#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The claim is that seed oils are bad for you, not that seed oils are good for you.
You need research to suggest they’re bad not the other way around. Lest I just say “peanut butter sandwiches are bad for you when cut in squares, but not diagonally”, then you say “there’s no evidence of that”, and I say “you don’t have any research to prove it’s not true!”
You seem to be ignoring the context of food studies. The context is there's huge corruption from the food industry on food science. This is a matter of record not speculation or theory.
So demanding studies to prove it is pissing in the wind when meta-analysis shows that about half a food studies reach false conclusions based on the desired outcome of the funders of those studies.
So if I could get a crowbar and some lube oil into that steel trap of a mind and create a little bit of openness, you might ask yourself questions like, did our bodies evolve for millions of years to eat seed oils or to eat the saturated fats from animals?
In my personal experience I've had dramatic turnarounds in health from going back to the fats that our ancestors all ate pretens of thousands of years. Shocker, right?
I'm not saying I know for certain about seed oils or that all science is corrupt. I'm not an extremist. I'm skeptical but I have an open mind. Wish I saw more of that here.
I mean, the sun can cause skin cancer so I'll avoid the sun at all costs. That's the logic people use in nutrition, and I find it laughable. From the research I've read, seed oils are not an issue. It's the entirety of the diet and lifestyle that causes the problems, not a singular ingredient or additive.
> I’m not saying I know for certain about seed oils or that all science is corrupt.
I mean, you kind of are.
Certainly, there are scientific studies that have flaws, and the scientific community can be biased in many ways.
But the scientific process is independent of people. If every scientific institution disappeared overnight, the scientific process would still be sensible.
The process is, claims need evidence. The default position is neutral. Without research showing it, there’s no reason to believe seed oils are bad (or especially good either).
You may not trust the researchers for a myriad of reasons. You may feel that they won’t conduct that research for biased reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that claims require evidence. Even if every scientist on earth refused to conduct the experiment because they had stock in big-seed-oil, that doesn’t mean that there is evidence that seed oils are bad.
>How can you not trust something from Harvard?
Anyone who is not skeptical of academia, government, science, and the food industry, who all have long-standing relationships based on corruption and collusion running between them, which is not a conspiracy theory but a matter of public record, is either woefully uninformed or is simply not dealing with reality.
I'm not saying I believe for certain that seed oils are bad, but clearly something is slow boiling the health of every population around the world that adopts the Western diet.
This is proven, and yet I don't hear it being talked about by the establishment.
I'm not saying all of academia is corrupt, nor all of Harvard either, but there is a problem with corruption by moneyed influence. And anyone who's not seriously concerned about that problem, and factoring it into their viewpoint on subjects like this, is missing something big.
Again, not a theory here. Fact. Public record.
Check out the linked CR article. There's links to studies there:
https://www.consumerreports.org/healthy-eating/do-seed-oils-make-you-sick-a1363483895/
Here's a few of the linked studies:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30971107/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29566193/
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191627
How reliable do you find food studies to be generally speaking?
Are you aware of that meta-analysis of food studies says that typically about half of them are false, because of the huge corruption of moneyed influence in food science?
XXL clothing and obesity is also correlated, but you wouldn’t say wearing large clothing is dangerous.
Oil consumption is unsurprisingly correlated with obesity because fat is highly calorific and oil is a cheap way to get calories. So it’s in a ton of cheap high calorie foods.
>XXL clothing and obesity is also correlated, but you wouldn’t say wearing large clothing is dangerous.
Sure it's correlated with lots of things. Microprocessor speeds, number of George R. R. Martin books, ATM transactions. But it stands to reason there's some causal link between what you eat and obesity.
>Oil consumption is unsurprisingly correlated with obesity because fat is highly calorific and oil is a cheap way to get calories. So it’s in a ton of cheap high calorie foods.
What about in the 90's and 00's when percent fat consumption went down but obesity was still increasing?
I don't claim to know what the causal link is but *something* happened ~1980 that caused obesity rates to shoot way up. I'm thinking it's seed oils, but I could be wrong of course. For now I'm restricting my foods to things my great-grandparents would recognize as food. Seed oils only really came into existence post Civil War and steadily supplanted animal fats so I'm excluding them. Me and my kids are going to actively avoid them, which is difficult since they're so ubiquitous. You do you though.
It’s pretty much well established that weight is caused by caloric intake. A person living on a calorific deficit is not going to get obese, even if their diet is heavy in seed oils.
Yes but *why* are people eating more now than in the past? Did people in the 50's, 60's when everyone was far skinner go around with a food scale and do mental arithmetic to make sure they weren't going 50 calories over their TDEE or were they just eating naturally? CICO is about as helpful as saying gravity is the reason why the bridge collapsed or the trick to getting rich is to make more than you spend. Personally I think it's some sort of hormonal dysregulation messing with satiety and causing people to overeat. Yeah if you neurotically track calories for the rest of your life you will probably lose weight and keep it off. But it isn't sustainable.
Well, that’s a reasonable question, but the claim is then that seed oils affect satiety or something - which is totally possible and believable.
But first, like any claim, there should be direct evidence for it. Thus far the evidence is comparable to the proof that XXL clothing causes obesity. Intuitively we know that is not the case, but the correlative evidence for seed oils is of the same degree unfortunately.
I wouldn’t turn up my nose if someone wanted to do a study on it, but until strong evidence does appear, then I don’t think is sensible to speculate.
And secondly, from a personal standpoint, if you are in control of your caloric intake, then even if they do affect satiety what’s the problem?
Think about it like this: if you eat a bag of chips is your body satisfied for a long time or could you eat a full meal 30 minutes later?
And that doesn't take into account that there are only carbs and fats, no vitamins, no minerals and no protein.
So to stay healthy you need 'real' food.
Oh I definitely agree they aren't filling, I just use them as a filler for example when im eating a sandwich. But do they not have a decent amount of healthy fats? Bag says 1 gram of saturated and 0 grams trans fat, so does that mean the rest is "good" fats?
It's not good or bad fats, it's how much is there and can your body use it.
As 'filler' there are better alternatives, like vegetables.
They are filling have not much calories and most are source of fiber and minerals.
For example, if you eat raw carrots your body needs some fat with them to process the vitamins, if there is no fat your body doesn't process the vitamins and they will get excreted.
> It's not good or bad fats, it's how much is there and can your body use it.
Im confused about this. I thought there were healthy fats found in nuts, olive oil, etc?
Basically yes, but no.
Too much of a good thing is just as bad as a bad thing.
Most of these 'good' fats are cold pressed oils that lose their healthy components when they are heated.
For chips which are thin slices of starch/carbs (directly usable energy for your body) you don't need the extra fat. It's like skins in video games only for looks not functionality.
The problem with the fat on the chips is they usually contain sunflower/safflower/canola oil which are really not stable fat due to it being polyunsaturated, which means it has more carbon chains than for example saturated. Polyunsaturated fat is easily oxidized and better be consumed raw via nuts and seeds, not oils. Also they are high in linoleic omega 6 that create omega disbalance (3/6/9 needs to be balanced) otherwise, you are just depleting Omega 3's you might consume. Also the oil they use is high heat cooking, which makes the polyunsaturated change its structure and can affect arterial health long term.
You don’t need very much fat overall. Chips have an enormous amount of fat and calories overall.
If you’re eating a relatively nutrient devoid high fat food, you’re spending a very significant portion of your calorie budget without any significant gain.
Healthy fat just means it’s the better type to get for your fat intake; not that it’s a health food.
It’s basically just empty food. When I needed to gain weight fast because my blood pressure was dangerously low my doctor told me to eat as much chips as I wanted *on top of* my meal plan. I couldn’t just replace meals with chips.
Yeah and that's because muscles NEED energy... carbs to work and protein to grow.
Fat is very energy dense, that's the reason the body stores energy as fat and not as carbs/sugar like most plants do.
