
The case for eating steak and cream - nopinsight
http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21602984-why-everything-you-heard-about-fat-wrong-case-eating-steak-and-cream
======
zt
I have been participating in a Stanford Medical research study since October.
The name of the randomized control study is "One Diet Does Not Fit All"
([http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/DietbyGenotype-
Study....](http://nutrition.stanford.edu/projects/DietbyGenotype-Study.html)).
The basic premise of the study is that as almost everyone has one of two
insulin responses to glucose and that if you have one response, you should be
on a low-fat diet, and if you have the other, you should be on low-carb.

My personal results have been quite successful. I was randomly assigned to the
low-carb diet. I basically eat vegetables, meats, and cheese. I avoid
everything from bread, to rice, to even nuts and fruits. On this diet I have
lost nearly fifty pounds since I started. So it's been pretty successful for
me. (I will admit that I had no idea whether it's the particular diet I'm on,
per se, or the fact that I'm on any diet at all -- that I am paying
attention).

I also accept the premise of the study: one diet does not fit everyone.
Sometimes I meet people and they say it's as simple as calories in, calories
out. Some people say everyone should be on this diet or that diet. I don't
know -- I don't presume that my diet would simply work for everyone. The human
body is a very complex system both for any one person, and for the population.
I tend to believe the central premise of the study (and we'll see if it works
out): that different physiologies lead to different beneficial diets (and
perhaps much more).

There is a lot of story here: exercise being easier, meetings going more
smoothly, my colleagues and family and friends supporting me, YC giving me a
new t-shirt, buying a new wardrobe, my changing interactions with women (I'm
strait, and who knows if this is due to me looking better or me being more
confident)...etc...I'm planning to write up a (as is often the case) too-long
blog post on it all when I'm finished with the study on October.

~~~
hueving
> it's as simple as calories in, calories out

This is definitely true, if you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose
weight. But this is really hard to enforce for many people. Without blatant
calorie labels on everything you eat, it's really easy to go over and then
assume that it must not be true.

~~~
gdrulia
> This is definitely true

It is a strong argument and I know to many examples where this is just simply
not the case.

I myself have been eating all my life big portions of food couple times a day,
mainly with meat and potatoes, sometimes with some salad though a lot of times
without any. I'm not a big fan of sweets, but I do eat bread and some other
stuff containing carbs, simply because it is almost impossible to avoid it
these days.

At the same time I'm developer spending most of my time in front of computer
and I do not go to gym. It has been like this for the last decade, though in
the last 5 years I have spent much more time in front of computer and much
less doing anything else. Yet my eating habits hasn't changed, neither did my
weight. Since I was 16 and my wight was always 90-95 kg, I'm >1.9m height. I
believe that this case just proves that calories in vs calories out doesn't
always apply. Otherwise by now I should be obese whereas nothing even remotely
close has happened.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
I've been 1.8m and 64kg since I stopped growing. I know I overeat most of the
time. Where does the additional energy go? Why is it stored as fat in some
people, not in others. There is more to health than simple calories in =
calories out.

~~~
BSousa
Can you run us by a typical day of food? I'm not discrediting you, but from
experience, what for you is overeating, for others is considered undereating.

------
kfk
To me the most amazing thing is that we still have "low fat" food around and
that it is still labelled as healthy. Instead, the low carb food is either
labelled "low carb" or "paleo", which are both names that remind this gym
fixated people everybody laughs at. Then you have all the vegan/vegetarian
crowd who laughs at who eats meat and steaks. It's a mess.

~~~
NotOscarWilde
As a vegetarian, I don't laugh at people eating meat. In fact, when it comes
to nutrition, eating (the right) meat is likely the most rational choice based
on today's understanding.

As a sidenote, I have looked into low-carb/keto diets and I've found that
those are rather hard for vegetarians; reducing carb intake from some sources
(rice, pasta) is easy, but even staple vegetarian foods rich in protein (tofu,
lentils, beans, quinoa) are 1:1 when it comes to protein:carb content.

Another thing to mention is that being vegetarian in a central European
country limits you to a very few number of restaurants you can eat out with
friends; I do not know of any place around that would serve vegetarian low-
carb food. This would imply that I always bring my own food from home to work,
socially exclude myself by not eating anything when we go out eating with
friends, and so on.

~~~
zurn
A vegetarian calling meat eating "the most rational choice" !

It's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to
animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings.

PS. I've been around other European countries most my vacations and never had
the problem. Worst case you get salads and omelettes.

~~~
Evgeny
_It 's destroying our planet and causing untold, horrific amounts suffering to
animals just because people get a kick out of chewing on other beings._

You may be interested in this article:

[http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-
theres-...](http://anthonycolpo.com/ordering-the-vegetarian-meal-theres-more-
animal-blood-on-your-hands/)

Its arguments, in short, are:

Published figures suggest that, in Australia, producing wheat and other grains
results in:

–at least 25 times more sentient animals being killed per kilogram of useable
protein

–more environmental damage, and

–a great deal more animal cruelty than does farming red meat.

Now I'm not saying it's certainly right or wrong, but it may give a new
perspective.

~~~
zurn
You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production (vs
meat production in general). Overwhelmingly most meat production is fed using
harvest from cultivated land, hence the claims are irrelevant to the general
discussion in addition to being factually uncredible.

About the questionable facts: the 25x claim is not substantiated in any way.
It doesn't in any way substantiate why use of fertilizers to grow plants for
human consumption would be worse than growing grass for the equivalent
nutritional value of cows.

Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes
that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear
counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!

~~~
Evgeny
_You are shifting the argument by cherry picking Australian beef production
(vs meat production in general)._

Yes, though not intentionally - this is just an article I read recently so it
came up in my memory. I believe, though, that a lot of small animals die
because of farming grains everywhere in the world, not only in Australia.
Other factors, indeed, may vary greatly.

 _Lastly, even if you ignore the irrelevance and the bad claims, it concludes
that ethically you should only eat rangeland grown meat and kangaroos, a clear
counterargument for the usual meat eater diet!_

I agree - if one's aim is to minimize the number of animal deaths or the
amount of suffering, that seems to be the answer.

------
scottjad
For a critical response to Gary Taubes and the many other cholesterol
confusionists, I highly recommend the videos by the PrimitiveNutrition Youtube
user. He has over 30 hours of entertaining video analyzing medical studies and
arguments related to this topic including the common attacks on Ancel Keys
regurgitated in TFA.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition/featured](https://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition/featured)
Transcripts: [http://www.plantpositive.com](http://www.plantpositive.com)

~~~
fredsted
I'm a fan of Gary taubes (lost 30kg with simple low no-carb diet), those
videos aren't really convincing. In the first one he talks about pork rinds
being very bad, but really it's a good way to get some crisp in your food when
you don't have flour and eggs. I couldn't get through it because of all the
breathing.

------
Tycho
The other day at work I caved and went for a pub-lunch, a burger with cheese,
served with chips and coleslaw. I enjoyed it but immediately afterwards
thought 'damn, that was greasy,' and remembered my marathon running colleague
who always refrains from going for a 'crappy burger' with us. But here's the
thing: I didn't feel _hungry_ for the rest of the day. In fact I skipped
dinner completely, just went for long walk round the city and stopped to have
a beer somewhere. If you want to lose weight, surely the trick is to consume
less calories per day _and_ avoid the feeling of hunger. Few people are going
to have the discipline to refrain from eating when they actually feel hungry,
day after day after day.

~~~
eliben
I can second this. It's actually quite easy to test on yourself. Try two kinds
of breakfast for a few days each, and compare how much snacking you want to do
before lunch:

1\. Bagels + scone 2\. Eggs + bacon

For me, the second kind undeniably leads to less hunger later in the morning.
After a breakfast of 4 scrambled eggs + 4 strips of bacon (so 550-600 cal) I
can easily not feel hungry at all until lunch. Couple of small bagels with
some cream cheese + scone (also ~550-600 cal) and I feel much less full after
a couple of hours.

------
Borkdude
Most low fat foods aren't really that low fat, but only contain less fat. If
you calculate the percent of energy coming from fat from such foods it's still
large. And more importantly, those "low fat" foods are still factory derived
high sodium low fiber foods, not natural foods, like fruits, legumes and whole
grains which contain almost no fat. What people call low fat is really just
not good enough. For a seriously healthy low fat diet, read The Starch
Solution by John McDougall. [http://www.amazon.com/The-Starch-Solution-Regain-
Health/dp/1...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Starch-Solution-Regain-
Health/dp/1623360277)

However, low fat or high carb still misses the point of focussing on
macronutrients instead of micronutrients. Micronutrients are a good indicator
of the quality of foods. Micronutrients: vitamins, minerals and
phytochemicals, are important factors in satiety and long term weight loss
maintenance. Whole foods like nuts, seeds and avocado's aren't low fat, but
high fat, but can help in weight loss, because of their health benefits. Read
Eat to Live by Joel Fuhrman, who elaborates on this subject:
[http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Live-Amazing-Nutrient-Rich-
Sustain...](http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Live-Amazing-Nutrient-Rich-
Sustained/dp/031612091X)

I have experience in combining Eat to Live + The Starch Solution which got me
from a BMI of 27 to 20 for three years already. I eat relatively high carb /
low fat, with the moderate addition of some nuts, seeds and avocado's. I find
this works best for me. I've excluded almost all saturated fats AND free
unsaturated fats like olive oil, which contain almost no valuable
micronutrients.

~~~
scottjad
My favorite resource on micronutrients and diet are the graphs in this article
[http://www.vegsource.com/harris/ten_categories.htm](http://www.vegsource.com/harris/ten_categories.htm)

~~~
Borkdude
Google for ANDI score, which is also a measure for the micronutrient content
per calorie.

