IMHO, whenever you get people saying "Wouldn't it be wonderful if the science said <x> because it would help with <some other thing that is hard to figure out>" you get one of these situations.
I mean. You know. It plays both ways.
Pork is roughly twice as efficient as beef to produce, and poultry three times as efficient. Replacing beef in your diet with other meats is already a substantial improvement without the hassle of going full-vegan.
I personally find it more amusing that the internet is so friendly towards "big organic". :-)
Calories we can produce really, really well with various techniques:
Cereal grains - maize, rice, wheat, sorghum / millet
Legumes - soya, various beans / lentils / peas
Some root vegetables - potato, sweet potato, taro, cassava, yam, beet
Plantains & Bananas
But "let's not use any animal products at all" is a much harder sell. "Hey, if you eat mostly chicken and pork with just the occasional steak or burger on a special occasion you can get like 50%+ of the environmental benefits" is a much more plausible way forward for the US.
Beef can live on range-lands that aren't good for much else and requires very low inputs. If we didn't have a taste for grain fed finished animals it would almost certainly be many times as efficient as pork.
There definitely is land that is only useful (agriculturally) for grazing. There will be a subset of this land for which the tradeoffs favor grazing (there may be some land we could technically graze but as a society prefer not to, eg, to conserve water resources or leave an area "wild"), and there's no reason to not produce beef just because it's inefficient in other contexts.
Pork also has a niche like that -- you can feed pigs food waste. Some food waste can simply be eliminated and you always have the option to just compost food waste, but there is a non-negligible amount of necessary food waste (slightly spoiled produce, table scraps, etc). If you could efficiently funnel all of this food waste into pork production, you could reclaim those calories.
just like any other diet (paleo and other shit).
science today can tell you only that you have to eat a variety of foods, not too much or too little, mostly plants.
personalized nutrition will be the solution tailored and true, but that takes a lot of resources and currently uninvented tech.
things that are also not fads but probably also annoy you: yoga, jogging, veganism.
I think the substance of the science discussed revolves around the composition of dietary fat. As the article notes, the recommendation for increasing the proportion of "polyunsaturated" oils is likely a major factor. Indeed, common vegetable oils contain a high proportion of linoleic acid, the "base" omega-6 dietary source. It has been shown in numerous studies that the omega-6 (N-6) to omega-3 (N-3) ratio is important since these essential fats are linked to immune system functioning.
N-6 fatty acids are associated with pro-inflammatory factors, N-3 primarily leads to anti-inflammatory products. In the archaic/traditional diet, N-6 and N-3 were present in roughly equal proportion, but with marked increase in vegetable oil consumption, N-6 to N-3 becomes "imbalanced", e.g., 10:1.
Inflammatory processes are well-known to play a role in cardiovascular disease, so it's not hard to see how increased N-6 fatty acid intake is a contributor. However this info has not been a secret in the fields of obesity and metabolic disease treatment and research, where the impact of dietary fat intake has been discussed and published for more than 20 years.
Since the mid-90's I've recommended sharply reducing polyunsaturated vegetable oil intake as part of "lifestyle" changes supporting optimum health, particularly for patients with predisposition to metabolic disease. FWIW I've followed my own advice for at least as long, the results have impressed my internist who jokes that I've become quite an uninteresting case.
(Don't have references at hand. If anyone wants I'll post them.)
Artemis P. Simopoulos, An Increase in the Omega-6/Omega-3 Fatty Acid Ratio Increases the Risk for Obesity
Tani S1, Takahashi A, Nagao K, Hirayama A, Association of Fish Consumption-Derived Ratio of Serum n-3 to n-6 Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids and Cardiovascular Risk With the Prevalence of Coronary Artery Disease.
Khan SA, Ali A, Khan SA, Zahran SA, Damanhouri G, Azhar E, Qadri I, Unraveling the complex relationship triad between lipids, obesity, and inflammation.
For all the good things people say about the fat composition of olive oil, canola oil is probably better. It also has a more neutral taste. It's all refined though, and a GMO, things which some people don't like.
Anti-inflammatory diets is about the only way to survive into old age regularly, in both the length of life, and the quality of life aspects.
The main reason is that these are supposed to produce less cancerogenic compounds after high temperature treatment* and they also do not leave any strong specific taste.
Both do not contain significant amount of omega-3 fatty acids, but the cooking oil probably also should not be your main source of fatty acids anyway (usually we wipe the products clean after cooking).
Perhaps somebody else could give better insight into it.
* I actually have not researched this deeply, but these oils do have relatively high smoke point https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoke_point
If your goal is to minimize aldehydes produced in cooking coconut oil is maybe best but can affect the taste. Lard and goose far are good alternatives that for some foods can provide a better taste.
Edit: Lard and Butter also work quite well.
Edit: Geese might disagree but they're mean.
My understanding is that peanut oil is very pro inflammatory and a bad idea to use at high heat. Butter, animal fats and coconut oil are my go to oils. But I don't deep fry.
I would add to that "most", had a stomach ulcer, no bacteria detected in multiple tests.
Turned out my stomach produces excess acid when I'm under stress.
There has always been suspicion of knowing cherry-picking. But the evidence of fraud, by the central figure of saturated fat phobia, is much clearer now.
To the first question, one can find hidden in the article: "Willett faulted the experiment because many of the patients were on the special diets for relatively brief periods - many were being released from the mental institutions. But about a quarter of the patients remained on the diet for a year or longer".
