/ck/ - Food & Cooking

Why are you starting a shitposting thread?

>>5195649
nice try mr. shekelstein but you can't tempt me with the sugar jew.

Environments change. Humans are adaptable creatures.

inb4 /pol/, "listen up I have an associates degree in home ec" guy, people pretending to be vegans, militant omnivores falling for it hook line and sinker, gmo, someone complaining that high end grocery stores exist, someone being way too proud that he can boil shit in a crock pot, something about teeth, penn & teller, that guy who uses every thread as an opportunity to tell /ck/ that he's working on his graduate degree in whatever it was, and maybe murrka vs yurop.

I liked the movie.
The diet described in it worked extremely well for my boyfriend, and was ok for me. I didn't lose weight very fast, but it did make physical activity easier and it didn't feel like my heart was going to explode when I worked out.

>>5195642
It isn't just nutrition, most of medical science is flawed.

The major problem comes with how studies are funded.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

Here is an interesting article about the problem

>>5195914
this

and nutrition isn't nearly as inconsistent as it seems, it's just that psuedoscience is so rampant that it seems inconsistent.

I too get my science from biased for-profit documentaries

>>5195921
Not a valid argument. The source does not determine the value of the information.

>>5195923
lol

nutrition isn't that inconsistent... the multitude of books, bad youtube vids and shitty internet sources that misrepresent studies is inconsistent

>>5195923
First, it's not "valid" in the sense of "logically valid" but that doesn't mean it's not a good argument. You can and should evaluate evidence based on the credibility of its sources.

Second, documentaries don't even purport to be scientific documents, although they sometimes cite things that do.

>>5195923
people actually believe this?

>>5195748
>people pretending to be vegans, militant omnivores falling for it
Oh ho ho

>>5195920
>>5195927

this

I wanted to watch a nutrition documentary a few months ago and looked on netflix, was really disillusioned that they were pretty much all just rampant with psuedoscience.

I don't know whether this film actually debunks the lipid hypothesis, or simply shows that counting calories works.

The thing is, most people are not going to count calories. So people tend to break along the lines of either leaning toward fats and shunning carbs, or embracing carbs while shunning animal fats. I've seen both diets work for people.

I remain of the opinion that any diet high in vegetable fiber and low in sugar stands a good chance of working well for those who don't want to count calories. Because if you're filling up mostly on vegetable fiber a little bit of whatever the hell else you want to eat probably isn't going to fuck you up.

>>5195928
>You can and should evaluate evidence based on the credibility of its sources.

That is for reliability, not validity. Yes a source with little credibility is not very reliable, but that does not make it invalid.

>>5195937
What evidence to do you have for it being valid in this case?

It's a multi billion dollar industry so you can make profit out of pseudo science.

>>5195927
>>5195931

I think it goes further than that, along with the books, youtube vids, and shitty internet sources, you fail to take into account the shitty bureaucratic practices. Most of the original fda guidelines were set into place by politicians with no expertise in nutrition. The WHO is run by specialists in infectious diseases, but everyone refers to them as experts in all things medicine. In many states you literally cannot practice nutrition unless you adhere to the official governmental stance.

Then you have people like Ansel Keys. Almost everything he has ever done academically has since been shown to be bunk. Yet he is still sourced. It isn't just him, something like 30% of quoted sources in modern nutrition are papers that have turned out to be false. or disproven.

>>5195949

We need to just take all the nutritionists and drop them off on some sort of retard island, because most people don't realize that anyone can claim to be one because the title isn't government regulated. It's just a bunch of holistic horseshit spewing dumbfucks who didn't want to go to college to become a RD.

>>5195940
Nothing I can put forth in 140 characters of less, but watch this lecture. I addresses many of the same ideas as fathead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>>5195951
The title is government regulated. Well nutritionist isn't. But certified nutritionist is.

>>5195935
>simply shows that counting calories works

This.
>moved to America
>huge portion sizes
>maintained naturally slender European body size for as long as I could
>by the fifth year, grew to what would be landwhale proportions back home
>average sized here (6ft, 200lbs/183cm, 91kg)
>began working out b/c calories out > calories in = weight loss
>back down to nice, European proportions (161lb/73kg)
>took six months to undo five years of damage

It wasn't even difficult.

>>5195956
This is the closest we may ever come to actually watching a europoor using a bit of science.
Be still, we don't want to scare it away.

>>5195954

certified nutritionists are still the same psuedoscience spewing idiots that they mentioned.

a certified nutritionist told my boyfriend's grandma that they could use salt normally if they used sea salt instead of table salt (she has high blood pressure)

The basics of nutrition have remained remarkably common over the last one to two hundred years: eat a varied, whole foods diet rich in vegetables, grains, greens, beans, and a relatively small amount of meat.

>>5195965
Well the CDC announced not too long ago that sodium intake and blood pressure have no correlations

>>5195964
>implying i don't work in the sciences
Most Euros that move to the US seem to work in or with the sciences. Could be I've a biased sample size, considering.

>>5195642
>Why is nutrition such an inconsistent science?

It's not.

The problem is that many people mis-interpret the research, either by mistake or deliberatley. Very few people are reading the papers and drawing rational conclusions, instead they are listening to what a book, movie, or some guy on TV says, and those sources tend to be biased one way or another.

Pat attention to research papers, not what some lobbyist, activist, or marketing guy tells you.

