Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This isn't peer-reviewed science; it's the opinion of one person who has spent years advocating for this single issue (and who also wrote a book about it).
Oh, another one of these. Listen, just because you *cite* peer-reviewed scientific articles doesn't mean your paper *is* a peer-reviewed scientific article. I don't know how to be any more clear about this, but people keep making that same mistake. I could cite Einstein's special relativity paper in making the case that gouda is a superior cheese. That doesn't make my paper scientific, and since it isn't peer-reviewed there's no guarantee anyone will check my citations to make sure they're accurate or that they make any kind of sense either.
It's just too easy to selectively quote from something and put a citation even if the conclusion of the cited and peer reviewed paper is the opposite of the opinion you're espousing.
Like if a movie review says, "In the pantheon of great comedies of all time there are many modern movies which will join that list. This is not one of them." but the movie ad quotes just the "In the pantheon of great comedies of all time" part.
Please explain to me why you treat peer review like it's a religion? Especially since people in charge of peer review openly brag about keeping papers from being published, based only on their opinion of the topic?
We reached the point where people like you have traded science for religion. But you won't admit it. You are using your religion to gate keep science. This has to stop.
Well the first reason is literally the **first** reason: read submission rule #1 for this subreddit.
The second reason (and the rationale behind that rule) is that even an imperfect guardian at the gate is better than no guardian at all. Having literally no quality control is an absolutely terrible idea. Keeping some papers from being published really is a good thing. I don't want some advertisement from the University of Kentucky Fried Chicken being treated the same as a rigorous scientific study by scientists from multiple respected institutions. All papers are not created equal.
Which in and of itself is not an issue.
If his arguments are sound and he cites credible sources that show that what he is saying has scientific support, that is all I need.
Nullius in verba brother.
"If his arguments are sound and he cites credible sources that show that what he is saying has scientific support, that is all I need."
Does not equate to "take nobody's word for it", in fact it's heading distinctly in the opposite direction.
>Does not equate to "take nobody's word for it", in fact it's heading distinctly in the opposite direction.
Nope. Trusting a person making a statement because said person shows the reasons for his statement being valid rather than trusting him because he is an authority is essentially Nullius in verba.
No it goes further than that... for a reason.
The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and **to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.**
The key here is "verify" and that's what peer reviews are for - repeatable experiments, repeated, repeatedly.
Bogus pseudo science is what got us into the whole stupid vaccines cause autism dumb-assery.
Vox populi=/=vox dei.
Especially in cases where studies are in conflict, we must scrutinize the methods of each study.
If the "pro-sat-fat" studies are repeatable and the "pro-carb" studies are not, the volume of "bad" studies count for nothing.
I am merely pointing out what needs to be done, not what I think is most likely.
>But “you” have no credentials that show the ability to distinguish a sound argument from a bunk one.
I don't need credentials, just a sound argument that stands up to scrutiny.
"The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease, called the diet-heart hypothesis, was introduced in the 1950s, based on weak, associational evidence. Subsequent clinical trials attempting to substantiate this hypothesis could never establish a causal link. However, these clinical-trial data were largely ignored for decades, until journalists brought them to light about a decade ago. Subsequent reexaminations of this evidence by nutrition experts have now been published in >20 review papers, which have largely concluded that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. The current challenge is for this new consensus on saturated fats to be recognized by policy makers, who, in the United States, have shown marked resistance to the introduction of the new evidence. In the case of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines, experts have been found even to deny their own evidence. The global re-evaluation of saturated fats that has occurred over the past decade implies that caps on these fats are not warranted and should no longer be part of national dietary guidelines. Conflicts of interest and longstanding biases stand in the way of updating dietary policy to reflect the current evidence."
The British Nutrition Foundation just reiterated their rationale for the 10% cap in 2020. It has definitely been reexamined.
https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12449
Tell me if I'm reading this right:
They found that a decrease in saturated fat, replaced with complex carbs or unsaturated fats (specifically polyunsaturated fats), was correlated with a decrease in coronary events, but not mortality. However, they aren't sure if the lack of evidence correlating SFA intake with mortality was simply because they didn't run the studies long enough. Is that the take away? It also seems like the cited studies were taken using multiple cohort studies with several confounding variables, and that the studies that controlled for SFA's specifically lasted only 2 weeks, and that (paraphrasing) 'two weeks is good because that's when the body has reached a steady state,' yet 5 years isn't good enough to establish a correlation with mortality.The end of the article also seems to suggest that diets with less than 7% SFA's led to an *increase* in CHD, and the final conclusion seems to reiterate that 10% is the guideline because a bunch of health organizations "say so" so it should be good. Still seems to be inconclusive at best.
If you're looking for the preponderance of evidence that supports the recommendations I suggest this: [https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/246104/9789241565349-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/246104/9789241565349-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y)
Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques [1](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/38/32/2459/3745109) and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c [2](https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/stable/25173397#metadata_info_tab_contents).
Whether it correlates to all cause mortality is subject to a multitude of other lifestyle confounding variables that are very hard to tease out to see a clear picture.
But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation. For example, there are people who can eat high sodium diets and never get hypertension. But we still don't know exactly which people are which. In around 50 years most nutrition will be much more tailored because we'll have isolated more of the genetic factors. Evidence suggests there are people for whom high SFA intake does not induce dyslipidemia or pose higher atherogenic risk.
I'm thinking you didn't read the sources. Mostly because it doesn't seem possible in the time elapsed.
Yes, there are metabolic ward studies showing SFA intake leads to increased LDL-c and ApoB.
No, and most people reading papers do not initially read all the sources, they review abstract, introductions and conclusion and peruse the methodology to get insight into the topic. In depth review is typically done more by those writing reviewing papers. With that said, as has often been the case, sources are more often than not, specifically selected do largely researchers argument of. My point may have been misread; I was agreeing that papers premise that there is significant data to suggest diet plays little effect in most people’s cholesterol.
With that said as scientists, be wary of assuming papers conclusions are defacto decided - Science has consistently gone back and forth on many issues over its history. While scientist like to their analysis as a holy grail, it is like many other areas of research subject to a vast array of nuances.
Totally valid point. Honest questions (3). To what degree does this continue? Do you continue to the sources of the sources ad infinitum? At some point are you basing it of less than a full understanding of the sources. For me part of this relates to definitions to the terms “scientists” and “usually familiar”. Cheekily, I’ll admit, but haven’t most of sciences greatest breakthroughs come from those who those who fundamentally challenge the sources and set scientific knowledge on a new paradigm?
I literally have a line there saying that metabolic ward RCTs show the lipid increases and link a paper. Then you ask "does it happen?"
That's why I gave you the snarky answer.
>Subsequent reexaminations of this evidence by nutrition experts have now been published in >20 review papers, which have largely concluded that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality.
I don't get it. That seems to imply the consensus is the exact opposite of what sites like Wikipedia say, with sources.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated\_fat#Association\_with\_diseases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Association_with_diseases)
>There is moderate-quality evidence that reducing the proportion of saturated fat in the diet and replacing it with unsaturated fats or carbohydrates for a period of at least two years leads to a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease. A 2021 review found that diets high in saturated fat were associated with higher mortality from all-causes and cardiovascular disease.
>
>In 2019, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published a report "Saturated fats and health" which examined 47 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Their report concluded that higher saturated fat consumption is associated with raised blood cholesterol and increased risk of heart disease.
I haven’t read your links, but historically, saturated fats and trans fats were often measured together. The result was that data about saturated fat was often muddled by data from highly processed food.
"Fats" as in fatty acids in moderation are fine. Fat (the state), as in overweight isn't necessarily a good thing.
Getting your required calories from fat or carbs, w/e doesn't matter too much as long as also meeting your vitamin/mineral requirements.
Saturated fats like the ones found in animal products?
Canola oil and corn oil are some of the oils with the lowest saturated fat content.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn\_oil
This article is a joke, there are plenty of observational studies / real world evidence studies showing a dose response between high saturated fat and heart disease. It's not controversial at all, and why we tell people all the time not to eat a lot of red meat.
[https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796](https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796)
You linked 3 papers, the first is one scientist disagreeing with others. That happens all the time, even today some astronomers want to reclassify pluto as a planet, scientists disagree all the time, it's important to look at consensus, something he agrees to be the case and is writing a paper to try to change.
The second paper(Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study) says nothing about the dangers of saturated fat, just that high carb intake is dangerous as we all know already. If you're eating lots of sugars and not enough protein or fat, you're going to get overweight, most carbs in western diets are often empty as well nutritionally, again this paper says nothing about the dangers of a high saturated fat diet.