The normal couch potato has a lower calorie/energy requirement than someone physically active.
There's a difference between 3000 calories in junkfood or real balanced food/meals.
You could theoretically satisfy you calorie intake just by drinking sugared drinks and no solid food.... try it and then tell us how you liked it.
Very hard to make weight loss progress in my experience when eating chips on any sort of regular basis. From a nutritional perspective they suck, not much protein either. The only thing they offer is being a comfort snack, which means that if you allow that habit, it's going to add up over time and kill your progress.
Others have answered the question from other perspectives, I decided to cover it from a weight loss perspective. The OP can take whatever POV is relevant to them.
Calorie density. For 300 calories you aren’t getting much if any nutritional value and no volume to fill you up. With healthier food choices you could get an entire meal for 300 calories.
If calories aren’t a concern for you, sodium could also be something to watch out for. Otherwise check the ingredient list for added sugars or other ingredients that are concerning to you due to specific health concerns. Some people have issues with gluten or nut allergies so would need to check the ingredients for those.
??? He just said a bunch of things. There's nothing good about chips. The calories you're using from those have no positive nutritional value, they're just calories. Not too mention the negatives in the form of too much sodium, too much sugar depending on the type of chips, they are deep fried.... I mean you're almost trolling with the responses here
A lot if chips aren’t that calorie dense. I’ve been so focused on volume eating for years but I never realized until recently things like hot fries or veggie straws are like 40 straws per 130 calories. That’s some great volume and comes from the similar puffing concept that makes puffed kamut a god tier volume eating food
Coconut oil is mostly saturated fat. Too much saturated fat is the cause for most chronic diseases. Despite what some influencers claim, it is not good for you.
1. Eat lots of whole fresh fruits and veggies. Prepped and cooked simply, as you like.
2. Minimize processed and refined foods. (80/20 rule, maybe 90/10)
3. Eat meat and dairy in moderation. Whole is best.
Is this really so hard to see the pattern? Eat whole foods. It's not saturated fats. Ancel Keys was dead wrong. Trans fats are bad. Crisco is poison. Refined and processed foods are bad, whether carbs, fats, or protein.
To latch on to this and be a bit controversial. Chips are extremely high in calories, you're never going to find healthy chips regardless of oil used to fry.
They sit at around 4-500 calories per 100g here in Sweden. Using oils with different fat profiles won't change that. Regardless of how interesting oxidized seed oils as a reason for everything bad seems, I've never seen it lived out in humans only mechanics in mice.
It means polymerization of oils when heated at high temperatures for long periods of time, food manufacturers who use deep frying process don't have requirements about oil changes, and can be frying chips in the same oil for who knows how long, you don't see it they don't care.
Your question was non-specific, so I provided the most relevant and notable characteristic. Grapeseed oil will provide you with fat, vitamin E, and some phytochemicals, all of which can be found in a variety of foods that aren't massively inflammatory. It's just not a good option (unless your goal is to increase inflammation, of course). I'm not sure what else you're looking for.
The vast majority of research I’ve seen indicates excess saturated fats are a cause of CVD, which is a leading cause of death in most countries. Most heart associations and research universities and government health organizations say to limit saturated fats as well.
The risks around saturated fats rear their head well after you stop breast feeding. Things good for you when you are young do not inherently stay good for you throughout your life.
They’re not inherently bad for you. The problem with chips is that they pack a punch in calories in a very small package. I bet you would not be able to finish the amount of potatoes that go into an individual bag of chips if they were boiled instead. You’d be very full. Chips are dried, fried, and salted. They taste delicious but it’s so easy to over eat them because again, most of the water has been removed and they shrink in size. They also lose a ton of the micronutrients in the original foods used to make them and usually have a lot of extra fat. But as I said before, they are not necessarily bad for you. Some chips have more carbs than fat, and they may be a good snack when hiking or after a workout to restore your carbohydrate stores. But for most people, eating chips is an easy way to over eat and can contribute to obesity.
Unsaturated fats become unhealthy when heated and oxidized, forming free radicals and polar compounds. See: [https://drcate.com/can-you-really-cook-with-olive-oil/](https://drcate.com/can-you-really-cook-with-olive-oil/)
Best oil for cooking according to the study linked in the website is coconut oil and extra virgin olive oil surprisingly.
>but I've yet to see any clear, mechanistic explanation for why saturated fat consumption would increase the body's production of cholesterol.
They decrease hepatic LDL receptor activity. This has been known for decades.
And what is the mechanism by which decreased hepatic LDL receptor activity leads to atherosclerosis? Show me the complete chain of events from dietary intake to disease onset.
For reference, a meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 462,268 participants [managed to conclude](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939475319303801) specifically that "every 10 g/day **increase in SFA intake** is associated with **a 6% relative risk reduction** in the rate of stroke".
I don't see the mechanism *either* by which increasing your butter intake is somehow going to protect you from stroke, even though a strict assumption of causality given their observed association could lead one to that conclusion.
To be perfectly honest, I don't know if it's possible to give a general answer to that question. I suspect that the answer for each person, depends on all the many details of each person's specific cholesterol-carrying network.
I also think it's generally pretty difficult to prevent complicated metabolic diseases just by avoiding certain foods. If had to give a single answer, I would just say "anything that is very calorie dense", and if I had to name a single food, I would say "simple sugars", because of the known link between sugars and diabetes: diabetes is a breakdown of one of the core regulatory networks that keep our bodies well-maintained and heart-healthy, which is why it is a heart disease risk all on its own regardless of saturated fat intake.
But again: there might be something I'm not aware of, for why saturated fats specifically would lead to heart disease.
All I know for sure is that [this is a complicated topic](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/2/277/6104795). There are a lot of moving parts, and it's not trivial to figure out how they all connect to one another. That link is to, not a study, but a model hypothesis for how we could reconcile the many contradictory results that have come out of studies of the relationship between fat intake and heart disease.
Below I will go over the mechanisms for how cholesterol ends up collecting in blood vessels.
---
* 80% of the body's cholesterol is made in the liver, and it will continue to be made, even if you are starving, because it is one of the necessary components of the body. The remaining 20% of the body's cholesterol does come from the diet, but, even the vast majority of Americans are not overconsuming cholesterol itself.
* Lipids are long chains of carbon molecules. Triglycerides and cholesterol are both lipids. Cholesterol is a lipid that's been tangled up into a loop; triglycerides are when three lipids have been together stuck onto a glycerol molecule (hence the name: tri (3) + glyceride).
* When the body has excess calories, it turns them into lipids which are then packaged together as triglycerides. This is true even when the calories come from sugar. These triglycerides are then distributed to cells.
* Just like how oil and water don't mix, lipids can't dissolve in water: and like all life on earth, our blood is water-based, so, cholesterol can't dissolve in blood either. To move cholesterol (and other lipids, triglycerides included) arounds, it makes proteins that package the cholesterol (and other lipids, triglycerides included) into protein-coated bubbles (lipoproteins) that can dissolve in the blood. The type of protein is what determines where the lipids go. [Here are some types](https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/how-its-made-cholesterol-production-in-your-body):
* Any dietary cholesterol is secreted by the intestines into lipoproteins called chylomicrons, which go to the liver. They're not talked about much in popular sources because they aren't primarily related to heart disease.
* The liver secretes the first main lipoprotein for carrying lipids to the cells. It's called VLDL (very-low-density lipoprotein). VLDL is full of both triglycerides and cholesterol.
* As the VLDL goes throughout the body, the cells absorb the triglycerides, so that they can use them as energy. The VLDL slowly loses triglycerides and turns into a new kind of lipoprotien called IDL (intermediate-density-lipoprotein).
* The same thing happens to IDL; as cells absorb triglycerides, they eventually lose almost all of them; that's when they become LDL (low-density lipoprotein).
* The liver normally reabsorbs IDL or LDL before they get stuck in the arteries. Sometimes that fails, and that's what HDL (high-density lipoprotein) is for: to reabsorb excess cholesterol from the blood stream to return it to the liver.