>>5195973

yeah but this was about 6 years ago when it was still believed that they did, either way she's suggesting that there's a significant difference between sea salt and table salt

also last I heard there is still a correlation but only for about 10% of people

There is a lot we haven't acurately studied, or emergent research that dismisses old, stalewart opinions accepted as obvious. On top of that, human bodies aren't perfect machines, people do vary in how their bodies process things, and people forget that. On top of that, I think the most problematic for me is the correlation and causation problems. I see plenty of people linking things that have thousands of input factors, etc. Vegetarians probably are healthier on the whole. Why? Not necessarily because it's a healthier diet, but they are more aware of what they eat Uthan the average Joe eating on average. Comparing the two populations can be misleading. Anyways, statistics yo.

>>5195973
There was never any firm evidence that they were.

>>5195973
>>5195983
>>5195990

There is a link for short term blood pressure. And there are something like 1/100000 people who have genetic disorders that do have a long term effect. The problem came from research in these disorders being carried over to the general population "well if reduced salt helps these people with lowering blood pressure, everyone will benefit"

>>5195967
>grains
Except people have been told to cut down on grains for the last 200 years as well.
>small amounts of meat
Restricting meat, or more importantly fat, has only been the last 60 years or so.

>>5195978
A great example of this is the harvard physician study. The study was about Tylenol effect on heart health, and they threw in a few other questions to help rule out other possibilities. However many reports on the study have been about those other questions, even though the methodology does not support accurate data in those circumstances.

>>5196011
>people have been told to cut down on grains
by whom
>Restricting meat, or more importantly fat, has only been the last 60 years or so
people have only been overeating it for that period. it has nothing to do with restricting meat or fat, just reasonable portion size.

>>5196011
Mostly just for obese and diabetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rollo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Banting

Something I found strange about the sodium intake limits were that despite your weight (and thus your food intake) the sodium limit remained the same. 2300 mg a day regardless of whether you weighed a lean 100 or 200 lbs. Is this idea just really hamfisted or am I missing something here?

In my own experience cardiovascular health and bodyfat percentage are what determine blood pressure for me more than sodium intake. Thank god because trying to keep your sodium intake that low is definitely a chore in this tv dinner world we live in. Long live the salt shaker!

>>5196028
As a percentage of diet, meat consumption has not increase. You are correct though that total meat consumption per person has increased.

>>5196052

Yeah I love freaking out the people I know who have no idea about nutrition.

>WHY ARE YOU PUTTING SO MUCH SALT IN THAT? DON'T YOU KNOW HOW BAD IT IS FOR YOUR HEART?
>HOW DO YOU DRINK SO MUCH DIET SODA? IT'S WORSE THAN REGULAR SODA, IT KILLS YOUR THYROID!

Even though they eat like shit and don't exercise. It's really weird.

>>5196052
It's based on the same "average" human sample as everything. Apparently in the USA and other countries it's not mandatory to have precise nutritional values on food packaging it's weird to me. Kind of like when someone showed me some soda bottle with like "a glass represent only 2% of your daily sugar intake! (based on a 3500 Cal/day diet)" or something.

>>5196057
>As a percentage of diet, meat consumption has not increase
this seems unlikely

>>5196064
Diet soda is an interesting one. There are several studies showing that the sweet flavor causes an small increase in insulin production. If this is true then we can say the following.

Diet soda increases insulin. Increased insulin lowers blood sugar. Lower blood sugar causes hunger. hunger causes either A. increased food consumption or B. irritability and other medical symptoms of low blood sugar.

Noting though that this is in a healthy human. The diabetic are so insulin resistant, that their blood sugar level would most likely not change. However for them, the extra insulin will just exasperate their condition.

>>5196066
the 2000/2500 calorie diets were decided by politicians. The actual average caloric intake at the time was 2350 for women and 2900 for men. However they feared that it would cause half of the population to overeat by recommending more than they required. So the numbers were dropped. Over time however the average height of usa citizens has increased, so the numbers should be even higher. At the same time for spacing purposes the 2500 was dropped. So for atleast a quarter of the population the recommendations are about 1000 calories to low

>>5196078

I've seen a lot of studies that suggest that it does not cause an increase in insulin production, but yes I realize that there are also some that suggest that it does. Either way I eat a varied diet and exercise 20-25 hours a week so I'm not worried about it even if it does.

Either way only one of people who have made these comments ever even mentioned insulin, and even then I think they must have just read some naturalnews article or something because they also said that it's worse than regular soda, so I don't think they even really understand insulin at all.

>>5195642
>Why is nutrition such an inconsistent science?
All the pseudoscientists in this thread are a blaring example of your original question, OP.

>>5196109

I'm honestly surprised that there are as many people in the thread saying legitimate things as is. But yeah.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/16/magazine/16epidemiology-t.html

tl;dr epidemiology is bullshit
correlation does not necessarily mean causation

btw, the reason everyone is fat or suffering from heart disease is because sugar.

>>5196129
Danes eat more sugar per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
Japanese eat more rice per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
Italians eat more wheat per capita per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
French eat more butter per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
Swiss eat more chocolate per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
Germans eat more meat per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
Chinese eat more fried foods per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.
Belgians eat more cheese per capita than Americans, Britons or Aussies but are not as fat as Americans, Britons or Aussies.

Clearly, speaking English is what makes people fat.

>>5196072
Over the past 100 years caloric intake has increased from about 2300 to about 3800. just about 65%

red meat and poultry consumption has increased from 110lbs to 180lbs about 63%

intake
http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf
modern calorie consumption
http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/food_security_statistics/FoodConsumptionNutrients_en.xls

And then while looking for a source for historic consumption I was told 3500
http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/35/11_Part_2/3246.full.pdf

but then I thought, its 30 years old, it might be wrong so I looked further
http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/FoodSupply1909-2000.pdf

And this paper is really interesting, lets forget my numbers from earlier., i was wrong probably. Or atleast my method of getting to the conclusion was wrong. Lets read this paper instead.

although page 20 does has 1909-2000 as 15% and 14% for energy from meat,poultry,fish

People that don't look like these shouldn't be allowed to say anything at all about nutrition.

If you have a PHD and are not being paid by corporations you can also have a say.

>>5195748
jesus christ, inb4 is not meant to be used for a block of text. lurk moar faget
To answer your question OP, nutrition isn't that incosistent. Supersize Me was a scam. The guy was kicking a drug habit simultaneously with going on the diet and that's why he was vomiting and feeling like shit early in the diet, not because his sytem was "rejecting" the bad old fast food.

>>5196104
Theoretically it is worse in a healthy population, because regular soda has sugar which is what the insulin is used for. But there are so many downsides to extra calories in the diet, that I would say a soda is worse on average. So I would say, "a diet soda is marginally more likely to increase the risk of developing diabetes than a regular soda"

As for the insulin, there are two times insulin is released, I appologize for forgetting the proper names, but you have early insulin which is released while you eat. and you have late insulin which is released while you digest. The vast majority of insulin is late insulin. Which is why most studies do not show a link between insulin and diet soda.

So diet soda being worse is only in a very small specific cases.

>>5196169

I eat shitloads of meat, especially steak. If meat makes you fat then why aren't I fat?

>>5196182

source? I've never actually seen it and I don't eat fast food anyway but I'm curious.

>>5196129
sweet link bro, im enjoying it

>>5196199
I don't think meat makes you fat. I love eating meat and am a very healthy weight. I had thought eating 1000 calories more a day made you fat, but now I just found evidence that argues we do not eat 1000 calories more a day

>>5196161
>Danes eat more sugar per capita than Americans

Sugar Consumption Per Capita:
Denmark 38.3 kg per year
USA 61.9 kg per year

http://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/index/sugar-consumption-per-capita

No country consumes as much sugar as the US according to this list.

>>5195642

aa

bb

>Why is nutrition such an inconsistent science?

What are you trying to use nutrition to describe or understand? Weight gain? Weight loss? Metabolism? Lean mass? Fat storage? Heart disease? The reason being is because 'nutrition' encompasses so much and the subjects which is can be applied to benefit from a holistic approach as they are multifaceted. I guess you might as well ask why the paintbrush is such an inconsistent artform.

>>5196233
text says 60, graph says 30

why?

>>5196241
go test out your gay tripcode in another thread with sage on, faggot. fucking retards with no sense of courtesy

>>5196233
What? The data I'm seeing says:
>Denmark, 38,3
>USA, 30,5
With Switzerland having the highest rate of 50,8. Why does the page have two numbers for USA, one in the opening paragraph (the one you offered) and a different in the graph they provided? That's a glaring contradiction unless I've misread something here.

>>5196253
>>5196246
Both graphs say 30,5. There are two graphs.

>>5196246
Maybe half of it is non-artifical sweeteners. I doubt it though. Seems like an error as it doesn't match with the data the graph is based on.

>>5196257
What do you mean two graphs?

>>5196257
I do not see a secodn graph

>>5196263
Derp, I'm tard. One graph. One list. Herpaderpa. I no kin into ingleesh, sarri me.

>>5196253
>>5196246
lol, I didn't see that. fuck that page.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-03/excess-sugar-may-double-heart-disease-risk-researchers-say.html

You know, an awful lot of you say "stop listening to what books, television, and films, etc say and find a research paper." Yet you aren't being helpful in directing us towards scientifically accurate, peer reviewed articles or other sources.

>>5196302

because we'd have to list hundreds of fucking articles in order to cover various topics, researching this sort of shit isn't something you do in an afternoon

>>5196302
just eat like an adventist. they got shit right a century and a half ago and it's still one of the best diets out there

>>5196302
>implying there is any credible research in the field of 'nutrition'

>>5196305

A point in the right direction would be nice, though. The most reputable researchers, websites, etc.

>>5196182
>The guy was kicking a drug habit simultaneously

Did you make this up?

>>5195642
So is this movie any good?

>>5196318

american journal of clinical nutrition

>>5196329
Fairly low production quality. Fairly entertaining. Moderately accurate science.

It's really two different ideas in one. The original concept was "spurlock is a liar" which it does a good job of covering. the second part is "carbs are bad" which the dude sorta fell into while trying to beef up his documentary content. I think he became low carb during production due to all of the interviews with nutritionists and doctors. It sorta feels tacked on at the end.

I think his blog is much more informative, as he has had more time to research, knows the science better, and has had the opportunity to speak with more low carb experts.

>>5196318
I think Robert Lustig and Gary Taubes, (both linked already in the thread) are both fairly well accredited and generally trustworthy. All of their work is usually well sourced, and they are both willing to explain why a study should or shouldn't be considered reliable. Andreas Eendfelt is also pretty reputable, but he doesn't into the hard science as much.

Also there is always /ck/ and /sci/. while 4chan is not a reliable primary source. There are a few people on here willing to discuss pros and cons of various articles, and can help walk you through some of things written in sciencese.

>>5195642
why is it so hard to understand o.0 big money interest give out shitty misinformation because it suits them basically ..................... ......................................... money has come between patients and doctors

leave it at this animal products are good for special occasions a festival or celebration and not a daily sort of thing

that actually comes with an asterisk you have certain people who can help but eat meat so no what ... fact is that is true ... what comes along with that fact is that those sort of folks are Eskimos Inuit living in arctic temperatures and eat lots of fish so much that is cause them a sickness of strokes because they have thinner than most blood vessels

as for nutrition itself NASA should have something rather solid only they dont afaik as a personal preference i go with the next most reliable source which is oriental medicine some have an affinity for indian sort of healing as for myself i've found chinese/japanese medicine something I've come to trust

western medicine is far behind oriental medicine
you can say and laugh they have shit dentist and shit plastic surgeons tbh that is not something of import to any sort of honest medicine man

honest medicine will tell you eat well and exercise

dishonest medicine will give you a bill big enough to cover your share of research cost for the newest fanciest medicines (that will be good until the patent expires) plus lawyers fees plus marketing budget plus .... you see where i'm going with this

>>5196011

>people have been told to cut down on grains for the last 200 years as well.

Who and where? Grains have been the main food of the majority of the world's population for thousands of years, and modern research constantly shows benefits to eating whole grains. A bowl of oatmeal is considered a great breakfast, while bacon and eggs are considered terrible.

>Restricting meat, or more importantly fat, has only been the last 60 years or so.

For most of the history of civilization, meat consumption was a very rare thing to anyone but the social elite. The grain-eaters got strong and went to war, the meat-eaters got fat and died of dietary diseases.

Don't take Fat Head, a comedy movie, as a source of knowledge about nutrition.

>>5196342

>"low carb experts"

Always makes me laugh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4

>>5196428
Smelly dumb
vegan scum

>>5196437

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16891352

>>5196420
see
>>5196040
and
>>5196169

>>5195642
Because people's bodies are inconsistent.

It isn't a science. A science is something you can repeat anywhere and nutrition can't even be repeated properly from person to person. It is a pseudo science.

>>5196420
Grains are only a problem now because so much added sugar in our diet with modern processed foods that it fucks with our insulin response.

>>5196445
In the summer I can smell vegans before I see them because they are disgusting people who don't bathe for weeks at a time.

>>5196461

Where you live, do people wear "I eat a vegan diet" shirts?

>>5196473
yes. and they break down in tears if they find out parmesan rinds were used in the vegetable soup they just ate.

>>5196428

>>5196473
In my area, some of them actually do. Or, rather, they where shirts that read "Got Pus? Milk Does. Go Vegan."

>>5196487
That cat is weird is fuck, it's got a tiny head and a massive body

>>5196495
Unfortunately, most cat foods are now filled with rice. This added carbohydrates in the diets of felines is causing a unprecedented number of obese cats with diabetes.

Why Nutrition Is So Confusing
http://www.dietdoctor.com/nutrition-confusing

>>5196487

Mark Sisson is a notorious roider, and the other two guys are young. Being young and thin isn't nearly as impressive or indicative of diet as being old and thin. I've seen the hodge twins binge on pizza, biscuits and gravy, and fried chicken, and maintain their 8% bodyfat because they exercise.

>>5196514
>Gary Taubes
>Age: 57
>Young

>implying anecdotal evidence is worth anything

fuck off vegan

>>5196519

>my anecdotal evidence is worth more than your anecdotal evidence

Enjoy your cancer, methionine heads

>>5196527
sceak?

>>5196514
Taubes is 57

>>5196428
>Fuhrman
>Fuhrer
nazi racist pls go

Nutrition isn't inconsistent. Get all the nutrients you need from whole fruits and veg, there's nothing complicated about nutrients. But in terms of having great health and vitality people get their panties in a twist trying to defend their arguments.

>>5196527
my anecdotal evidence is that my wife and I shed a bunch of weight when we stopped drinking soda and started smoking a lot of weed. We also started eating a bunch of eggs in the morning because we had night jobs and had time to cook breakfast. Other than that we ate what we want and often overindulged due to munchies.

Basically my conclusions are that stress and sugar cause weight gain.

I should write a diet book.

>>5196461
I'm able to not wash my hair for weeks, because I have a distaste for onion/garlic and anything as that stinks through skin/breath like that. I must wait at least 72 hours between hair washings to not have acne. It took way too long for me to discover that with everyone telling me to wash more, which stimulated overproduction of sebum. An aspie incapable of telling white lies has confirmed I do not stink. I still go in the shower and use schizophrenic soap on other areas daily.

>>5196586

More realistically, stress and calories. Soda is easy to drink 1000 calories of and it doesn't really count as a meal that would satisfy your hunger. Replace soda with fruit and you'd lose weight too.

I'm a raw paleovegan. I eat only plant foods paleolithic humans ate raw. When I reach 5th level raw paleovegan, I'll have become autotrophic, transcending beyond your silly need for external sources of nutrition.
Enjoy your dietary dependency, faggots.

>>5196595
>stress and calories

Yeah, pretty much. After a few months of eating three eggs for breakfast, thinking I was being an indulgent asshole, I was quite surprised as to how few calories they had when I bothered to look it up.

>78 calories per egg

Why the fuck were people told eggs are unhealthy, again?

>>5196586
my anecdotal evidence is that I lost 50lbs after I started working at a pizza place and eating pizza 3 meals a day.

