

How did we come to believe saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for us? - fhoxh
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-did-we-come-to-believe-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-are-bad-for-us
Direct link to video here: https://vimeo.com/45485034
======
latch
While it's really interesting to debate whether you should eat potatoes or
beef, the real battle for the western world is that we stop eating processed
foods. Wheat vs eggs seems like a silly debate when people are living off of
Coke, Oreos and Capt'N Crunch.

Whenever I hear these arguments, I feel like these scientists aren't living in
the same world as me. "Eggs are ok, declare scientists" reads the headline
while the man sips from 32 oz soda.

In addition to that, having no education in biology, chemistry or any field
remotely associated with health and fitness, I do have two eyes. In light of
all the contradicting information and conspiracy theories, I'll trust what
I've observed. And, what I've observed, beyond a shadow of a doubt, is that
people who favor fruits and vegetables, grains and legumes over beef, pork and
fatty foods are healthier.

~~~
scythe
I've observed rather different things. The people I know who eat the most meat
are the Crossfitters around me. They are, in almost all cases, healthy.

I have a roommate who drinks fat-free milk and eats lots of salad and pasta,
who avoids meat like the plague. He's been struggling with his weight for as
long as I've known him. I drink coconut milk -- which contains nothing but fat
-- and a meal usually consists of some randomly selected fatty cut of meat and
vegetables fried in the drippings. That, or cheap canned fish. I lost weight
eating like this. I fit in skinny jeans. I may with luck convince my almost-
girlfriend to peg me. :3

But the important thing -- I don't advertise. I am not a walking bulletin of
the health benefits of coconut and sardines. How do you really know about the
diets of the people around you? I would say there are maybe four or five
people around me whose diets I actually know well enough to analyze in any
reasonable way.

Case A is a twenty-two year old recent Caltech graduate who is obsessed with
freerunning and eats nearly-strict paleo. He can do a backflip. No further
comments. We grew up together.

Case B is my roommate. He follows all the conventional advice to a T --
chicken, fish, whole grain, salad. Lots of "health food" products. Y'know,
healthiest potato chips on the shelf. There is bread, there is soybean oil
mayonnaise. It... doesn't seem to be working.

Case C is another good friend of mine. Eats a lot of processed cheap stuff;
he's the sort that'll buy three pounds of animal crackers. When I first met
him he was rather obese and said he was try'na learn to eat vegetables. He
lost a lot of weight after we introduced him to ecstasy... and he's been
eating healthier too. He's sloowly coming around; one of his recent facebook
statuses involved making hard-boiled eggs. He looks better and seems happy.
Score 281,443 for MDMA.

Case D is me. I'm kind of a dick, judging people like this. People who I like.
I don't really know any other way to be honest about how I make decisions,
though.

When I was eleven my parents tried to force me to switch from whole milk to
2%. I responded by walking two miles to the gas station to buy milk. I'm the
only kid in my family who never had weight problems growing up.

Eyes optional.

~~~
geon
So, because your body doesn't have the tendency to put on weight, you eat what
you like. Your friends who tend to get fat easily watch what the y eat, but
it's not helping them that much.

This really sounds to me like there are great differences in metabolism person
to person.

I have always been skinny, and I eat a lot of whatever. I don't exercise much.
I know people who are "big", but eat less than I do.

~~~
BSousa
People don't have that much difference in metabolisms (unless we are talking
about actual health problems or differences between severe overweight and
athletes). What happens is most people don't know what they are eating.

BBC did a documentary where two friends, one skinny and one fat, swore the
difference was due to metabolism, that the skinny one ate a lot and the fat
one didn't. They tested it and found out that the fat one used more calories
than the thin one, but also took a lot more calories per day.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eTr1JUvEiUU>

~~~
analog
The basal metabolic rate varies between individuals. One study of 150 adults
representative of the population in Scotland reported basal metabolic rates
from as low as 1027 kcal per day (4301 kJ) to as high as 2499 kcal (10455 kJ)
[1]

Your metabolism also slows noticeably as you get older. In my 20s I could eat
anything (and lots of it) without being able to gain any weight. Now in my 40s
I have to lift weights (to increase metabolism) _and_ watch what I eat to stop
putting on fat.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basal_metabolic_rate>

~~~
BSousa
According to the study, only 26.7% difference wasn't explained by
age/sex/weight. Which means for almost 75% the values were somehow dependent
on sex/age/weight.

And the difference between the top 5% and bottom 5% of the outliers was around
30% (which means for a 2000kcal average BMR, the bottom needed only 1700 and
top 2300). This, in my opinion, is not enough for people to tout slow/fast
metabolism for weight gain/loss as most people won't fall into the top/bottom
5%.