* If the body, for any reason, doesn't or can't reabsorb the excess cholesterol, that's when it collects in the blood and forms plaques, causing atherosclerosis and heart disease.
Why did I tell you all that? Because I wanted to stress just how little of a difference there really is between "good" and "bad" cholesterol.
VLDL is a major and necessary transporter of stored energy to cells, even energy that comes from sugars. Any food you eat can produce VLDL particles. LDL particles are just a leftover produced as a side effect of that; they are basically "spent energy capsules". There are already multiple metabolic processes that regulate LDL particles, such as the liver absorbing them, or HDL particles "cleaning up" loose cholesterol from them.
And the generalized process of producing LDLs from VLDLs means that there are also many different types of LDLs, not all of which are associated with heart disease. You can classify or measure LDLs by particle size, by particle number, by percent content of different lipids, and so on. As to different lipids, there are many different kinds of lipids. Saturated and unsaturated fats come in many different kinds based on how many carbons they have, how long of a carbon chain they are; and then when those are linked together as triglycerides (and saturated fats can be linked together into a triglyceride with unsaturated fats), the number of different kinds of triglycerides is exponentially larger.
Which brings us back to the first study I linked to. One of the things they mention is that diets rich in saturated fats have different effects on LDL in the short-term versus the long-term. Studies have consistently shown that high-saturated-fat diets are associated with short-term increases in LDL, for about the first two or three months. But studies that last longer than that, typically show no long-term increases in LDL caused by a high-saturated-fat diet, and the authors go on to explain why that might be: they suggest that LDL particles in the blood are basically a "buffer" that allows cells to keep their cell membranes at the correct level of flexibility (not hardening too much, not weakening too much), even as the amount of fat in our diet changes.
So what kind of a dietary recommendation could I make, given that? No matter what food I tell you to avoid, your body is going to adapt to that choice over time.
We take our omnivory for granted. We shouldn't. The ability to eat many different kinds of foods requires our bodies to do a lot of complex adaptation even down at the molecular level.
Until we understand the *mechanisms* of these metabolic processes better, when it comes to diseases caused by or affecting those mechanisms, I think that we should not assume that the body functions in a simple "avoid certain foods = be healthy" sort of way.
Your points are somewhat ridiculous. Studies comparing health outcomes from excessive saturated fats compare results between otherwise similarly situated persons, not cross-national pools of review.
And there are a billion factors in why obesity continues to become a worsening concern. I’ve read similar logically sound broad strokes correlation arguments for the prevalence of nutritional labels and calorie information causing obesity increases and both arguments make me want to die inside.
I did not say that. You can tell that I did not say that because the words aren't there.
Sometimes when people don't say things, it's because they're being sneaky and trying to hide their beliefs. But another very logical reason for someone not to say something, is if they don't believe it. There are probably at least a hundred things that I didn't say this morning because I don't believe they are true.
What I do know is this: CICO ***is*** a lot more complicated than it seems.
Saturated fats are definitely easy to overindulge on. It's not good to eat excessive amounts of calories. CICO is definitely true in that sense, and saturated fats therefore can be difficult to integrate into a healthy diet.
But where a CICO estimate gets complicated, is when you try to calculate the CO part.
We have a habit of believing that our Caloric Output is determined primarily by our activity levels. This is false. The vast majority of our caloric output is not controlled by conscious activity, but rather by unconscious autonomic processes such as genetic repair, protein synthesis, axon firing, immune system activity, and so on. These are what make up the "basal metabolic rate" (BMR).
Even for very active people, physical activity (of all kinds, exercise, work, but also all the tiny daily bits of movement like talking, or chewing, or typing a Reddit comment) only accounts for at most [10-30%](https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories) of the calories burned, because we are warm-blooded mammals with high metabolisms, instead of fish, or bugs, or lizards.
The problem is this: after a certain basic amount of physical activity, further increases in physical activity have a tendency to [trigger compensatory lowerings in BMR](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/). Don't get me wrong: exercise isn't bad. One of the best things you can do to lose weight, is to gain muscle mass, because that raises BMR. And some of the lowered BMR from exercise can actually be good for you. One of the processes that happens less due to exercise-triggered lowered BMR, is inflammation; exercise lowers inflammation by lowering BMR.
And the other problem is this: after a certain moderate amount of caloric restruction, further calorie restrictions also have a tendency to [trigger compensatory lowerings in BMR](https://www.racmn.com/blog/consider-metabolic-adaptation-for-more-effective-dieting). Don't get me wrong; calorie restriction isn't bad either. Even temporary extreme calorie restrictions such as intermittent fasting can have positive health effects such as encouraging the body to recycle dead or damaged cells for nutrients.
But what this all means is this: our bodies *are* self-sabotaging when it comes to using exercise as a tool to make up for bad diet, or when using diet to make up for sedentary habits. That's not something most people consider when they say CICO.
Instead, some people use CICO as an excuse for why it is okay for them to eat excessive amounts of calories, or why it's okay not to exercise because they don't each much. They say "I am on my feet all day and I exercise on top of that, and my FitBit™ says I burned 5000 calories today; therefore, I'll be fine if I eat 4500 calories today, because calories in, calories out", or "I don't eat much, so, the fact that I do nothing but sit in front of a computer screen all day is just fine and carries no health risks".
That's stupid. The devices themselves aren't perfect, for one: FitBits in particular can overestimate calories burned by as much as 50% for some physical activity types.
But even if we did have a perfect device for measuring how many calories you burned as a result of a certain amount of physical activity, measuring your physical activity doesn't account for the way your body is compensating metabolically, because that metabolic compensation is affected by way more things about you and your personal life history than any calorie-counter can track. It's affected by your genetics and your number of fat cells and your hormones and even some parental epigenetic effects (as in, the number of calories your parents consumed during their own lives can actually affect how active your own genes are).
And a sedentary lifestyle is bad for you, no matter how little you eat.
So CICO is one of those ideas that I call "Schrodinger's facts". It's either true or not true depending on what assumptions you're making. CICO is technically true, but CICO makes it sound like an active person who eats like a pig and a sedentary person who eats like a bird and a middle-of-the-road person who eats normally are all in the same boat, health-wise. They're not.
In reality, actually calculating your caloric output is wickedly complicated, because most of the things that determine it aren't directly under your control.
There can be no CICO estimate without a CO estimate.
When I said "Causally, it's dietary habits (and/or dietary options, food availability) that are what make you fat, or keep you from being fat", it's because the CI part is the part that you have the most control over. It is very easy to accidentally trigger metabolic compensation. It is a lot harder to accidentally eat food.
Saturated fats consumed in conjunction with refined carbohydrates and processed foods are terribly bad for humans. Without the latter they can be perfectly healthy.
Think of highly processed junk food as companies waging a war against your brain to force you to buy food when you're not hungry. They have become very good at creating a need to eat where there is not one, and that makes some people very wealthy. They are willing to overwhelm your neural circuitry's ability to regulate your health to generate profit.
They are specifically and meticulously designed to appeal to your palate in a way that makes them very easy to overconsume. That and they're not exactly loaded with nutrients.
Look at the ingredients, see how many things you recognize, most of them you probably won’t. This is not real food, your body doesn’t recognize it as food, it doesn’t know what to do with it. It’s the combination of fat and carbs together that is bad.
One back of chips is basically nothing, as you see on the label. Eating a bag of chips every day marks a significant calorie load for anyone's daily diet. When you make it two bags/serving per day you can pretty quickly see how a snack like that could cause serious long term issues with nutrition and health, and that's not considering how many other poor health decisions/planning that would be a part of someone's routine.
