View Full Version : I give up! Saturated fat, anyone?
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/eat-fried-chicken-want-174400647.html
Margarine good now bad
Eggs bad now good
Fat bad now some good
Fat bad now what??
Honestly, I'm just going right back to eating good old, greasy fish 'n chips guilt-free.
DH does. DH eats butter by the spoonfuls without a care in the world and I keep yelling at him. At this point, he'll probably outlive me, with all his smoking, drinking, overeating, fat-loving ways.
Why don't we all just stop looking at those numbers fed to us by the medical community and Big Pharma--blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, BMI, etc. etc. Maybe we'll all be better off. Or at least happier and less obsessed.
I never trusted margarine or other butter substitute products. Same thing for fat-type altered products, like mayonnaise. Even the mayo with olive oil, whilst probably, and marginally, more healthy tastes just plain weird.
Besides, real butter has a lovely flavour and I can use a small amount compared what you can get from substitutes. Same thing goes for lard. I do not eat fried foods, but that is only a personal preference, as I prefer baked or broiled fish, and I find breading/coating on fish or chicken or whatever to taste funny.
I do, however, trust nearly all of the medical system statistics, studies and all the rest. It does not make me obsessed, but it does help be to make wiser choices. The only ones I did not believe in, much less follow, are the butter and eggs ones that indicate how they are not healthy. Those studies, even the ones financed or sponsored by self-protective companies or agencies, can often produce useful information. That does not mean that I am blindly following anything; I filter all of that information through my own life-time of experiences, how eating certain things makes me feel. A good example is milk. I really like it, as well as soured cream and ice cream and cottage cheese, even though I read something about how milk was designed to help baby cows grow to a thousand pounds. Ha!
I sort of dislike introducing this aspect, but I am less confident about trusting the whole anti-Big Pharma belief system, as it seems just as prejudicial and uninformed as any concern that lumps everyone into a not easily defined, although easily targeted target. You know, like hippies or...even...here it comes...preppers.
I am really fat, but I still trust the BMI information. I have great cholesterol and take meds to keep my blood pressure under control. I kind of depend on all of those studies and statistics to keep me grounded and watchful about my life.
I believe that I am smart enough to be able to take what I need and let the rest go off to bother someone else. As for smoking, I really miss it, and if it would not kill me, or anyone else, I would find a job where I could keep a lit cigarette in each hand, all the time. Of course, that means that I would be less productive at my work, but, you know, let us not get all obsessed about it. >8):~):D
All things in moderation.
ApatheticNoMore
3-20-14, 1:51pm
Honestly, I'm just going right back to eating good old, greasy fish 'n chips guilt-free.
Well they're probably not fried in very good fat at all - probably high omega 6 fat. I LOVE fish and chips (and yes if you are spending a day by the ocean how can you not eat seafood?), but fish and chips are a sometimes food :). Saturated fat OTOH I have suspected for awhile is harmless and eat quite a bit (cheese mostly), though I do wonder if it might be harming me (ok will get my stupid numbers taken again year - but they are usually good due to high HDL). For cooking I use mostly good quality olive oil, because the Mediterranian diet is healthy, sure, but also because I tolerate dairy better when all the more allergic compounds have been digested by microorganisms (cheese, sour cream, yogurt) than butter.
DH does. DH eats butter by the spoonfuls without a care in the world and I keep yelling at him. At this point, he'll probably outlive me, with all his smoking, drinking, overeating, fat-loving ways.
good genes I guess
Why don't we all just stop looking at those numbers fed to us by the medical community and Big Pharma--blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides, BMI, etc. etc. Maybe we'll all be better off. Or at least happier and less obsessed.
well though I did badly when I ate much more meat and dairy so I don't think I do well making them the center of my diet, I tend to be with the Weston Price people, what the body needs is nutrients (uh this doesn't mean a constant flow of food or overeating, it means maximally nutritious food - both plant and animal foods).
Yeah, I'm over it now. I definitely am in the moderation camp. And I am very much convinced that no body of literature is going to come out and say that smoking is good for you, or chemicals/preservatives are good for you. And I have been told by many doctors that mortality/morbidity due to heart disease is way down.
I guess the key take-away is just eat good food.
ToomuchStuff
3-20-14, 2:06pm
I agree with the all things in moderation quote. I remember talking to a late neighbor and her daughters, about her life, and growing up on a farm, using lard, butter, etc. I think part of it was while they were "exposed" to so much stuff they tell you to avoid now (until they change their minds again), that generation got a lot more exercise to expend anything bad. (the big entertainment was radio, or physical activities, back then).
I can't remember where I saw the quote (maybe here?) but on her deathbed, a dying woman said "I wish I had eaten more cheese."
All things in moderation.Even moderation.
My cousin is a nationally-recognized expert on nutrition and isn't effusive with regard to the new study. His perspective, in short...
... one major problem with this study is they did not look at any studies where the saturated fat intake was less than 7%, which is the level recommended by the AHA, let alone less than 5%, which is the level I recommend and the level one would achieve if following these recommendations. Most of the diets had saturated fat intakes in the range of 10-15% (or more). ...