~~~
analog
Even if you're eating just 300kcal over what you need every day you will
become overweight eventually.

Edit: for reference 300kcal is about what you'd burn off with a 4 kilometer
run.

~~~
BSousa
I'm not saying that eating 300kcal over daily maintenance everyday would not
make you fat.

What I'm saying is that I really doubt the most of the people that are
overweight/obese are eating according to what a BMR calculator says and
because of slow metabolism they are getting fat. Also, body uses more kcals
per day than BMR, you also have to take in account the activities per day.

Using Harris Benedict formula:

If you are sedentary (little or no exercise) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.2

If you are lightly active (light exercise/sports 1-3 days/week) : Calorie-
Calculation = BMR x 1.375

If you are moderatetely active (moderate exercise/sports 3-5 days/week) :
Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.55

If you are very active (hard exercise/sports 6-7 days a week) : Calorie-
Calculation = BMR x 1.725

If you are extra active (very hard exercise/sports & physical job or 2x
training) : Calorie-Calculation = BMR x 1.9

The thing is, most (and I know this is pure observational) people I know that
are overweight/obese either underreport calories (they say they eat just a
salad, but forget the 5 table spoons of dressing/olive oil they season it
with) and over report activity levels (jogging is not moderate exercise!).

I know it isn't data, but my mother and my mother in law are some of the
people that most annoys me related to this. They swear they don't eat treats
(I see them eating on average 2-3 cake slices or ice creams per week) and they
say they only dine salad (but include 2 loafs of bread and a lot of oil based
seasonings) and complain they don't lose weight. And this is what I see in
about 90% of the people I know that are overweight. Maybe it is cognitive
dissonance/bias but some people just believe they can't lose weight, so they
bend the truth to support that idea.

ps: sorry to be such a 'asshole' related to this. Fitness and nutrition is a
passion of mine, and I hate when people use excuses for their lack of
progress, or attribute 'genetics' or 'luck' to my progress (sure, they don't
see me at the gym 1.5 hours every day working my ass off, or not eating bread
for months at a time.)

~~~
analog
I think we basically agree, it's very easy to miss high calorie foods that can
totally throw your calculations out.

And you shouldn't use a slow metabolism as an excuse for accepting a certain
state, maybe that's easy for you and me to say as we both seem to be lucky
enough to be healthy.

But since you can alter your metabolism it can be a useful tool as part of
weight loss. Do weights, increase muscle mass, increase metabolism, lose
weight. In terms of time spent weights are very effective as well - 3-5
workouts of 45mins per week is plenty.

~~~
BSousa
Actually, and that is my point entirely, luck isn't the word. I have shitty
genetics (I think on both sides, for the last 2-3 generations my family has
been overweight/obese). Heck, during my wife's pregnancy there were
complications, and due to stress + bad food + no exercise I ballooned up 9
kilos (20 pounds) in about 2.5 months. If I don't take care of myself, I gain
weight quite easily.

And not to try to be the naysayer, but the effect of muscle on calories burned
at rest has been quite the myth floating around. Check the references at the
bottom of [http://www.lanimuelrath.com/blog/calories-burned-by-
muscle-v...](http://www.lanimuelrath.com/blog/calories-burned-by-muscle-vs-
fat-another-myth-exploded/) and you will see that 10 pounds of extra muscle
will burn at most 60-70 more calories than fat at rest.

Apart from that, I agree, do weight training 3-5 days a week. move around, eat
healthy. That should be enough to at least get you to the normal weight range.

------
ramses
Twelve years ago I had read too many peer-reviewed papers to know that low-
cholesterol diets were a bad idea, and useless from the point of view of
having a good blood-cholesterol profile.

Useless because, for example, population study after population study showed
that low-cholesterol diets did not improve blood-cholesterol. Furthermore, it
was common to find populations with high-cholesterol diets that had an
excellent blood-cholesterol profile, and, conversely, populations with low-
cholesterol diets and a bad blood-cholesterol profile.

A bad idea because, among other things, low-cholesterol diets will immediately
lower your blood Testosterone. Recall that cholesterol is the most basic
steroid; from it, all other steroids, including anabolic androgenic steroids
such as Testosterone, are metabolized. A diet with a good amount of
cholesterol is a necessary condition to achieve good levels of Testosterone.

Why would a hacker care about his Testosterone levels?? Some examples:

Males with high Testosterone perform better in arithmetic and mathematics than
males with low testosterone. Males with high Testosterone levels have better
short-term-memory. Males with high Testosterone have good mood; whereas low
Testosterone causes depression, mood-swings, and angry reactions to minor
things.

So, for at least 12 years, I have made it a point to have two jumbo eggs for
breakfast. And that's not the only source of cholesterol and saturated fat in
my diet. I do, however, make sure that I do not ingest too much saturated fat
... and there are too many more details to my diet to discuss here.