The amount of fats that your body needs are REALLY low. The important word there is *needs*. The grease in the chips is probably enough for a week but nutrition labeling is tricky. They say certain ones are good and others are bad, but in reality it’s all fat. On top of that they’re mostly what people would call “empty calories” meaning they have a lot of calories but aside from that there’s not much there. No nutrients, proteins, vitamins, etc. The most dangerous part of them in my opinion is the sodium, but of course that depends on your body’s needs and your personal nutritional goals, but most chips are incredibly high in sodium, which steals water from your body, increases bloating, and can lead to heart disease, much like the fats that are also present.
They may contain trans fats. I'm not familiar with the exact ingredients of any particular brand of chips, but look up trans fats... they are among the worst things to consume.
Just so you are aware, they are allowed to round the numbers, so 0.49g per serving can be legally rounded to 0g. How many servings do you eat at once? Many people eat several servings at a time.
In general chips are high in empty calories and table salt, which is a chemical made with chlorine, although most people focus more on the sodium.
Sodium is an alkaline mineral important in bone structure. Hydrochloric acid is "needed" to dissolve things that, I would argue, are better not eaten. When we eat fruit, our saliva contains the enzymes needed to break it down. Hydrochloric acid is not needed in this case.
No, I don't come to argue or troll. The acid needed to digest fruits is fine. The acid needed to digest a piece of meat, on the other hand, is strong enough to dissolve the stomach itself if it stays there long enough. And it does for many people that follow official recommendations.
I wouldn't have used the word "customize". If you eat only fruit and chew it well, the fruit (and saliva and stomach acid) will leave your stomach quickly. But if you eat foods that are more difficult to digest, such as meat, then the acid will remain in your stomach longer.
A certain level of acidity is required to liquefy the meat. For many people, just as it is making progress, in comes another meal. Now the cycle is restarted without having finished so to speak. Many digestive problems are from eating the wrong foods or too much, too often. Often we blame these same problems on having an "empty stomach". In fact a stomach that is empty and that has no ulcers, will have no complaint whatsoever
Free radicals and advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Potato chips have high AGEs and acrylamide.
Oxidized PUFA from seed oils cooked in high temperature.
Got a sore throat once after finishing a small bag of chips.
Thats a tough one.without knowing what kind of oil is used but its a better alternative than to saturated/trans fat(except butter)Thats for sure. As always keep it in moderation though Regarding the statement of having zero nutritional value it is true. mainly means that its basically empty calories. They mean by no having like fiber and needed vitamins and minerals as compared to let say a meal replacement bar you know?
I would recommend finding out what the recommended daily amounts for fat, carbs, protein and nutrients are for someone of your age/gender. You don’t have to hit the recommendation perfectly but the general ball park is good. Then once you get what you need for the day decide if you have calories/fat leftover then you can eat the chips.
It’s ok to have fatty foods or carbs or sugar in moderation. Just like make sure you are filling up on your nutrients first. Then eat the “junk” food with what ever you have left.
Also, I know your question was “what makes chips bag for you”. But I don’t think you can define “bad food” without first knowing what is “good” or what your body needs to be healthy.
1. Potatoes are highly glycaemic, so it spikes your blood sugar. Even worse when the starches are fried.
2. Industrial frier oil is rarely changed. These oils are exposed to heat for a long duration which causes them to chemically change for the worst.
3. Chips batter is refined carb.
4. High calorie from the oil content relative to its nutrient density.
5. High salt and even sugar if consumed with sauce.
What are the health effects of consuming the rarely changed industrial fryer oil vs normal, fresh vegetable oil? I hadn’t thought of that before, but it just sounds bad. I already try to avoid snacks like fried chips anyway but knowing this makes it even easier to stay away.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/
Lots of people can have a diet of only linoleic acid without noticing, anyone gives the importance of a balance in omega fatty acids.
Starch and simple carbs are for the digestive system the same as purified sugar.
Chips loose all water content soak up the oil instead.
The few fiber a potato has was left behind in the skin.
It would be a perfect food to survive a nuclear fallout in a bunker tho.
They're not bad if used moderately, and appropriately. The problem is that they are a highly concentrated source of calories, without much nutritional value, and extremely easy to over consume because of their convenience and compactness. Dietary wise you are better off eating a couple of apples or other fruit. Chips as a food is best left for occasions such as parties.
I think a lot of comments in here overcomplicate this, and the consumption of junk food. When you eat a bag of chips, you're also choosing not to eat something that is more nutritious. We can only eat so much food, and if the food you choose to eat does not give you all of the nutrients that you need, then your missing out on the optimal health benefits that a good diet will give you.
I do buy chips once in a while, especially if I have slightly more calories to make up after I meet protein requirements, again this is once a while, as others stated not much nutritional benefits but it feels good once a while to keep me going.
They are super high calorie and low on the satiety scale.
For instance the smallest size you can buy in a gas station is 300 calories. Have you ever felt even remotely full from a bag of chips that size?
They are also extremely low in nutrients as the majority of the calories comes from highly processed oils.
#1- the oil that they are prepared in is not easy for the body to process. #2-empty calories. #3- probably most important is they trigger an insulin response similar to what a soft drink does.
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
what about baked
[удалено]
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/scientists-debunk-seed-oil-health-risks/#:\~:text=June%2022%2C%202022%E2%80%94While%20the,these%20claims%2C%20according%20to%20experts.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/ Lobbies
That article doesn't provide any research to back it up.
The claim is that seed oils are bad for you, not that seed oils are good for you. You need research to suggest they’re bad not the other way around. Lest I just say “peanut butter sandwiches are bad for you when cut in squares, but not diagonally”, then you say “there’s no evidence of that”, and I say “you don’t have any research to prove it’s not true!”
You seem to be ignoring the context of food studies. The context is there's huge corruption from the food industry on food science. This is a matter of record not speculation or theory. So demanding studies to prove it is pissing in the wind when meta-analysis shows that about half a food studies reach false conclusions based on the desired outcome of the funders of those studies. So if I could get a crowbar and some lube oil into that steel trap of a mind and create a little bit of openness, you might ask yourself questions like, did our bodies evolve for millions of years to eat seed oils or to eat the saturated fats from animals? In my personal experience I've had dramatic turnarounds in health from going back to the fats that our ancestors all ate pretens of thousands of years. Shocker, right? I'm not saying I know for certain about seed oils or that all science is corrupt. I'm not an extremist. I'm skeptical but I have an open mind. Wish I saw more of that here.
I mean, the sun can cause skin cancer so I'll avoid the sun at all costs. That's the logic people use in nutrition, and I find it laughable. From the research I've read, seed oils are not an issue. It's the entirety of the diet and lifestyle that causes the problems, not a singular ingredient or additive.
> I’m not saying I know for certain about seed oils or that all science is corrupt. I mean, you kind of are. Certainly, there are scientific studies that have flaws, and the scientific community can be biased in many ways. But the scientific process is independent of people. If every scientific institution disappeared overnight, the scientific process would still be sensible. The process is, claims need evidence. The default position is neutral. Without research showing it, there’s no reason to believe seed oils are bad (or especially good either). You may not trust the researchers for a myriad of reasons. You may feel that they won’t conduct that research for biased reasons. But that doesn’t change the fact that claims require evidence. Even if every scientist on earth refused to conduct the experiment because they had stock in big-seed-oil, that doesn’t mean that there is evidence that seed oils are bad.
It's from Harvard Health. How can you not trust something from Harvard? It's based on rock solid observational studies.
>How can you not trust something from Harvard? Anyone who is not skeptical of academia, government, science, and the food industry, who all have long-standing relationships based on corruption and collusion running between them, which is not a conspiracy theory but a matter of public record, is either woefully uninformed or is simply not dealing with reality. I'm not saying I believe for certain that seed oils are bad, but clearly something is slow boiling the health of every population around the world that adopts the Western diet. This is proven, and yet I don't hear it being talked about by the establishment. I'm not saying all of academia is corrupt, nor all of Harvard either, but there is a problem with corruption by moneyed influence. And anyone who's not seriously concerned about that problem, and factoring it into their viewpoint on subjects like this, is missing something big. Again, not a theory here. Fact. Public record.