So, in general, I agree with the AJCN study, halfway measures and efforts to just lower saturated fat without truly lowering saturated fat and changing the total dietary pattern, will not prove beneficial. :)
Remember, the only diet that has even been consistently and clinically proven in many peer reviewed published studies to actually reverse heart disease, is a very low fat, very low saturated fat, plant based diet.
bUU, is that low fat, plant-based diet the Ornish one? I know that they have studies proven to reverse heart disease.
Very cool to have a nationally-recognized nutrition expert in the family!
bUU, is that low fat, plant-based diet the Ornish one?McDougall
http://www.drmcdougall.com/
My cousin previously was director of the Pritiken Center in Florida in Florida. Nathan Pritiken was one of McDougall's mentors.
Very cool to have a nationally-recognized nutrition expert in the family!Sometimes it is a buzz-kill. :)
Hmm, well, hunter-gatherers eat diets high in fat (20-35%), including saturated fats, and as long as they stick to those, they do very well in terms of the deadly diseases of Western cultures. Their short lifespan is skewed by high infant and maternal mortality. The Ethnographic Encyclopaedia and eHRAF files don't record a single forager groups that eats less than 7% fat.
The Ornish and other low-fat interventions have so many confounders there is just no way to say it's the low-fat part that's doing the trick.
No smoking
No alcohol
No industrial seed oils
No sugar, no flour, no super-refined anything
No packaged food or takeaways
Increased exercise
One-on-one counselling
Support groups
Low-fat
For the claim that it is very low fat dietary fat doing the good stuff to be accepted as valid, there need to be replicated double- or triple- blind trials in which groups of randomly assigned people eat the same foods, at a constant calorie level, take the same amount of exercise, don't smoke, drink no alcohol, eat no sugar, flour and seed oils, and so on, with only the fat level of the diet being manipulated from 7% up to 35%. You'd also need to follow each groups for around 10 years, as very often when heart disease risk declines, stroke rate goes up. If even one variable other than fat intake changes in this time, well, there's your study out of the window! You'd need a whole range of groups, such that some ate a Western diet high in heavily refined foods, drank, smoked, and and took little exercise but kept their fat intake low. Quite a problem!
Hmm, well, hunter-gatherers eat diets high in fat (20-35%), including saturated fats, and as long as they stick to those, they do very well in terms of the deadly diseases of Western cultures.The fact that one specific regimen happens to be superlative doesn't preclude some other regimen, even one radically different, from being almost as good. The key, though, is that the hunter-gatherers' regimen hinges on replicating their physical activity. Professional athletes don't. Farmers who use tractors don't. Aerobic instructors at health clubs don't. So information about hunter-gatherers high-fat diet is useless to practically every American, since while they can probably hack the food side of it, they're not going to consistently comply with the exercise side of it.
The Ornish and other low-fat interventions have so many confounders there is just no way to say it's the low-fat part that's doing the trick.Just like the hunter-gatherers' diet is meaningless without hunter-gatherers' physical activity, Ornish's, Pritiken's and McDougall's diet is meaningless without all the other aspects of their regimens, including all the aspects of their diets besides fat content.
See here's the thing. I'm going to die whether I eat cake or carrots for breakfast.
I've settled in to 'some of this and some of that'.
iris lily
3-20-14, 11:57pm
See here's the thing. I'm going to die whether I eat cake or carrots for breakfast.
I've settled in to 'some of this and some of that'.
Just do what my husband does. His carrot cake is one of his "vegetables" for the day.
I don't really care. I mostly am vegetarian with occasional forays into chicken, beef, sausage, bacon, beef. I make re fried beans with real lard. Not as much as a traditional recipe, but some. It adds a tremendous flavor. And pastry. But I make pastry but 5 times a decade, so who's counting?
The fact that one specific regimen happens to be superlative doesn't preclude some other regimen, even one radically different, from being almost as good. The key, though, is that the hunter-gatherers' regimen hinges on replicating their physical activity. Professional athletes don't. Farmers who use tractors don't. Aerobic instructors at health clubs don't. So information about hunter-gatherers high-fat diet is useless to practically every American, since while they can probably hack the food side of it, they're not going to consistently comply with the exercise side of it.
Just like the hunter-gatherers' diet is meaningless without hunter-gatherers' physical activity, Ornish's, Pritiken's and McDougall's diet is meaningless without all the other aspects of their regimens, including all the aspects of their diets besides fat content.
I think it's still very well-worth considering that no single society living close to nature has a diet exceptionally low in fat, and that the amount of exercise taken by these groups is highly variable. Some, in resource-rich areas, may work only a couple of hours on each of a few days a week. They never got into agriculture because they could get more than enough food with minimal effort. Yet, despite their highly variable exercise, and a dietary fat percentage varying from 20-35%, these people are still free of the diseases of civilization. When they start eating Western foods, usually rich in highly-processed sugars, starches, and seed oils, they very rapidly develop these diseases. When they revert to their traditional diets, the diseases are reversed. Indeed, some groups seasonally get over 50% of their daily calories as fat.
To me, the take-home lesson from hunter-gatherer diets is that eating fresh, whole, single-ingredient foods prepared from scratch, that are suited to one's metabolic profile, may be more important than the precise proportions of macronutrients.
I think it's still very well-worth consideringIt's not for me, but I do agree that people who are willing to give up our comfortable, consumer-focused life of comparative leisure and willing to commit to hours and hours of rigorous physical activity every day should consider the hunter-gatherer lifestyle.