~~~
niels_olson
Non-correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol would most
likely be due to the fact that blood cholesterol, and blood lipids generally,
are more strongly related to total caloric intake.

The correlation with testosterone is equally invalid. Low-hanging fruit: it is
not the simplest steroid (1). But lets go a bit further: by this logic, men
with hypercholesterolemia should be bulls among men. Clinically, this is not
the case (FWIW, I'm a physician and have diagnosed a few of these). Yes,
cholesterol is a precursor to testosterone. But it is also a precursor to
estrogens. Most cholesterol is synthesized by the cells themselves. There is
no essential dietary minimum of cholesterol. You can't really avoid it in your
diet either, because all cells have cholesterol (broccoli, beef, rice, you
choose). Never mind the thermodynamic equilibria of the various enzymes
involved, the hormonal regulation of the adrenals and gonads, etc, etc. And if
you want to walk the biochemistry back further, the cholesterol is derived
from lipids, which can easily be assembled from carbohydrates, especially in
an anabolic state (i.e.: growing).

Counterpoints on your "males with..." theories. Spatial reasoning differences
disappeared in the only known study of two genetically identical societies
where one was matriarchal and one was patriarchal (2). From a more
consequentialist perspective, vegetarianism increases with income in developed
countries. (3)

The cholesterol in arterial plaques is a red herring. That cholesterol
represents something less than a rounding error compared to total body
cholesterol, and even less when compared to the total flow of cholesterol that
must pass over the plaques in named vessels. A plaque is like a scab of the
arterial wall. The plaques are more likely due to repetitive macroscopic
injury potentiated by weak connective tissue, due to the connective tissue
molecular injuries (collagen cross-linking, glycosylation, etc) caused by
excess free radicals and other high-energy intermediaries (introduced from,
e.g., smoking, excess dietary calories).

The answer remains the same: eat less. If your weight is outside the normal
range according to wolfram alpha, you probably need to visit
bwsimulator.niddk.nih.gov.

I assure you, many of your forefathers on the Serengeti lived long lives
without jumbo eggs, and still had some wicked hacks (like wheels, music,
property rights, etc).

People want to hack their bodies. Hack your relationship to the society you're
in, that's the problem: figure out how to eat in moderation despite all the
messaging. Get rid of Earl K. Butts' stain on the farm bill. Get rid of the
farm bill entirely. Quibbling about tenth-degree issues like the relationship
between eggs and testosterone is just a win for Monsanto. They got you to talk
about something other than the problem. The problem is there's too much food.

(1) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Steroidogenesis.svg>

(2) <http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/08/19/1015182108>

(3)
[https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/50169/1/63222...](https://www.econstor.eu/dspace/bitstream/10419/50169/1/632222271.pdf)

~~~
manmal
You rant about non-correlations and such, and then end your post by jumping to
a conclusion of your choice ("The problem is..."). Either you allow arguments
by others (you are no biochemist either I guess?), or you stick to it, and
leave it where it is - there is no scientific consensus about what "is the
problem in our society". We can only argue about that, without facts.

I can't find the paper, but I read that high insulin levels are the new devil.
If that's true, then bread (remember, mass production started only during the
industrial revolution), corn, and especially sugar, are to be restricted as
much as possible. Alas, you in the US have a massive corn lobby (real sugar
became scarce during the Cuba crisis), so it would be difficult to do away
only with corn.

IMHO the root of the problem is not that there's too much food, but the
industrialization of the food processing industry. Everything has both
advantages and disadvantages - we can choose from 1000 bread sorts, but many
of them are heavily processed and freed from all micronutrients. And like
every system, the food industry can go haywire, and I think it already has.
E.g., look at what kind of chickens KFC breeds for use in their products. Food
has therefore become a comodity, and people treat it like that. We are just
not used to paying large parts of our income for food anymore, but we really
should be - it's an essential part of life, just like housing. They key is
quality, and being nice to both animals and environment is important.