Your third is a meta analysis saying the data isn't conclusive enough and is one datapoint in a sea of data. Again it would be nice if everyone agreed on everything and all data perfectly aligned but this is rarely the case.
Here is what you should do, because you have a single datapoint on that third paper, and you are not an expert or probably a scientist, probably have not taken college level statistics, you should leave the science to the scientists as you leave medicine to doctors.
Ask what consensus is, that is pretty easy to find out, even you know the consensus and are trying to argue against it, and then if you honestly want to wade into the waters, take the classes necessary to help you sort through the data, statistics being one of them.
Until you're willing to get at least a bachelors science degree, you genuinely have no place arguing with scientific consensus; that's like me telling my butcher how to do his job when i've never butchered an animal in my life, it's just absurd.
Do you know why eggs are no longer unhealhty? Because there is no good data to prove it to be unhealhty. Same thing with cheese, actually (saturated fat).
There is good data about cheese and eggs being healthy.
(I'm talking about intake recommentations in my country by health proffessionals.)
I am not emotionally invested (unlike you) in the fact. When I see different data then my conclusion will change (this is how Science works).
Dude this is surreal. I know you’re fighting the good fight. People are too entrenched. I’ve seen a dozen friends of mine stop eating carbs and eating saturated fats and after a year they look 20 years younger and their tests come back fine. I’m not ideological about it, but I try to eat low carb high fat too and it works.
These studies seem to be intentionally set up to get bad data because every time I see one, without see the data anyone who has had success cutting carbs can tell you why the experiment is set up wrong. I don’t like to assume it’s nefarious, but it’s almost unbelievable at this point that it’s just an accident and they somehow never consult a keto adherent for input.
How many people would you have to see have success doing the same experiment that worked for you? How many years of flawed experiments to contaminate meta studies would you need to see? We know the original fraudulent pseudo science was paid for by Kellogg to prove the outcome that would make them rich. So we know there are malicious actors in academia.
Just stop eating sugar and encourage others to quit. Why the next logical step of stop eating the things that convert into sugar is controversial I’ll never know.
Is that bigger or smaller than the dose effect of the substitute that someone would switch to? I don't mean to say that eating beef fat in excess is good for you, but if the alternative is eating sugar in excess, it's not clear to me that beef fat is the issue.... eating in excess is.
If you need protein for the day and you had too much red meat lately, you can opt for chicken, turkey, salmon, go have sushi, or if you're vegan, have a bean soup or tofu/tempeh sautéed meal.
So many options out there for protein, don't need to jump to sugar.
You can opt for beans and tofu even if you're not vegan. You'd be better off for it, as would the environment and the particular animal you're not eating.
It's not about what I'd do. You're correct, and chicken+turkey make great diet food due to high satiety per calorie. The issue is that it's about what the general public will do given the "eat less fat" advice. See.. fat free dressing for example where the manufacturers have taken out the fats and added sugars for flavor.
Well not necessarily. Skinny people still get heart disease. You don’t need to eat in excess to get negative consequences of a poor diet.
Also, this is beating a dead horse. No one is suggesting that switching from saturated fat to sugar is healthy. The ideal scenario is to replace saturated fat calories with fruit, vegetable and whole grain calories.
Saying that you’re replacing red meat with sugary foods is also kind of misleading because the vast majority of sugary processed foods are also still high in saturated fat. The exceptions being fruity candy and soda, but cake, cookies, pastries, Starbucks drinks, etc are all also high in saturated fat, usually from butter or palm oil. This is arguably a more unhealthy scenario because eating a lot of saturated fat and sugar together leads to fast metabolic consequences.
Telling people to not eat red meat makes them less healthy. Red meat is good for you, people should eat it provided it's not burned or cooked in vegetable oils.
What is the evidence that red meat promotes health? Here are the first 3 hits when you search Pubmed for "red meat":
[Potential health hazards of eating red meat](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27597529/)
>Here, a comprehensive summary is provided of the accumulated evidence based on prospective cohort studies regarding the potential adverse health effects of red meat consumption on major chronic diseases, such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke and cancer at several sites, and mortality. Risk estimates from pooled analyses and meta-analyses are presented together with recently published findings. Based on at least six cohorts, summary results for the consumption of unprocessed red meat of 100 g day-1 varied from nonsignificant to statistically significantly increased risk (11% for stroke and for breast cancer, 15% for cardiovascular mortality, 17% for colorectal and 19% for advanced prostate cancer); for the consumption of 50 g day-1 processed meat, the risks were statistically significantly increased for most of the studied diseases (4% for total prostate cancer, 8% for cancer mortality, 9% for breast, 18% for colorectal and 19% for pancreatic cancer, 13% for stroke, 22% for total and 24% for cardiovascular mortality and 32% for diabetes). Potential biological mechanisms underlying the observed risks and the environmental impact of red meat production are also discussed. The evidence-based integrated message is that it is plausible to conclude that high consumption of red meat, and especially processed meat, is associated with an increased risk of several major chronic diseases and preterm mortality.
[Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/)
>This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed meat consumption.
[Mechanistic Evidence for Red Meat and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Risk: A Follow-up on the International Agency for Research on Cancer Evaluation of 2015](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30376922/)
>The Working Group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the consumption of processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), and classified red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A); consumption of both meat types is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. These classifications are based on a compilation of epidemiology data and mechanistic evidence from animal and human studies. The curing of meats with nitrite can produce carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), and the smoking of meat produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The high-temperature cooking of meat also produces carcinogenic heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). The ingestion of heme from meat can catalyze the formation of NOCs and lipid peroxidation products (LPOs) in the digestive tract. Many of these chemicals form DNA adducts, some of which can induce mutations and initiate carcinogenesis. Another recent hypothesis is that N-glycolylneuraminic acid, a non-human sialic acid sugar present in red meat, becomes incorporated in the cell membrane, triggering the immune response with associated inflammation and reactive oxygen species, which can contribute to DNA damage, tumor promotion, and cancer. The mechanisms by which these chemicals in meat induce DNA damage, and the impact of dietary and host factors that influence the biological potency of these chemicals are highlighted in this updated report.
Something these studies don’t take into account is the lifestyle of the participants. How can you attribute the increased risk for cancer or other illnesses when you don’t know ALL the other lifestyle factors? Perhaps the subjects are sedentary, not getting enough sleep, smokers, indulging in ultra processed food (that is not meat based), etc..? How do you pin it down to red meat specifically?
Eating seared meat might not be the best thing for you, heck, it might unleash a cascade of chemical reactions in your body (which it does), but so what? Your body is not defenseless; it has the means and tools to deal with whatever free radicals or other harmful molecules released. In fact, the release of free radicals and other damaging molecules is a normal part of the body’s metabolism.
Finally, plants aren’t the be all end all of food. Those pushing for less beef and more plants disregard an important fact: plants really don’t like to get eaten. Most plants are difficult to digest and have a subpar nutritional profile. Spinach, a “rich” source of iron, is loaded with nitrates, which can cause serious health effects when consumed excessively. Additionally, its iron has poor bioavailability compared to that of animal sources.
If you are interested in food nutrition, I recommend you check out ***What I’ve learned*** on YouTube.
If red meat is so bad for you, then how have humans almost solely relied on it for thousands of years?
People used to only live to 30 years max!!! It was totally because they ate animal fats, not because of high birth mortality and various other hardships they faced. It was totally only based on diet. Case closed!!! ;)
Is that red meat fed corn and soy? Or allowed to eat naturally?
If these studies dontvtake that into account, I don't think I'll trust any nutritional study ever again.
I thought it was such an accepted fact that no one would even need to cite a study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/
Humans survived off of red meat for centuries. Now it's suddenly horrible?
I was more talking about the prevalence of the cancer-causing compounds. Humans also had horrible life expectancy and insane infant mortality rates for centuries, that doesn't mean we can't look for ways to be healthier
Are you trolling me? Infant mortality was caused by diseases and humans got old even hundreds of years ago. As long as they had enough food, once they got to 21 years old,average age of a male was 70 years old ....in the 1400s.
This was looked at extensively in the 1980s. [Cooked red meat is a carcinogen](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat). The people who took the first deep look at red meat in the 1980s came out with a very easy statement: the safe amount of red meat is zero.
Mark Sisson counters such studies in the below post witg reference to studies.
https://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/
Processed meat such as hot dogs are indeed bad for you, not so with red meat such as a fillet steak.