I believe that a simplified diet is easier for the body to process. It doesn't matter what you eat, as long as its all the same. Thats why carnivores and herbivores are all thin, and the omnivores are fat.

>>5196619
enjoy ur prostate cancer :^)

>>5196619
the since disputed cholesterol heart disease link

>>5196625
Oddly, my wife and I worked at pizza places and ate a bunch of free pizza when we lost a bunch of weight.

>Pizza Diet confirmed for next diet fad.

>>5196619
because proportionally those calories are from fat
and people used to think that fat = bad

now there are differing opinions but most fall on the 'hurrdurr dietary cholesterol is bad 4 u'

eat all the eggs you want friend.
I go through at least 3 a day if not more.
So fucking versatile

>>5196625

Do you eat much pizza anymore? I'd get sick of it.

>>5196619

>Why the fuck were people told eggs are unhealthy, again?

Because calories has little to do with health. Eggs are a ball of cholesterol and saturated fat, and in studies have been shown to increase risk of atherosclerosis and stroke.

>>5196640
I still love it, but pizza is so expensive nowadays. We used to sell a large one topping with a bread side for 9.99 on fridays. Now they charge like 16, plus 2+ bucks for delivery.

>>5196650
>cholesterol

It's not 1990 anymore bro. We know that dietary cholesterol has nothing to do with serum cholesterol now.

>>5196650

Yeah, I could eat a luxurious breakfast which amounted to about 400 calories with butter and bread accounted for, and could often skip lunch because I wasn't hungry. So terrible.

I flat out don't trust anyone who says something necessary for the human body to function (like cholesterol, fat, protein, or salt) is bad for you.

>>5196662

>We know that dietary cholesterol has nothing to do with serum cholesterol now.

No, you just believe whatever internet blogs and lobby groups tell you, in spite of what every major health organization tells you. It's a classic case of "I only hear what I want to hear."

One of the tactics the egg industry uses to make cholesterol seem benign is that they run studies on people who are already eating large amounts of cholesterol, then add one egg to their diet, at which point the rule of diminishing returns is in play with the extra cholesterol not causing nearly as much of an impact. When you take people eating little to no dietary cholesterol and then test dietary cholesterol on them, their LDL goes up.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6142348

And here's an article that describes why serum cholesterol isn't the only issue with dietary cholesterol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989358/

>Recent media reports reflect the remarkable effectiveness of the sustained propaganda campaign of the egg producers’ lobby
>A focus on fasting LDL and dietary cholesterol levels per se has obscured three important issues. The first is that dietary cholesterol increased susceptibility of LDL to oxidation by 37% (21) in one study and by 39% in another (22). The latter study was performed with cooked egg yolks fed for periods of 32 days. The second issue is that the consumption of more than 140 mg dietary cholesterol in a single meal markedly increases postprandial lipemia (23). Third, dietary cholesterol potentiates the adverse effects of dietary saturated fat (the bacon and egg effect)

That article was written by John David Spence (the father of carotid plaque measurement), David Jenkins (creator of the glycemic index), and Jean Davignon (head of atherosclerosis and stroke prevention research in Montreal).

What they say is in line with major health instutitions like Harvard Health and the American Heart Association.

>>5196665
Anything can be bad for you. Everything has a toxic dosage. Some lower than others. Other times there are medical reasons to limit something. Like low salt for people suffering from edema. But for every condition there is an opposite, like high salt for people suffering from postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.

>>5196665

>I flat out don't trust anyone who says something necessary for the human body to function (like cholesterol, fat, protein, or salt)

Your body makes its own cholesterol, but I'm also curious what foods you know of that have no fat, protein, or sodium, and why you think "if I need any of it, then I must need a LOT of it"

>>5196690
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6142348
measured particle by weight.
from 1985, before they differentiated between ldl particle size.
Later studies show eating cholesterol does not increase ldl particle count, but increases particle size.
Larger ldl is healthier for you.

This study is pro egg.

>>5196712

>ldl size is the REAL culprit

A theory not accepted by anyone outside of the Paleo community

>>5196717
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experimentation.

You give "paleo" dieters too much credit.

>>5196722

Okay then, "an excuse"

>>5196690
cholesterol is what heals your blood vessels. It correlated with heart disease because when your arteries are inflamed, your body produces a lot of cholesterol to heal the inflammation. So scienticians went "hurr, durr, cut out cholesterol bro" mistaking a symptom for the cause.

>>5196690
>oxidation
This is a good thing. Everyone that studies it is like "oh no the cholesterol is oxydized we are all doomed." but no one ever mentions negative consequences of oxidation. However oxidation has been linked to increased cholesterol size.

I would never trust a nutritionist or dietitian with knowing jack shit. If you want someone with knowledge on the subject find a biochemist. Most nutriionists probably couldnt even list you two substrates in glycolysis or krebs cycle, let alone understand energy and nutrition in th body

>>5195935
Exactly. Fat Head promotes low carb, but he is also on a caloric deficit. It works no matter if you are low carb or not. The reason it works so well for people to lose weight is because it is easy to stick to and doesn't require any exercise. Once you get into exerting yourself extensively, keto and the like are no good.

Why they don't just tell people counting your calories is normal and expect to weigh x pounds as a result of eating y I have no idea. People get too lost in the organic vs. regular fat/carb ratios to realize that they just have to eat reasonable portions of balanced meals consistently.