Some, in resource-rich areas, may work only a couple of hours on each of a few days a week.Which ones? Specifically. I would like to read the research showing extended longevity and low incidence of heart disease among a statistically-significant sample of people leading a lifestyle where they only work a couple of hours a few days a week (and then shove said research into my cousin's face :)).
When they start eating Western foods, usually rich in highly-processed sugars, starches, and seed oils, they very rapidly develop these diseases.No doubt that sugars and refined starches are detrimental to health, almost regardless of other aspects of lifestyle. However, it isn't enough to explain everything.
When they revert to their traditional diets, the diseases are reversed. Indeed, some groups seasonally get over 50% of their daily calories as fat. And remember what I said earlier: The fact that one specific regimen happens to be superlative doesn't preclude some other regimen, even one radically different, from being almost as good.
To me, the take-home lesson from hunter-gatherer diets is that eating fresh, whole, single-ingredient foods prepared from scratch, that are suited to one's metabolic profile, may be more important than the precise proportions of macronutrients.I think we all can derive whatever take-aways we wish from anything really.
rosarugosa
3-21-14, 7:49pm
CeciliaW: You summed it up so succinctly! I'm in you camp.
BUU: I totally thought buzzkill myself :)
Jilly & Catherine: I'm determined to never be an obnoxious ex-smoker, but I am a happy one. I know how bad the smokes were for me just by how much better I feel without them.
Pinkytoe: That is too funny! Those won't be my last words for sure; I eat loads of cheese
...
I think we all can derive whatever take-aways we wish from anything really.
That's my take-away from all you've posted. Just like the Bible, it's all subject to one's interpretation. Studies are ongoing.
As far as nature is concerned, there are essential fatty acids and essential amino acids (protein) but no essential carbohydrates. Saturated fat makes up the bulk of our nervous system and is critical for proper development in infants. It's hardly a deadly poison.
That's my take-away from all you've posted. Just like the Bible, it's all subject to one's interpretation. Studies are ongoing.That's not an accurate assessment though. Many studies have been conducted and reached reproducible and reproduced results. Dr. McDougall has actually proven that his low-fat approach saves the lives of those suffering from heart disease, while, by contrast, there aren't studies showing that a significant number of such folks benefit from a diet that isn't low-fat, like Dr. McDougall's. My point about interpretation is that we each get to decide whether we're going to accept the results of scientific research as our guide, or instead piece together folksy implications, which we then insist on claiming are common sense, to serve as the basis of our conclusions.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to follow Dr. McDougall's advice. But I am going to acknowledge, at least to myself, that he's probably right and my decision is probably just a reflection of me wanting to live the way I want to live rather than the way proven most conducive to health.
ApatheticNoMore
3-22-14, 6:38am
Has John McDougal proved through boatloads of scientific studies that his diet is say the best diet to go through a pregnancy with? Because you really can't generalize from some disease to a universally best diet. A diet for heart disease may not be a diet for this or that other condition. Funny thing about those diet doctors is their diets are aimed at middle aged men with heart conditions and are probably almost always actually followed with real motivation by 20 something females seeking to get skinnier. :laff: Although I'm not so sure I'd follow any diet that was good for for my heart if I thought it was bad for my mood or my appearance.
Has John McDougal proved through boatloads of scientific studies that his diet is say the best diet to go through a pregnancy with?I'm not sure but I bet it is explicitly counter-indicated for pregnancy.
Dr. McDougall has actually proven that his low-fat approach saves the lives of those suffering from heart disease
Because you really can't generalize from some disease to a universally best diet.See included quote.
ApatheticNoMore
3-22-14, 12:14pm
Then it would seem to be counter-indicated for a very large part of the population, those who could become pregnant. Alright if you've had surgical sterilization you're probably home free :) Or after full menopause.
Then it would seem to be counter-indicated for a very large part of the population, those who could become pregnant.Most folks have a pretty good idea if they're planning to become pregnant, and the dietary counter-indication doesn't snap into efficacy at the moment of conception. Practically nothing in nutrition works like that.
The Storyteller
3-22-14, 2:09pm
David Katz, who isn't any kind of vegetarian, doesn't care for the study, either.
"No, it is not suddenly good to eat more saturated fat -- and the new study grabbing headlines showed no such thing. The new study, a meta-analysis (meaning a pooling of previously published studies, not new research) in the Annals of Internal Medicine, shows the following two things in particular: (1) you cannot get a good answer to a bad question; and (2) there is more than one way to eat badly."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/diet-and-nutrition_b_4985323.html
His main point is, people who cut down on saturated fat have tended to shift their focus of eating to other forms of bad food, to bad effect. That is hardly a ringing endorsement for saturated fats. He also doesn't care for the way the popular media covers health news.
"Chew carefully on headlines before choosing to swallow the hyperbole, and eat a diet of wholesome foods reliably associated with good health across a vast and stunningly consistent literature. Do that, and let the fatty acids and other nutrients sort it out for themselves."
I'm no expert (none of us here are, from what I can tell), but I have been reading a lot on nutrition and tend to find him persuasive.
I think Michael Pollan's philosophy is best:
Eat food
Real Food
Not too much
Mostly plants
I can deal with that.