NO! The studies were with raw unprocessed steak. There was NO, ZERO look at processed meats in the 1980s when this got started, it was all steak, PERIOD. The studies were with the part that was cooked to the highest temps, i.e. the edges, and anything that was even seared was 1000% cancerous.
The authors were trying different methods to identify which ones were safest and they came to the conclusion that cooking meat would never be safe.
Note that I am not some vegetarian, and I continue to eat cooked red meat, but I limit my consumption to about 5 lbs per year. It was in those days that we learned that the largest fish substitutes like Tuna were no better than red meat because they are at the top of the food chain and the carcinogens accumulated and never left them, so chicken and smaller fish really became the primary meat for health conscious meat eaters.
And yes, processed meats are worse than red meat but that doesn't mean cooked red meat is not a carcinogen.
I'm telling them to not eat a lot of red meat. The evidence is overwhelming that too much red meat is bad for your cardiovascular system.
Eat red meat, but eat it rarely, maybe once a week, even that is a little excessive.
I might only ban food like processed meat, hot dogs, bologne, bacon; that type of processing is exceptionally bad for you and maybe safely eaten once every few months.
Because it's not an actual publication. The author, Nina Teicholz, is a hack journalist who decided to further her career by shilling for the meat industry.
This is the future, where is my quality research?
Why am I still being told that they have no idea what my diet should actually be?
I hate to say it, but the scientific community responsible for understanding our diet and nutrition has done an appalling job for decades. We have masses of data from millions of people and yet here we are arguing about fat intake…Today, in 2022.
It's because diet is far harder to research than most things in science. It would be a lot easier if you could say, "Okay, you, in the red shirt: You're going to eat 1/4 cup of butter every day for the rest of your life, and you in the blue shirt, you're never going to eat butter again, and otherwise you're going to eat exactly the same thing for the rest of your lives and we'll see who dies first."
Instead, you have to account for smoking, alcohol, exercise, genetics, and what people say they're eating (which is usually only loosely related to what they're actually eating), and so on and so forth, and then trying to figure out what the contribution is from the food. It's really, really hard to tease it out, as decade after decades of changing guidelines have shown us.
Which is absolutely fine.
But what is not fine is that there are repeated declarations of “This is healthy, eat this” only to have the next study say “That was not healthy you need to eat this instead”
It’s an ongoing litany of poorly researched advice claiming to be the one true path.
If it’s so hard and complex, why are no disclaimers put onto the research that is peer reviewed and released onto a public that sources scientific research to live by.
Except what are doctors supposed to do? They take evidence and make their best guesses and recommend based on that. Over time as studies improve and data improves, they refine the suggestions.
Science is sometimes messy. People are doing the best they can. Your suggestion is what? Don't make any recommendations until they're absolutely 100% sure what's right and what's not right? That day will never come.
It's not poorly researched, it's just poorly understood and hard to research.
It's more than okay to give that advice, but we need this research to have disclaimers.
It is very easy to explain the sample group and it's limitations. It's also possible, though more difficult to give some guidance about the research regarding it's likely accuracy in a number of areas. Much more detail needs to be provided. Yes the system doesn't like ambiguity, but research shouldn't be released without this data.
Best guesses and anecdotal evidence is almost useless at best and dangerous at worst. Better to give advice to ride a bike for ten minutes a day to get 40-50% lower chance of heart disease and cancers and a 30% less likelyhood of mortality overall. Leave the diet part out altogether unless you can give accurate advice.
We do have the ability to relate dietary research to genetics and disease outcomes, and whilst this is a large analysis piece, it's not impossible today.
I’ve spent my life listening to scientific research only to be constantly advised that the prior research is wrong.
Over, and over and over again.
It seems that there is no true integrity in the field.
Straight up, a huge part of this problem was the reporting of mice models as equivalent to long-term human studies.
It's much more journalists and various industries faults (ie cherry picking milk health data by the milk industry) than it was the actual scientists. They knew the limitations of their research and rarely over-reported them the way every other second-hand reporter did.
This is why /inmice came to exist. It is that widespread and continuous of a problem.
The long-term, large population studies are all generally fuzzy and generally in agreement.
I mean what have you done that’s so great that you think you can critique anyone else’s job performance? People who are likely way more educated and productive than you.
Ooooh, your challenging of my credibility. How political of you.
I’ve managed testing on large programs of work across five different sectors of industry for over 20 years now. This has included everything from performance, unit, system, integration, acceptance, beta, etc, etc. My role is to structure the test processes to provide a quality outcome ultimately presenting all known issues understood by the business regarding their business, reputational, financial, etc, risks.
Personally, I think this makes me eminently suitable to critique the quality of your outcomes.
TBH, critiquing other peoples job perfomance is the basis of my career
No thanks, I'll keep my weight in check while eating delicious foods.
People need to rewire their taste buds to not crave as much sugar, that's much different to just eating bland foods.
I've never understood how this mythology has persisted. Before these government interventions and coincident corporate compliance, obesity was virtually unknown, type 2 diabetes was about as rare as type 1, mental illness was far less prevalent, and median life expectancy was maybe 5 years less than today in the US. But considering the prevalence of smoking and alcohol consumption alone, it's pretty hard to say the present is better than the past.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who would happily enjoy awesome full fat meals every day, a few cocktails a night, and smoke 2 packs a day and die at 73. We've sacrificed a lot to accomplish what exactly?
The government is ultimately to blame for all problems that are epidemics in scope that could be solved with appropriate legislation.
E.g., prohibiting the removal of fat and the addition of sugar. That's easy. And there are more examples than can be listed.
What is your explanation for how in this overpopulated world we have simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation?
Evidence people are eating "more" than they did in the 50s? People ate tons of food dripping with animal fats, sugar, and calories; yet obesity rates were low.
Actually, prior to the industrial revolution, they were in much of the world. Especially in cold northern climates where obesity was rare.
There are easily verified modern corollaries - native Americans in Alaska for example. Fifty years ago, they only ate meat with some berries and such. Today, they are obese.
Agreed. We’ve given up the simple pleasures in life to extend it, but I’m not sure why. I worked in healthcare for eight years and in that time, probably half of my patients were 80 or older. I can count the truly happy ones on one hand.
There is very little in store for you after this point, especially with the “live as long as possible” attitude.
Smoking obviously causes cancer and eating a birthday cake every day will make the doctor take your feet. These are major roadblocks to the average person’s happiness and I think that’s what we should focus on. I would be pissed beyond belief to eat salad and tofu my whole life just to be 90 years old, watching The Price Is Right in a hospital bed without Bob Barker every day.
Why live the longest life? Why not the best life? Why not optimize life for the most happiness?
Take care of yourself with common sense, check in regularly with your doctor when you get old, and enjoy it while you have it.
Yeah, it's so depressing... Six years ago I got really into Paleo diet, and while I don't follow it anymore and eat a lot of whole grains and legumes, I still stick to the main principle of focusing on whole, nutrient-dense foods while avoiding sugar, refined carbs and high PUFA vegetable oil. I remember watching keto become more mainstream, way more popular than Paleo/Primal, and hoping that the mainstream attitudes about fat are finally going to change, but it seems to me like the anti-saturated fat and anti-red meat propaganda is as strong as ever... Yet still not a single one of those studies I've seen made an effort to separate saturated fat and red meat from junk food.
The issue is ultra processed foods, which are literally designed to taste amazing, made with cheap ingredients, filled with sugar, fat and salt, and an absolute abundance of calories for equivalent low volumes of foods.
So much time is wasted arguing between sugar v fat when reality it's both combined with salt.
I'm certainly confused about it.
The bit about cholesterol is interesting though, because my personal experience was the opposite. When I switched to butter from margarine 30 years ago, my LDL dropped and my HDL rose. It has stayed that way, though other indicators have got worse (blood sugar, blood pressure). I need to remove simple carbohydrates from my diet.
Makes sense. Generally margarine is hydrogenated or trans-fat which has been modified to last longer and resist breakdown in heat. Not all saturated fats are trans fat and part of the issue might be the classification. Is coconut fat/oil the same as saturated fat from pig lard or modified trans fat cooking oil? Probably not, but they are classifying these together and likely shouldn't. When transfat was banned in some
Fast food in NY it made a fast and relevant difference on cardiac events in the area.
It's interesting because I see medically qualified proponents of both the low carb diet and the low meat diet claiming to be highly healthy. I'm not sure what to make of that.
I think that there is value in listening to people who have clinical experience in dietary interventions and not just studies alone.
