
Why Is the Federal Government Afraid of Fat? - mhb
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/09/opinion/why-is-the-federal-government-afraid-of-fat.html
======
jerf
Because _they can 't change their recommendations without admitting they were
wrong_, and governments generally _can 't do that_. Or, at least, the speed
with which they can change their recommendations is sharply bounded by
ensuring they never quite have to admit fault. Admitting you were wrong is
basically begging to have your funding cut, your reputation trashed, your
influence removed, your job cut. The closest thing a government can do to
admitting being wrong is if they can say a _previous_ government was wrong,
but now we're right. But for these administrative posts there's never a clear
turnover for that to occur.

Public policy adds the additional problem that if they admit they were wrong
about what was possibly the single clearest message the government has sent
the US public in the last 50 years, "Fat is bad for you!", the public will
very likely and entirely rationally start asking very pointy questions about
how such _volume_ could be combined with such error, and what else being
communicated with such volume and confidence today may also be wrong.

The government has a ton of moral capital tied up in fat being bad for you, so
it _has_ to be bad for you. It _has_ to be bad. _It just has to_.

As an individual, you may find it profitable to consider whether this is the
sort of incentive structure that produces an authority you want to bet your
life on. Considering whether there are similar issues where the government may
have gotten stuck on a particular answer and now can not change its mind
pretty much regardless of what facts come in left as an exercise for the
reader.

~~~
2mur
The 3 hardest words to string together: _I was wrong_

(see also: the War on Drugs)

~~~
gadders
(see also: Extreme Global Warming predictions)

------
CuriouslyC
A large part of the issue is that in the traditional American diet, a
significant portion of fat intake is in the form of saturated fat. There is a
decent amount of research showing saturated fat has inflammatory effects in
the body and directly causes insulin resistance. For a long time doctors have
had success encouraging patients to eat diets excluding America's primary
sources of saturated fat (red meat, bacon/lard and butter).

In addition, dietary fat intake does influence triglycerides, LDL and VLDL;
fairly good correlations exist between these levels and heart disease. It is
only recently we have discovered that sub-types of these particles exist, and
not all of them have the same impact on health. Additionally, the knowledge
that excess carbohydrate intake can actually have a larger impact on these
levels is somewhat more recent.

The bias against mono- and poly- unsaturated fats given all the research that
exists on their beneficial health effects is still bat-shit crazy, though.

~~~
lsniddy
That is curious, considering our rates of heart disease and diabetes were a
fraction of what they were today when people ate more saturated fats (e.g
butter). And when switching to a diet where saturated fat is the primary
energy source, people tend to lose weight and see an increase in insulin
sensitivity.

~~~
irishcoffee
Off-topic, but every time I see the phrase "a fraction of what it was" I get a
bit miffed. 99/100 is a fraction. 101/100 is a fraction. Every thing that gets
measured in time intervals is always going to be a fraction of what it was
before, bigger or smaller.

~~~
kazinator
"A fraction of what it was" is a common idiom, which uses fraction in the
ordinary sense.

"Fraction" is related to words like "fracture" and "fragment". When you
fraction something into pieces, they are always smaller than the whole
(barring strange spatial partitionings: Banach-Tarski paradox and all that).

Maybe you were playing hooky in grade 3 when the teacher explained that
101/100 is an _improper_ fraction, which can be rewritten as 1 1/100: the
whole number 1, combined with a proper fraction. See? "Improper!" Mathematics
recognizes a special status for fractions where the numerator has greater
magnitude.

Also, ever heard of the "integral" and "fractional" parts of a floating-point
number? See the ISO C99 function modf, for instance.

~~~
irishcoffee
An improper comment is still a comment. An improper fraction is still a
fraction. What exactly is your point? I'm not sure why you felt the need to be
snarky.

------
chrisdbaldwin
>Based on years of low-fat messaging, most Americans still actively avoid
dietary fat, while eating far too much refined carbohydrates.

This is the crux of the problem; years of social programming is hard to
reverse. Try to explain to someone that fat is good and carbs are bad. It
shouldn't be hard to convince someone, but even the basic premise is
tantamount to heresy to most Americans. Fat gives you clogged arteries! Fat
makes you fat!

Carbs and sugar are the American Way™.

------
sageabilly
Because whenever they set dietary guidelines last the common way of thinking
was that "fat is bad" and since it's the government progress is ridiculously
slow and also because resetting dietary guidelines is probably way down on the
list of "Things that we should really fund this year"?

