, the results are not very informative.
Who will be punished? (Score:4, Insightful)
For decades the USDA and local governments not only promoted low-fat diets, but threatened people over use of butter [imposemagazine.com] — because when Stastists dislike something, they do not simply avoid it themselves, they seek to ban it for all others...
Now we are getting the opposite guidance and very convincing evidence, the earlier imploring and coercion were harmful.
Who will be punished for causing the harm, when, and how?
Re: (Score:2)
The longer you live, the more likely you will die.
No, I think the likelihood of dying is unity no matter how long you have lived.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
The key is to live to be 100.
Very few people die over the age of 100.
Re: (Score:3)
Not true. Nobody over the age of 130 has ever died.
Re:In other news.... (Score:4, Funny)
The hard part would be concealing the Katana.
Re:Not that simple... (Score:5, Informative)
Not just fats less bad - fats good (up to a point). The study found that your risk of early death goes down the more fat you eat, right up to 2.5 times the current recommended fat intake.
Re: (Score:2)
They have a high compliance culture. We have a long history of rebellion and insurrection whereas they're more used to getting their heads lopped off at the slightest infraction.
The Japanese are very good at doing what they're told.
They outdo even the Scandanavian Socialist Utopias when it comes to the relevant "health care statistics".
That said, even they are beginning to succomb to the McJuggernaut.
Re: (Score:3)
One key aspect of physical health is activity. Look how few people walk. There are many people who consider 10,000 steps a day to be "wow". For these people diet is not going to make it. 10,000 steps a day should be a drop-dead minimum (pun not intended).
Re: (Score:3)
Is it ok to shovel that down your fat pie hole?
The steak is good, although fatter cuts of meat are preferable. It has often been observed that carnivores, when they have killed, begin by eagerly devouring the liver, intestines and other fatty parts of their prey and often leave when sated, abandoning the muscle meat - what we call "steak" and the like - to scavengers. Likewise the Inuit, Masai and other carnivorous humans have always tended to prefer fatty meat and organs.
Needless to say, you should avoid ketchup because it is about half sugar - like mo
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, these studies are useful to validate or invalidate models of what is going on. The studies themselves are not directly useful to tell you what to do or not (even if the brain-dead press usually presents them as such), but a well-validated model will be much more useful in that regard.