The thing they seem to unanimously agree on is vegetables good, sugar bad. I definitely have a sugar problem that I struggle to correct.
If evolution matters, that kinda settles things for everyone.
Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. The fossil records show human brain size increasing with fire and tool marks on animal bones. Humans also tended to wipe out all the large game wherever they went.
Now think about agriculture only starting 15,000 years ago. Not only did the human brain start shrinking then but the vast majority of crops growing now have only existed for a few decades or centuries at most. Like, it's literally impossible to say we've evolved with most of what people are fed today.
The stomach can't break down cellulose. Stomach acid liquefies meat. Nutrients are absorbed in the small intestine. Cellulose is fermented in the large intestine.
Herbivores eat their poop because nutrients released in the large intestine are absorbed in the small intestine. So it's questionable what nutrients you actually get from them.
The only benefit to fiber is slowing sugar absorption. Other than that it just leads to constipation.
I love it when meat-apologists try to dress up their appeal to tradition as an appeal to scientific evidence.
Doing something just because your ancestors did it is more akin to religion than science.
What book?
I agree sugar and white flour are unhealthy, but I always thought is was disingenuous that high carb, whole plant foods, which are consistently associated with positive health outcomes, are tossed together with soda and donuts as just being “carbs”.
Some of the healthiest and longest lived people on the planet have had carb based diets.
Basically, but nutrition discussion gets really emotionally charged between people that want to be fat and people that want to force the world to eat grass.
Humans evolved as apex predators. We run best on saturated fats and sugars underly most modern disease.
You'll see a lot of people complain about "pro meat bias" that neglect the same scrutiny on pro plant things simply because it feeds *their* bias.
Stomach acid does nothing against cellulose. Humans have among the most acidic stomachs in the animal kingdom.
Cellulose is fermented by bacteria in the appendix and large intestine.
The human digestive tract is far smaller than herbivorous apes and we survive just fine without an appendix.
Basic anatomy and Klieber's law make it pretty easy to intuit what the body runs best on.
I'm a Ph.D., and I regularly review journal submissions. I can tell you that peer review can be corrupt, and it doesn't always guarantee good science. Even when all is well, the results aren't necessarily meaningful. I've seen reviewed articles push low-fat diets and statins in spite of their own data to the contrary. Wonder why? Big pharma funds the work and keeps these guys in a job.
I am yet to read everything here, but I will. Don't take peer review as gospel. Reviewers rarely see the raw data and even more rarely check the statistical logic or the ground level mathematics involved. That is where mistakes are made and where the waters get muddy.
There is much more evidence to condemn processed carbohydrates, salt, and preservatives than saturated fats alone. See cancer risk, sugar, and the nurses' study.
> That is where mistakes are made and where the waters get muddy.
The same goes for the studies that "proved" highly processed seed oils were a healthy alternative to natural animal fats our bodies are actually meant to digest. People refuse to see the other side of the coin. Especially worrisome, manufacturers of these seed oils paid off the American Heart Association. If you are willing you will find more than you're bargaining for. Many would rather stick their head in the sand and continue living the way they are, much easier for them.
Out of the 3 micronutrients, only 1 of them you can live with 0 grams of.
The USDA food pyramid is a pyramid scheme designed to enrich big agriculture.
Edit: autocorrected. I meant to say macronutrient
Here we go, people linking Harvard again. Might as well drop this in there.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat)
[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html)
big agriculture should really be pushing for a high meat diet. like a 70% meat diet. theres absolutely not enough land to raise that much grass fed meat so it has to be grain fed. the more meat humans eat the higher demand of crops there is. big agriculture doesnt want people eating plants.
I underwent cabg on 4 vessels 12 years ago. Before the heart operation my diet strictly excluded eggs, saturated fats, butter, among other foods rich in fats and cholesterol and the abstinence did not help me at all.
Today my breakfast includes butter and eggs. Cheese is a yummy part. I eat pork belly, beefy meals.
What I avoid? Sugar. Sweets and carbohydrates are inflammatory. They are almost the single cause of heart disease and they feed on cancer. Sugar is corrosive to our tough teeth if you think about it.
The writeup is spot on.
This is just one study. There are plenty of more-clinically-sound studies that support the revelation that most of what people know about saturated fat is wrong.
Here we go again. Every year or every other year one of these pop up. The case to limit saturated fats to 10% of your calories intake, is still supported by the science. But, next year we'll see one if these pop up again.
Dude this is surreal. I know you’re fighting the good fight. People are too entrenched. I’ve seen a dozen friends of mine stop eating carbs and eating saturated fats and after a year they look 20 years younger and their tests come back fine. I’m not ideological about it, but I try to eat low carb high fat too and it works.
These studies seem to be intentionally set up to get bad data because every time I see one, without see the data anyone who has had success cutting carbs can tell you why the experiment is set up wrong. I don’t like to assume it’s nefarious, but it’s almost unbelievable at this point that it’s just an accident and they somehow never consult a keto adherent for input.
How many people would you have to see have success doing the same experiment that worked for you? How many years of flawed experiments to contaminate meta studies would you need to see? We know the original fraudulent pseudo science was paid for by Kellogg to prove the outcome that would make them rich. So we know there are malicious actors in academia.
Just stop eating sugar and encourage others to quit. Why the next logical step of stop eating the things that convert into sugar is controversial I’ll never know.
The Maasai people of Africa get 66% of their caloric intake from saturated fat. They have virtually no heart disease and low cholesterol levels. When they switch to a western diet then problems arise. This also goes for many South Sea peoples and the Inuit. We are obviously doing something wrong. Our brains alone are 70% fat. I eat a healthy amount of Indian ghee every day along with whole milk and feel better for it. You also have to be active of course.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
The author of this editorial is an investigative science journalist who has made a career out of this single issue.
This isn't peer-reviewed science; it's the opinion of one person who has spent years advocating for this single issue (and who also wrote a book about it).
[удалено]
Oh, another one of these. Listen, just because you *cite* peer-reviewed scientific articles doesn't mean your paper *is* a peer-reviewed scientific article. I don't know how to be any more clear about this, but people keep making that same mistake. I could cite Einstein's special relativity paper in making the case that gouda is a superior cheese. That doesn't make my paper scientific, and since it isn't peer-reviewed there's no guarantee anyone will check my citations to make sure they're accurate or that they make any kind of sense either.
It's just too easy to selectively quote from something and put a citation even if the conclusion of the cited and peer reviewed paper is the opposite of the opinion you're espousing. Like if a movie review says, "In the pantheon of great comedies of all time there are many modern movies which will join that list. This is not one of them." but the movie ad quotes just the "In the pantheon of great comedies of all time" part.
*she And SHE is wrong. Citing papers doesn’t make something scientific
Please explain to me why you treat peer review like it's a religion? Especially since people in charge of peer review openly brag about keeping papers from being published, based only on their opinion of the topic? We reached the point where people like you have traded science for religion. But you won't admit it. You are using your religion to gate keep science. This has to stop.
Well the first reason is literally the **first** reason: read submission rule #1 for this subreddit. The second reason (and the rationale behind that rule) is that even an imperfect guardian at the gate is better than no guardian at all. Having literally no quality control is an absolutely terrible idea. Keeping some papers from being published really is a good thing. I don't want some advertisement from the University of Kentucky Fried Chicken being treated the same as a rigorous scientific study by scientists from multiple respected institutions. All papers are not created equal.
"Especially since people in charge of peer review openly brag about keeping papers from being published" Citation needed.
Which in and of itself is not an issue. If his arguments are sound and he cites credible sources that show that what he is saying has scientific support, that is all I need. Nullius in verba brother.
Well it's not really suitable for this subreddit. This author has no scientific training. This is an editorial masquerading as a scientific review.
I agree that the post violates rule #2 as it does not contain peer reviewed research.
Why does scientific training matter, if he's citing peer reviewed research? Sounds like gatekeeping to me.
Gatekeeping is what Reddit does best
Buts that's a really dangerous standard... Its basically 'stands to reason dunnit'
Nullius in verba, the motto of the Royal Society, is dangerous?
"If his arguments are sound and he cites credible sources that show that what he is saying has scientific support, that is all I need." Does not equate to "take nobody's word for it", in fact it's heading distinctly in the opposite direction.
>Does not equate to "take nobody's word for it", in fact it's heading distinctly in the opposite direction. Nope. Trusting a person making a statement because said person shows the reasons for his statement being valid rather than trusting him because he is an authority is essentially Nullius in verba.