[http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/andi-food-
scores.aspx](http://www.drfuhrman.com/library/andi-food-scores.aspx)

------
Evgeny
Wasn't exactly that subject covered at length in numerous books already? Just
to pick a few at (almost) random, with very similar names

The Great Cholesterol Con

[http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cholesterol-Con-Anthony-Colpo-
eb...](http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cholesterol-Con-Anthony-Colpo-
ebook/dp/B007CPFEYI/)

The Cholesterol Myths: Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol
Cause Heart Disease

[http://www.amazon.com/The-Cholesterol-Myths-Exposing-
Saturat...](http://www.amazon.com/The-Cholesterol-Myths-Exposing-
Saturated/dp/0967089700)

The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease
and How to Avoid It

[http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cholesterol-Con-Really-
Disease-e...](http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cholesterol-Con-Really-Disease-
ebook/dp/B0078XGXQM)

(Of these, I personally read only Anthony Colpo's Great Cholesterol Con and
consider it to be a very good analysis)

~~~
maroonblazer
Not to mention these two:

Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It [http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-
About/dp/0307474259](http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259)

Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of
Diet and Health [http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-
Scienc...](http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-
Science/dp/1400033462)

~~~
Evgeny
Sure, but these two, I believe, include the subject of cholesterol, but also
cover much broader area of subjects.

~~~
scarygliders
This, although written many years ago (and shows, but it adds to the charm),
is what I consider to be something which should be read by everyone.

[http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm](http://www.ourcivilisation.com/fat/index.htm)

------
ja30278
I've been eating a low-carb diet for the past 2 years. In that time, I've lost
roughly 20lbs, while my blood work has gotten dramatically better.
(Cholesterol: 160 (92 HDL, 64 LDL), Triglycerides: 46, Blood glucose: 92).
More importantly, my energy level has 'evened out', such that I no longer get
sleepy in the afternoons or feel sluggish after dinner in the evenings. I
don't take special care to count calories, or avoid fatty foods. I eat lots of
salads and vegetables, but also eat steak dipped in melted butter, and eggs-
and-bacon for breakfast.

After I stopped eating carbs, I couldn't help but notice how much sugar is in
_everything_ that most people eat. Most brands of peanut butter, for example,
have sugar as the second ingredient. Ditto for 'whole wheat' bread, which
frequently has sugar added.

Before beginning this diet, I was a believer in the calories-in/calories-out
model, because of it's appealing simplicity. The truth is, your body isn't a
calorimeter, and metabolizes different calorie sources in different
ways..simple carbs break down easily, early in your digestive process, while
proteins are broken down more slowly. Some foods can't be broken down at all
without the help of intestinal flora, or are excreted without being digested
at all. Thus, it's much more useful to say that, in order to lose weight, you
have to _metabolize_ fewer calories than you burn, regardless of how many
calories you consume.

------
xwowsersx
I've been eating a very high fat, very low carb diet now for almost 2 years.
In that time I've shed 20 pounds (and I was never fat) and my cholesterol
numbers have improved significantly. My experience is by no means scientific
evidence, but just thought I'd share. Reading "The Art and Science of Low
Carbohydrate Living" by Drs Phinney and Volek was life-changing.

------
jstsch
People make things more complicated than they are. Just eat more plants. Eat
less super-easy-to-digest free-calorie foods, such as refined sugars
(sucrose).

This includes simple starches such as you find in white bread, rice and pasta.
They get converted into sucrose right away. It starts in your mouth (amylase
enzyme in your saliva), just one simple molecular change and it's... glucose!
That's why it tastes sweet if you keep on chewing a piece of white bread.

White flour products are tasty though! So consider them as more of a snack,
like cake or potato chips, and less as part of your daily meal.

------
DanBC
I am one of the people who thinks that "calories out > calories in" is most
important. I've tried (in the spirit of Feynman) to poke holes in this, so
here's the stuff that would persuade me I'm wrong.

1) satiety. Some foods make you feel full, so even though they're "fat" you
eat less. (This doesn't counter CO>CI but explains why people fail at it).

2) abysmal quality of research on weight loss. Lots of the research is poor
quality and we really don't know what works. Better quality research is always
a good thing.

3) gut flora and genetics. Genetics plays a role in everything so I'm sure
that it is easier for some people to be fat than others because genes. We know
that some gut flora helps some people stay slim. Nwe know that some other gut
flora helps some people become fat. A double whammy would be unfortunate.

4) evil food industry. Seeing a bag of sugar (in whatever form, but especially
candy) sold as "LOW FAT FOOD!!!" is infuriating. I tend to ignore the HFS
arguments but I agree that the vast amounts of sugar eaten today is very
harmful. Making food "hyper paletable" and making it seem like it is much
quicker to get that food than prepare your own healthy food has done a lot of
harm. (See popcorn chicken cersus a roast chicken).

5) judgementalism. CO>CI may be true but it is simplistic and it is often
given with judgemental messages. As HN middlebrow dismissal shows
contrarianism is human nature, thus saying "CO>CI! Develop some willpower, go
for a jog!" Will devolve into discussion about a bunch of stuff. People like
me need to find a better way to deliver that message.