I've seen comments here and elsewhere pop up across the entire internet in
response to this article saying that obviously it's a government conspiracy
and a lobbying issue and they're all trying to keep us fat and stupid but
that's some serious tin foil hat lines of thinking.

Also: _But rather than focusing on total fat or other numbers on the back of
the package, the emphasis should be on eating more minimally processed fruits,
nuts, vegetables, beans, fish, yogurt, vegetable oils and whole grains in
place of refined grains, white potatoes, added sugars and processed meats._

Which seems to be saying "hey, if you don't eat processed stuff and instead
eat more whole foods from a variety of sources and strive for lots of variety
in your diet then you're probably going to be healthier and less likely to
gain a bunch of weight" which seems to be pretty ridiculously obvious
nutrition science.

------
brandonb
We know shockingly little about nutrition, but this paper is a great summary
of what we do know from both association studies and randomized trials:
[http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/24/2870.full](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/24/2870.full)

In particular, table 2 summarizes what we know about each type of food
(sodium, saturated fat, trans fat, carbs, sugar, ...) and what type of study
we know it from (e.g., randomized trial or association study?):
[http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/24/2870/T2.expansion...](http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/24/2870/T2.expansion.html))

The best type of evidence you could have is a randomized trial of clinical end
points--divide people randomly into (say) low fat and low carb diets, run the
study for a few years, and measure what percentage of people have a heart
attack. That's column 4, and it's nearly empty. The only things we seem to
know are that total fat seems to be neutral, and substituting polyunsaturated
fat for saturated fat reduces heart attacks.

In the absence of that gold standard evidence, we're relying on weaker but
more convenient types of study designs -- randomized trials that measure
surrogate metrics (e.g., blood cholesterol and blood pressure), or various
types of association studies.

As of now, those seem to be telling us that alcohol, dietary fiber, and
unsaturated fats help our risk factors for a heart attack, and trans fats,
sodium, carbs, and cholesterol make our risk factors worse. But those
conclusions can easily change since they're based on a surrogate, and indeed,
we've already seen the recommendation against eating cholesterol reversed:
[http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-
cal...](http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/02/19/nutrition-panel-calls-for-
less-sugar-and-eases-cholesterol-and-fat-restrictions/)

------
saiya-jin
one thing i don't get with all these sways of opinions... everybody is so
obsessed with what they eat and how much, nitpicking contents of this and
that, instead of trying to match their intake with amount if activity per day.
I know it's hard, i know you have to produce that nasty thing called sweat to
actually achieve anything, but for christ sake... just do some activities!
ideally daily, with some variability. But even half an hour early morning run
every day will make huge difference in life.

it will make your life longer, and more interesting in the process, in
practically every aspect (yes, including sex). We are all unique, so find
whatever makes you sweat and feels like fun & challenge. Heck, after not
consuming processed sugars for few weeks, eating something with them is rather
disgusting experience, same goes for overly fatty foods. Taste for anything
natural improves HUGELY.

of course, ideal scenario is good food + healthy activities. but the more you
do work out, the less importance there is on quality of food to make you stay
& feel healthy (this one is more complex topic, so let's say keep eating
healthy).

what i would propose is similar to tobacco treatment - anything clearly
unhealthy, add a tax that will go directly to health system treating all those
heart attacks, diabetes and other conditions that people bring upon themselves
by being weak and/or stupid. i know it's not that simple, but at least that's
a move into some direction...

~~~
mod
> add a tax that will go directly to health system treating all those

Maybe I'm being a bit cynical, but I'm not sure we have any tax that that goes
directly into any direct remedial use for any type of issue.

I can't think of one, anyway. If tobacco tax does, then color me impressed
(and surprised).

------
alextgordon
Fat is calorie dense. There's ~380 calories per 100g of sugar but _880_
calories per 100g of olive oil.

70% of the US population is overweight. Being overweight is bad for you.

If your diet contains a lot of fat, you're consuming more calories than if you
substituted the fat with something else (e.g. by avoiding deep fried foods,
and eating leaner meat).

If you are not overweight, then feel free to eat as much fat as you like, but
know you are unusual.

~~~
Jdoemk2
Fatty foods are often more satiating than carbs, meaning you eat less overall.

All things being equal calorie-wise fat is better for weight loss than carbs
are.

~~~
acconrad
This is simply not true. You are oversimplifying the issue. As an example, I'd
like you to go take a shot of olive oil and tell me you feel fuller than
having a cup of steel cut oatmeal with a cup of blueberries. In fact, in 1
shot of olive oil, that's 3 tbsp, which is roughly 360 calories, whereas the
oatmeal and berries clocks in around 250 calories. "All things being equal", I
just put fat against carbs and the oatmeal just won because 3 tbsp of olive
oil will not satiate the way 2 cups of carbs will.

~~~
logfromblammo
The experiments that measure satiety generally have the subjects eat a
measured amount of a certain food, wait a specified period of time, then eat
from a buffet wherein subjects may eat pre-measured portions of whatever they
like.

In such experiments, certain foods do have a significant impact upon the
calories later consumed from that buffet. Some foods are more filling than
others. I forget the exact results, other than the one that was surprising to
me: whole boiled potatoes were the grand champion of fullness, and 3 times as
filling as a calorie-equivalent portion of french fries.

So do your experiment for real, with some volunteers. You will need to make
some oatmeal, and pour some oil shots, and have a buffet ready. And you will
have to continue the experiment for multiple days, so you can get same-person
comparisons for different foods.

Please actually do the experiment before you declare your hypothesis
confirmed. For what it's worth, I think it probably would be, _but there is
always the possibility that we will be surprised by the results_.

Naturally, to avoid accusations that your experiment cherry-picked specific
foods that are not representative of their fat/carb classes, you would also
have to test other foods, like coconut oil, glazed doughnuts, rendered beef
suet, dry white toast, butter, and bananas.

But wait. That's still oversimplifying the issue. Boiled white potatoes are
three times as filling as plain white bread. If some carbs are more filling
than other carbs, how can you meaningfully compare all carbs against all fats?

I guess you can't. The experiment would have to serve isolated food
components. Rather than olive oil, serve a shot of caprylic acid, or stearic
acid, or DHA. Rather than oatmeal, serve pure starch, or pure glucose syrup,
or fructose. Maybe also test the effects of added MSG, aspartame, or table
salt.

 _Everyone_ is oversimplifying the issue.

------
cornholio
Because fat has 9 calories / gram, carbohydrates have 5 and water has zero. So
while a tint of olive oil in your salad might have some theoretical health
benefits if you are skinny, replacing those deep fried chips with baked chips
has immediate benefits if you are overweight - you will probably eat the same
quantity anyway but half the calories.

Fat makes you fat without a proportional decrease in your appetite, it's as
simple as that.

~~~
msandford
Right, because carbs do wonders for satiety and fat doesn't do anything...

------
upofadown
The article talks about some dietary ideas that turned out to be wrong while
at the same time saying stuff like "... the emphasis should be on eating more
minimally processed fruits, nuts, vegetables, beans, fish, yogurt, vegetable
oils and whole grains in place of refined grains, white potatoes, added sugars
and processed meats.".

A wrong thing in no way makes other stuff right.

------
debacle
The federal government isn't afraid of fat, but carbs, most extensively from
corn and corn syrup, are a huge industry in the US, and the agriculture
industry is a massive lobby. Politicians aren't going to tell you to eat fats
not sugars when your sugar addiction is keeping them in office.

[http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/11/why-our-
food...](http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jun/11/why-our-food-is-
making-us-fat)

~~~
mapgrep
This doesn't make sense. Corn is used much more heavily as feed stock for
animals than as a sweetener or dietary carb for humans. Corn growers thus have
more invested in encouraging high-fat diets than low-fat diets.

About 4.2 billion bushels of U.S. corn per year are used to feed livestock
(dairy, beef, hogs, poultry). About 1.4 billion bushels go toward uses
including sweeteners like HFCS, as well as toward cereals (and booze).

This per:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_production_in_the_United_States#Production)

------
sarciszewski
Heh. I switched to a high fat, moderate protein, almost zero carbohydrate diet
back in April and lost 40 lbs so far.

~~~
innguest
And yet when I say that the government doesn't like fat because it makes
people healthy (less dependent on the government) and faster thinkers (less
likely to blindly trust the government) people downvote me.

Impact of obesity on the brain, memory and intelligence:

[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/obesity-messes-
brain](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/obesity-messes-brain)

"Obesity has been associated with a reduced total brain volume and diminished
gray matter density."

[http://www.mpg.de/4280661/obesity_brain_structure](http://www.mpg.de/4280661/obesity_brain_structure)

"But as scientists are learning more about the critical role white matter
plays in cognition, new research suggests that obesity may target white matter
integrity, leading to a decline in human cognitive performance."

[http://www.dana.org/News/Obesity_Linked_to_Changes_in_Brain_...](http://www.dana.org/News/Obesity_Linked_to_Changes_in_Brain_s_White_Matter_Structure%E2%80%94and_Cognition/#sthash.nYWxFdXP.dpuf)

EDIT: downvoting is one way to cope with cognitive dissonance but it does not
help motivate those that are trying to lose weight.

~~~
sarciszewski
It's no secret that there are a lot of terrible people on HN with over 500
karma, but usually it doesn't help to complain about them. You just give them
a chance to downvote you again.

------
acconrad
We don't know much about our bodies. I feel like every time a major news
publication publishes an op-ed or a study, they're contradicting
themselves[1]. One week eggs are bad, the next they're good. Same with dairy,
carbs, and red meat. Then you mix in the whole "diet" complexity: Atkins?
Paleo? Keto? Vegan? How do I choose?

When you study the longest-living peoples of the world, you also find
extremely varied diets: the carbohydrate-rich Greeks rely heavily on fruits,
veggies and whole grains. They also love goat's milk and wine. While natives
of costa rica are primarily relying on "evil" white rice and beans, and heavy
on pork and chicken. The people of Japan are also heavy on white rice, and
virtually no fat in their diet, since their diet is primarily plant-based[2].

The truth is that everyone's needs are different. As an anecdotal example, I
was convinced that keto was the right way, and that carbohydrates were not
going to help me. Did I lose fat? Yes. Did I feel great? Sure. It turns out
that even with great HDL and Triglycerides, my LDL and fasting glucose were
still high. And I'm not alone in this problem from keto either [3].

After switching to a broader, less-restrictive diet, which now includes whole
grains (quinoa, oatmeal, and wild rice), beans, and fermented vegetables
(kimchi, sauerkraut), lots of fruits and vegetables (including starchy carbs
like sweet potatoes and squash), I've lowered my LDL and fasting glucose (yes,
now that carbs are back in my diet). Different things work for different
people because everyone has a different metabolism. It seems that, if you
study the longest-living people, the trends are as follows:

* Don't overeat.

* Eat mostly plant-based, whole or minimally-processed/refined foods.

* Leave 10-20% of your diet for indulgences. Virtually all of the longest-living peoples drink alcohol or coffee on the regular. And even then, by allowing yourself that affordance, you don't risk binge eating or rebounding for days/weeks/months on end.

* Ignore fad diets. Stick with the whole foods that you like to eat, get in some variety, but don't be dogmatic about dietary approaches, because not only will you likely not adhere to such restrictions, but you'll probably find yourself being contradicted by another study in the next 3-10 years.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/why-
nutriti...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/opinion/sunday/why-nutrition-is-
so-confusing.html)

[2]
[http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/prog...](http://www.nsca.com/uploadedfiles/nsca/inactive_content/program_books/ptc_2013_program_book/aragon.pdf)

[3]
[https://www.google.com/webhp?#safe=off&q=keto+fasting+glucos...](https://www.google.com/webhp?#safe=off&q=keto+fasting+glucose)

~~~
drzaiusapelord
When I visit Greece, I find it very surprising how little my relatives eat per
meal.

I think at the end of the day, we're just going to find that calorie in,
calorie out is what's really going on here. Sure, heavy eaters binge on carbs
or fats or whatever, but that's not the root problem here. Its our portions
and snacking culture that might be the real culprits.

------
alecco
Armchair dieticians in post an this thread. Not all carbs or fats are the
same. Good ones of both are part of a healthy diet. But hey, making it simply
black and white is appealing for the uneducated masses.

~~~
kayfox
From the article: "Dariush Mozaffarian is dean of the Friedman School of
Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University. David S. Ludwig is the
director of the Obesity Prevention Center at Boston Children’s Hospital and
the author of the forthcoming book “Always Hungry? Conquer Cravings, Retrain
Your Fat Cells, and Lose Weight Permanently.”"

Armchair dieticians?

------
innguest
Because fat is good for the brain and for the body (it makes you slim and a
fast thinker) whereas carbs are the opposite - obese people have 8% less brain
tissue.

The government wants dumb unhealthy people that depend on it so it can
perpetuate its existence.

