You're viewing a single thread.
-
Why do people eat food they know isn't good for their health? Why do people continue to buy products from companies that have proven to only sell bad products or engage in scumbag practices?
They all have the same answer.
-
It turns out in 1961 the American heart Association took bribery money from procter and gamble, who owned and sold "healthier Crisco" cooking oils that weren't high in saturated fat, like beef and other cooking oils were.
The AHA then claimed and pushed that saturated fats caused heart disease.
Problem is, something like 88% of every study done in the past 60 years has found little to no link between heart disease and saturated fats.
So beef, according to most studies, isn't bad for you. The AHA was just crooked and on the take, being paid off to sell Crisco.
Now it is calorie dense and people tend to eat too much of it, but that seems to be a lot of things. Don't eat too much or you get fat. But apparently, you don't have to worry about saturated fats being bad for you.
-
someone else online summarized the genetics part as the following:
Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques 1 and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c 2.
But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation.
-
Forgive me, because I'm struggling to understand the linked information, but as someone with atherosclerosis this is an issue close to my heart (ha!).
I just want to make sure I understand you.
Your link to the european heart journal says that the causal link between LDL and ASCVD is "unequivocal".
I think the WHO study says (amongst a lot of other complicated stuff) that replacing SFAs with PUFAs and MUFAs is more favourable than replacing SFAs with complex carbohydrates? The strong implication being (although I couldn't see this exactly) that higher SFA intake contributes to heart disease.
-
I don't think it tries to compare carbohydrates to any UFAs, but the implication is indeed that SFAs significantly contribute to heart disease.
-
effects on the serum lipoprotein profile of reducing SFA intake by replacing a mixture of SFA with cis-PUFA [...] or cis-MUFA [...] were more favourable than replacing SFA with a mixture of carbohydrates.
-
Ah, thanks, I've missed that.
-
-
-
I always keep in mind the first doctor to advocate washing hands after handling corpses was laughed out of medicine and died alone in an asylum ironically enough from sepsis.
To that point, the vast majority of research on nutrition is done on the presumption carbohydrates should be the foundation of our diet. Even "low" carb diet studies with have 30% of the calories coming from simple carbs. Oddly enough, the human body works much differently and much better when you don't give it -any- sugar: https://youtu.be/cST99piL71E
I can expand, but briefly, sugar acts like a sandblaster through your heart and shreds the endothelium (the finger-things that move things in and out of the bloodstream). LDL is a repair van that drives around with cholesterol and saturated fat to repair the plaques. (HDL brings empty LDL back to the liver) The entire logic of blaming cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming bandaids for stab wounds. Doctors say eat less fat and more "healthy whole grains" (carbs) and the liver makes more cholesterol. Doctor sees cholesterol is still high because the body needs it and prescribes statins which impair production. This leads to nerve pain because it's what literally every nerve in the body is insulated with.
The problems with cholesterol stem from it sitting in the bloodstream and glycating due to prolonged sugar exposure. Sugar staying in the bloodstream is basically ketoacidosis, so clearing sugar is a priority that results in LDL gumming up and going bad, essentially.
I can expand on this, but basically the human body needs predominantly fat with some protein and actually zero carbs.
-
Poor Semmelweis he deserved better
I totally agree with your comment but would like to add:
Most of the studies used to vilify Animal sourced foods are observational, based on food frequency questionnaires, the entire cohort is eating high carb, and heavily influenced by healthy patient confounders. At best these are hypothesis generating papers, they should not be used to make diet choices, or set policies.
-
Absolutely. Great video on the matter: https://youtu.be/xDgzgDSInt0
-
This is a great video, I havent seen it before.
I like this cited document on the subject as well: https://www.dietdoctor.com/low-carb/red-meat
There is a !ketogenic@dubvee.org community here if your interested.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Why do people drive when they know it's bad for the planet
-
Because I live in America and there's pretty much no public transportation.
Trust me, if I had a train, I'd fucking use that sucker. Travel into town for my weekly errands AND I don't have to deal with people not using cruise control on a highway? SIGN ME THE FUCK. UP.
-
why do people live in America
-
Because they don't have the money and the requisite professions to leave.
-
-
-
Why do people buy from Amazon/Walmart when they know it's making their country poorer?
-
Why do poor people vote for millionares when they know they don't care about the poor?
-
-
Some of us work multiple part time jobs to barely make it.
I'd probably stay in the basement if I didn't need to pay my landed lord their monthly tribute.
-
buy some cheap sliver of land and park a bus on it. save up and find a better sliver of land and plan from there.
-
-
-
Is it capitalism?
-
Do you think people in non-capitalist societies only eat the healthiest of foods?
-
-