>>5198957
I think whether it's low fat or low carb there is two things that help reduce calorie intake: a) you actually have to pay attention because either diet requires to actually prepare your own meals b) you get sick of what you're eating

>>5195642

It's very complicated and people want to oversimplify the results of studies for prestige. The media further exaggerates conculsions and then suddenly Jamie Oliver is putting gallons of olive oil on everything because it is "healthy". In reality the HDL raising and LDL lowering property is only valuable if you use olive oil to replace other fats. Fat is still calorie dense and the worst thing one can do for their health, statistically is get fat.

>>5198957
Andreas Eenfeldt says that counting calories is a form of eating disorder. If you eat a healthy diet you will naturally eat a healthy amount.

While Tom Naughton did count calories during his McDonalds experiment it was because he had to to make the point, that McDonalds does not necessarily mean 5000 calories a day. After he finished his fast food dieting, he took up a low carb diet and in his words "ate as much as I wanted".

There have been people doing all twinky diets and losing weight. I don't think anyone can argue against calorie deficits being what causes weight loss. I believe though that the more important point of low carb, is the ease of diet particularly for those with insulin problems.

Take a person with healthy insulin production, test his blood glucose throughout the day and you will have a fairly stable level. You could feed them a cup of sugar without much of a spike. Take a person with unhealthy insulin production and they will have peaks and valleys all over the place. Feed them a cup of sugar and the glucose level will go quite high, before falling quite low

This is the problem, despite just having had 800 calories, they will quickly become hungry as their glucose drops

So you could feed a group of people 2 cups of sugar a day for weight loss, and some will be able to stick to the diet, others will be ravenous most of the day. It is easy to say "you just need more will power." but I think those with healthy insulin production don't understand the hunger that comes with low blood sugar levels. There is a primal need to feed.

The solution is a diet that eliminates this blood sugar roller coaster. The easiest way to do that is to cut out refined sugars, flours and starches. Whether that is a plant based or meat based diet doesn't matter. You can stabilize you blood sugar in 3 days by eating nothing but bacon or by eating nothing but oranges. But that is a short term solution. Such restrictive diets will cause other complications

>>5196302
Go search for meta-analyses or some shit.

>>5199018
What if you eat bacon AND oranges?

>>5199046
Now you are starting to get healthy. Add in some eggs, and some asparagus. Maybe some chicken, and avocados. butter and brocolli.

>>5199056
Can I put them all on a pizza?

>>5199059
According to
>>5196636
>>5196625
I would say yes. Generally i would say no.

>>5195952

That's a really great video.

>>5195952

Robert Lustig, who claims that "no food in nature has both fat and carbohydrate at the same time." Every single plant food in existence has fat and carbohydrate.

It's also funny seeing a fat guy talk about how not to be fat.

Nutrition science itself is pretty clear what's good and what's bad, it's just lobby groups and fad dieters trying to mislead people.

I can't count the number of times I've heard someone claim eggs/bacon/beef/cheese are healthy because "mainstream science is wrong! I read an internet blog that told me my favorite comfort foods are good for me and I immediately believed them without doing any research myself!"

>>5199494
Only in trace amounts

>>5199550

Nuts, seeds, and avocados have a lot of fat and significant carbohydrate. A cup of avocado has 21 grams of fat and 12 grams of carbohydrate. One coconut has 133 grams of fat, 60 grams of carb, 25 of which are simple sugars. The guy's a bullshit artist.

>>5199562
per 100 grams Avocados have 10g of fibers, and .3g of sugars

Not a significant source of sugars.

per 100 grams coconut has 9g fiber and 6g of sugars. I might give you that one. But it's borderline 6g versus 33g fat. That is very little sugar. Especially coming with fiber.

I think it really is the exception that proves the rule.

>>5199590

Big or small, it's still true that there's no plant food that doesn't have both fat and carbohydrate

>>5199594
You are taking his words too literally. Arsonic is poisonous to humans, but it is present in trace amounts in all of our food. Do we call all food poison? no.

>>5199601

>Do we call all food poison?

No, but we also don't say "no food has arsenic in it"

>>5199516
>I can't count the number of times I've heard someone claim eggs/bacon/beef/cheese are healthy because "mainstream science is wrong! I read an internet blog that told me my favorite comfort foods are good for me and I immediately believed them without doing any research myself!"

I bet you're one of those faggots that thinks salt is bad for you, too.

>>5199608

I think you should unsubscribe to Chris Kresser and whatever other cult leaders you follow blindly.

>>5199590
I thought it was about carbohydrates, why mention sugar now?
Also avocados are not much of anything else, it's a whole lot of water.

>>5199628
So, avoiding foods that spike your insulin levels is a bad advice and should be ignored? Cause that pretty much sums up the "cult leaders" you have a beef with.

because the human species is so diverse you and you sister have disparaging nutritional needs simple because of gender. let alone occupation, height, weight, health conditions such as beetus, colitis, and missing parts like gall bladder, and intestinal sections. people are different.

>>5199630
I haven't watched the lecture in a few months, but I'm pretty sure lustig uses the word sugar

>>5199648

Avoiding insulin spikes by avoiding healthy foods and eating foods that promote heart disease and cancers instead is a ridiculous basis for a diet. The way they try to make insulin sound like poison and try to make saturated fat sound like your best friend is a very cultish tactic. They also tend to preach the exact opposite of what every health professional in the world considers to be fact, often making up theories that haven't been accepted by any health organizations and using them as the backbone of every argument they make, when time and time again science proves their wrong. But people like you don't look at science, you've found a cult group who tells you "eat your favorite food, it's fine, buddy" and you accept it on the spot.