~~~
MDS100
Regarding Insulin, you'll probably love reading this:
<http://weightology.net/weightologyweekly/?page_id=319>

Agree, but eating healthy isn't that much more expensive than eating processed
foods. Or at least doesn't have to if you buy the right things (bulk frozen
veggies, meat etc.).

~~~
manmal
Oh, by healthy I also mean that the animals I eat have eaten healthy :) E.g.,
beef quality is really bad if cattle are not fed grass, but corn and soy
instead (or animal meal, shudder). Same with chicken/turkey which are fed
mostly corn instead of grains, seeds, worms, etc.

If organic is too expensive for you (here in Austria organic farms have a huge
financial overhead because of cert. programmes -> products are almost twice as
expensive), you can still by meat of good quality, e.g. grass-fed beef.
Because you will find residuals or even large quantities of their fodder
virtually everywhere - mostly stored in the fat.

Another thing is the way animals are kept - if they are kept in crowded rooms,
then you need antibiotics for them to survive until they are slaughtered.
Those antibiotics residuals reportedly act like estrogens in our bodies,
reducing sperm count and testosterone level. That's the actual reason why I
consider organic meat the only meat worth buying - at least in Austria,
organic means there is a minimum of available space for animals, they have to
be fed a certain percentage of natural fodder, they must not be fed
antibiotics, etc.

------
bitsoda
How about we all just eat real food? Stay in the perimeter of the super market
-- with the exception of some canned fish -- and you should be okay. You can't
go wrong with fruit, vegetables, meat, seafood, tubers, nuts, and seeds. As
for wheat...come on, don't kid yourself. A refined white powder that is highly
processed is not real food. Drink water, exercise a few times a week, and get
some sun. If nothing else, living this way will make you healthier than most
Americans.

~~~
Blara
I do believe you can get fat even if you eat only "real food", the trick is to
eat in moderation. If you eat more calories than you use up you will gain
weight. It really is that easy. You could loose weight eating pastries only,
just as long as you don't eat too much. It wouldn't be healthy though...

~~~
adrianN
It's really hard to eat too many calories if they come in the form of
vegetables. Caloric density is important. So are additives like MSG that mess
up your sense of satiation.

------
robbiep
Our body doesn't posess the enzymes to dehydrate saturated fats, therefore we
can't process them as efficiently, Additionally saturated fats lead to cell
membrane instability and 'crystallisation' due to the straight-line chemical
arrangement of the carbon atoms. Cis - (A type of) unsaturated fats by
contrast, have kinks in the chains which induces fluidity into cell membranes.
Interestingly Cholesterol is used to maintain membrane stability/'fine-tune'
membrane fluidity when there are lots of Cis fats.

I haven't listened to the whole talk yet and take it the poster's angle is
that there is a lot more to diet, nutrition and preventable diseases like
Ischaemic heart disease than just 'saturated fats and cholesterol'. Yes. No
doubt. But they are still terrible for you in high doeses, Epidemiological
studies have shown this beyond a doubt and the basic science is sound.

------
fhoxh
Google's cache for this article:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=safari&#...</a>

------
user49598
I believe it coincided with converting to a nearly sedentary culture. Nothing
is as bad for you as being sedentary and since many/most people refuse to
exercise, and you can't buy exercise pills (let alone get people to take
them), you have to get people to want to cut down on the stuff their body
isn't using.

Cholesterol isn't bad, saturated fat isn't bad, but if you're sitting around
all day festering so are they.

Nutrition is far from an exact science and humans from around the world react
to foods differently in subtle ways giving any Nutritional conclusions limited
relevance.

IMHO, The 2 most important things you can do are exercise and pay attention to
your body. Also, a lot of these "mis-conceptions" come from media and laymen
thinking that phrases like "a link between saturated fat and heart disease"
imply causation.

Remembered one more thing: A lot of shit food is loaded with saturated fat and
cholesterol (and salt and sugar). Frozen dinners, snack cakes and fast food
are some great examples. These products, which significantly contribute to the
fattening of the world, help give their main flavor sources a bad name.