"Chew carefully on headlines before choosing to swallow the hyperbole, and eat a diet of wholesome foods reliably associated with good health across a vast and stunningly consistent literature. Do that, and let the fatty acids and other nutrients sort it out for themselves."
That seems like a common-sensical approach. While not an expert, I've been interested in diet and health for a quarter of a century, and returned to school to study Anthropology. Because I'm really interested in transitions involving dietary changes, I've picked my classes to investigate the connections between culture (behaviour and technology), biology (genotypes and phenotypes) and diet. As an Anthro major, I like to look across cultures and across time.
My question would be "What do X, Y, and Z groups, all of which have very low risk of the Western killer diseases, NOT eat?" This question acknowledges that X,Y, and Z may have very different eating patterns and lifestyles, just as do Westerners. The commonalities pop out:
All groups, regardless of agricultural level
Little to no free sugar, especially no soda
No heavily-refined carbohydrates
No industrial seed oils
For animal-eating groups, use of as much of the animal as can be eaten. Animals not usually fattened on concentrated carbohydrates.
Dairying groups: milk often clabbered or made into cheese, both involving fermentation.
Hunter-gatherer groups:
Fruits are much lower in sugar, and rich in different sugars, as well as much higher in fibre, than those eaten by Westerners. Wild fruits are rich in glucose, cultivated are rich in sucrose and fructose (both much sweeter to the taste)
Wild greens are high in fibre and low in sugar, often unpleasantly bitter to the Western taste. Western agriculture breeds out fibre and breeds in sugar.
Starches usually come from roots and tubers.
Groups heavily reliant on foods like acorns are prone to tooth decay (acorns are sugary and starchy)
Horticultural groups
Heavy use of roots and tubers
Grains usually freshly ground close to the time of use, and eaten very close to whole (the coarsest bran may be sifted out).
Grains often fermented or otherwise treated to decrease toxin and anti-nutrient levels.
Eat a very wide variety of plant foods, many of them wild.
Western groups can also be sampled. Health-conscious Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists both outlive the average Westerner. LDS and SDA groups have similar lifestyles, and different diets.
What's emerging is a picture of fresh, whole, nutrient-dense foods. These are the ones that I think Katz would agree are "reliably associated with good health across a vast and stunningly consistent literature."
Interesting factoid: fibre and resistant starches are bacterially fermented in the caecum and colon. The product is fatty acids, some of them saturated, absorbed directly into the bloodstream through the bowel wall. These fatty acids can contribute significantly to the day's energy needs. So the benefit of high-fibre diets could possibly end up being their contribution to fat intake.
The Storyteller
3-26-14, 10:19am
Good points, Suzanne.
There was a followup on that study, BTW...
"Scientists Fix Errors in Controversial Paper About Saturated Fats (http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2014/03/scientists-fix-errors-controversial-paper-about-saturated-fats?utm_content=buffer24ca2&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer)"
But even before the paper was published, other scientists began pointing out errors, says first author Rajiv Chowdhury, an epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. For instance, the authors took one study on omega-3 fats, one type of unsaturated fats, to show a slightly negative effect while, in fact, it had shown a strong positive effect. The correction means that the meta-analysis now says people who report eating lots of this particular fat have significantly less heart disease; previously, it said there was no significant effect.
Critics also pointed out two important studies on omega-6 fatty acids that the authors had missed. The errors "demonstrate shoddy research and make one wonder whether there are more that haven't been detected," writes Jim Mann, a researcher at the University of Otago, Dunedin, in New Zealand, writes in an e-mail. "If I had been the referee I would have recommended rejection."
Mann and others say the paper has other problems, too. For instance, it does not address what people who reduced their intake of saturated fats consumed instead. A 2009 review concluded that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates had no benefit, while replacing them with polyunsaturated fats reduced the risk of heart disease. Several scientists say that should have been mentioned in the new paper.
Hi Storyteller,
I read the critique, and by its own lights it's valid. However, this particular paper is not the only recent metastudy to find little to no correlation between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular diseases - as often pointed out, Ancel Keys' initial 7-countries study cut out 15 countries. No study, and no metastudy, ever manages to trawl in ALL the data available, so there are always good grounds for criticism, and that is how it should be. That's why science is eventually self-correcting, because sooner or later some brash young whippersnapper finds the holes in the received wisdom of the Old Guard, who were once whippersnappers themselves! There are problems when there is so much in-fighting between proponents of particular schools of thought that nobody steps back and looks at the whole picture rather than fixating on details that strengthen their own opinions. Also, statisticians tend to lose sight of the real world. They'll trumpet "We found that doing X increases your risk of death by 275%!" When the real numbers of real people are looked at, it turns out that over 10 years 3 more people died per 100,000 than in the study group...
I remember reading in "The Blue Zones" that the Loma Linda poster person said two very interesting things:
1. The Loma Linda-ers still get all the diseases of civilization, only 5-10 years later on average than those eating the Standard American Diet
2. Even among Loma Linda people doing everything right by their standards, some still die young of the dread diseases
In the same book, Buettner talked about the Costa Rican centenarians. He observed that every meal included corn tortillas fried in lard, often also an egg fried in lard. Beans are cooked with lard. Then he observed his poster person doing the marketing. The old man, who lives with one grandson, bought - every Saturday - several two litre bottles filled with lard. Somehow, Buettner concluded that the Costa Rican diet is low in saturated fat.
