Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by jacques_chester 4423 days ago
> Now we realize we're wrong?

Nope. "We" have realised that there's money to be made in selling contrarian diet books that tell people what they want to hear.

2 comments

Yes, because the whole "low-fat" movement is working so fine

Meanwhile in Europe they keep eating whatever they always ate (in moderation), not drinking soda, keep drinking (more moderately hopefully), and don't need a motorized cart to shop at a supermarket.

Even though it's hard to believe, I wouldn't doubt someone found out traditional Belgium fries (yes, in lard, yes, with a good amount of mayo on top) may end up being healthier than a lot of "low fat" crap in a supermarket

I agree with you about moderation, but the argument here isn't really about moderation.

It's about whether saturated fat is or is not distinguishably unhealthier than other sources of fat, once other factors (most importantly, obesity) are controlled for. The evidence from properly constructed studies suggest that it is.

For my own self, I know that red meat and saturated fat increase my risk of heart disease. But they are delicious, so I eat them -- in moderation. And I monitor and control other risk factors such as exercise and blood pressure.

The problem with red muscle meat is it has a good bit of trans-fats in it, and also excess of methionine and tryptophan relative to other amino acids (notably glycine). But the saturated fat is harmless. You can eat as much coconut oil as you want. Saturated fat is not the problem. Yet for the reasons above, eating too much muscle meat is to be avoided.
Both lard and the oils used in mayo are mostly unsaturated fats, by the way.
As opposed to selling "Healthy" fat free cookies, breads and meats laced with extra sugar?

I think the point of all this new research is that you can't take out fat and expect your diet to be healthy--the real story is much more complex. Most educated people would realize eating lowfat cookies still isn't a good habit to have, but society seems to think it's ok.

You're conflating two things.

"Eat less saturated fat" means ... eat less saturated fat.

Not: eat more of everything else.

And that advice is still sound. Calorie for calorie, gram for gram, saturated fat is worse for heart health than polyunsaturated fat.

You're blaming the scientists and doctors for being (somewhat wilfully) misunderstood. You might as well blame physicists for plane crashes. After all, they lied to us about gravity!

"In contrast to current recommendations, this systematic review found no evidence that saturated fat increases the risk of coronary disease, or that polyunsaturated fats have a cardioprotective effect."

http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and...

As I noted below, that study was not focused on randomised controlled trials and has been criticised by sloppy work on the part of the authors.
I'm making a practical argument about the effects of "fat is bad" mentality. It is much harder to avoid sugar and nutritionally void processed food at this point in time.

Ultimately people want to be healthy, and using the heuristic to avoid fats isn't the way to make healthy eating decisions by itself.