
The Fats You Don’t Need to Fear, and the Carbs That You Do - sonabinu
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/19/the-fats-you-dont-need-to-fear-and-the-carbs-that-you-do/?mabReward=A4&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&region=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
======
zappo2938
The role of liver function and glycogen should be included in this
conversation.[1] There might be a lot more at work than just elevated blood
sugar levels.

In most normal people, meaning without diabetes and other metabolism problems,
the liver doesn't immediately convert sugar to fat. Rather extra sugar is
converted to glycogen which can be easily accessed for energy. What happens
when a runner carbo loads the night before a race? The pasta she eats is
coveted to glycogen and stored in the liver not to fat.

However, when the liver storage of energy is full, it then converts the excess
to fat. Think about this for a second. The glycemic index and load don't apply
because most people convert excess blood sugar to a readily available energy
stored in the liver as glycogen not fat.

The problem is that Americans culturally never deplete the storage of energy
in the liver because of two reasons; first, Americans snack all the time and
drink sugary drinks, and, second, which I don't understand, we have developed
an idea that we should eat huge third meals at night.

A big dinner will completely replenish the energy stores in the liver leaving
excess sugar that will be converted into fat during sleep. Perhaps, it is
smarter to eat a decent breakfast that contains simple sugars which are
absorbed faster into the blood stream, a big lunch which will provide energy
for the rest of the day, and a small dinner to satiate hunger.

For a person who wakes up around 7am the fast should begin around 5pm in order
to let the sugars deplete around bed time. There is no reason to have readily
available sugars while sleeping. And then in the morning break the fast.

There is no reason to have big dinners which are ridiculous.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen)

~~~
bad_user
> _... the fast should begin around 5pm ... there is no reason to have big
> dinners which are ridiculous_

Actually there is a very big reason for why your advice is harmful, for me at
least, but I suspect that for others as well. At 5pm I'm still at work, which
means that whatever meal I'll have will be fast food and not a home cooked
meal.

But even more problematic is that dinner is also the perfect opportunity to
sit together with your family, as in that moment during the day that can be
shared without feeling rushed and if you want to sit together with your wife
and kids, anything less than 8pm is not doable, as afternoons are usually
unpredictable, as for example that's also the time of day when people go
shopping or solve other chores.

The family dinner is a matter of cultural inheritance that we've been
forgetting and I'm willing to bet that this trait of modern life is much more
harmful than fats, carbohydrates or whatever identified nutritional element is
the enemy du-jour.

~~~
zappo2938
The American overweight problem is cultural and not an issue with eating high
or low glycemic foods like the article states. If losing weight is an issue
for someone. They are better off having a larger second meal and a smaller
third meal even if that third meal is at 9 or 10pm so they can enjoy it with
family or after work. The idea is not to have more blood sugar than then the
liver can store as glycogen at bed time.

Everyone is different. If someone is really thin they probably should eat a
massive third meal because the body does need stored body fat too.

~~~
wdewind
It really really doesn't matter how you time your calories.

~~~
omarchowdhury
Please elaborate further. Sources et al.

~~~
wdewind
Do you have any specific questions? I don't feel like a source is necessary
here because this is generally accepted as fact and has been reproduced
countless times. There is no science showing caloric timing being significant
(physically) in terms of weight management. Mentally (as your sibling comment
points out) sure, but physically absolutely not. You don't get fat from eating
late, you get fat from eating an extra meal late.

~~~
omarchowdhury
The specific question I have is regarding what the liver does if very large
meals are eaten within a short window (hence the relevancy of caloric/meal
timing). Can't the liver only hold a certain amount of glycogen before having
to transport the excess matter to the fat cells?

~~~
wdewind
Sure, but since you've packed such a large percentage of your calories into
this one meal, what happens to that fat at the later time when you would
otherwise be eating again?

~~~
omarchowdhury
Then all things being equal would it not be better to space out short meals to
prevent fat generation at all?

~~~
wdewind
It shouldn't really make any difference. The point is fat is an energy store
and your body is pretty good at storing excess calories and then using them
again when needed.

Things do get a little more interesting, and the science becomes a little
weaker, when you start thinking about nutritional timing in the context of
body composition instead of overall weight. For instance, muscle protein
synthesis remains pretty constant in someone with protein at most meals. But
you are able to "spike" it about once every 3 hours (the mechanism seems to
have a threshold around 8g of leucine, after which it can't be spiked again
for another 3 hours).

So in theory the optimal way to eat the same number of calories, all else
being equal, is evenly divided into a meal every three hours you are awake.

But it's a micro-optimization and doesn't make a huge difference, and again
the science isn't super well reproduced there. People certainly succeed at
elite levels with many different meal timings.

------
joekim29
How about we stop "fearing" certain foods and just eat a reasonably varied
diet that is calorie restricted? Or if you want to simply lose weight, just
calorie restricted.

Or do I have to bring up the people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or
McD for a month and stil lost weight?