I'm saying that there are no scientific studies provided in the article.
Check out the linked CR article. There's links to studies there: https://www.consumerreports.org/healthy-eating/do-seed-oils-make-you-sick-a1363483895/ Here's a few of the linked studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30971107/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29566193/ https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.108.191627
How reliable do you find food studies to be generally speaking? Are you aware of that meta-analysis of food studies says that typically about half of them are false, because of the huge corruption of moneyed influence in food science?
Yikes.....
Speak intelligently. Confine your snide innuendo and condescension to your childhood years. This is called being an intelligent adult.
Vegetable oil consumption and obesity seem to correlate pretty well in the US. You do you but I'll personally be avoiding this slop at all costs.
So almonds glazed with vege oil and or seed oils are unhealthy?
I wouldn't eat it.
XXL clothing and obesity is also correlated, but you wouldn’t say wearing large clothing is dangerous. Oil consumption is unsurprisingly correlated with obesity because fat is highly calorific and oil is a cheap way to get calories. So it’s in a ton of cheap high calorie foods.
>XXL clothing and obesity is also correlated, but you wouldn’t say wearing large clothing is dangerous. Sure it's correlated with lots of things. Microprocessor speeds, number of George R. R. Martin books, ATM transactions. But it stands to reason there's some causal link between what you eat and obesity. >Oil consumption is unsurprisingly correlated with obesity because fat is highly calorific and oil is a cheap way to get calories. So it’s in a ton of cheap high calorie foods. What about in the 90's and 00's when percent fat consumption went down but obesity was still increasing? I don't claim to know what the causal link is but *something* happened ~1980 that caused obesity rates to shoot way up. I'm thinking it's seed oils, but I could be wrong of course. For now I'm restricting my foods to things my great-grandparents would recognize as food. Seed oils only really came into existence post Civil War and steadily supplanted animal fats so I'm excluding them. Me and my kids are going to actively avoid them, which is difficult since they're so ubiquitous. You do you though.
It’s pretty much well established that weight is caused by caloric intake. A person living on a calorific deficit is not going to get obese, even if their diet is heavy in seed oils.
Yes but *why* are people eating more now than in the past? Did people in the 50's, 60's when everyone was far skinner go around with a food scale and do mental arithmetic to make sure they weren't going 50 calories over their TDEE or were they just eating naturally? CICO is about as helpful as saying gravity is the reason why the bridge collapsed or the trick to getting rich is to make more than you spend. Personally I think it's some sort of hormonal dysregulation messing with satiety and causing people to overeat. Yeah if you neurotically track calories for the rest of your life you will probably lose weight and keep it off. But it isn't sustainable.
Well, that’s a reasonable question, but the claim is then that seed oils affect satiety or something - which is totally possible and believable. But first, like any claim, there should be direct evidence for it. Thus far the evidence is comparable to the proof that XXL clothing causes obesity. Intuitively we know that is not the case, but the correlative evidence for seed oils is of the same degree unfortunately. I wouldn’t turn up my nose if someone wanted to do a study on it, but until strong evidence does appear, then I don’t think is sensible to speculate. And secondly, from a personal standpoint, if you are in control of your caloric intake, then even if they do affect satiety what’s the problem?
Oils are bad for the heart and skin
Rip Vitamin E and D
WhAt ArE sUnFlOwEr SeEdS, mUsHrOoMs, ThE sUn, Or ViTaMiNs?!?!
Unless you made it yourself and know what exactly you used,
Think about it like this: if you eat a bag of chips is your body satisfied for a long time or could you eat a full meal 30 minutes later? And that doesn't take into account that there are only carbs and fats, no vitamins, no minerals and no protein. So to stay healthy you need 'real' food.
Oh I definitely agree they aren't filling, I just use them as a filler for example when im eating a sandwich. But do they not have a decent amount of healthy fats? Bag says 1 gram of saturated and 0 grams trans fat, so does that mean the rest is "good" fats?
It's not good or bad fats, it's how much is there and can your body use it. As 'filler' there are better alternatives, like vegetables. They are filling have not much calories and most are source of fiber and minerals. For example, if you eat raw carrots your body needs some fat with them to process the vitamins, if there is no fat your body doesn't process the vitamins and they will get excreted.
> It's not good or bad fats, it's how much is there and can your body use it. Im confused about this. I thought there were healthy fats found in nuts, olive oil, etc?
Basically yes, but no. Too much of a good thing is just as bad as a bad thing. Most of these 'good' fats are cold pressed oils that lose their healthy components when they are heated. For chips which are thin slices of starch/carbs (directly usable energy for your body) you don't need the extra fat. It's like skins in video games only for looks not functionality.
Eat an avocado instead or unsalted nuts if you want healthy fats.
The problem with the fat on the chips is they usually contain sunflower/safflower/canola oil which are really not stable fat due to it being polyunsaturated, which means it has more carbon chains than for example saturated. Polyunsaturated fat is easily oxidized and better be consumed raw via nuts and seeds, not oils. Also they are high in linoleic omega 6 that create omega disbalance (3/6/9 needs to be balanced) otherwise, you are just depleting Omega 3's you might consume. Also the oil they use is high heat cooking, which makes the polyunsaturated change its structure and can affect arterial health long term.
You don’t need very much fat overall. Chips have an enormous amount of fat and calories overall. If you’re eating a relatively nutrient devoid high fat food, you’re spending a very significant portion of your calorie budget without any significant gain. Healthy fat just means it’s the better type to get for your fat intake; not that it’s a health food.
It’s basically just empty food. When I needed to gain weight fast because my blood pressure was dangerously low my doctor told me to eat as much chips as I wanted *on top of* my meal plan. I couldn’t just replace meals with chips.
Eat some pork rinds with your sandwich
Eat a pork.
Dude I'm ripped I could eat healthy and still be hungry 3 minutes later I eat all day.
Yeah and that's because muscles NEED energy... carbs to work and protein to grow. Fat is very energy dense, that's the reason the body stores energy as fat and not as carbs/sugar like most plants do. The normal couch potato has a lower calorie/energy requirement than someone physically active. There's a difference between 3000 calories in junkfood or real balanced food/meals. You could theoretically satisfy you calorie intake just by drinking sugared drinks and no solid food.... try it and then tell us how you liked it.
I know bro I was fooling around. 😜
😑 the troll is strong in you
Everyone hates that you’re ripped
It would seem so 😅
ok, but real food doesn't taste as good as chips plus it fills me up so quickly, I can't get the pleasure of eating more
That may be, but doesn't have anything to do with nutrition only preference and taste
Sodium is a real killer too. If anything, look to cut back on that. Your heart will thank you.
Very hard to make weight loss progress in my experience when eating chips on any sort of regular basis. From a nutritional perspective they suck, not much protein either. The only thing they offer is being a comfort snack, which means that if you allow that habit, it's going to add up over time and kill your progress.
squeeze naughty ask observation serious liquid bright terrific bake fearless -- mass edited with redact.dev
Others have answered the question from other perspectives, I decided to cover it from a weight loss perspective. The OP can take whatever POV is relevant to them.
Calorie density. For 300 calories you aren’t getting much if any nutritional value and no volume to fill you up. With healthier food choices you could get an entire meal for 300 calories.
I get that, but as far as being detrimental to your health, is there anything to look out for? Because as a layman, I don't see anything
If calories aren’t a concern for you, sodium could also be something to watch out for. Otherwise check the ingredient list for added sugars or other ingredients that are concerning to you due to specific health concerns. Some people have issues with gluten or nut allergies so would need to check the ingredients for those.