~~~
jsdalton
6) Insulin response. Carbohydrates trigger insulin production, which causes
cells to store more fat. See
[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-
hung...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/18/opinion/sunday/always-hungry-heres-
why.html)

~~~
DanBC
Posting non medical sources, especially from the opinion section, is less
likely to convince me.

~~~
chaz72
Granted, a primary source would have been better, but the NY Times does link
to several. Though you didn't cite a lot of primary sources in your own
comment, I would still be interested in your real response to the referenced
studies.

------
dbbolton
A better title: "Why black-and-white thinking is bad for your diet and
moderation is good". Actually, that could pretty much replace the whole
article.

------
krob
Yup, eliminate the soda, cake-like-bread, and condiments at the table and
watch the body fat evaporate.

~~~
sjtrny
Condiments? I doubt 1/2 a tablespoon of ketchup is causing the obesity crisis.
"Soda" is the biggest problem that you mentioned.

------
gtuckerkellogg
From the review, this book seems like a rehash of Taubes' two excellent and
well researched books on the same topics. Taubes was the first to make the
broad historical connections that also seem central to this book. Even the
book title, "The Big Fat Surprise" is a play on Taubes' famous 2002 New York
Times article "What If It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?". What, if anything is
original to this work? From the Economist review, we have no idea.

------
jqm
Personally I will be glad when they get what to eat/not eat settled once and
for all...

As it is now, there are so many changing/competing theories out, and with such
frequency I have been forced to abandon considering any of them at all and
just eating what I feel like.

------
icantthinkofone
About 10 years ago, my two sons and I worked out with George Turner as our
coach. George was a gruff, ex-Marine in his 60s known all over the world and
had many weight lifting awards to his name and wrote for magazines. His
nutritional advice used to scare my wife. Essentially, it was a high-protein,
low-carb diet.

He told us not to fear fat cause it was good for us. Nor eggs if you worked
out cause cholesterol wouldn't stick to anything. If you were hungry, "Eat!!",
he would shout at my son who was 100 pounds overweight. "Listen to me cause
I'm right!"

This made no sense at all. He told us he used to give talks at the local
medical university on nutrition. He complained that doctors were not given
enough classes on nutrition and he knew more about it than most of them.

In nine months, all three of us were strong as an ox. My overweight son lost
100 pounds. I lost 40 pounds.

George was always right.

~~~
naveen99
This is common knowledge now it seems on
[http://reddit.com/r/fitness](http://reddit.com/r/fitness) also look at
stronglifts.com Wish I knew this 20 years ago... Basically: squats, barbell
exercises is key. Starting strength recommends a gallon of milk a day...

------
mudil
I eat fat, and look, I am still alive!

~~~
logicallee
Man, you would make the world's fastest doctor. "Hello Mr. Johnson, great to
see you again. Let's have a quick look here. And...yep... looks like you're
still alive. Now, if you'll just sign here. And, we're all set. Keep up the
good work! Next!"

seriously though being alive is an accomplishment for most organisms in the
3.45 billion year history of life on Earth, an accomplishment in the vicious
wild, and an accomplishment for civilized humans in the face of tragedy,
neglect, disaster, disease, war, or certain human-caused problems (violence
etc).

In industrialized nations, today, being alive at all is a goal few people
would set for themselves who are lucky enough to enjoy health and basic
freedom from war, poverty, famine, natural disaster, violence, etc.

While I don't mean to detract from your life's amibtions, you are entitled to
them, I think you can almost certainly have higher ambitions than being alive.

Of course, I don't know you personally, so who am I to say? Congratulations on
what you have accomplished.