~~~
smtddr
_> >"eat a reasonably varied diet that is calorie restricted?"_

Define "reasonably" and "restricted". Otherwise, you might as well say _" If
everyone just did the right thing, everything would be as it should!"_ which
has no actionable component.

 _> >"people who have lived on nothing but twinkies or McD for a month and
stil lost weight?"_

....but suffered dozens of other health problems that'll lead to an early
grave.

"Super size me" \--
[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390521/)

~~~
kbutler
Super size me has been (politely) not reproducible, or less politely, shown to
be shockingly full of crap.

[http://www.sott.net/article/126285-Supersize-me-revisited-
un...](http://www.sott.net/article/126285-Supersize-me-revisited-under-lab-
conditions)

[http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6-famous-
documentaries-...](http://www.cracked.com/article_20585_6-famous-
documentaries-that-were-shockingly-full-crap.html)

Moral: popular media is a horrible source of scientific knowledge

~~~
smtddr
Well that's interesting! I'm still convinced that living on Twinkies & McD's
isn't going to result in quality health, but it's good to know the super-size-
me person had to lie in his documentary.

------
bad_user
> _It’s really important to distinguish between healthy fats and bad fats,
> healthy carbs and bad carbs_

What a bunch of crap. They said the same thing about cholesterol after fucking
up monumentally and the history repeats itself over and over again. Just man
up, recognize how incompetent you are, how your non-scientific advice has been
hurting people over the past 50 years and switch jobs because the science
you're practicing is nothing more than a cult.

> _He explained that saturated fat, found in fatty animal foods like meats and
> dairy products, raises blood levels of cholesterol and is not healthy_

There is zero evidence that saturated fats are unhealthy. Fats don't make you
sick. Neither do carbohydrates. Humans have been eating fats and carbohydrates
ever since the dawn of men. It's part of our identity as omnivores.

What actually changed is making food an industrial process whose output is
_processed /synthetic food_, which is much more profitable, while riding the
waves of crap coming from nutritionists, coinciding perfectly with the obesity
and diabetes epidemic. Low-fat milk for example is still on sale with health
claims, even though it's a well known fact that it's much more unhealthy than
normal milk.

~~~
mathgeek
Can you link the sources for your claims? I'm asking sincerely, as I'm sure
people interested in the topic will want to see the research.

~~~
cschmidt
If you're interested, the book Big Fat Surprise talks a great deal about how
fat (other than trans fat) isn't bad for you.

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-
Healthy/dp/145162...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-
Healthy/dp/1451624425)

~~~
visakanv
I also recommend reading Gary Taubes' Why We Get Fat:
[http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-
About/dp/0307474259](http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259)

~~~
wdewind
This book is kind of a joke among people who are seriously interested in
nutrition. There is some decent information in there, and the research Taubes
is doing now actually seems like it might be pretty good, but the book has
some really bad conclusions that are not supported by science. It's a good
intro book, but take it with a big grain of salt.

~~~
visakanv
Interesting. What do the serious nutrition folk recommend? (Also if there's
anything specific for skinny low-appetite folk...)

~~~
wdewind
It really depends on your goals and what you are looking to learn. It sounds
like maybe you are trying to put on weight, in which case I can't recommend
whole milk enough :) But if you want to be more specific about what you'd like
to learn I can recommend some resources.

~~~
visakanv
Gaining weight is a part of it, but I'm also curious about understanding
things like, the relationship between low blood sugar and brain function, low
blood sugar and sleep, stuff like that. Will be happy with anything you can
point me to, thanks so much!

~~~
wdewind
Sorry I took so long to get back to you. The stuff you are talking about is
very complicated, and short of recommending you go read a bunch of textbooks
front to back, I'd suggest just starting with some basic nutrition to get a
foundation there, before getting into stuff like blood sugar + brain function.