If people stayed on this diet for a year or so max of their 65+ years of life, this data seems utterly non-relevant to support either thesis. It is fundamental to know if the people (and how many) continued with the new diet for a sizable portion of their life. In any case the results should at least not include people that have been on the diet for just a couple of months.
It is hard to believe that a diet of low fat for just a random year in somebody's life (~1.5% of life span) would make a big difference against the remaining 98% of life spent eating fat. The question whether a low fat diet is better than a high fat one is very intriguing, but this data, as presented in the article, seem inconclusive.
It's not inconceivable though: I've friends who have lactose intolerance who once they have stayed off lactose for a while can then consume it relatively normally so long as they maintain a relatively low dose.
It seems possible that the body could "clean" itself during a period of low fat dieting sufficient that it can handle a normal Western diet for the rest of a normal Western life-span? If a mechanism for fat storing that was detrimental was related to one's age when the fat was deposited that might also explain how a short period of dieting would be beneficial over a lifetime.
Most everything [I've read] in dietary science seems inconclusive.
Surely I oversimplify, but I think it's important to acknowledge the human factor in what passes as scientific consensus in a field at any given time.
It's a classic case where it's hard to pickup most people saying 'I have no idea', when there is a lot of talk about theory x.
PS: The counter argument was simply children get feedback while learning a language. Mute children have a much harder time picking up their native language so it's not a passive process.
The Sugar Conspiracy: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941
The sugar conspiracy: sugar—not fat—is the greatest danger to our health: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11471806
It revolves around a lecture by Dr. Robert Lustig (UCSF) that was also posted on HN six years ago. I found it amazing:
Sugar: The Bitter Truth (UCSF lecture): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1006980
Calling it "science" is harmful.
[EDITED to add:] On the face of it, the most obvious reading of gwern's comment is (it seems to me) something like "ha ha, of course they're dead, because they had stupid theories about diet and health so we should expect them to have died by now". If that is what gwern meant, then I think he was being unreasonable. (But I'm not at all sure it is.)
Before I launch any program, I test it.
Not just on my patients, which I have done for decades (in fact on over 20,000 patients), but on people all over the country following the program at home. We had over 1,000 people do the Eat Fat, Get Thin beta program and the results and stories were amazing.
Here are the average results from the first group to go through the program:
Weight Loss: 7.1 pounds (some lost up to 46 pounds)
Waist Reduction: 1.9 inches (some lost up to 13 inches)
Hip Reduction: 1.7 inches (some lost up to 16 inches)
Blood Pressure Reduction: systolic (top number) 9 points, diastolic (bottom number) 4.5 points
Blood Sugar Reduction: 23 points
I am following the work of Dr Hyman for a long time and already knew that a diet with good fats is healthy, but the result of 69% drop of symtoms of all diseases is astonishing and makes you think: the bad foods make you sick and the good foods make you healthy.
But I suppose more as a rearguard action, you're correct that it's not as bad as it once was.
The quest for the one perfect diet which is optimally healthy for everyone in the world, though, is obviously misguided.
I'm not talking about what the country eats but more on a personal level. At my workplace everyone eats meat and most of them eat junk food but I am vegetarian and I look after what I eat.
I don't wanna sound like a hippie, but just listen to your body and be conscious of what it likes and how you feel after eating certain kind of foods.
Personally speaking, after eating junk food I feel like shit. Voila!
Are countries with a higher degree of capitalism in general or a greater profit motive in their food production more likely to have diet that leads to poor outcomes?
And a raw country-to-country comparison of health outcomes will be badly confounded by the effect of race. Japanese in the US perform worse on health metrics than Japanese in Japan. They still do better than whites in the US.
> Just don't eat processed food
Don't eat canned food.
Don't eat frozen food.
Don't eat packaged food, often labeled "natural" or "organic." 
ffs, maybe if Americans just ate like Europeans, everything would be fine.
Oh wait a second...
Learn how to cook mister, just like real grown ups do!
I'm sorry to say but if you are eating a certain way and it is hurting your body and you don't have the right mindset to change your lifestyle no matter if you are european/american you need to stop eating that. I know obesity is more of a concern in america. And I know most of the junk food origins from usa (mcdonalds for ex).
>Learn how to cook mister, just like real grown ups do!
Patronizing. Do you know real grown ups can cook bad foods at home too? Not everything cooked from scratch is healthy!
>I'm sorry to say but if you are eating a certain way and it is hurting your body and you don't have the right mindset to change your lifestyle no matter if you are european/american you need to stop eating that.
JUST BE HEALTHY, FAT PEOPLE! You don't need any education about macro/micro-nutrients, food portions, exercise routines, and/or preparation.
>I know obesity is more of a concern in america.
Compared to what? There are 10+ countries with obesity rates higher than America.
>And I know most of the junk food origins from usa (mcdonalds for ex).
You have to be kidding me.
No shit Sherlock. I'm talking about cooked-home food. If you can't make the decision of what you should cook, what you need and what is healthy and how to do it then you're better off eating the shit they serve you at mcdonalds in that case.
>JUST BE HEALTHY, FAT PEOPLE! You don't need any education about macro/micro-nutrients, food portions, exercise routines, and/or preparation.
Actually you don't need to be a rocket scientist to eat properly/healthy. I'm sorry to tell you that. Internet is full of recepies etc. And I'm not talking about exercises at all, why do you bring that into discussion?
>You have to be kidding me.
No I'm not. Look at the origin of companies controlling unhealthy foodchain.
Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality, 1918–1919 Pharmacology, Pathology, and Historic Evidence: