/ck/ - Food & Cooking

>>5528470

Some of the confusion comes from the decades-long war on trans fats, the artery-clogging ingredient found in baked goods and desserts. Science has shown that trans fats are harmful because they increase risk of heart disease because they both raise level of bad cholesterol (LDL) and lower levels of good cholesterol (HDL). Last year, the Food and Drug Administration said it would require food makers to phase out trans fats.

But saturated fats are different from trans fats.

"I do agree butter, along with other saturated fats like poultry skin, coconut oil, full fat dairy and certain cuts of red meat, are no longer the enemy," TODAY diet expert Joy Bauer said Thursday. “But, before people go slathering butter on things like bagels, mashed potatoes and pasta, they need to know that it's way more complicated than that."

"We always knew that saturated fats elevate LDL-cholesterol (also known as the bad cholesterol)," said TODAY diet expert Joy Bauer Thursday. "

>>5528472

However, scientists now know that there are two different kinds of bad cholesterol particles — one is small and dense (the kind linked to heart disease) and the other is large and fluffy (the kind that seems to be mostly benign). Saturated fat raises the level of larger particles that don’t appear to be harmful.

On the other hand, refined carbohydrates (white bread, bagels, crackers, baked goods, cookies and soda), do increase the smaller, more dangerous LDL particles.

"And unfortunately when fat was vilified back in the 1970s, we replaced those fats with…you guessed it…refined carbohydrates. That’s why we’re in trouble now," Bauer said.

That's why it's important to reduce intake of refined carbs.

>>5528474

Bauer advises: "if you love butter, add a small amount on vegetables, not a big hunk of bread. If you’re into full-fat milk, add it into your coffee —and nix or minimize the sugar — versus drinking a glass with a stack of cookies.”

The Time report isn't the first to support eating saturated fats. In a recent story in The New York Times, scientist Fred Kummerow, a pioneer in trans fat research and one of the first researchers to link heart disease and processed foods, said moderate amounts of saturated fat in butter, cheese and meat don't clog arteries and may be beneficial in moderate amounts.

Moderate consumption is key. While the Time article says we can end the war on butter, other research points to risks from eating a lot of red meat. A study from Harvard suggests women who eat a lot of red meat may have a slightly higher risk of developing breast cancer.

FIN

I don't give a shit what "scientists" say about food today and I give less of a shit what journalists say about what scientists say about food.

>>5528470
>Time Magazine

Shirley, you can't be cereal.

You all should have just read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price and Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon because like that's where the truth is. I grew up on that shit!

>>5528498
Lel, epic cynical critic

dem kike controlled media huh fellow /pol/ack

how do japs live on their white rice diet if carbs are the enemy?

the answer is more complicated than the article would presume.

>>5528505
>the answer is more complicated than the article would presume.

That's what you get when you have journalists that know jack shit about science reporting on scientific findings.

>>5528642

That said; fuck you, I'm still going to drink Real milk, eat bacon and butter my bread!

>>5528472

So this is typical pop-sci journal-sensationalism.

>>5528505

Balanced meals and not eating a lot in the first place

>>5528470
>Time magazine says scientists were wrong to label saturated fats the enemy — that carbs, sugar and processed foods are mainly to blame for obesity

>Time magazine
>scientists were wrong
>carbs

Because when you want real health information you go to Time magazine and not a doctor.

This from the people who promoted eggs and fat being terrible and the cause of all Americas health woes.

How about cut down on the processed shit, moderate your diet and fucking exercise or don't do what the fuck you want.

>>5528672
That's way to much work. Can't I just listen to what the man in the television says is good for me instead of thinking for myself?

>>5528470
Which "scientists" have been blaming saturated fat for obesity?

>>5528672
>going to a doctor
why would they know anything, honest question? more than a study, for example?

>>5528687

>>5528479
"scientist Fred Kummerow, a pioneer in trans fat research and one of the first researchers to link heart disease and processed foods, said moderate amounts of saturated fat in butter, cheese and meat don't clog arteries and may be beneficial in moderate amounts."

>>5528470
Just look at an Okinawan diets or a Sardinian diet, even a Greek or Turkish.
Eat as they did/do and you'll be fine.

>>5528692

Presumably, because being doctors, they're interested in that shit and actually read the studies.

Realistically? They're only human and just spout off the same bullshit.

>>5528495
people like you are the reason I come to /ck/

>>5528470
>there's no evidence saturated fats are bad
>recommend moderation regardless

dieticians are a cancer

>>5528470

>A recent study from University of Cambridge in England questioned the link between so-called "bad" fats, such as butter and pork, and heart disease. The Cambridge researcher also found no evidence that polyunsaturated fats, or "good" fatty acids such as salmon, walnuts and healthy oils, lower risk of heart disease.

The problem is you can make a study say anything if you design it a certain way. The fact that one study out of thousands said something contrary doesn't mean we should disregard all the evidence before that point. No health organization in the world says anything but "saturated fats are bad" because that's what the overwhelming bulk of medical science says.

Every couple of years we have some journalist come and try to make headlines by telling people what they want to hear about the food that's killing them, and every time it's unconvincing to everyone with medical credentials and only serves to mislead people who aren't familiar with nutritional science who want to believe these things.

Hell, here's a meta-analysis of studies that say the opposite of what that article states

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000252

>>5530294
>The problem is you can make a study say anything if you design it a certain way. The fact that one study out of thousands said something contrary doesn't mean we should disregard all the evidence before that point. No health organization in the world says anything but "saturated fats are bad" because that's what the overwhelming bulk of medical science says.

The basis for these conclusions are based on extremely unreliable evidence. Fat consumption has decreased since the anti-fat message has been spread from on high 30-40 years ago, and heart disease and obesity rates have only increased.

>>5528495
Agreed. When they start being right more often than being wrong, I may start paying attention.

>>5530322

>Fat consumption has decreased since the anti-fat message has been spread from on high 30-40 years ago, and heart disease and obesity rates have only increased.

Fat consumption is still very high in the west; the fact that other unhealthy foods are also being eaten in excess doesn't let saturated fat off the hook. More than one thing can be bad for you at a time. The saturated fat apologists blaming sugar and refined grains on absolutely everything is like the tobacco industry trying to shift all blame to the alcohol industry.

>>5530294
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638

>Conclusion: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Siri-Tarino+Meta-analysis+of+prospective+cohort+studies
>CONCLUSIONS:
A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

>>5530349

I'm glad you posted that. Let me copy and paste an explanation for how this meta-analysis that contradicts all of medical science found its conclusion.

>One major problem with this study is they did not look at any studies where the saturated fat intake was less than 7%, which is the level recommended by the American Heart Association. Most of the diets had saturated fat intakes in the range of 10-15% (or more).
>So, just like the studies that criticize "low fat" diets, but never analyze any diet that is truly low fat and based on the principles of low fat, high fiber, whole plant foods, this study criticizes the impact of lowering saturated fat, but never looked at any diet that truly lowered saturated fat to the level recommended.
>Another problem with the study is what the subjects replaced the saturated fat with when comparing the 2. For many, if not most, it was with either (or products containing) hydrogenated/trans fat, while flour, white sugar and/or mono fats.

In other words, they picked studies that compared high saturated fat intake to higher saturated fat intake + junk food, then used that to say saturated fat shouldn't be lowered. That meta-analysis gets posted a lot in low-carb/paleo blogs, where the person posting it hopes the reader doesn't actually look into the article.

>>5528470
My diet consists mainly of carbs, pretty much every dinner I have is on a carb base: pastas, rices, potatoes. Carbs for breakfast and stuff like soup with bread for lunch. Yet I have a BMI of 19, explain that ketoter shitlords.

>>5530381

That's what most of the world looks like. Carbs all day, skinny for life

>>5530369
all of these meta studies are based on self-reporting of the diet, which makes their results and conclusions unreliable.

>>5530381
sugar added copiously to everything, and reliance on processed foods due to modern families needing two jobs to survive and little time to cook from scratch, seems to be the biggest problem.

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/135/3/556.long
>The Combination of High Fruit and Vegetable and Low Saturated Fat Intakes Is More Protective against Mortality in Aging Men than Is Either Alone

http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/2/260.long
>It was calculated that a reduction in saturated fat intake of 5% of energy, a 20 mg/d increase in vitamin C and a 10% decrease in the prevalence of smokers may decrease the 25-year all-cause population mortality rate by 12.4% (95% CI : 5.6, 19.4%) at an average population all-cause mortality rate of 45%.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603726/
>Atherosclerosis is easily produced experimentally in herbivores (monkeys, rabbits) by giving them diets containing large quantities of cholesterol (egg yolks) or saturated fat (animal fat). Indeed, atherosclerosis is one of the easiest diseases to produce experimentally, but the recipient must be an herbivore. It is not possible to produce atherosclerosis in carnivores (tigers, lions, dogs, etc.)
>the only factor required to cause atherosclerosis is cholesterol.

>>5528710
>Just look at an Okinawan diets or a Sardinian diets
This is the answer to health ... time tested and mother nature approved.

For you scientist fags and whatever else under the sun ... reminder once the world was flat /in other words eat a dick.

>>5530428

>For you scientist fags and whatever else under the sun ... reminder once the world was flat

It was religion that gave that idea, science is what discovered the world wasn't flat

>>5530432
you've been had

>>5530381
you're eating mostly glucose.. grats..

try eating a diet consisting mainly of sucrose and fructose and see where it gets you.

http://authoritynutrition.com/why-is-fructose-bad-for-you/

>>5530403
>not possible to produce on carnivores

rekt

>>5530381
>implying one data point means a trend
>implying all people have the same metabolism and genetics
>implying being thin means you can't get diabetes or that you can't get heart disease or atherosclerosis
>implying there isn't significant evidence that a high carbohydrate diet doesn't cause the previous

this is what skinnyfags truly believe

Time magazine is more shit now than it ever was. It was never as great as a bunch of turds wanted it to be. The food related articles in it are worse than the shit in forbes and bon appetite.

>>5530923
yup

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26143255/ns/health-heart_health/t/being-skinny-no-guarantee-healthy-heart/

>>5530428
>For you scientist fags and whatever else under the sun ... reminder once the world was flat
you do realize that you're using Mac's stupid science bitches argument from It's Always Sunny, right?

>>5531392
>http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26143255/ns/health-heart_health/t/being-skinny-no-guarantee-healthy-heart/
>To arrive at the estimates, scientists analyzed nationally representative government surveys involving 5,440 people age 20 and over, and extrapolated to calculate nationwide figures.

lol I'm convinced

>>5530428

Scientific studies have shown that eating dicks is bad for you.

>>5528474
>>5528470
>>5528472
>>5528479
>>time isn't the only one to say this
>>look at all this other shit!
>>no mention of nature or an actual science magazine.
FUCK
OFF

>>5530523
>>implying humans where ever carnivores
what is needed to fight scurvey but isn't ever found in animals?

>>5528504
No I just stopped reading time magazine one I finished high school

>>5528470
>nding the war on butter: Are fatty foods really OK to eat?

Yes, since most people just end up replacing them with artificial alternatives like margarine.

>>5531704
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3603726/
limes

if i was at home i could post like 10 studies saying saturated fats are good for you. you faggots are dipshits.

i have 112 hdl, 62 trigycerides, 300 cholesterol, 69 ldl. on top of that my hs-crp and fibrinogen are all low - 0 inflammation in my body. my apob/apoa ratio is great and my ldl-c is also pretty fucking low (below 900). oh and sdldl and vldl is in the normal range too. i got 8% body fat.

so riddle me this motherfuckers, how are my levels so fucking good with a cyclic ketogenic diet where i eat 2 eggs a day (soft boiled), home cured bacon and a shit ton of grass fed beef. on top of that i eat A LOT of veggies.

what do i do? i don't oxidize my foods. i don't eat processed shit, i don't eat sugar - nada.

explain this. you can't. just go on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov and look for some studies talking about oxidation, inflammation and saturated fat. you all thinking saturated fat is bad haven't done jackshit research and you just slurp the governemnt shake.

enjoy that dead milk. enjoy that nutrientless wheat. enjoy your sudden cancer.

>>5532108

Your cholesterol levels are pretty shit. Until your total cholesterol is around 100, your levels are considered atherogenic. In the long-term, your risk of dying prematurely, especially of heart-related diseases, is high. Robert Atkins of course suffered 2 heart attacks and died, and on autopsy was noted for his history of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, and hypertension. He made millions while he was alive selling books that virtually everyone in the medical community violently opposed because it's misleading and dangerous.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/1/Atkins.htm

Read the history of these "low-carb, saturated fat is healthy" fad diets and understand that nobody of any importance in the medical community agrees with what you believe and the people who taught you to think that way. No the American Heart Association, not the American Dietetic Association, not the American Cancer Association, not the World Health Organization, not the European Food Safety Authority, not the British Heart Foundation. The camp promoting saturated fat are exactly as ridiculous and disrespected among scientists as the people attempting to oppose evolution with "creationist science."

>>5528663
>and not eating a lot in the first place
Mostly this. I look at some of my coworkers and wonder how they are still alive. Chicks think 100lbs is a maximum weight no matter how tall they are, which results in some Auschwitz level skinniness.

>>5531450
....and what sample size would please you, shitlord? Familiarize yourself more completely with the world of research before tugging your little red pud in such a self-satisfied manner.

>>5532132
welcome to the day and age of fear mongering bullshit.

riddle me this batman:
www.atvb.ahajournals.org/content/16/11/1347 (this is from AHA you dipshit. even they admit oxidation causes inflammation and is what we should focus on to save lives)
www.circ.ahajournals.org/content/23/6/847
www.jn.nutrition.org/content/136/2/384
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15666577
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18609060
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17991637
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16270280
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2582674/
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10064852
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10712395

you now realize these are TIMELY studies (post 2000) and everything YOU and the mainstream government scientists base their shit on is studies pre 2000. heck even 1990. you are either a drone, troll, liar, shill or something else. get a grip in reality and stop believing what the media is telling you is best. protip: innovation comes 20 years after its inception, because the system isn't ready.

next thing you be linking me to "PLANT POSITIVE" videos on youtube. get out with your vegan porpaganda shit and learn science.

>>5533226
Forgot to add these for the sake of it:
www*wholehealthsource.blogspot*com/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-oxidized-ldl-part*html

www*sciencedaily*com/releases/2013/02/130227151254*htm

>Time

reported for jewish propaganda.

>>5532108
>>5533233
considering I made a post taking the shit out of someone for calling humans carnivors I'd like to ask what you are doing puking all these studies at me. it has nothing in common with what i said, total non sequiter

>>5533244
you said my cholesterol was shit and saturated fat is bad. you also continued to say science backs this up.

read my post again, it disproves everything you said about "science hurr durr satuirated fats bad hurr derpderp" faggot

>>5533226

Your first link is a 404, your second link is a vague study from India in 1961, your third link is a 404, 4th link is a random study on mice that doesn't do anything for the point you're making. Just going by the way you talk about the issue, claiming the world's top scientists are all dumb and wrong, I imagine you started reading "alternative nutrition" blogs and soaked up everything they told you, not bothering to look at what the mainstream opinion is because they tell you not to eat the foods you like. The reason high cholesterol is considered the number 1 risk factor for heart disease by the vast majority of the medical community, including absolutely every doctor who's had success treating heart disease in patients, is because time and time again it gets proven.

>next thing you be linking me to "PLANT POSITIVE" videos on youtube.

I think I should, because I know you have nothing to say to them because they present fact-based, accepted science that virtually everybody in the medical community agrees with. You throwing a fit about not wanting to believe it doesn't change reality. To call it propaganda is like calling the American Cancer Society biased against cigarettes for acknowledging that smoking increases your risk of lung cancer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bSdnQ1MKGo

The difference between the blogs you read and the data presented in this video series is that these videos show the mainstream scientific viewpoint while your health guru blogs are the equivalent of young earth creationism. In fact someone even wrote an article comparing them, but unfortunately it isn't available for free to the public.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2296560

>>5528470
this shouldn't be news to anybody.

if you bought into the saturated fat/high cholesterol scare i'm sorry but you're a fucking idiot.

get rekt vegans, stay malnourished and fat.

How about this? Eat butter in moderation. And carbs, too. Also avoid foods that are overly processed and stripped of most of their nutrition.

Holy shit I can't wait for the money to start rolling in.

>>5533327
Not that guy, but since you're a vegan linking us to false information I have to respond to this shit thread.

http://anthonycolpo.com/why-primitivenutrition-aka-plant-positive-is-a-shameless-and-cowardly-liar/

This sounds like the last "saturated fat is good for you" article they published.

>>5533341
i will NEVER understand hardcore dieters. the best thing is they switch diets like every 5 years and they never work.

it's like the self-help business


just eat whatever the fuck you want, limit carbs and sugar. avoid processed foods of course. this is literally the only eating advice anyone ever needs.

>>5533351

I think he actually included this guy in his response video about being called "vegan propaganda"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOJKGbNYnsA

>>5533361
But just in essence of pure diet, how is veganism a proper way to reach your daily nutrient needs? Just log on cronometer and put together a vegan meal, you will lack significant doses of at least 10 nutrients. Unless you supplement you're fucked. And most supplements are synthetic crap that don't work as well as a natural food source because it's in vitro.

>>5533367
>lipid hypothesis
LOL

>>5533369
whoops meant to reply to >>5533361

>>5533361
You still didn't reply to any of the points that this guy http://anthonycolpo.com/why-primitivenutrition-aka-plant-positive-is-a-shameless-and-cowardly-liar/ raised.
You can post videos all you want, plantpositive does not address anything from Anthony.

>>5533367

>But just in essence of pure diet, how is veganism a proper way to reach your daily nutrient needs?

By eating nutritious food. Fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, nuts/seeds. I don't think anyone who promotes a plant-based diet is promoting white rice/white bread. Tell me what you're specifically concerned about, and I'll see if it's really a problem (won't respond for a while though-- heading out)

I do recommend B12 pills though, but that's more of a modern living problem rather than a diet-related problem, and eating meat doesn't guarantee you'll have good B12 levels

>>5533361
you can hear such dense faggotry in his voice. my cousin is vegan and he sounds like this.

>>5533386
Enjoy your mental illness, allergies, and cancer vegans.

>>5533358
>i will NEVER understand hardcore dieters.
DEATH AND DISEASE ARE EXTREME

THEY CAN ONLY BE FOUGHT WITH EXTREME DIETS

FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE IS THE BEST THING TO DO

Why are all vegans basing their science on studies done in the past? why do they not realize that we are omnivores? why is it so hard for them to grasp reality that a diet rich in all sorts of foods is superior to a diet concentrated only in meat, or only in fruits? why are they so spiteful and pro-science but don't accept any newer studies done about cholesterol? why do they dismiss inflammation in the arteries as the precursor to CHD/CVD?

>>5533424
confirmation bias. they have spent so long defining themselves by their diets they cannot accept that they have been wrong the whole time.

they have to pretend they're doing the world a favor with their "moral" diet. they have to pretend they're doing their bodies a favor as well or else the cognitive dissonance is too much for them to handle.

This was on the Rush Limbaugh Program weeks ago.

>>5533374

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FXV4MEO5s_E

Actually he did address Colpo a few times, including a complete destruction of that very article.

It seems like a common tactic among "alternative nutritionists" is to post studies that by their title or their conclusion text seem to support their argument, and just hope the gullible lay man reading the article takes their word for it and doesn't actually look into what it actually says in the full text. I guess that's the best you can do when all of your health advice comes from picking and choosing misleading data that others have published; unlike doctors such as Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish who were busy doing their own studies that clinically proved heart disease could be prevented with a diet low in total and saturated fat and high in whole grains. Atkins tried for 30+ years to get the same results but his diet conveniently killed him before he was able to prove his diet was healthy. Atleast he still enjoyed his millions of dollars from book and supplement sales.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-iCfyhNbo0

Actually he did address Colpo a few times, including a complete destruction of that very article.

It seems like a common tactic among "alternative nutritionists" is to post studies that by their title or their conclusion text seem to support their argument, and just hope the gullible lay man reading the article takes their word for it and doesn't actually look into what it actually says in the full text. I guess that's the best you can do when all of your health advice comes from picking and choosing misleading data that others have published; unlike doctors such as Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish who were busy doing their own studies that clinically proved heart disease could be prevented and even cured with a diet low in total and saturated fat and high in whole grains. Atkins tried for 30+ years to get the same results but his diet conveniently killed him before he was able to prove his diet was healthy. Atleast he still enjoyed his millions of dollars from book and supplement sales.

>saturated fat is a dirty bad no-no
>unless it's coconut oil, then it's magically healthy because science

fucking vegans

>>5534534

Coconut oil isn't considered healthy among anyone but paleo-kin and other internet bloggers. Even Dr. Vegan himself acknowledges it's not good for you.

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/does-coconut-oil-clog-arteries/

It should be pointed out though that "saturated fat = bad" isn't a purely vegan viewpoint; it's the viewpoint of every mainstream health organization in the world.

>>5533374

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-iCfyhNbo0 [Embed]

Actually he did address Colpo a few times, including a complete destruction of that very article.

It seems like a common tactic among "alternative nutritionists" is to post studies that by their title or their conclusion text seem to support their argument, and just hope the gullible lay man reading the article takes their word for it and doesn't actually look into what it actually says in the full text. I guess that's the best you can do when all of your health advice comes from picking and choosing misleading data that others have published; unlike doctors such as Caldwell Esselstyn and Dean Ornish who were busy doing their own studies that clinically proved heart disease could be prevented and even cured with a diet low in total and saturated fat and high in whole grains, by dramatically lowering total cholesterol levels. Atkins tried for 30+ years to get the same results but his diet conveniently killed him before he was able to prove his diet was healthy. Atleast he still enjoyed his millions of dollars from book and supplement sales.

http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21602984-why-everything-you-heard-about-fat-wrong-case-eating-steak-and-cream

>>5528479
>Moderate consumption is key

This is the only thing I can take seriously because ideas about nutrition seem to be all over the place at all times.

>>5534562
>but his diet conveniently killed him
Look who's talking shit now, Atkins slipped and cracked his head open on icy concrete.

>>5534702

>doctors and scientists say [this], but this random journalist wrote a book, so fuck everything
>Ms Teicholz’s book follows the work of Gary Taubes, a science journalist who has cast doubts on the link between saturated fat and health for well over a decade

Gary Taubes is best known for his method of interviewing important people and then twisting their words around, misquoting them, and taking them out of context, as well as digging through and disregarding hundreds of studies that don't help him to make up his own version of reality. He got fucked when all the people he referenced found out what he did and spoke out about it.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/105/Center_for_Science_in_the_Public_Interest.htm

No matter how strong the evidence is for one side, you're always going to have people reporting these things that go against the accepted medical opinions of the best doctors and scientists in the world because people like to hear good things about their bad habits. You can get a lot more attention telling people cheese and fried chicken are health foods than you can talking about fruits and vegetables, and attention is all a journalist cares about.

To get the truth, it makes more sense to listen to medical professionals, like this man who was president of the Cleveland Clinic, which has been rated the nation's #1 hospital for cardiac care for the last 19 consecutive years, and who has shown clinical reversal of heart disease in his patients.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYTf0z_zVs0

Listen to the doctors who are treating patients and curing our nation's top killers over contrarian fad diet promoters with no credentials and a million articles about health theories that nobody outside of their cess pool internet blog circle of self-proclaimed diet experts agree with.

>>5534739

A healthy diet would have kept him so fit he could have kept his head away from the asphalt, but he was a limp noodle.

Americans don't get enough exercise

>>5534739

>"slipped and fell"

Aka had a second heart attack.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/diet-myths-examining-dr-atkins-deathupdated.html

Atkins' widow first refused to allow an autopsy because she knew his health was shit, but they performed it and the autopsy papers leaked and she started threatening to sue everyone who showed them to the public.

>>5532132

Myocardial infarction, heart failure, hypertension. The man also weighed 258 pounds. His entire career was built around selling books, not improving peoples' health, and in 30+ years he never released a peer-reviewed paper that proved the benefits he claimed his diet offered.

>>5534770
That source is fucking terrible.
>cites smoking gun article
>"Atkins's death certificate (which you'll find below) chalked up the "immediate cause" of the doc's demise to "blunt impact injury of head with epidural hematoma"
>cites Snopes article
>"according to a copy of his medical records, as turned over to USA Today by the diet guru's widow, Atkins weighed 195 pounds upon admission to the hospital 8 April 2003 following his fall."
So basically he claims Atkins was in poor health and critically overweight when he died, but he shoots himself in the foot with his own sources.

>>5534815

How about this one?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/11/nyregion/just-what-killed-the-diet-doctor-and-what-keeps-the-issue-alive.html

Do people really think that being vegetarian is the best way to increase their lifespan significantly? Do those people who really believe that want to forgo meat and dairy for the rest of their lives for another (what's the claim?) 10-15 years of shitty old age health problems of every possible sort? Fuck that shit. Give me a heart attack at 75 or 80, max, preferably sooner, IF I can manage to retire at a reasonable time. En masse, human genetics are geared towards 60 years of decent living, another 10-20 of fast degrade from there. A shitty life of crappy food for another decade of the shittiest part of life is not a good deal.

>>5534839
If being vegetarian is a struggle for you don't do it. Most vegetarians including me don't miss meat and therefore do not suffer from a "shitty life with crappy food".

>>5534562
>Dean Ornish
>private diet advisor to Steve Jobs
>Jobs is malnurished and can't find off the cancer
>pancreas cancer
>implying veganism is healthy for your body's organs

man you faggot.. research what veganism does to your pancreas and realize why Jobs died. We lost a great man because of your BULLSHIT fucking Ornish diet.

fucking faggot get out of here i'm so mad

The biggest issue here is that Vegans/Vegetarians believe everyone is an idiot and eats mcdonald's all day every day.

Newsflash, I am for example a super healthy individual. Super healthy you say? Yes, I was on the shitty USDA diet for all my life, weighed over 200lbs and had poor health. I did a carotid artery scan and I had the results of a 40 year old at age 19. Guess what? I changed my whole life style around. I started consuming 50% "healthy saturated fats" such as butter, ghee, coconut and avocado. I then continued to eat salmon, chicken breasts and grass fed, animal welfare approved beef. Around 8-9oz every day. Every morning I also drink coffee and eat 2 soft-boiled eggs. On top of that I incorporated several Japanese dishes and Mediterranean salads. I stopped eating sugar and only consumed it when from fruits. Because I track my nutrients (all of them, even Iodine) I obviously eat a shit ton of vegetables EVERY DAY. Brussel sprouts, kale, spinach, broccoli, carrots, yams etc.

Guess what? With 21 now I did another test along my metabolic panel and it turns out.. yes.. I improved on every single biomarker. My new CA scan shows that my arteries are that of a 25 year old now. I am getting healthier. I will never understand vegetarians/vegans. They put everyone in a single pot and call them dumb americans for eating McDonald's and not caring for animals. Well, why don't you do something about it? You guys sit on your high horses looking down at people. Disgusting.

>every male american is on statins
>they lower cholesterol
>cholesterol is needed for testosterone production
>every other commercial is now "TAKE YOUR VIAGRA"

do i see a pharma conspiracy here?

>>5528719
Sorry the doctor you have chosen is terrible keep looking there are good ones.

>>5528692
>why would they know anything,
They are highly educated in the human body and health

>more than a study, for example?
a study focuses on a small part of health, this study is promoted in a sensationalist magazine. There is more then one factor that contributes/degenerates health

A doctor will be able to assess your individual health, they can rule out other illnesses you might have that would effect weight. A doctor can help you build a plan for your individual needs and personal health problems.

>>5535314

>I lost weight and started eating more vegetables and now I feel better at 21 years of age
>surely it was the saturated fat that improved my health and surely I'll be healthy 30 years from now

It's not even an issue with vegetarians/vegans, it's the medical community at large. Assuming your anecdote is even true, why would you think you've found the absolute perfect diet despite only seeing short-term results that can be confounded by any number of variables? Especially knowing that other people have followed very different diets to yours and have found similar results in the short and long term?

One guy went on an all twinkie diet, lost weight, and his bloodwork improved as a result

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/

And from that article,
>To curb calories, he avoided meat, whole grains and fruits. Once he started adding meat into the diet four weeks ago, his cholesterol level increased.

>>5535447
>They are highly educated in the human body and health
Sorry to blow your bubble last time I checked with my friend who's going to MS they have only 2 nutrition classes for their whole curriculum. They a very poor understanding of nutrition. That's why we have biochemists and nutrition doctors. Your family doctors knows shit - that's why he's usually borderline obese.

I am totally with you though, that you have to look at your own health individually. Get a 23andMe done and check your genetics. You might me consuming tons of meat but have the defective gene that is imperative for protein breakdown/synthesis. You might have a gene that disables you from dealing well with coffee - that's good to know too. And so forth. The more you know about yourself the better - some people strive on vegetarian diets, some don't. Some become huge atheletes on high fat diets, some don't.

We're all unique.

>>5535575
>his cholesterol level increased.
well there you have it folks, meat is 100% the enemy. don't tell me we didn't told you so

>>5528470
>according to a growing body of research.
Ah the 1950's were lovely. Decades of suppressed research suddenly show up and tell the truth that has been kept secret, people even killed to keep it out of the news. While not perfect or complete, it shows more facts than the complete lies marketeers have been repeating to you as "facts" for years.

>>5535575
The twinkie diet, lol. Oh well, we are on 4chan afterall.

>Two-thirds of his total intake came from junk food. He also took a multivitamin pill and drank a protein shake daily. And he ate vegetables, typically a can of green beans or three to four celery stalks.

So he basically made sure he met all his nutrient needs and then wonders how the fuck he managed to stay healthy? (20% increase/decrease in HDL/LDL doesn't mean jack shit by the way.)

You're also heavily mistaken if you believe just HDL/LDL are the only biomarkers you should look out for... I'd love to see how his insulin and other blood sugar markers did during that time. So your statement that his bloodwork improved as a result is complete bullshit. But whatever, it's 4chan.

I've been eating my diet for 2 years and I can tell you that it works for me, because all the bad shit's gone down significantly (especially Fibrinogen and hs-CRP levels) and the good stuff has gone up (sdLDL size, LDL size and HDL - but also all my hormones have adjusted to normal levels, especially my leptin and insulin).

>>5535758

So twinkies are healthy, it's just that you need to balance them out with a can of green beans or 3 pieces of celery

>>5535763

Exactly. Doctors are stupid and they don't want us to eat twinkies because then we'll be too healthy and they won't make money. I follow an alternative health blog that assures me that twinkies are good for you and I refuse to believe mainstream health authorities who say otherwise because I personally enjoy how twinkies taste.

Why is nutrition such a clusterfuck of a science?

Once again, the simple and obvious way is shown to be the correct way. Balance macronutrient intake, and eat a wide variety of whole foods.

>>5535820
Seriously, the only thing anyone can agree on is "eat more green vegetables".

>>5535820
Because sometimes 'scientific' articles have a bias
Also the human body is a bigger clusterfuck than nutritional science

>>5535820

It really isn't. Most doctors agree on the same core points of health, the thing that makes it seem uncertain is charlatan book sellers and internet bloggers making up their own version of health.

As an atheist, it reminds me exactly of the whole evolution vs god thing, where almost every scientist, including all of the most accomplished ones in the relevant fields, agree that evolution is true and that the age of the earth is a few billion years old, and then you have Christians who start with the premise of "the Earth is actually 6,000 years old" and then ignore the mountains of contradictory evidence and just look for any data they can twist and spin to make it look like their claims are true, while denouncing scientists as anti-God heathens who work for Satan. To intelligent people they come across as fringe luntatics, but to people who want to believe them and aren't otherwise knowledgeable in science, they sound smart and correct. The same is true in nutrition. You have the world's leading doctors and researchers all unanimously agreeing that people need to cut back on saturated fat, trans fat, and refined/junk food while increasing fruit, vegetable, and whole grain intake. Then you have the fringe luntatic groups saying not to listen to them and to just buy their book that makes them feel less guilty about eating the shitty foods they like.

Gary Taubes himself even admitted that it's possible to make anything sound scientifically accurate

>Perhaps the most telling statement in Gary Taubes’s New York Times Magazine article comes as he explains how difficult it is to study diet and health. “This then leads to a research literature so vast that it’s possible to find at least some published research to support virtually any theory.”

>>5532008
Sick maturity bro
Totes showed them fucking establishment bra
only read smoke signals now like a sick cunt

>>5535859
In my opinion, the obesity and public health crises we're seeing today has way more to do wih refined carbohydrates than with fat. Am I off-base with that belief?

>>5535948

I agree with you to an extent, although I don't blame the refined carbs themselves as much as a general overabundance of calories due to the fact that throughout Asia, where white rice is the staple food of billions of people, you don't see nearly as much obesity. In contrast, the standard American diet is both high in fat and high in refined carbohydrate foods, and having it both ways just makes it so easy to overeat. Refined carbs are extremely quick and easy to gorge on and fats are more than twice as calorie-dense as carb or protein. Add fat and carb together and you also get some of the tastiest foods in the world, so people will continue to overeat whether they're hungry or not.

Basically, while I agree that refined foods aren't good for us and we should strive to not eat them, I don't agree that it lets everything else off the hook. White bread being bad doesn't mean we should ignore the rest of the things that are wrecking public health

>>5535968
Administer contraceptives to/castrate/euthanize fatasses, of course.

>>5528470
Wow. TIME finally got something right. Good for them.

>>5534891
95% of vegetarians don't know how to make non-shitty food
they just have some overwhelming sense of guilt and self loathing that makes them think it's how it should be

>>5528495
Actually this is what a TV news blogger said about what a journalist said about what diet experts said about what scientists said.

I just want to know how you get butter to do that.

>>5535968
>what is resistant starch

americans, lawl