This article will give you a good primer on nutrition with a focus on gaining
weight:

[http://www.barbellmedicine.com/potpourri/584/](http://www.barbellmedicine.com/potpourri/584/)

If you have any other specific question I'd be happy to chat through them but
HN is probably not the best venue. My contact info is in my profile, I love
talking about this stuff so feel free to reach out.

------
lukasm
It sill blows my mind how little we know about our body. We are aiming to sent
someone to Mars, but we can't figure out what to eat.

It seems the best default is to try to simulate what we've been eating for a
past 50000 years and modify accordingly.

When I first tried slow carb diet I lost 5kg in 3 weeks and my general well
being improved. I tried it again, but the effect wasn't that strong.

~~~
debacle
There's a massive amount of politics and bias involved in "what to eat."

~~~
visakanv
Correct. Big sugar in particular is the major influence to watch out for. They
used to literally have ads suggesting that people eat sugar as a pick-me-up:
[http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/uploads/2012/08/sugar-
ads1.jp...](http://cf.collectorsweekly.com/uploads/2012/08/sugar-ads1.jpg)

~~~
hga
That's a total misrepresentation of those advertisements.

The concept, which on its face is worthy of consideration, and is explained in
the ads, is to consume a small amount of sugar an hour or so before your main
meal to trick your body into feeling satiated before you reach for "those
extra helpings at mealtime". Judging by the items they show being consumed,
they're talking about ~100 calories.

And when they came out, I found them useful to put the calorie content of
sugar into context, "18 calories per teaspoon". Given the insane anti-sugar
propaganda of the time (and ever since), the ads provided some real value.

Now, I don't know if the theory is correct, it doesn't address my eating
issues, but it's very much not " _eat sugar as a pick-me-up_ ".

------
mathgeek
"the fat in French fries slows the process only slightly"

Tomorrow's blog headline: SCIENCE PROVES FRENCH FRIES ARE THE HEALTHIEST WAY
TO EAT POTATOES

------
agumonkey
Having reached limits my body starts to reject anything fatty, salty, sweet
... basically most processed food. I thus was forced to eat raw vegies, raw,
no sauce, not cooked, nothing, and it was a revelation. They're full of subtle
taste, texture that tickle your senses just enough and will make you feel full
very very quick, without any strings attached [1]. I miss the sophistication
of traditional meals (spices, sauces) though, and am seeking for an in between
solution.

[1] junk food satisfies you 10x more but leaves after taste, or sugar heavy,
fat heavy feel in you.

<anecdote/>

------
sageabilly
I am particularly excited for the rise of easier genome sequencing and the
role that will play in nutritional advice for individuals. The more we learn
about genes and how people react differently to different foods the more
intrigued I am by the idea of an "optimal" diet only being achieved on a
person-by-person level.

~~~
mathgeek
"The more we learn about genes and how people react differently to different
foods the more intrigued I am by the idea of an "optimal" diet only being
achieved on a person-by-person level."

For me, it's implicit that optimizing diet can only be done on an individual
basis. It's pretty obvious, at least to me, that taking maternal twins and
having one be active while the other remains inactive for most of their lives
leads to the need for different diets between the two.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Ok I was going to say something about genetic clustering and how there're
probably just a few diets needed to cover most people. Then, behavior. Right,
it also depends on where you are in your life (age, exercise, previous diet,
health issues). It's fair to say an optimal diet is an individual thing.

------
mannimow
Every article on fats vs. carbs dilemma stresses out weight management issue,
none of them mention any other effects, but weight. As a skinny guy, what are
the dangers of say french fries, honey, and fast food? What about when coupled
with active life style and moderate exercise?

~~~
briHass
As with everything, it depends largely on your genetics and natural
inclination to becoming insulin resistant. Insulin resistance (IR) can occur
in normal-BMI individuals. This is typically accompanied (caused?) by a large
amount of visceral fat (internal, around your organs), which isn't what we
typically see when we look at an overweight individual. IR is really just the
first step to full type 2 diabetes.

Exercise and youth can negate much of a bad diet, but it will likely catch up
to you eventually. Better markers than your weight might be HDL (should be
high), triglyceride levels (should be low), and fasting blood sugar. If those
are optimal, you're probably doing fine, but there isn't really a case to be
made that you should continue to eat poor food choices if you can avoid it.

------
amelius
The problem with moving to a diet richer in fat is that it can cause digestive
problems, such as GERD.