A lot of work has been done on the World War rationing in the United Kingdom, a situation I find fascinating because it lasted so long and involved an entire very large population across socioeconomic classes and genetic heritages. The general health of Great Britain improved considerably, and the average height of the children born during this period increased over that of their parents. But fat intake was not all that low! Rations included 2 ounces of butter, 4 ounces of margarine, and 4 ounces of cooking fat - lard or beef tallow - per person per week, plus 2-4 oz of bacon or ham. At that time, pork was very fatty compared to today's version. Modern pigs are bred to be super-lean.
The really significant food cuts that applied across the entire population were sugar and white flour. 8 oz of sugar a week per person, 12 oz of candy every 3 months, 1lb of jam or other preserves every 3 months. It was illegal to sift flour, so all flour milled in Britain was wholegrain. People ate potatoes and oatmeal, which could be abundantly grown in Britain, in preference to wheat, most of which had to be imported. Carolyn Ekins has a fascinating blog on her experiments with living on the rations: http://1940sexperiment.wordpress.com/. She cooks up the recipes of the period and photographs them. I can strongly recommend potato scones and Lord Woolton pie!
Overall, British health improved not because of big cuts in saturated fat and protein for the small upper classes, but because these items increased in the diet of the severely malnourished poor, who were eating more meat and more fat during the rationing years than prior to the war. Lord Woolton was so shocked by the poverty and malnutrition of the working class that he vowed to bring equity into the system. I was left flabbergasted by what I read. Women and children evacuated to the countryside, who had never seen an egg in their entire lives and had no idea what to do with it when given their ration. People whose diet had consisted of white bread and jam with maybe a scrape of margarine (no butter, too expensive), fish and chips with sauce, heavily sweetened black tea (no milk, too expensive), were suddenly getting a much better-balanced diet. Attention was paid to nutrition of pregnant women, infants, and young children, who got extra rations including orange juice and codliver oil.
What I see as the big take-home message from the WWII rationing in Great Britain is again that the population was heavily dependent on fresh, whole, foods. Intake of packaged and refined foods fell to very low levels.
"Authorities" don't give up their (profitable) dogma without a fight.
Very informative posts as usual, Suzanne.
GeorgeParker
3-29-14, 3:45pm
This is what I believe: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/pyramid-full-story/
The Harvard Medical School recomendations are moderate, realistic, and based on numerous scientific studies -- not just a few studies or some person's/industry's pet theory.
The origins of Harvards Healthy Eating Pyramid are documented in the book Eat, Drink, and be Healthy by Walter C. Willett, M.D. In that book he makes the point that nutritional science and nutritional studies are barely in their infancy -- like the status of astronomy 50-100 years after Galileo's discoveries.
Thanks to bUU's cousin for pointing out one of the major flaws in the study that prompted http://finance.yahoo.com/news/eat-fried-chicken-want-174400647.html and various similar news stories recently. As with most nutritional news the truth is a lot different from what you hear and read. While most legitimate scientific studies are careful and nuanced and include their criteria and sources, what we get on the evening news is "A new study says fat isn't bad for you after all, so eat more of it! Now here's a breaking news story about a messy car wreck..." and if you go looking for additional information you get mostly skewed articles pushing the writer's personal opinion and omiting any evidence to the contrary.
Even the PBS News Hour gave this pro-fat study the kid gloves treatment, avoiding any hardball questions about it and interviewing a chef about it instead of a scientist! http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/saturated-fats-affect-heart-health/ Still there was one very revealing quote in that interview. The chef says, "And what I always recommend is a balanced diet. I think it’s great that we have come to the realization that saturated fat is not bad for you. But too much saturated fat is certainly going to be bad for you. And we need balance in our diets." And that is the real bottom line on most of the "startling, new" nutritional news you hear, especially if you hear it in a news blurb, third hand from a friend, or in a book or article that has a clear agenda of pushing one particluar viewpoint, diet, or product.
BTW: I also believe it's worth paying attention to the glyceymic index http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycemic_index , avoiding transfat as much as posible, and avoiding artificial everything as much as posible. Of course those last two things are virtually imposible unless you cook everything from scratch, but I still do what I can and try to make the best choices among the foods availible to me. One place I never compromise is artificial sweeteners and faux fat: http://www.forbes.com/sites/daviddisalvo/2011/06/21/why-eating-fake-fat-can-make-you-real-fat/
Blackdog Lin
3-30-14, 9:54pm
I only scanned the first 2 and 4th pages of this thread, so may have missed some input.....
but I am onboard with whatever (researcher? food guru? dietician? scientist?) who said, and I paraphrase: eat all you want of all the foods your grandparents (or great-grandparents) ate. And I guess the corollary: eat only minimally of modern processed foodstuffs.
I am doing better this year at this than I did last year; and I did better at it last year than the year before. Not there yet, but I think that truly we are eating healthier by following this one guideline.
I wish lard was less expensive.
