
Even more evidence that we’re eating all wrong - ALee
http://www.popsci.com/high-fat-low-carb-heart-health
======
montecarl
I want to keep seeing more studies like this. I meet many people that say you
need to eat a "balanced" diet, however, they can never backup any claim on
what it means to be balanced. We have established the necessary conditions for
a balanced diet: you must eat essential amino acids, essential fatty acids,
minerals, and vitamins. Surprisingly carbohydrates are not an essential
nutrient![1]

Our bodies can survive on vastly different allocations of the three
macronutrients. What percentage of calories should come from each? Obtaining
most of your calories from carbohydrates can lead to metabolic
disorder/insulin resistance/diabetes in many people. Obtaining most of your
calories from protein can be damaging to the kidneys.[2] The research on
eating too much fat is all over the place and does not seem to have a solid
conclusion. Studies like the one in this article indicate that the previously
theorized risks of increased heart disease risk are overblown.

I'm sure the real answer may be much more complicated than macronutrient
composition, however, it would be at least a starting place for judging if a
diet is "balanced" at a high level.

[1]
[http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.long](http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/75/5/951.2.long)
[2] [http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-
he...](http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-
eating/expert-answers/high-protein-diets/faq-20058207)

------
theprotocol
There are so many incidental factors that it's very hard to form a practical
conclusion from such studies. I find the only way to approach this is similar
to a neural network with a very slow learning rate: each data point nudges my
understanding at a weight determined by how credible, objective, and
applicable to me (because everyone is different) the study seems.

I see no other way than to ultimately treat this as a soft science rather than
a hard one, focusing on qualitative takeaways, and sometimes taking away a
"consideration" rather than a conclusion, e.g. "there's a chance eggs might
ultimately be bad, best not overdo it; rice contains arsenic, it's probably
best to get rice produced in low-arsenic places, and follow a soaking/rinsing
procedure before eating it..."

~~~
wppick
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product)

The goal of articles like these (in my opinion) is to cast doubt in your mind
about eating or not eating certain foods. The article might be "sponsored" by
a large food industry who wants you to think there is no right answer, so you
might as well a bit of eat anything (meat, sugar, oils, fast food).

As a rule of thumb: the higher up the food chain you eat, the more likely you
are eating pollutants. Fish have been found to have like levels of heavy
metals and even plastics. Also avoid eating anything processed with
ingredients you can't pronounce

~~~
trapperkeeper74
Or stop eating processed foods stuffed with preservatives.

Also, stop dining out for the most part: such food is heavy in calories (ie
unhealthy oils and cream), salt, sugar and carbs.

Fix your own food from sources you trust, eliminating many problems.

------
hprotagonist
[http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-
publhe...](http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-
publhealth-032013-182351)

 _Diet is established among the most important influences on health in modern
societies. Injudicious diet figures among the leading causes of premature
death and chronic disease. Optimal eating is associated with increased life
expectancy, dramatic reduction in lifetime risk of all chronic disease, and
amelioration of gene expression.

In this context, claims abound for the competitive merits of various diets
relative to one another. Whereas such claims, particularly when attached to
commercial interests, emphasize distinctions, the fundamentals of virtually
all eating patterns associated with meaningful evidence of health benefit
overlap substantially.

There have been no rigorous, long-term studies comparing contenders for best
diet laurels using methodology that precludes bias and confounding, and for
many reasons such studies are unlikely.

In the absence of such direct comparisons, claims for the established
superiority of any one specific diet over others are exaggerated. The weight
of evidence strongly supports a theme of healthful eating while allowing for
variations on that theme.

A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is
decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention and is
consistent with the salient components of seemingly distinct dietary
approaches.

Efforts to improve public health through diet are forestalled not for want of
knowledge about the optimal feeding of Homo sapiens but for distractions
associated with exaggerated claims, and our failure to convert what we
reliably know into what we routinely do. Knowledge in this case is not, as of
yet, power; would that it were so._

------
justboxing
Here's an ad-infestation-free version of the article:
[https://outline.com/DBMeyx](https://outline.com/DBMeyx)

------
acconrad
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15124906](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15124906)