>>5199608
eating just those things is bad. but can be good. obviously that's a very high protein and far diet. the only thing that can be said is new research suggests food cholesterol does not have a significant effect on your blood cholesterol.

>>5199682
your liver controls the amount of cholesterol in your blood and converts sugar into artery clogging cholesterol and triglycerides.

>>5199682
Research does not support your heart disease and cancer claim. Heart disease is caused by fructose consumption. avoiding fiber free fructose sources cannot defined as "avoiding healthy foods".

>>5199741
All these bananas are giving me heart disease!

>>5199735

Your liver forms cholesterol out of saturated fat. While fructose can be used for cholesterol, food sources of fructose also come with cholesterol-LOWERING properties like fiber and phytochemicals that as a net effect leave you with lower LDL. This is another example of "fuck what every medical professional says." Half-truths and flat out lies are the tools of the Paleo crowd.

>>5199745

Bananas also have a lot of fiber.

>>5199750
Most sugar in our diet doesn't come from natural sources, but from processed foods. Nobody says you shouldn't eat fruit.

>>5199762

Not only that, but since sugar is so cheap, massive quantities are added to everything.

>>5199762
>>5199783
I hold that since most fruit contains less than 10g of sugar per 100g they should be considered low carb.

>>5196226
>>5196199

Enjoy your colon cancer.

>>5199990
enjoy your scientifically falsified nutritional opinion

>>5199990
>red meat linked to an statistically insignificant rise colon cancer rates says a meta-analysis of observational studies full of uncontrolled variables and contradictory results

>>5199990
I am pretty sure its the fat in meat that causes cancer.

biology is what's inconsistent, not nutrition.

why does bio get to hang with the hard sciences? It's evolving just like psych or fucking anthro

>>5196514
where did you read that Mark Sisson is a notorious roider? I read his blog a lot and generally the paleo/primal guys do have pretty good looking bodies.

>>5199628
Chris Kresser is actually a really level-headed figure in the whole 'paleo sphere'; he looks at the research and isn't dogmatic about what is and isn't 'paleo'.

So where can I get the TRUTH about nutrition, /ck/? You seem to know where its hidden amongst the lies.

>>5196064
Too much salt is terrible for you though, and diet soda has plenty of its own drawbacks.

This just in. Eating tons of anything can kill you slowly.

>>5201394
In other news, water is wet.

>>5201400
Hilary Putnam, on my /ck/?

>>5201414
It's more likely than you think.

>>5201373
There is no one truth. We can lead you to the knowledge, but you must learn and decide for yourself.

>>5196174
>aesthetic

>>5195952

Damn. I can't believe I watched the whole thing.

At one point he mentions--as he rebuts the idea that "a calorie is a calorie"--that we know there are bad and good carbs, bad and good cholesterol, bad and good fat, bad and good proteins.

...bad proteins? I googled, and the only 'bad protein' references I saw were references to meats that are accompanied by some other bad thing (like grass-fed beef vs grain-fed beef and the concomitant omega-3 fatty acids vs omega-6.)

WTF is bad protein?

>>5202430
> WTF is bad protein?
inb4 /fit pls go
allergens, mostly

>>5202430
I'm not sure what he is specifically referring to. I think he probably just got on a role and said too many words.

But I have heard some stuff about soy being bad in larger quantities

>>5201338

>Chris Kresser is actually a really level-headed figure in the whole 'paleo sphere'; he looks at the research and isn't dogmatic about what is and isn't 'paleo'.

Are you kidding?

http://chriskresser.com/three-eggs-a-day-keep-the-doctor-away

Look at this article where he tells people to eat three eggs a day, while giving no citations or sources to back up what he's saying, and in spite of research like the Harvard Nurses Health Study and the Physicians Health Study that showed clear, linear increases in mortality with increased egg consumption, and of course every health organization agreeing that dietary cholesterol should be limited to 300mg a day at most. His response is just "no research (that I want to mention) suggests eggs are bad for you, fuck what every health professional in the world has to say about it"

He also says dumb shit like

>Eggs are also good sources of antioxidants known to protect the eye. Therefore, increased plasma concentrations of lutein and zeaxanthin in individuals consuming eggs are also of interest, especially in those populations susceptible to developing macular degeneration and eye cataracts.

Which is a red flag that you're being shilled to, because anyone telling you to eat eggs to get lutein and xeazanthin, rather than vegetables, isn't being "level-headed." One spoonful of cooked spinach has as much of those compounds as 9 eggs. It would take 40 eggs a day to get the recommended amount. But he wouldn't tell you that, because it's better for his agenda to just give you an extremely mis-leading half-truth that will get you to buy more eggs and read more of his blog posts.

>>5202470
>in spite of research like the Harvard Nurses Health Study and the Physicians Health Study that showed clear,

According to the PHS there is negative correlation between egg consumption and heart attacks, strokes and cvd. There is a positive correlation with egg consumption and accidents. Any reports about increased death from all sources is bullshit statistics.

the NHS linked HRT to lowering risk of heart disease. It is now known that HRT greatly increases the risk of heart disease. No other correlations from the study has ever panned out.