The studies that started all of the butter is back discussion are not yet clear to me. What they seem to be basing things on is that people who replaced fat in their diet with carbs did not have a lower incidence of heart disease. To me this doesn't mean fat is good, but that maybe both fats AND processed carbs are bad. Even the study admits that saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol, which is a heart disease risk. http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/03/31/295719579/rethinking-fat-the-case-for-adding-some-into-your-diet
I think without more evidence, the conclusions that some fat in a diet is acceptable may lead to problems. For example, some animal fats apparently can lead to cancer. And any diet with an animal source from the industrial animal machine will also have some chemicals with yet undetermined results, like growth hormones and antibiotics. Not to mention the inhumane conditions. Further, fats lead to obesity just like processed carbs. There is no argument that obesity is bad.
So I think the background studies may be accurate but are being totally mis-interpreted. The reality I see is that fats should not be replaced with carbs, but should be replaced with non-animal based proteins or low fat meat alternatives. Plus maybe a little fat from plant sources like nuts and also fats from fish.
The Storyteller
3-31-14, 11:24am
but I am onboard with whatever (researcher? food guru? dietician? scientist?) who said, and I paraphrase: eat all you want of all the foods your grandparents (or great-grandparents) ate.
Except my grandfather died of a heart attack in 1948. At 70, but I'm getting close to that, and he had a bad heart for the last 10 years of his life. A great uncle died of a heart attack in the 1930s at the age of 50. They were both farmers, so obviously ate a diet very close to the earth. I don't find that particular approach to health personally useful. :)
I do like the premise of avoiding modern processed foods. Like others, I like Pollan's succinct summary best. "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
ApatheticNoMore
3-31-14, 11:47am
My grandparents lived into their mid 90s and it wasn't all real natural food (and it wasn't vegetarian). Most everyone in my family lives a pretty long time (the exceptions are those who SMOKE), some try to be health conscious but none are all that neurotic. So if I was following my relatives long lived examples ... I'd relax?
If you look up the average life expectancy of Americans in the 1900's it sort of puts things into a new perspective, though there are way too many factors other than diet that played a role. For those anecdotal stories of long lives, you can speculate the impact of modern stress, a more natural diet, and environmental pollutants., including food. Maybe a better sense of support from family and community. For those with shorter life spans there is the impact of less smokers and modern medicine. In 1900 the average male had a lifespan of 46 and by 1940 it was only up to 61. I suppose it someone has some theories based on science, but I've scratched my head over why females have consistently lived longer than males. Environment or genetics?
ApatheticNoMore
3-31-14, 1:33pm
but I've scratched my head over why females have consistently lived longer than males. Environment or genetics?
I've assumed it's because testosterone is somewhat toxic to the biological organism (women have less obviously). Is it the same in other species or at least mammals or even closely related speciies that don't fall victim to being prey etc., with females living longer?
The Storyteller
3-31-14, 1:48pm
A lot of work has been done on the World War rationing in the United Kingdom, a situation I find fascinating because it lasted so long and involved an entire very large population across socioeconomic classes and genetic heritages. The general health of Great Britain improved considerably, and the average height of the children born during this period increased over that of their parents. But fat intake was not all that low! Rations included 2 ounces of butter, 4 ounces of margarine, and 4 ounces of cooking fat - lard or beef tallow - per person per week, plus 2-4 oz of bacon or ham. At that time, pork was very fatty compared to today's version. Modern pigs are bred to be super-lean.
And yet the Norwegian experience during WWII painted a very different picture. Because the Germans confiscated most of their farm animals, the populace turned to eating mostly fish and vegetables. As a result, heart disease plummeted. Following the war, it returned to prewar levels.
I'm not going to look at or worry about every study that comes out. It is enough to know experts in whom I trust (Dean Ornish, Joel Fuhrman, Caldwell Esseltsten, David Katz, American Heart Association, the Mayo Clinic, my cardiologist) will sort it all out for me.
And right now, all of them recommend a diet low in saturated fats or at least (in the case of Katz) to choose healthy foods that may have some saturated fats.
Because I'm a heart attack survivor, this isn't a curiosity or discussion fodder for me. It is literally a matter of life and death, so I take it very seriously. I don't follow blogs posted by non-experts, or listen to what the popular media have to say about it. I listen to experts in the fields of nutrition and heart health, and I'm very picky about the experts I do choose.
I've assumed it's because testosterone is somewhat toxic to the biological organism (women have less obviously). Is it the same in other species or at least mammals or even closely related speciies that don't fall victim to being prey etc., with females living longer?
I got too curious and had to look it up. The most logical answer I found was that it is probably about 75% environmental and 25% biological. They did mention the "testosterone storm" for young males. The theory that they tend to drink too much, drive dangerously, and use dangerous weapons during that time, though it sometimes seems to me that this period might last longer than the early 20's that they mention.
From the environmental standpoint, although things are getting more equal, I've wondered how much was due to the stress of being the traditionally main bread winner and often having a driven obsession with work. Also having typically more physical jobs that sometimes involve dangerous equipment, or in the older days, out hunting in the wilderness. It its truthfully one of my primary motivations to retire early. The stress wasn't all that bad, but I didn't want to have an early demise from it.
awakenedsoul
3-31-14, 6:41pm
I haven't read all of the posts. I still eat butter, although I use olive oil as often as possible. Many people have asked me what I eat, since I worked in fields where our bodies were on display. (Dance and Yoga.) I really believe that each person's body chemistry is different. I've had many obese and overweight students say, "You don't eat sugar, fats, or carbs." That sort of thing. They assume I have this strict diet because I have a very lean build. (I'm 5'7 1/2" and weigh around 115.) But, I just have always eaten sensibly, listened to my body, and exercised much more than most people.