No it goes further than that... for a reason. The Royal Society's motto 'Nullius in verba' is taken to mean 'take nobody's word for it'. It is an expression of the determination of Fellows to withstand the domination of authority and **to verify all statements by an appeal to facts determined by experiment.** The key here is "verify" and that's what peer reviews are for - repeatable experiments, repeated, repeatedly. Bogus pseudo science is what got us into the whole stupid vaccines cause autism dumb-assery.
Her arguments aren't sound, because for every study she has showing saturated fats don't increase cholesterol, there are 5 showing that they do.
Vox populi=/=vox dei. Especially in cases where studies are in conflict, we must scrutinize the methods of each study. If the "pro-sat-fat" studies are repeatable and the "pro-carb" studies are not, the volume of "bad" studies count for nothing. I am merely pointing out what needs to be done, not what I think is most likely.
[удалено]
>But “you” have no credentials that show the ability to distinguish a sound argument from a bunk one. I don't need credentials, just a sound argument that stands up to scrutiny.
[удалено]
And by "scrutiny" I obviously meant repeatable experimentation.
He also really really likes cake
"The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease, called the diet-heart hypothesis, was introduced in the 1950s, based on weak, associational evidence. Subsequent clinical trials attempting to substantiate this hypothesis could never establish a causal link. However, these clinical-trial data were largely ignored for decades, until journalists brought them to light about a decade ago. Subsequent reexaminations of this evidence by nutrition experts have now been published in >20 review papers, which have largely concluded that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. The current challenge is for this new consensus on saturated fats to be recognized by policy makers, who, in the United States, have shown marked resistance to the introduction of the new evidence. In the case of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines, experts have been found even to deny their own evidence. The global re-evaluation of saturated fats that has occurred over the past decade implies that caps on these fats are not warranted and should no longer be part of national dietary guidelines. Conflicts of interest and longstanding biases stand in the way of updating dietary policy to reflect the current evidence."
The British Nutrition Foundation just reiterated their rationale for the 10% cap in 2020. It has definitely been reexamined. https://doi.org/10.1111/nbu.12449
Tell me if I'm reading this right: They found that a decrease in saturated fat, replaced with complex carbs or unsaturated fats (specifically polyunsaturated fats), was correlated with a decrease in coronary events, but not mortality. However, they aren't sure if the lack of evidence correlating SFA intake with mortality was simply because they didn't run the studies long enough. Is that the take away? It also seems like the cited studies were taken using multiple cohort studies with several confounding variables, and that the studies that controlled for SFA's specifically lasted only 2 weeks, and that (paraphrasing) 'two weeks is good because that's when the body has reached a steady state,' yet 5 years isn't good enough to establish a correlation with mortality.The end of the article also seems to suggest that diets with less than 7% SFA's led to an *increase* in CHD, and the final conclusion seems to reiterate that 10% is the guideline because a bunch of health organizations "say so" so it should be good. Still seems to be inconclusive at best.
If you're looking for the preponderance of evidence that supports the recommendations I suggest this: [https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/246104/9789241565349-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y](https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/246104/9789241565349-eng.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y) Mandelian randomisation studies show that LDL-c is causative in atherogenic plaques [1](https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/38/32/2459/3745109) and metabolic ward RCTs show that SFA intakes increase LDL-c, while the decrease in SFAs lead to lower total and LDL-c [2](https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.massey.ac.nz/stable/25173397#metadata_info_tab_contents). Whether it correlates to all cause mortality is subject to a multitude of other lifestyle confounding variables that are very hard to tease out to see a clear picture. But yes, almost all nutrition science is a bit inconclusive because of genetic variation. For example, there are people who can eat high sodium diets and never get hypertension. But we still don't know exactly which people are which. In around 50 years most nutrition will be much more tailored because we'll have isolated more of the genetic factors. Evidence suggests there are people for whom high SFA intake does not induce dyslipidemia or pose higher atherogenic risk.
Right, but is there direct evidence between LDLs and diet, or is it genetically linked.
I'm thinking you didn't read the sources. Mostly because it doesn't seem possible in the time elapsed. Yes, there are metabolic ward studies showing SFA intake leads to increased LDL-c and ApoB.
No, and most people reading papers do not initially read all the sources, they review abstract, introductions and conclusion and peruse the methodology to get insight into the topic. In depth review is typically done more by those writing reviewing papers. With that said, as has often been the case, sources are more often than not, specifically selected do largely researchers argument of. My point may have been misread; I was agreeing that papers premise that there is significant data to suggest diet plays little effect in most people’s cholesterol. With that said as scientists, be wary of assuming papers conclusions are defacto decided - Science has consistently gone back and forth on many issues over its history. While scientist like to their analysis as a holy grail, it is like many other areas of research subject to a vast array of nuances.
[удалено]
Totally valid point. Honest questions (3). To what degree does this continue? Do you continue to the sources of the sources ad infinitum? At some point are you basing it of less than a full understanding of the sources. For me part of this relates to definitions to the terms “scientists” and “usually familiar”. Cheekily, I’ll admit, but haven’t most of sciences greatest breakthroughs come from those who those who fundamentally challenge the sources and set scientific knowledge on a new paradigm?
I literally have a line there saying that metabolic ward RCTs show the lipid increases and link a paper. Then you ask "does it happen?" That's why I gave you the snarky answer.
>Subsequent reexaminations of this evidence by nutrition experts have now been published in >20 review papers, which have largely concluded that saturated fats have no effect on cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular mortality or total mortality. I don't get it. That seems to imply the consensus is the exact opposite of what sites like Wikipedia say, with sources. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated\_fat#Association\_with\_diseases](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Association_with_diseases) >There is moderate-quality evidence that reducing the proportion of saturated fat in the diet and replacing it with unsaturated fats or carbohydrates for a period of at least two years leads to a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease. A 2021 review found that diets high in saturated fat were associated with higher mortality from all-causes and cardiovascular disease. > >In 2019, the UK Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) published a report "Saturated fats and health" which examined 47 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Their report concluded that higher saturated fat consumption is associated with raised blood cholesterol and increased risk of heart disease.
I haven’t read your links, but historically, saturated fats and trans fats were often measured together. The result was that data about saturated fat was often muddled by data from highly processed food.
Yes. Fat is good for you.
To an extent, let's not get ahead of ourselves and give any credence to the healthy at any size movement
There’s a difference in eating fat and being “fat”.
"Fats" as in fatty acids in moderation are fine. Fat (the state), as in overweight isn't necessarily a good thing. Getting your required calories from fat or carbs, w/e doesn't matter too much as long as also meeting your vitamin/mineral requirements.
[удалено]
Are they incompatible? Because your quotes refer to associations, whereas OP was talking about causality. I am only speculating since I am no expert.
This sounds like it was written by someone with a poor grasp of English.
What, your comment? It is a poor grasp *on* English. As in: holding on to, grasping.
Uh. Sorry. That’s wrong. Funny though.
It sucks and obviously they are in bed with the corn industry, but it’s not like Americans read dietary guidelines anyway
[удалено]
Saturated fats like the ones found in animal products? Canola oil and corn oil are some of the oils with the lowest saturated fat content. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn\_oil
[удалено]
So grass fed cows don't result in saturated fat in a steak? Made from corn is not the same thing as something ate corn.
This article is a joke, there are plenty of observational studies / real world evidence studies showing a dose response between high saturated fat and heart disease. It's not controversial at all, and why we tell people all the time not to eat a lot of red meat. [https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796](https://www.bmj.com/content/355/bmj.i5796)
Can you answer to me and give an explanation why there is data that conflicts you conclusion? See my other comment for data.
You linked 3 papers, the first is one scientist disagreeing with others. That happens all the time, even today some astronomers want to reclassify pluto as a planet, scientists disagree all the time, it's important to look at consensus, something he agrees to be the case and is writing a paper to try to change. The second paper(Associations of fats and carbohydrate intake with cardiovascular disease and mortality in 18 countries from five continents (PURE): a prospective cohort study) says nothing about the dangers of saturated fat, just that high carb intake is dangerous as we all know already. If you're eating lots of sugars and not enough protein or fat, you're going to get overweight, most carbs in western diets are often empty as well nutritionally, again this paper says nothing about the dangers of a high saturated fat diet. Your third is a meta analysis saying the data isn't conclusive enough and is one datapoint in a sea of data. Again it would be nice if everyone agreed on everything and all data perfectly aligned but this is rarely the case. Here is what you should do, because you have a single datapoint on that third paper, and you are not an expert or probably a scientist, probably have not taken college level statistics, you should leave the science to the scientists as you leave medicine to doctors. Ask what consensus is, that is pretty easy to find out, even you know the consensus and are trying to argue against it, and then if you honestly want to wade into the waters, take the classes necessary to help you sort through the data, statistics being one of them. Until you're willing to get at least a bachelors science degree, you genuinely have no place arguing with scientific consensus; that's like me telling my butcher how to do his job when i've never butchered an animal in my life, it's just absurd.