>>5202522

>According to the PHS there is negative correlation between egg consumption and heart attacks, strokes and cvd

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/87/4/964.long

>egg consumption was positively related to mortality, more strongly so in diabetic subjects

>adjusted hazard ratios (95% CI) for mortality were 1.0 (reference), 0.94 (0.87, 1.02), 1.03 (0.95, 1.11), 1.05 (0.93, 1.19), and 1.23 (1.11, 1.36) for the consumption of <1, 1, 2–4, 5–6, and ≥7 eggs/wk, respectively (P for trend < 0.0001). This association was stronger among diabetic subjects, in whom the risk of death in a comparison of the highest with the lowest category of egg consumption was twofold

You can see in the tables that the more eggs people eat, the more their risks of various cardiovascular problems increase

>>5202470
Lutein in spinach is not as bio-available as lutein in eggs. Partially due to how the lutein is bound in spinach and partially due to the need of large amounts of fat to metabolize.

The best option would be a spinach omelet.

>>5202534
>looking at all death.
Look at the other tables, every individual cause of death reported has >7 as the lowest.

Unless you contend that eating eggs increases the risk of car accidents.

>>5195642
Just watched the movie yesterday (it's on youtube by the way)
It's pretty good, I'm inclined to believe it on the basis that what he's saying makes logical sense and he gives reasons as to why some of the commonly accepted nutritional thinking is bullshit and why that bullshit was was introduced in the first place. Basically he says listen to nature and your body, not crock scientists and the news, which personally I agree with 100%.
The only thing is that it gets a bit hypocritical and there's some leaps in logic. Like he was calling out groups and researchers that pick and choose smart sounding PhD MD ABCs that are actually crocks, but will say anything just to support their claims. Then he goes with his team of doctors that all support what he's saying, but he barely says who they are and why they should be believed over anyone else. Not that his doctors were necessarily full of it, but he's doing the same thing as the fakes that he's calling out. Then he had a whole bit about how primitive man ate meat all the time and they were really healthy, and it was only until we started farming that we got short and fat, so therefore you should follow the high fat low carb diet. He was just trying to beef up his point, but he was doing it with that leap of logic which again, is something that the people he complains about do all the time.

>>5202538

>The best option would be a spinach omelet.

I'd say the best option would be a small kale salad with walnuts, with which you'd meet your needs in just a few bites. Spinach though is so dense with lutein/zeaxanthin that the biovalability is hardly a factor, it's still a great source of these nutrients even in raw form.

>>5202542

>Look at the other tables, every individual cause of death reported has >7 as the lowest.

Are you the same guy who misread the data last time I argued or is there a website that's reading the study incorrectly to you guys? We can both agree the highest egg consumers had the highest all-cause mortality. We see the risks go up with every increase in egg consumption for cardiovascular disease, stroke, and heart attacks, then they mysteriously drop in the high egg consumption group. Why are they dying more then?

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/117/4/512.abstract

Because fewer but still frequent egg consumption may lead to those diseases, while for higher consumption ("high" meaning 1 or 2 a day), those aren't the main concern because now your risk of complete heart failure has taken priority. Your risks of other things hasn't "gone down" in the way that eggs have protected you, it's just that now you've got something even more deadly on your hands.

>>5202547
Kale has the same metabolism problem. Walnuts don't provide the required fats. Kale omelets are not delicious.

>>5202558

>Walnuts don't provide the required fats

>>5202565
Not in the amount served in a walnut kale salad.

Yeah if you go by 100g, then walnuts are better than eggs.

>>5202543
The reason you found it logical is because you don't know things.
Don't get me wrong: I enjoy meat. I eat it. It's not some rarity for me. I like eggs. I like milk. And so on. So this isn't meatbashing or anything. But...

1) Primitive humans did not eat much meat. They were mostly frugivorous, supplementing that diet with shoots and foliage.

2) Primitive humans were far shorter than modern humans. If you want to see what a primitive human looks like, and don't take this as a joke or anything, take a look at Eddie Izzard. On the programme Meet the Izzards, Eddie traces his DNA markers back and back and back, and makes the trek from Africa, where human life is thought to have started, northward and westward into the UK. It has a tonne of explanations of how modern humans came to evolve from primitive and how we differ from them. Good show, and interesting to boot. And it reveals a very odd fact about Eddie's DNA, something that explains just why he's so short and has such a thick, wide neck.

3) He wants you to listen to nature and your body? Fine. But what about observing other people's bodies, too? No. Not like that, perv, but look at who the longest living peoples on earth are and what their diet contains primarily. The Japanese. The Italians. The Sammarinese. The Monagesque. And what do they have in common? High carb, low animal-derived food diet. About half of the daily calories come from carb sources, 18% from vegetables, 13%from fruit and 9% each from beans/meat/eggs and dairy. Each of these cultures has a similar breakdown of caloric intake coupled with the fact that they're relatively active.

>>5202610
1 and 2, yes, I know, that whole section about the primitive humans was full of factual and logical issues and was only there to bolster his claims, which as I said, is exactly what the gubment and the researchers he's complaining about are doing. I don't believe in that. What I do believe in is following your own body's natural desires, while still remaining conscious of the fact that your body is also preoccupied with survival and wants to get fucked up on sugar, salt, and fat. And yeah, it is good to look at other people's bodies and lifestyles, as long as you remember that you aren't them. That's how people got into this mess that Fat Head points out, where the public was more or less told to ignore themselves and just follow what someone else does.

I would sooner take nutrition advice from /fit/ than from /ck/.

>Why is nutrition such an inconsistent science?
Because the scientific tests are more often than not ordered by companies who want them to reflect a certain positive result for their product.

>>5202430
Ricin, probably.

The major lifting has long been done, and even to cover the small stuff all we can really say is "eat a wide variety of whole foods". The rest is covered by book deals, fads and other gimmickry.