The nervous system, endocrine system, reproductive system and others all play a part in how efficiently we metabolize our food. I believe emotions have a huge impact. I see a strong correlation between anger/rage and the shape of the body. Also, many people in debt tend to gain weight.
I also believe different cultures respond differently to different diets. I agree with Rogar about the stress factor. I also find mini meals, (grazing, ) works for me.
The studies that started all of the butter is back discussion are not yet clear to me. What they seem to be basing things on is that people who replaced fat in their diet with carbs did not have a lower incidence of heart disease. To me this doesn't mean fat is good, but that maybe both fats AND processed carbs are bad. The most well-supported approach, using the kind of logic you touched on, is one that most of us would consider remarkable deprivation. Longevity is supported best by remarkably low calorie diets. I'd rather a more balanced approach, sacrificing some health for some satisfaction.
In 1900 the average male had a lifespan of 46 and by 1940 it was only up to 61.Averages are meaningless without considering the average in the context of the variance (http://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol24/21/24-21.pdf).
ApatheticNoMore
3-31-14, 7:53pm
The most well-supported approach, using the kind of logic you touched on, is one that most of us would consider remarkable deprivation. Longevity is supported best by remarkably low calorie diets.
Well supported in theory, in reality I'm not sure they've yet proved there aren't osteoporosis risks etc. (there aren't many/perhaps *any* human examples, even though it's rock solid in theory). But people seemed to be showing some pretty alarming symptoms. I followed a very low calorie diet for maybe a couple of years - but I don't know, the only real payoff seemed to be a deep depression (maybe not just the physical toll although that probably too but the mental stuff you use to get yourself not to eat). And then eventually worrying I'd just get osteo anyway (didnt' score too well on a Dexa either - has osteopenia - not sure if it was related to keeping myself on such a low calorie diet or not but it may have been - doing so and hearing about how people were getting osteopenia was why I even bothered to get a Dexa as I was only in my 20s). Yes I heard arguments about how the osteopenia was nothing to worry about in that context but noone really knew. (many men on a very low calorie diet also complained about loss of libido so maybe more deprivation than meets the eye going on).
I'm not a big proponent of diet with longevity as a primary goal (calorie restriction). If I embarked on that kind of diet my biggest nightmare would be getting hit by a truck at 69 and having all the cupcakes I could have eaten pass before my eyes.
Oh Catherine, Your logic is the same as mine which is why i will never be svelte. Sturdy stock here.
Well supported in theory, in reality I'm not sure they've yet proved there aren't osteoporosis risks etc.They've proven what they claimed they've proven: Longevity; and proven it with humans. (My cousin spent years as director of the Pritiken Longevity Institute.) What they haven't proven is that you'd have a better, more enjoyable life. As I indicated, I personally wouldn't want to live especially long, living that way.
And yet the Norwegian experience during WWII painted a very different picture. Because the Germans confiscated most of their farm animals, the populace turned to eating mostly fish and vegetables. As a result, heart disease plummeted. Following the war, it returned to prewar levels.
The Norwegian experience had this in common with the British: extremely low intakes of sugar and white wheat flour, high intake of vegetables, and replacement of wheat with potatoes and oats.
I am very sure that there is great genetic and epigenetic variability in humans that strongly influence nutritional needs and health. Nutritional and biochemical individuality are hard facts backed up by a goodly corpus of studies.
My own interest is not purely academic. I have chronic conditions that I manage with diet. A good diet, in my terms, makes the difference between invalidism and having a life (200 days a year of incapacity through high-intensity migraine versus 60 of low-intensity pain). The migraine is severe enough to put me at high risk of stroke, because my normal blood pressure of 105/70 can go to 180/150 during an attack. Then there's a condition that lies between peripheral neuritis and peripheral neuropathy, that can pretty well cripple me in acute phase. Acute phase can last for months. Eating what suits my body means minimal medication.
I started researching diet/health interfaces when 2 years on a low fat ovolacto diet followed by a short vegan phase nearly killed me. That is not an exaggeration! My body was ripping itself apart. It took 2 years of intensive medical intervention to repair the damage. Some is irreversible - my thyroid is dead so I'll need thyroxin supplementation for life.
My diet, on paper, was excellent. Yet I had severe vitamin and mineral deficiencies and my urine was full of ketones; my cerebrospinal fluid contained free proteins. I was heavily bruised around all my joints. I bled so freely even from hypodermic punctures that I was tested for Test results showed me to be hypoglycemic and gluten-sensitive. My high whole-grain and legume diet had wrecked my gut so most nutrients were just flushed through. My weight dropped from a thin 110 lb to 88 lb.
This experience started me asking questions. Of course, we tend to look for what we want to see...but when I see, over and over again, that people who eat diets based on fresh, whole foods, with zero to low free sugar and highly-refined starches, and devoid of industrial seed oils, have better health than people who eat the Standard Western Diet, I think it's more than confirmation bias. If people who eat a fresh whole food diet, regardless of high variability in saturated fat intake, and regardless of high variability in exercise, do better than their close genetic kin who switch to the SWD, it looks as if maybe a high-sugar, high-refined starch, high industrial oil diet is just plain bad.