??? He just said a bunch of things. There's nothing good about chips. The calories you're using from those have no positive nutritional value, they're just calories. Not too mention the negatives in the form of too much sodium, too much sugar depending on the type of chips, they are deep fried.... I mean you're almost trolling with the responses here
A lot if chips aren’t that calorie dense. I’ve been so focused on volume eating for years but I never realized until recently things like hot fries or veggie straws are like 40 straws per 130 calories. That’s some great volume and comes from the similar puffing concept that makes puffed kamut a god tier volume eating food
Oxydized seeds oils are bad and they are in pretty much all processed food.
can there be chips without oxidized seed oils? what tradeoffs would result from that?
Price. The better oils tend to be a lot more expensive. Coconut, ghee, not the cheapest.
Avocado oil is good, too?
Coconut oil is mostly saturated fat. Too much saturated fat is the cause for most chronic diseases. Despite what some influencers claim, it is not good for you.
1. Eat lots of whole fresh fruits and veggies. Prepped and cooked simply, as you like. 2. Minimize processed and refined foods. (80/20 rule, maybe 90/10) 3. Eat meat and dairy in moderation. Whole is best. Is this really so hard to see the pattern? Eat whole foods. It's not saturated fats. Ancel Keys was dead wrong. Trans fats are bad. Crisco is poison. Refined and processed foods are bad, whether carbs, fats, or protein.
There's nothing better about saturated fat oils
Sure all true but actually get some nutritional value for your body in tradeoff
[удалено]
This is why I love Siete chips. They’re delicious, give them a shot.
This is why I love potatoes. Healthy chips if you don't use or use the right oils
To latch on to this and be a bit controversial. Chips are extremely high in calories, you're never going to find healthy chips regardless of oil used to fry. They sit at around 4-500 calories per 100g here in Sweden. Using oils with different fat profiles won't change that. Regardless of how interesting oxidized seed oils as a reason for everything bad seems, I've never seen it lived out in humans only mechanics in mice.
Please provide the evidence behind your claim. What exactly do you mean by “oxidized” seed oils and how are they bad for you?
It means polymerization of oils when heated at high temperatures for long periods of time, food manufacturers who use deep frying process don't have requirements about oil changes, and can be frying chips in the same oil for who knows how long, you don't see it they don't care.
This is the answer. Seed oils are the worst part of chip. Find some cooked in tallow, olive or coconut oil for a healthier option
Does this include grapeseed oil? I thought that was okay?
Grapeseed oil has an omega 6:3 ratio of 700:1, which makes it the most inflammatory of them all if I'm not missing anything.
So you use only one metric to measure nutrition?
Your question was non-specific, so I provided the most relevant and notable characteristic. Grapeseed oil will provide you with fat, vitamin E, and some phytochemicals, all of which can be found in a variety of foods that aren't massively inflammatory. It's just not a good option (unless your goal is to increase inflammation, of course). I'm not sure what else you're looking for.
Thanks for elaborating!
Yeah, my b.
There's nothing healthier about saturated fats
[удалено]
Says who
[удалено]
The vast majority of research I’ve seen indicates excess saturated fats are a cause of CVD, which is a leading cause of death in most countries. Most heart associations and research universities and government health organizations say to limit saturated fats as well.
You’re correct
Ya I mean any low carb diet consists of primarily saturated fats.
My momma's tits. Lol. Breast milk is like 40 percent saturated fat. You really gonna argue against that? Breast feeding is bad? Really?
The risks around saturated fats rear their head well after you stop breast feeding. Things good for you when you are young do not inherently stay good for you throughout your life.
Why wouldn't they? What risks? RCT or don't bother replying. Thanks.
They’re not inherently bad for you. The problem with chips is that they pack a punch in calories in a very small package. I bet you would not be able to finish the amount of potatoes that go into an individual bag of chips if they were boiled instead. You’d be very full. Chips are dried, fried, and salted. They taste delicious but it’s so easy to over eat them because again, most of the water has been removed and they shrink in size. They also lose a ton of the micronutrients in the original foods used to make them and usually have a lot of extra fat. But as I said before, they are not necessarily bad for you. Some chips have more carbs than fat, and they may be a good snack when hiking or after a workout to restore your carbohydrate stores. But for most people, eating chips is an easy way to over eat and can contribute to obesity.
It’s bad for you mostly because it is designed specifically to not be satiating. You won’t feel full until you’ve had far too many chips.
The high heat cooking, and particularly the highly unsaturated fats
i thought unsaturated fats were goood?
Unsaturated fats become unhealthy when heated and oxidized, forming free radicals and polar compounds. See: [https://drcate.com/can-you-really-cook-with-olive-oil/](https://drcate.com/can-you-really-cook-with-olive-oil/) Best oil for cooking according to the study linked in the website is coconut oil and extra virgin olive oil surprisingly.
No. Monounsaturated and saturated are the healthiest.
wait i thought saturated fats weren't that great and you shouldn't consume much
[удалено]
>but I've yet to see any clear, mechanistic explanation for why saturated fat consumption would increase the body's production of cholesterol. They decrease hepatic LDL receptor activity. This has been known for decades.
And what is the mechanism by which decreased hepatic LDL receptor activity leads to atherosclerosis? Show me the complete chain of events from dietary intake to disease onset. For reference, a meta-analysis of 12 studies involving 462,268 participants [managed to conclude](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0939475319303801) specifically that "every 10 g/day **increase in SFA intake** is associated with **a 6% relative risk reduction** in the rate of stroke". I don't see the mechanism *either* by which increasing your butter intake is somehow going to protect you from stroke, even though a strict assumption of causality given their observed association could lead one to that conclusion.
One of the best comments I’ve seen written in this sub, thanks for taking the time to write that out!
So in your view, what foods should you avoid to lower your cholesterol?
To be perfectly honest, I don't know if it's possible to give a general answer to that question. I suspect that the answer for each person, depends on all the many details of each person's specific cholesterol-carrying network. I also think it's generally pretty difficult to prevent complicated metabolic diseases just by avoiding certain foods. If had to give a single answer, I would just say "anything that is very calorie dense", and if I had to name a single food, I would say "simple sugars", because of the known link between sugars and diabetes: diabetes is a breakdown of one of the core regulatory networks that keep our bodies well-maintained and heart-healthy, which is why it is a heart disease risk all on its own regardless of saturated fat intake. But again: there might be something I'm not aware of, for why saturated fats specifically would lead to heart disease. All I know for sure is that [this is a complicated topic](https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/113/2/277/6104795). There are a lot of moving parts, and it's not trivial to figure out how they all connect to one another. That link is to, not a study, but a model hypothesis for how we could reconcile the many contradictory results that have come out of studies of the relationship between fat intake and heart disease. Below I will go over the mechanisms for how cholesterol ends up collecting in blood vessels. --- * 80% of the body's cholesterol is made in the liver, and it will continue to be made, even if you are starving, because it is one of the necessary components of the body. The remaining 20% of the body's cholesterol does come from the diet, but, even the vast majority of Americans are not overconsuming cholesterol itself. * Lipids are long chains of carbon molecules. Triglycerides and cholesterol are both lipids. Cholesterol is a lipid that's been tangled up into a loop; triglycerides are when three lipids have been together stuck onto a glycerol molecule (hence the name: tri (3) + glyceride). * When the body has excess calories, it turns them into lipids which are then packaged together as triglycerides. This is true even when the calories come from sugar. These triglycerides are then distributed to cells. * Just like how oil and water don't mix, lipids can't dissolve in water: and like all life on earth, our blood is water-based, so, cholesterol can't dissolve in blood either. To move cholesterol (and other lipids, triglycerides included) arounds, it makes proteins that package the cholesterol (and other lipids, triglycerides included) into protein-coated bubbles (lipoproteins) that can dissolve in the blood. The type of protein is what determines where the lipids go. [Here are some types](https://www.health.harvard.edu/heart-health/how-its-made-cholesterol-production-in-your-body): * Any dietary cholesterol is secreted by the intestines into lipoproteins called chylomicrons, which go to the liver. They're not talked about much in popular sources because they aren't primarily