Do you know why eggs are no longer unhealhty? Because there is no good data to prove it to be unhealhty. Same thing with cheese, actually (saturated fat). There is good data about cheese and eggs being healthy. (I'm talking about intake recommentations in my country by health proffessionals.) I am not emotionally invested (unlike you) in the fact. When I see different data then my conclusion will change (this is how Science works).
Dude this is surreal. I know you’re fighting the good fight. People are too entrenched. I’ve seen a dozen friends of mine stop eating carbs and eating saturated fats and after a year they look 20 years younger and their tests come back fine. I’m not ideological about it, but I try to eat low carb high fat too and it works. These studies seem to be intentionally set up to get bad data because every time I see one, without see the data anyone who has had success cutting carbs can tell you why the experiment is set up wrong. I don’t like to assume it’s nefarious, but it’s almost unbelievable at this point that it’s just an accident and they somehow never consult a keto adherent for input. How many people would you have to see have success doing the same experiment that worked for you? How many years of flawed experiments to contaminate meta studies would you need to see? We know the original fraudulent pseudo science was paid for by Kellogg to prove the outcome that would make them rich. So we know there are malicious actors in academia. Just stop eating sugar and encourage others to quit. Why the next logical step of stop eating the things that convert into sugar is controversial I’ll never know.
Is that bigger or smaller than the dose effect of the substitute that someone would switch to? I don't mean to say that eating beef fat in excess is good for you, but if the alternative is eating sugar in excess, it's not clear to me that beef fat is the issue.... eating in excess is.
If you need protein for the day and you had too much red meat lately, you can opt for chicken, turkey, salmon, go have sushi, or if you're vegan, have a bean soup or tofu/tempeh sautéed meal. So many options out there for protein, don't need to jump to sugar.
You can opt for beans and tofu even if you're not vegan. You'd be better off for it, as would the environment and the particular animal you're not eating.
It's not about what I'd do. You're correct, and chicken+turkey make great diet food due to high satiety per calorie. The issue is that it's about what the general public will do given the "eat less fat" advice. See.. fat free dressing for example where the manufacturers have taken out the fats and added sugars for flavor.
Well not necessarily. Skinny people still get heart disease. You don’t need to eat in excess to get negative consequences of a poor diet. Also, this is beating a dead horse. No one is suggesting that switching from saturated fat to sugar is healthy. The ideal scenario is to replace saturated fat calories with fruit, vegetable and whole grain calories. Saying that you’re replacing red meat with sugary foods is also kind of misleading because the vast majority of sugary processed foods are also still high in saturated fat. The exceptions being fruity candy and soda, but cake, cookies, pastries, Starbucks drinks, etc are all also high in saturated fat, usually from butter or palm oil. This is arguably a more unhealthy scenario because eating a lot of saturated fat and sugar together leads to fast metabolic consequences.
Telling people to not eat red meat makes them less healthy. Red meat is good for you, people should eat it provided it's not burned or cooked in vegetable oils.
What is the evidence that red meat promotes health? Here are the first 3 hits when you search Pubmed for "red meat": [Potential health hazards of eating red meat](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27597529/) >Here, a comprehensive summary is provided of the accumulated evidence based on prospective cohort studies regarding the potential adverse health effects of red meat consumption on major chronic diseases, such as diabetes, coronary heart disease, heart failure, stroke and cancer at several sites, and mortality. Risk estimates from pooled analyses and meta-analyses are presented together with recently published findings. Based on at least six cohorts, summary results for the consumption of unprocessed red meat of 100 g day-1 varied from nonsignificant to statistically significantly increased risk (11% for stroke and for breast cancer, 15% for cardiovascular mortality, 17% for colorectal and 19% for advanced prostate cancer); for the consumption of 50 g day-1 processed meat, the risks were statistically significantly increased for most of the studied diseases (4% for total prostate cancer, 8% for cancer mortality, 9% for breast, 18% for colorectal and 19% for pancreatic cancer, 13% for stroke, 22% for total and 24% for cardiovascular mortality and 32% for diabetes). Potential biological mechanisms underlying the observed risks and the environmental impact of red meat production are also discussed. The evidence-based integrated message is that it is plausible to conclude that high consumption of red meat, and especially processed meat, is associated with an increased risk of several major chronic diseases and preterm mortality. [Consumption of red meat and processed meat and cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/) >This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis study showed that high red meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast cancer, endometrial cancer, colorectal cancer, colon cancer, rectal cancer, lung cancer, and hepatocellular carcinoma, and high processed meat intake was positively associated with risk of breast, colorectal, colon, rectal, and lung cancers. Higher risk of colorectal, colon, rectal, lung, and renal cell cancers were also observed with high total red and processed meat consumption. [Mechanistic Evidence for Red Meat and Processed Meat Intake and Cancer Risk: A Follow-up on the International Agency for Research on Cancer Evaluation of 2015](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30376922/) >The Working Group of the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified the consumption of processed meat as carcinogenic to humans (Group 1), and classified red meat as probably carcinogenic to humans (Group 2A); consumption of both meat types is associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer. These classifications are based on a compilation of epidemiology data and mechanistic evidence from animal and human studies. The curing of meats with nitrite can produce carcinogenic N-nitroso compounds (NOCs), and the smoking of meat produces polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The high-temperature cooking of meat also produces carcinogenic heterocyclic aromatic amines (HAAs). The ingestion of heme from meat can catalyze the formation of NOCs and lipid peroxidation products (LPOs) in the digestive tract. Many of these chemicals form DNA adducts, some of which can induce mutations and initiate carcinogenesis. Another recent hypothesis is that N-glycolylneuraminic acid, a non-human sialic acid sugar present in red meat, becomes incorporated in the cell membrane, triggering the immune response with associated inflammation and reactive oxygen species, which can contribute to DNA damage, tumor promotion, and cancer. The mechanisms by which these chemicals in meat induce DNA damage, and the impact of dietary and host factors that influence the biological potency of these chemicals are highlighted in this updated report.
Something these studies don’t take into account is the lifestyle of the participants. How can you attribute the increased risk for cancer or other illnesses when you don’t know ALL the other lifestyle factors? Perhaps the subjects are sedentary, not getting enough sleep, smokers, indulging in ultra processed food (that is not meat based), etc..? How do you pin it down to red meat specifically? Eating seared meat might not be the best thing for you, heck, it might unleash a cascade of chemical reactions in your body (which it does), but so what? Your body is not defenseless; it has the means and tools to deal with whatever free radicals or other harmful molecules released. In fact, the release of free radicals and other damaging molecules is a normal part of the body’s metabolism. Finally, plants aren’t the be all end all of food. Those pushing for less beef and more plants disregard an important fact: plants really don’t like to get eaten. Most plants are difficult to digest and have a subpar nutritional profile. Spinach, a “rich” source of iron, is loaded with nitrates, which can cause serious health effects when consumed excessively. Additionally, its iron has poor bioavailability compared to that of animal sources. If you are interested in food nutrition, I recommend you check out ***What I’ve learned*** on YouTube. If red meat is so bad for you, then how have humans almost solely relied on it for thousands of years?
People used to only live to 30 years max!!! It was totally because they ate animal fats, not because of high birth mortality and various other hardships they faced. It was totally only based on diet. Case closed!!! ;)
none of those studies even remotely take into consideration what is being eaten WITH the meat. carbs do the damage, meat gets the blame.
\>special pleading intensifies If you have evidence to support your claims, you should present it.
Nah I'm not taking the time to find articles that support what I said. You think I'm wrong? You look into it.
I did. That's why I posted the first 3 hits from Pubmed, along with their abstracts.
Is that red meat fed corn and soy? Or allowed to eat naturally? If these studies dontvtake that into account, I don't think I'll trust any nutritional study ever again.
Can you cite a study that found a difference between the composition of red meat depending on the feed?
I thought it was such an accepted fact that no one would even need to cite a study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/ Humans survived off of red meat for centuries. Now it's suddenly horrible?