~~~
ladzoppelin
Wow that's a great way of explaining the underlying issue. The way that
everyone reacts differently to the same foods is also the reason that
thousands of different diet books continue to make money. Its a mess and the
internet has only added to the confusion.

------
waivej
Summary: bad science led to low fat diet craze. Reduce carbohydrates instead.

~~~
lwat
Taubes was right

~~~
rmobin
Low-carb diets work for plenty of people (including me), but this is a must-
read refutation of Taubes' carbohydrate hypothesis:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-h...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2011/08/carbohydrate-
hypothesis-of-obesity.html)

~~~
fhoxh
Guyenet is a joke.

Peter over at HyperLipid recently ripped him to utter shreds:

<http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/confused.html>

[http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/insulin-un-de...](http://high-
fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2012/06/insulin-un-dead-and-coffin-nails.html)

Not to mention, Taubes countered Guyenet with a 6-part series refuting
Guyenet's widely mocked food-reward/palatability hypothesis:

[http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-
ances...](http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ancestral-
health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-carbohydrates-
kettles-pots-other-odds-ends-part-i/)

[http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-
time-–-the...](http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-–-the-
ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-
carbohydrates…-part-iia/)

[http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-
time-–-the...](http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-–-the-
ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-
carbohydrates…-part-iib/)

[http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-
time-–-the...](http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-–-the-
ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-
carbohydrates…-part-iic/)

[http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-
time-–-the...](http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-–-the-
ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-
carbohydrates…-part-iid/)

[http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-
time-–-the...](http://garytaubes.com/2011/11/catching-up-on-lost-time-–-the-
ancestral-health-symposium-food-reward-palatability-insulin-signaling-and-
carbohydrates…-part-iie-as-in-“end-and-egh-already/)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I read through the first 3 of your links by taubes, which all seemed to be
extremely verbose sophistry that don't address Guyanet's points at all.

At what point does Taubes actually address Guyanet's (clearly stated) claim,
that if food is tastier, people eat more of it, consume more calories, and
become fatter?

~~~
fhoxh
I would say that you might consider reading the complete 6-part series. :-)

~~~
yummyfajitas
I would say that if you want people to read a relevant link, you should at
least say "here are 6 links, all but $N are all red herrings." Have a little
respect for the time of the reader.

------
shakesbeard
At my former company we had free access to beverages (sodas, water, energy
drinks, ... even beer). I gained a lot of weight while working there. After I
quit I stopped drinking sodas altogether, while mainly keeping my diet
(vegetarian, one "big" meal per day + snacking) and level of physical
activity. I lost about 18kg (40 pounds) in about 2 months. Went from 103kg to
85kg. I'm 1.84m so that's an ok weight I guess.

So that worked for me ... drinking water.

------
tokenadult
Is the link submitted here throwing 403 errors for other HN users? I notice
that many comments here on HN could just as well be responding to the bare
title alone, whether or not the participant has read the fine article. Until I
can read the article (I can't so far after repeated attempts), I'll give some
history of how the cholesterol hypothesis was developed.

Ancel Keys, a member of the Terman longitudinal study of high-IQ children and
inventor of the K ration for United States soldiers during World War II,

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A7213-2004Nov2...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/articles/A7213-2004Nov23.html)

[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/obituaries/23keys.html?_r=...](http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/23/obituaries/23keys.html?_r=1)

was active at the University of Minnesota in some key years of his career.

<http://mbbnet.umn.edu/firsts/blackburn_h.html>

He did studies of human nutrition, including starvation, in an intellectual
milieu that included some of the first studies (by other researchers) on
surgery to treat heart disease. (It was the surgical research that prompted my
mother, a nurse, to move to Minnesota after completing nursing training in
another state.) Keys hoped to find a dietary explanation for the prevalence of
heart disease in industrialized countries, and he thought his regression
methods of statistical analysis pointed to dietary fat and cholesterol as the
main risks factors for heart disease. He lived to the age of 100, so it's hard
to say that he was completely crazy in his ideas, but the idea that
cholesterol intake from the diet alone is the whole story in heart disease
rates is now generally discredited, and it is especially controversial to say
that a diet of the kind he recommended is as good for all-cause mortality
reduction as it appears to be for heart disease reduction.

Like all other members of the Terman longitudinal study, Keys was never
awarded the Nobel Prize. Two young people who were rejected for the Terman
study (William Shockley and Luis Alvarez) because their IQ scores were too low
later went on to win a Nobel Prize in physics (in separate years).