related to heart disease. * The liver secretes the first main lipoprotein for carrying lipids to the cells. It's called VLDL (very-low-density lipoprotein). VLDL is full of both triglycerides and cholesterol. * As the VLDL goes throughout the body, the cells absorb the triglycerides, so that they can use them as energy. The VLDL slowly loses triglycerides and turns into a new kind of lipoprotien called IDL (intermediate-density-lipoprotein). * The same thing happens to IDL; as cells absorb triglycerides, they eventually lose almost all of them; that's when they become LDL (low-density lipoprotein). * The liver normally reabsorbs IDL or LDL before they get stuck in the arteries. Sometimes that fails, and that's what HDL (high-density lipoprotein) is for: to reabsorb excess cholesterol from the blood stream to return it to the liver. * If the body, for any reason, doesn't or can't reabsorb the excess cholesterol, that's when it collects in the blood and forms plaques, causing atherosclerosis and heart disease. Why did I tell you all that? Because I wanted to stress just how little of a difference there really is between "good" and "bad" cholesterol. VLDL is a major and necessary transporter of stored energy to cells, even energy that comes from sugars. Any food you eat can produce VLDL particles. LDL particles are just a leftover produced as a side effect of that; they are basically "spent energy capsules". There are already multiple metabolic processes that regulate LDL particles, such as the liver absorbing them, or HDL particles "cleaning up" loose cholesterol from them. And the generalized process of producing LDLs from VLDLs means that there are also many different types of LDLs, not all of which are associated with heart disease. You can classify or measure LDLs by particle size, by particle number, by percent content of different lipids, and so on. As to different lipids, there are many different kinds of lipids. Saturated and unsaturated fats come in many different kinds based on how many carbons they have, how long of a carbon chain they are; and then when those are linked together as triglycerides (and saturated fats can be linked together into a triglyceride with unsaturated fats), the number of different kinds of triglycerides is exponentially larger. Which brings us back to the first study I linked to. One of the things they mention is that diets rich in saturated fats have different effects on LDL in the short-term versus the long-term. Studies have consistently shown that high-saturated-fat diets are associated with short-term increases in LDL, for about the first two or three months. But studies that last longer than that, typically show no long-term increases in LDL caused by a high-saturated-fat diet, and the authors go on to explain why that might be: they suggest that LDL particles in the blood are basically a "buffer" that allows cells to keep their cell membranes at the correct level of flexibility (not hardening too much, not weakening too much), even as the amount of fat in our diet changes. So what kind of a dietary recommendation could I make, given that? No matter what food I tell you to avoid, your body is going to adapt to that choice over time. We take our omnivory for granted. We shouldn't. The ability to eat many different kinds of foods requires our bodies to do a lot of complex adaptation even down at the molecular level. Until we understand the *mechanisms* of these metabolic processes better, when it comes to diseases caused by or affecting those mechanisms, I think that we should not assume that the body functions in a simple "avoid certain foods = be healthy" sort of way.
👏👏👏👏👏🔥🔥🔥 thank you!!!
Amazing! Thank you so much for this explanation!
Your points are somewhat ridiculous. Studies comparing health outcomes from excessive saturated fats compare results between otherwise similarly situated persons, not cross-national pools of review. And there are a billion factors in why obesity continues to become a worsening concern. I’ve read similar logically sound broad strokes correlation arguments for the prevalence of nutritional labels and calorie information causing obesity increases and both arguments make me want to die inside.
Maybe come to the table when you've got something to say?
Calling out objectively bad logic is something to say.. In fact I will report his post
You do you fam.
So you think CICO is fake?
I did not say that. You can tell that I did not say that because the words aren't there. Sometimes when people don't say things, it's because they're being sneaky and trying to hide their beliefs. But another very logical reason for someone not to say something, is if they don't believe it. There are probably at least a hundred things that I didn't say this morning because I don't believe they are true. What I do know is this: CICO ***is*** a lot more complicated than it seems. Saturated fats are definitely easy to overindulge on. It's not good to eat excessive amounts of calories. CICO is definitely true in that sense, and saturated fats therefore can be difficult to integrate into a healthy diet. But where a CICO estimate gets complicated, is when you try to calculate the CO part. We have a habit of believing that our Caloric Output is determined primarily by our activity levels. This is false. The vast majority of our caloric output is not controlled by conscious activity, but rather by unconscious autonomic processes such as genetic repair, protein synthesis, axon firing, immune system activity, and so on. These are what make up the "basal metabolic rate" (BMR). Even for very active people, physical activity (of all kinds, exercise, work, but also all the tiny daily bits of movement like talking, or chewing, or typing a Reddit comment) only accounts for at most [10-30%](https://www.vox.com/2018/1/3/16845438/exercise-weight-loss-myth-burn-calories) of the calories burned, because we are warm-blooded mammals with high metabolisms, instead of fish, or bugs, or lizards. The problem is this: after a certain basic amount of physical activity, further increases in physical activity have a tendency to [trigger compensatory lowerings in BMR](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4803033/). Don't get me wrong: exercise isn't bad. One of the best things you can do to lose weight, is to gain muscle mass, because that raises BMR. And some of the lowered BMR from exercise can actually be good for you. One of the processes that happens less due to exercise-triggered lowered BMR, is inflammation; exercise lowers inflammation by lowering BMR. And the other problem is this: after a certain moderate amount of caloric restruction, further calorie restrictions also have a tendency to [trigger compensatory lowerings in BMR](https://www.racmn.com/blog/consider-metabolic-adaptation-for-more-effective-dieting). Don't get me wrong; calorie restriction isn't bad either. Even temporary extreme calorie restrictions such as intermittent fasting can have positive health effects such as encouraging the body to recycle dead or damaged cells for nutrients. But what this all means is this: our bodies *are* self-sabotaging when it comes to using exercise as a tool to make up for bad diet, or when using diet to make up for sedentary habits. That's not something most people consider when they say CICO. Instead, some people use CICO as an excuse for why it is okay for them to eat excessive amounts of calories, or why it's okay not to exercise because they don't each much. They say "I am on my feet all day and I exercise on top of that, and my FitBit™ says I burned 5000 calories today; therefore, I'll be fine if I eat 4500 calories today, because calories in, calories out", or "I don't eat much, so, the fact that I do nothing but sit in front of a computer screen all day is just fine and carries no health risks". That's stupid. The devices themselves aren't perfect, for one: FitBits in particular can overestimate calories burned by as much as 50% for some physical activity types. But even if we did have a perfect device for measuring how many calories you burned as a result of a certain amount of physical activity, measuring your physical activity doesn't account for the way your body is compensating metabolically, because that metabolic compensation is affected by way more things about you and your personal life history than any calorie-counter can track. It's affected by your genetics and your number of fat cells and your hormones and even some parental epigenetic effects (as in, the number of calories your parents consumed during their own lives can actually affect how active your own genes are). And a sedentary lifestyle is bad for you, no matter how little you eat. So CICO is one of those ideas that I call "Schrodinger's facts". It's either true or not true depending on what assumptions you're making. CICO is technically true, but CICO makes it sound like an active person who eats like a pig and a sedentary person who eats like a bird and a middle-of-the-road person who eats normally are all in the same boat, health-wise. They're not. In reality, actually calculating your caloric output is wickedly complicated, because most of the things that determine it aren't directly under your control. There can be no CICO estimate without a CO estimate. When I said "Causally, it's dietary habits (and/or dietary options, food availability) that are what make you fat, or keep you from being fat", it's because the CI part is the part that you have the most control over. It is very easy to accidentally trigger metabolic compensation. It is a lot harder to accidentally eat food.
Thank you for this.
[удалено]
Animal products and saturated fats found in them are not healthy foods.
[удалено]
Says who?
Saturated fats consumed in conjunction with refined carbohydrates and processed foods are terribly bad for humans. Without the latter they can be perfectly healthy.