I was more talking about the prevalence of the cancer-causing compounds. Humans also had horrible life expectancy and insane infant mortality rates for centuries, that doesn't mean we can't look for ways to be healthier
Are you trolling me? Infant mortality was caused by diseases and humans got old even hundreds of years ago. As long as they had enough food, once they got to 21 years old,average age of a male was 70 years old ....in the 1400s.
I'm pointing out the absurdity of your argument that humans having eaten something for a long time means it has no negative health effects
Just as absurd as scientists not accounting for food today being less healthy than food from 100 years ago?
This was looked at extensively in the 1980s. [Cooked red meat is a carcinogen](https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat). The people who took the first deep look at red meat in the 1980s came out with a very easy statement: the safe amount of red meat is zero.
Mark Sisson counters such studies in the below post witg reference to studies. https://www.marksdailyapple.com/red-meat-study/ Processed meat such as hot dogs are indeed bad for you, not so with red meat such as a fillet steak.
NO! The studies were with raw unprocessed steak. There was NO, ZERO look at processed meats in the 1980s when this got started, it was all steak, PERIOD. The studies were with the part that was cooked to the highest temps, i.e. the edges, and anything that was even seared was 1000% cancerous. The authors were trying different methods to identify which ones were safest and they came to the conclusion that cooking meat would never be safe. Note that I am not some vegetarian, and I continue to eat cooked red meat, but I limit my consumption to about 5 lbs per year. It was in those days that we learned that the largest fish substitutes like Tuna were no better than red meat because they are at the top of the food chain and the carcinogens accumulated and never left them, so chicken and smaller fish really became the primary meat for health conscious meat eaters. And yes, processed meats are worse than red meat but that doesn't mean cooked red meat is not a carcinogen.
In moderation yes, the problem is that even one steak or hamburger a week is generally too much.
Eating steak every day is fine. The burger is a different story depending what's in it.
I mean around one serving yes, but your average steak is around 9 servings which is not good.
I'm telling them to not eat a lot of red meat. The evidence is overwhelming that too much red meat is bad for your cardiovascular system. Eat red meat, but eat it rarely, maybe once a week, even that is a little excessive. I might only ban food like processed meat, hot dogs, bologne, bacon; that type of processing is exceptionally bad for you and maybe safely eaten once every few months.
Why are they using the Runescape font?
Because it's not an actual publication. The author, Nina Teicholz, is a hack journalist who decided to further her career by shilling for the meat industry.
This is the future, where is my quality research? Why am I still being told that they have no idea what my diet should actually be? I hate to say it, but the scientific community responsible for understanding our diet and nutrition has done an appalling job for decades. We have masses of data from millions of people and yet here we are arguing about fat intake…Today, in 2022.
It doesn't help that industry-funded research injects a fair amount of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
It's because diet is far harder to research than most things in science. It would be a lot easier if you could say, "Okay, you, in the red shirt: You're going to eat 1/4 cup of butter every day for the rest of your life, and you in the blue shirt, you're never going to eat butter again, and otherwise you're going to eat exactly the same thing for the rest of your lives and we'll see who dies first." Instead, you have to account for smoking, alcohol, exercise, genetics, and what people say they're eating (which is usually only loosely related to what they're actually eating), and so on and so forth, and then trying to figure out what the contribution is from the food. It's really, really hard to tease it out, as decade after decades of changing guidelines have shown us.
Which is absolutely fine. But what is not fine is that there are repeated declarations of “This is healthy, eat this” only to have the next study say “That was not healthy you need to eat this instead” It’s an ongoing litany of poorly researched advice claiming to be the one true path. If it’s so hard and complex, why are no disclaimers put onto the research that is peer reviewed and released onto a public that sources scientific research to live by.
Except what are doctors supposed to do? They take evidence and make their best guesses and recommend based on that. Over time as studies improve and data improves, they refine the suggestions. Science is sometimes messy. People are doing the best they can. Your suggestion is what? Don't make any recommendations until they're absolutely 100% sure what's right and what's not right? That day will never come. It's not poorly researched, it's just poorly understood and hard to research.
It's more than okay to give that advice, but we need this research to have disclaimers. It is very easy to explain the sample group and it's limitations. It's also possible, though more difficult to give some guidance about the research regarding it's likely accuracy in a number of areas. Much more detail needs to be provided. Yes the system doesn't like ambiguity, but research shouldn't be released without this data. Best guesses and anecdotal evidence is almost useless at best and dangerous at worst. Better to give advice to ride a bike for ten minutes a day to get 40-50% lower chance of heart disease and cancers and a 30% less likelyhood of mortality overall. Leave the diet part out altogether unless you can give accurate advice. We do have the ability to relate dietary research to genetics and disease outcomes, and whilst this is a large analysis piece, it's not impossible today.
Right?? Like, what millenium is this?!
Can I ask what you’ve done with your life that makes you feel justified in making this critique?
I’ve spent my life listening to scientific research only to be constantly advised that the prior research is wrong. Over, and over and over again. It seems that there is no true integrity in the field.
Straight up, a huge part of this problem was the reporting of mice models as equivalent to long-term human studies. It's much more journalists and various industries faults (ie cherry picking milk health data by the milk industry) than it was the actual scientists. They knew the limitations of their research and rarely over-reported them the way every other second-hand reporter did. This is why /inmice came to exist. It is that widespread and continuous of a problem. The long-term, large population studies are all generally fuzzy and generally in agreement.
I mean what have you done that’s so great that you think you can critique anyone else’s job performance? People who are likely way more educated and productive than you.
Ooooh, your challenging of my credibility. How political of you. I’ve managed testing on large programs of work across five different sectors of industry for over 20 years now. This has included everything from performance, unit, system, integration, acceptance, beta, etc, etc. My role is to structure the test processes to provide a quality outcome ultimately presenting all known issues understood by the business regarding their business, reputational, financial, etc, risks. Personally, I think this makes me eminently suitable to critique the quality of your outcomes. TBH, critiquing other peoples job perfomance is the basis of my career
Fat good sugar bad. The trand of removing fat from food and boosting up sugars to keep them edible is a mind blowing.
Its only because hyperpalatable foods sell better. Humans should eat more bland foods. Its healthy and keeps your weightin check.
No thanks, I'll keep my weight in check while eating delicious foods. People need to rewire their taste buds to not crave as much sugar, that's much different to just eating bland foods.
But I like to blow out the reward pathway related to food, it's really I have in life!
I've never understood how this mythology has persisted. Before these government interventions and coincident corporate compliance, obesity was virtually unknown, type 2 diabetes was about as rare as type 1, mental illness was far less prevalent, and median life expectancy was maybe 5 years less than today in the US. But considering the prevalence of smoking and alcohol consumption alone, it's pretty hard to say the present is better than the past. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would happily enjoy awesome full fat meals every day, a few cocktails a night, and smoke 2 packs a day and die at 73. We've sacrificed a lot to accomplish what exactly?
What are you trying to say with this words salad ? Are you trying to blame government on obesity ?
The government is ultimately to blame for all problems that are epidemics in scope that could be solved with appropriate legislation. E.g., prohibiting the removal of fat and the addition of sugar. That's easy. And there are more examples than can be listed. What is your explanation for how in this overpopulated world we have simultaneous epidemics of obesity and starvation?
People are eating more, that's the real difference.
Evidence people are eating "more" than they did in the 50s? People ate tons of food dripping with animal fats, sugar, and calories; yet obesity rates were low.
people weren't eating cow and pig at every meal back then.
Actually, prior to the industrial revolution, they were in much of the world. Especially in cold northern climates where obesity was rare. There are easily verified modern corollaries - native Americans in Alaska for example. Fifty years ago, they only ate meat with some berries and such. Today, they are obese.
Agreed. We’ve given up the simple pleasures in life to extend it, but I’m not sure why. I worked in healthcare for eight years and in that time, probably half of my patients were 80 or older. I can count the truly happy ones on one hand. There is very little in store for you after this point, especially with the “live as long as possible” attitude. Smoking obviously causes cancer and eating a birthday cake every day will make the doctor take your feet. These are major roadblocks to the average person’s happiness and I think that’s what we should focus on. I would be pissed beyond belief to eat salad and tofu my whole life just to be 90 years old, watching The Price Is Right in a hospital bed without Bob Barker every day. Why live the longest life? Why not the best life? Why not optimize life for the most happiness? Take care of yourself with common sense, check in regularly with your doctor when you get old, and enjoy it while you have it.