~~~
fhoxh
As per his Twitter feed[1]:

"We're being kicked off HostGator for crashing their server due to volume.
Working to get a dedicated server. Sorry for inconvenience!"

In the meantime, Google's cache of this article is here:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?client=safari&#...</a><p>And the
direct link to his talk [video] is here:<p><a href="http://vimeo.com/45485034"
rel="nofollow">http://vimeo.com/45485034</a><p>[1] <a
href="https://twitter.com/EatLikePete/statuses/225822001154117632"
rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/EatLikePete/statuses/225822001154117632</a>

~~~
jtreminio
I can think of no less flattering phrase to describe HostGator: Unlimited
until you get traffic.

------
zader
Site appears to be down. The Google cache is here:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tAI5zmC...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tAI5zmCTTDUJ:eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-
did-we-come-to-believe-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-are-bad-for-
us+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk)

But the meat of his presentation appears to be this video, available on Vimeo:

<http://vimeo.com/45485034>

------
bhauer
Thumbs up for Frederic Bastiat quote. Thumbs down for presumably hosting with
WordPress.

~~~
dangrossman
You presume correctly: <http://eatingacademy.com/wp-login.php>

Though all it'd take to fix is 3 clicks to install a caching plugin, usually.

------
mbrown77
Check out Fat Head. A Documentary response to Super Size Me that discusses how
what we "know" about fat and cholesterol was the result of a politician lining
his pockets by pushing the agenda of one of his friends in the business world
[http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Fat_Head/70115017?trkid=23...](http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/Fat_Head/70115017?trkid=2361637)

------
gkcn
403 - Forbidden

~~~
tista3
[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tAI5zmC...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tAI5zmCTTDUJ:eatingacademy.com/nutrition/how-
did-we-come-to-believe-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-are-bad-for-
us+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=sk&client=firefox-a)

------
schultkl
I defer to Walter C. Willet, M.D., who writes in "Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy"
(co-developed with the Harvard School of Public Health):

"There's no question that two types of fat -- saturated fat, the kind that's
abundant in whole milk or red meat, and trans fats, which are found in many
margarines and vegetable shortenings -- contribute to the artery-clogging
process that leads to heart disease, stroke, and other
problems...monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats found in olive oil and
other vegetable oils, nuts, whole grains, other plant products, and fish --
are good for your heart.... Our bottom line is this: It is perfectly fine to
get more than 30 percent of your daily calories from fats as long as most of
those fats are unsaturated."

"The term saturated means that the carbon atoms in a chain hold as many
hydrogen atoms as they can...saturated fats come in gradations of bad...butter
and other dairy products most strongly increase LDL (bad) cholesterol. Those
in beef fat aren't quite as powerful at boosting LDL and those in chocolate
and cocoa butter have an even smaller impact."

HDL and LDL are lipoproteins: "...fats must somehow get from your digestive
system to your cells...like oil and water, fats and blood don't mix. If your
intestines or liver simply dumped digested fats into your blood, they would
congeal into unusable globs. Instead fat is packaged into protein-covered
particles that mix easily with blood and flow with it. These tiny particles,
called lipoproteins (lipid plus protein), contain some cholesterol to help
stabilize the particles.

"Lipoproteins are generally classified by the balance of fat and protein they
contain. Those with a little fat and a lot of protein are heavier and more
dense than the lighter, fluffier, and less dense particles that are more fat
than protein. The proteins also act like address labels that help the body
route fat-filled particles to specific destinations.

"LDL is often referred to as the bad cholesterol...they can end up inside
cells that line blood vessels. Once there, LDL is attacked by highly reactive
free radicals and transformed into oxidized LDL. Oxidized LDL can damage the
artery lining and kick off a cascade of reactions that clog the artery and set
the scene for artery-blocking blood clots.

"In contrast, HDL particles sponge up excess cholesterol from the lining of
blood vessels and elsewhere and carry it to the liver for disposal."

He goes on to list several studies: Ancil Keys' 1956 international survey
called the Seven Countries Study which found a strong link between saturated
fat and heart disease; the Framingham Heart Study, which identified high
levels of cholesterol as linked to impending heart disease; the Nurses' Health
Study and the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study (both very large cohort
studies); the Lyon Diet Heart Study; and others. "In the 1950s and 1960s,
dozens of carefully controlled feeding studies among small groups of
volunteers showed conclusively that when saturated fat replaced carbohydrate
in the diet, total cholesterol levels in the blood rose...."

The book also talks about the challenges of practical, large-scale studies of
nutrition "in the wild": it's not easy to track and correlate people's eating
habits over decades, for any number of reasons.