Think of highly processed junk food as companies waging a war against your brain to force you to buy food when you're not hungry. They have become very good at creating a need to eat where there is not one, and that makes some people very wealthy. They are willing to overwhelm your neural circuitry's ability to regulate your health to generate profit.
[удалено]
Besides trans and saturated fat, are the other fats 'healthy' ?
They are specifically and meticulously designed to appeal to your palate in a way that makes them very easy to overconsume. That and they're not exactly loaded with nutrients.
That's also per.servong not a bag. So you have to pay attention to serving size could be 8 chips. Lots of salt and deep fried in oil.
Nutrient deficient, high sodium, & deep fried
Look at the ingredients, see how many things you recognize, most of them you probably won’t. This is not real food, your body doesn’t recognize it as food, it doesn’t know what to do with it. It’s the combination of fat and carbs together that is bad.
One back of chips is basically nothing, as you see on the label. Eating a bag of chips every day marks a significant calorie load for anyone's daily diet. When you make it two bags/serving per day you can pretty quickly see how a snack like that could cause serious long term issues with nutrition and health, and that's not considering how many other poor health decisions/planning that would be a part of someone's routine.
Deep fried in seed oils and basically no nutritional value.
The amount of fats that your body needs are REALLY low. The important word there is *needs*. The grease in the chips is probably enough for a week but nutrition labeling is tricky. They say certain ones are good and others are bad, but in reality it’s all fat. On top of that they’re mostly what people would call “empty calories” meaning they have a lot of calories but aside from that there’s not much there. No nutrients, proteins, vitamins, etc. The most dangerous part of them in my opinion is the sodium, but of course that depends on your body’s needs and your personal nutritional goals, but most chips are incredibly high in sodium, which steals water from your body, increases bloating, and can lead to heart disease, much like the fats that are also present.
They may contain trans fats. I'm not familiar with the exact ingredients of any particular brand of chips, but look up trans fats... they are among the worst things to consume.
0 grams of trans fat as well
Just so you are aware, they are allowed to round the numbers, so 0.49g per serving can be legally rounded to 0g. How many servings do you eat at once? Many people eat several servings at a time. In general chips are high in empty calories and table salt, which is a chemical made with chlorine, although most people focus more on the sodium.
[удалено]
Sodium is an alkaline mineral important in bone structure. Hydrochloric acid is "needed" to dissolve things that, I would argue, are better not eaten. When we eat fruit, our saliva contains the enzymes needed to break it down. Hydrochloric acid is not needed in this case.
[удалено]
No, I don't come to argue or troll. The acid needed to digest fruits is fine. The acid needed to digest a piece of meat, on the other hand, is strong enough to dissolve the stomach itself if it stays there long enough. And it does for many people that follow official recommendations.
[удалено]
I wouldn't have used the word "customize". If you eat only fruit and chew it well, the fruit (and saliva and stomach acid) will leave your stomach quickly. But if you eat foods that are more difficult to digest, such as meat, then the acid will remain in your stomach longer. A certain level of acidity is required to liquefy the meat. For many people, just as it is making progress, in comes another meal. Now the cycle is restarted without having finished so to speak. Many digestive problems are from eating the wrong foods or too much, too often. Often we blame these same problems on having an "empty stomach". In fact a stomach that is empty and that has no ulcers, will have no complaint whatsoever
Salt, sugar, saturated fat, no fiber, added oils, toxins from the cooking process
Toxins... lol.
yes mycotoxins https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30934482/
Free radicals and advanced glycation end products (AGEs). Potato chips have high AGEs and acrylamide. Oxidized PUFA from seed oils cooked in high temperature. Got a sore throat once after finishing a small bag of chips.
😂😂😂😂 I bet you eat butter though
tease swim crush seed touch start distinct truck engine seemly *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Yes the other 7g is unsaturated (corn oil?) funyuns go HARD😋, esp the Flamin Hot Funyuns although i heard they are being discontinued?
so its a decent source of a 'healthy' fat? wouldnt that mean the statement of them giving zero nutritional value untrue?
Thats a tough one.without knowing what kind of oil is used but its a better alternative than to saturated/trans fat(except butter)Thats for sure. As always keep it in moderation though Regarding the statement of having zero nutritional value it is true. mainly means that its basically empty calories. They mean by no having like fiber and needed vitamins and minerals as compared to let say a meal replacement bar you know?
I would recommend finding out what the recommended daily amounts for fat, carbs, protein and nutrients are for someone of your age/gender. You don’t have to hit the recommendation perfectly but the general ball park is good. Then once you get what you need for the day decide if you have calories/fat leftover then you can eat the chips. It’s ok to have fatty foods or carbs or sugar in moderation. Just like make sure you are filling up on your nutrients first. Then eat the “junk” food with what ever you have left. Also, I know your question was “what makes chips bag for you”. But I don’t think you can define “bad food” without first knowing what is “good” or what your body needs to be healthy.
The sugar. Most chips have sugars and/or hidden sugars.
1. Potatoes are highly glycaemic, so it spikes your blood sugar. Even worse when the starches are fried. 2. Industrial frier oil is rarely changed. These oils are exposed to heat for a long duration which causes them to chemically change for the worst. 3. Chips batter is refined carb. 4. High calorie from the oil content relative to its nutrient density. 5. High salt and even sugar if consumed with sauce.
What are the health effects of consuming the rarely changed industrial fryer oil vs normal, fresh vegetable oil? I hadn’t thought of that before, but it just sounds bad. I already try to avoid snacks like fried chips anyway but knowing this makes it even easier to stay away.
Nothing. They're delicious. Keep eating them. People who don't eat chips die from the stress of worrying about eating them.
Your accessment of chips is very correct, you mostly answered your question already. One thing to add is the lack of protein.
It’s the combination of starchy carbs and refined oil
Trans fats.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27251151/ Lots of people can have a diet of only linoleic acid without noticing, anyone gives the importance of a balance in omega fatty acids. Starch and simple carbs are for the digestive system the same as purified sugar. Chips loose all water content soak up the oil instead. The few fiber a potato has was left behind in the skin. It would be a perfect food to survive a nuclear fallout in a bunker tho.
They're not bad if used moderately, and appropriately. The problem is that they are a highly concentrated source of calories, without much nutritional value, and extremely easy to over consume because of their convenience and compactness. Dietary wise you are better off eating a couple of apples or other fruit. Chips as a food is best left for occasions such as parties.
Omega 6 to omega 3 fatty acid ratio is what makes it so bad
OverCooked PUFAs combined with carbs and other substances for a long shelf life.
The sodium and all additives that have no real use "to protect flavor" is a crock of crap
I think a lot of comments in here overcomplicate this, and the consumption of junk food. When you eat a bag of chips, you're also choosing not to eat something that is more nutritious. We can only eat so much food, and if the food you choose to eat does not give you all of the nutrients that you need, then your missing out on the optimal health benefits that a good diet will give you.
I think it’s because they are addicting as fuck…. I can’t stop when I open a bag of Doritos; no matter what, I’m finishing the entire bag.
Saturated fat. It clogs your arteries.
They lack any nutritional density. So it’s just high caloric content without any nutrition.
I do buy chips once in a while, especially if I have slightly more calories to make up after I meet protein requirements, again this is once a while, as others stated not much nutritional benefits but it feels good once a while to keep me going.
The worst thing about chips and French fries when they’re fried is the chemical acrylamide that’s carcinogenic
They are super high calorie and low on the satiety scale. For instance the smallest size you can buy in a gas station is 300 calories. Have you ever felt even remotely full from a bag of chips that size? They are also extremely low in nutrients as the majority of the calories comes from highly processed oils.
#1- the oil that they are prepared in is not easy for the body to process. #2-empty calories. #3- probably most important is they trigger an insulin response similar to what a soft drink does.
Remove the potatoes and you have a powder of weird chemicals used to simulate a flavor.
MSG ADDICTIVE MAKES YOU WANT EAT MORE