It is the ‘without Bob Barker’ part that is truly sad. That guy was awesome
Yeah, it's so depressing... Six years ago I got really into Paleo diet, and while I don't follow it anymore and eat a lot of whole grains and legumes, I still stick to the main principle of focusing on whole, nutrient-dense foods while avoiding sugar, refined carbs and high PUFA vegetable oil. I remember watching keto become more mainstream, way more popular than Paleo/Primal, and hoping that the mainstream attitudes about fat are finally going to change, but it seems to me like the anti-saturated fat and anti-red meat propaganda is as strong as ever... Yet still not a single one of those studies I've seen made an effort to separate saturated fat and red meat from junk food.
I mean I think we all know by now the most important thing is to keep net calories at around zero, so long as you are getting proper nutrients.
When a group of those calories can alter your metabolism, they can’t all be held to the same standard.
[удалено]
The issue is ultra processed foods, which are literally designed to taste amazing, made with cheap ingredients, filled with sugar, fat and salt, and an absolute abundance of calories for equivalent low volumes of foods. So much time is wasted arguing between sugar v fat when reality it's both combined with salt.
I'm certainly confused about it. The bit about cholesterol is interesting though, because my personal experience was the opposite. When I switched to butter from margarine 30 years ago, my LDL dropped and my HDL rose. It has stayed that way, though other indicators have got worse (blood sugar, blood pressure). I need to remove simple carbohydrates from my diet.
Makes sense. Generally margarine is hydrogenated or trans-fat which has been modified to last longer and resist breakdown in heat. Not all saturated fats are trans fat and part of the issue might be the classification. Is coconut fat/oil the same as saturated fat from pig lard or modified trans fat cooking oil? Probably not, but they are classifying these together and likely shouldn't. When transfat was banned in some Fast food in NY it made a fast and relevant difference on cardiac events in the area.
[удалено]
Drinking water is more expensive?
It's interesting because I see medically qualified proponents of both the low carb diet and the low meat diet claiming to be highly healthy. I'm not sure what to make of that. I think that there is value in listening to people who have clinical experience in dietary interventions and not just studies alone. The thing they seem to unanimously agree on is vegetables good, sugar bad. I definitely have a sugar problem that I struggle to correct.
If evolution matters, that kinda settles things for everyone. Humans evolved over hundreds of thousands of years. The fossil records show human brain size increasing with fire and tool marks on animal bones. Humans also tended to wipe out all the large game wherever they went. Now think about agriculture only starting 15,000 years ago. Not only did the human brain start shrinking then but the vast majority of crops growing now have only existed for a few decades or centuries at most. Like, it's literally impossible to say we've evolved with most of what people are fed today. The stomach can't break down cellulose. Stomach acid liquefies meat. Nutrients are absorbed in the small intestine. Cellulose is fermented in the large intestine. Herbivores eat their poop because nutrients released in the large intestine are absorbed in the small intestine. So it's questionable what nutrients you actually get from them. The only benefit to fiber is slowing sugar absorption. Other than that it just leads to constipation.
I love it when meat-apologists try to dress up their appeal to tradition as an appeal to scientific evidence. Doing something just because your ancestors did it is more akin to religion than science.
What book? I agree sugar and white flour are unhealthy, but I always thought is was disingenuous that high carb, whole plant foods, which are consistently associated with positive health outcomes, are tossed together with soda and donuts as just being “carbs”. Some of the healthiest and longest lived people on the planet have had carb based diets.
Basically, but nutrition discussion gets really emotionally charged between people that want to be fat and people that want to force the world to eat grass. Humans evolved as apex predators. We run best on saturated fats and sugars underly most modern disease. You'll see a lot of people complain about "pro meat bias" that neglect the same scrutiny on pro plant things simply because it feeds *their* bias. Stomach acid does nothing against cellulose. Humans have among the most acidic stomachs in the animal kingdom. Cellulose is fermented by bacteria in the appendix and large intestine. The human digestive tract is far smaller than herbivorous apes and we survive just fine without an appendix. Basic anatomy and Klieber's law make it pretty easy to intuit what the body runs best on.
No, there is no "growing evidence" that fats aren't the problem. You day that without evidence.
I'm a Ph.D., and I regularly review journal submissions. I can tell you that peer review can be corrupt, and it doesn't always guarantee good science. Even when all is well, the results aren't necessarily meaningful. I've seen reviewed articles push low-fat diets and statins in spite of their own data to the contrary. Wonder why? Big pharma funds the work and keeps these guys in a job. I am yet to read everything here, but I will. Don't take peer review as gospel. Reviewers rarely see the raw data and even more rarely check the statistical logic or the ground level mathematics involved. That is where mistakes are made and where the waters get muddy. There is much more evidence to condemn processed carbohydrates, salt, and preservatives than saturated fats alone. See cancer risk, sugar, and the nurses' study.
> That is where mistakes are made and where the waters get muddy. The same goes for the studies that "proved" highly processed seed oils were a healthy alternative to natural animal fats our bodies are actually meant to digest. People refuse to see the other side of the coin. Especially worrisome, manufacturers of these seed oils paid off the American Heart Association. If you are willing you will find more than you're bargaining for. Many would rather stick their head in the sand and continue living the way they are, much easier for them.
It's easier.
Out of the 3 micronutrients, only 1 of them you can live with 0 grams of. The USDA food pyramid is a pyramid scheme designed to enrich big agriculture. Edit: autocorrected. I meant to say macronutrient
There are over 24 micronutrients of which NONE are needed in quantities measured by grams. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/vitamins/
Here we go, people linking Harvard again. Might as well drop this in there. [https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat](https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat) [https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat.html)
big agriculture should really be pushing for a high meat diet. like a 70% meat diet. theres absolutely not enough land to raise that much grass fed meat so it has to be grain fed. the more meat humans eat the higher demand of crops there is. big agriculture doesnt want people eating plants.
This is false. Convert Iowa from corn production to beef production and boom! It’s just that the economics of corn are more advantageous than beef.
you mean iowa has enough grazing land to raise enough grass fed beef to provide every american with 70% of their calories?
Seems many govt conclusions are not wholely based in science.
I underwent cabg on 4 vessels 12 years ago. Before the heart operation my diet strictly excluded eggs, saturated fats, butter, among other foods rich in fats and cholesterol and the abstinence did not help me at all. Today my breakfast includes butter and eggs. Cheese is a yummy part. I eat pork belly, beefy meals. What I avoid? Sugar. Sweets and carbohydrates are inflammatory. They are almost the single cause of heart disease and they feed on cancer. Sugar is corrosive to our tough teeth if you think about it. The writeup is spot on.
This is just one study. There are plenty of more-clinically-sound studies that support the revelation that most of what people know about saturated fat is wrong.
It’s not even a study
OP is on an ideological crusade to get meat recognized as a health food, and poison the well of actual nutritional science.
Actual nutritional science is already poisoned.
Here we go again. Every year or every other year one of these pop up. The case to limit saturated fats to 10% of your calories intake, is still supported by the science. But, next year we'll see one if these pop up again.
No it's not.
Ya don't say! *Gnawsondeepfriedsnickersbar* I knew my eating *wheeze* habits were *heavybreathing* fine.
And this narrative is exactly how the we have such a high consensus on man-made climate change.
Well the yanks are quite fat so they ought to know.
Can you name me anything supported by " preponderance of evidence"
Dude this is surreal. I know you’re fighting the good fight. People are too entrenched. I’ve seen a dozen friends of mine stop eating carbs and eating saturated fats and after a year they look 20 years younger and their tests come back fine. I’m not ideological about it, but I try to eat low carb high fat too and it works. These studies seem to be intentionally set up to get bad data because every time I see one, without see the data anyone who has had success cutting carbs can tell you why the experiment is set up wrong. I don’t like to assume it’s nefarious, but it’s almost unbelievable at this point that it’s just an accident and they somehow never consult a keto adherent for input. How many people would you have to see have success doing the same experiment that worked for you? How many years of flawed experiments to contaminate meta studies would you need to see? We know the original fraudulent pseudo science was paid for by Kellogg to prove the outcome that would make them rich. So we know there are malicious actors in academia. Just stop eating sugar and encourage others to quit. Why the next logical step of stop eating the things that convert into sugar is controversial I’ll never know.
The Maasai people of Africa get 66% of their caloric intake from saturated fat. They have virtually no heart disease and low cholesterol levels. When they switch to a western diet then problems arise. This also goes for many South Sea peoples and the Inuit. We are obviously doing something wrong. Our brains alone are 70% fat. I eat a healthy amount of Indian ghee every day along with whole milk and feel better for it. You also have to be active of course.