~~~
enjo
The more interesting debate is about overall health outcomes. Even the most
ardent low-cholestrol folks are forced to admit that this link between higher
LDL (particularly the big "fluffy" stuff) and heart disease exists.

There are two really interesting things, however.

1\. The link between dietary saturated fats and increased LDL isn't nearly as
strong as those earlier studies suggest. This is certainly supported by my own
anecdotal evidence: My LDL levels went way down when I moved to a higher fat
diet.

2\. Some studies have suggested that controlling for all natural deaths that
OUTCOMES on higher fat diets are better, meaning people on those diets tend to
live longer. It appears that cancer rates are reduced for those eating higher
saturated fat diets for one thing.

This is all outlined in "Good Calories, Bad Calories", and there is a wealth
of study to support the idea.

I recently was seated with a prominent nutrition researcher at a local
university. His take was interesting. Essentially he laid out why these
studies are very difficult (as your cited book did). He said there are two
clear things that comes up in research time and time again:

\- Many preservatives, particularly the high sodium nightmares found in
processed foods, are pretty bad for you. \- Sugar is the devil. Studies have
suggested time and time again that it's sugar that is responsible for elevated
LDL levels. Worse yet sugar promotes higher levels of very dense LDL which is
a huge risk factor for heart disease.

He recommends a whole food diet. Basically don't worry so much about what your
eating and more about how fresh it is. The shorter the time between something
living and the time you eat it the better. The fewer steps it takes for
something to be prepared the better.

Calories still count of course, but I've essentially been following that idea
for awhile. I eat more fruits and vegetables and I've drastically cut my sugar
intake. I eat more steak and pizza (made from high quality and fresh
ingredients) than the ADA would like. My blood chemistry levels have been
amazing ever since.

~~~
sandGorgon
_Even the most ardent low-cholestrol folks are forced to admit that this link
between higher LDL (particularly the big "fluffy" stuff) and heart disease
exists_

I'm not a researcher, but I have been hanging around /r/advancedfitness a lot.
What I seemed to understand is that the ratio of triglycerides to LDL to HDL
is what is an indicator of heart disease.

------
waivej
Try this for the video: <http://vimeo.com/45485034>

------
activepeanut
I've always wondered if the saturated fat in coconuts is bad for you..

~~~
SwellJoe
Most likely good for you, along the lines of olive oil and avocado. Assuming a
good balance of foods.

~~~
Shorel
They have very different smoke points.

In short: coconut oil (also palm oil) will be useful after you use it to fry,
while olive oil will stop being olive oil after just some heating. In fact, do
not fry anything with olive oil. Olive oil should be added to food in your
plate only.

------
dools
Can someone summarise the vid? It won't play on Android ...

~~~
lwat
Link seems to be dead

~~~
fhoxh
Link seems fine to me:

<https://vimeo.com/45485034>

------
ioquatix
Why is this on Hacker News?

~~~
ufo
My same question. Reading this thread makes me feel like I am watching a PHP
conference host a panel on language design.

~~~
ioquatix
Based on the down-votes I'm receiving I have to say I agree.

------
adv0r
Here in Scandinavia is quite popular a diet based on butter and fat. They were
abusing it so much that they had a crisis : the butter shortage.

[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020455390457710...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204553904577102332973418996.html)

funny, isn't it?

------
sabat
Science?

~~~
semenko
Watching Hacker News try to interpret scientific data is, well, "like Quora
without the Questions."