It may well be that some people can't handle saturated fats, just as some can't handle sugar, or gluten, or peanuts, or soy, or lactose. I think that the day will come when food-typing will be as routine as blood-typing.
I love fat (to eat!) but always get confused with the definition of saturated, poly, unsaturated, mono, trans, etc... I eat a lot of fat but in it's natural form - meaning plant-based food like nuts, avocados, olives, veg. oils, etc... and almost no "animal" based with the occasional exception of a treat food like ice cream. Also, even though I mostly stick to plant foods, I have been eating more fish - mostly salmon. So what kinds of fat is in those kinds of things? And what is the right kind of fat to eat - or to avoid - for health? I'm physically healthy, as well as at the right weight, so it's just a matter of maintenance health-wise.
Somebody - BUU? - asked me some time ago for references regarding hunter-gatherers, diets, fat intakes, and workloads. It could take literally months to prepare such a bibliography, and I have found that when I have, in the past, done this kind of work, that the requester (almost without exception!) does not bother to read any of the references I supplied.
Studies and ethnographies are freely available, many even online in fulltext. PubMED.org is a good starting point. PlosONE.org gives free access to peer-reviewed scientific papers. EBSCO and GALE Academic databases, usually with fulltext access to pdfs, are generally available through public library memberships. Land-grant university libraries are usually open to everybody through the terms of the charter, but offcampus access is limited to enrolled students and faculty, so this resource is less convenient and less widely available. Many private universities give free day passes to non-students. eHRAF files: email the librarian for the current month's access code.
Suggested authors:
Frank Marlowe, Richard Borshay Lee, Marshall Sahlins, Nancy Makepeace Tanner, Sarah Blaffer Hrdy, Marjorie Shostak, Richard Wrangham, Katharine Milton, Anne Vincent, Speth & Spielmann, Brown & Konner, Stuart Plattner, Loren Cordain, Smith & Smith, Claire Cassidy.
A 2012 paper by Pontzer et al. claims that no more energy is expended by hunter-gatherers than Westerners. I have some problems with this paper, as I think there are some inaccuracies in the methodology, but it is still very well worth reading.
Thanks for the info Suzanne - But yeah, you are probably right, I won't read a huge article or anything too detailed. Just kind of wondering what the difference is on a very basic level. I think saturate fats means animal based fats so I doubt I eat any of that, or very little, other than in ice cream (from dairy). I'm assuming (maybe wrongly) unsaturated comes from plant-based fats. Poly I imagine is a mix of the 2, but mono and trans...er... not sure about those but will google them. I stick to a mainly raw foods uncooked diet (mostly because I like the taste of raw foods better, and I'm too lazy and always in too much of a rush to cook) but have recently added a small amount of grilled fish/seafood for extra protein. Thanks again - I'll look up that info.
Way too busy with work and church to pursue that much research. Is there no definitive research on this providing the contention you claimed, i.e., that no more energy is expended by hunter-gatherers than today's typical Westerner?
The Storyteller
4-5-14, 11:53am
I love fat (to eat!) but always get confused with the definition of saturated, poly, unsaturated, mono, trans, etc... I eat a lot of fat but in it's natural form - meaning plant-based food like nuts, avocados, olives, veg. oils, etc... and almost no "animal" based with the occasional exception of a treat food like ice cream. Also, even though I mostly stick to plant foods, I have been eating more fish - mostly salmon. So what kinds of fat is in those kinds of things? And what is the right kind of fat to eat - or to avoid - for health? I'm physically healthy, as well as at the right weight, so it's just a matter of maintenance health-wise.
Salmon is very high in Omega 3 fatty acid. That's good. It does contain some saturated fat and Omega 6 fatty acid, but the proportion of 3 to 6 is something like 40 to 1. 3 to 1 is considered a good ratio. Nuts can be high in saturated fat, but still tend to balance it with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated. Nuts are considered good fats by almost anyone. I think minimizing animal products except high fat fish is a good thing.
Which as a poultry farmer is a strange thing to say, considering my meat birds and turkeys bring in the bulk of my profits, and eggs bring in the rest. I should be all over this paleo, high protein, high fat diet fad. It's good for my pocketbook. :)
To check the fat content and other nutrients in a particular food, check the database at http://nutritiondata.self.com/
I love fat (to eat!) but always get confused with the definition of saturated, poly, unsaturated, mono, trans, etc... I eat a lot of fat but in it's natural form - meaning plant-based food like nuts, avocados, olives, veg. oils, etc... and almost no "animal" based with the occasional exception of a treat food like ice cream. Also, even though I mostly stick to plant foods, I have been eating more fish - mostly salmon. So what kinds of fat is in those kinds of things? And what is the right kind of fat to eat - or to avoid - for health? I'm physically healthy, as well as at the right weight, so it's just a matter of maintenance health-wise.
Here you go: http://empoweredsustenance.com/essential-guide-to-choosing-and-using-good-fats-print-out/
Thanks for the info and links Storyteller and Jane. Still a bit confusing but I think I'm understanding a little bit better.
Gardenarian
4-7-14, 4:26pm
Suzanne, I just want to thank you for your thoughtful and informational posts. Much appreciated!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.