Why are there so many confusing theories and facts about nutrition?
For example:
- all Grain is bad/all Grain is super good
- Diary products are bad/ Diary products are important
- Not to many fruits/just eat as much fruit as you want
- 6 small meals/ 1 big meal/ 3 meals
And all of those myth are supposedly backed up by experts and science.
Everybody eats food and they think that qualifies them as an expert.
That's why 90% of nutrition and diet advice are anecdotes.
Another thing to consider is that not everyone is working towards the same goal. "Eat 5 meals a day" might be good advice for a twink trying to bulk but not for a fatty trying to lose weight.
>>36752383
Here's one you missed OP
- Too much water is bad/Too much water is good
It's all how your body fucking works, and most importantly its all in moderation.
people have different responses to food and different preferred eating schedules. Some things you gotta go by feel bro
Because life isn't black and white, there are different types of good and different types of bad and every food has it's good and bad qualities. Chicken for example provides a lot of protein but it's also the main cause of food poisoning.
Everyone is nowadays a fucking nutrition expert. One example is demonising fast food, it's not as bad for you as you might think, but the trend is to blame it about everything and that's what fatties even do.
Because there's two places you can learn about diet/nutrition from:
Either health institutions that are set up and run by the world's leading scientists in the field who give advice like "eat vegetables" and "avoid bacon," or by articles in magazines or on the internet written by journalists and other non-experts who make their paycheck by telling people they can eat all the cheese they want and that they don't have to eat boring foods like oatmeal and wheat bran.
Most people will listen to the source that tells them what they like to hear and ignore the quality of the evidence presented by both sides. Then when nutrition gets brought up in a discussion, nobody can agree on things because everyone's just asserting what they prefer to be true as true.
Well think about just on this board, where someone trying to bulk might eat rice and potatoes with every meal, some one cutting absolutely would not. Most non-artificial foods are beneficial in some sense, but maybe not for what you're trying to achieve.
>>36752383
Avoid high-glycemic sugar intake in all forms as it messes with your growth hormone production
>>36754847
So the general guideline, next to the sticky stuff, is to avoid artificial or processed food?
>>36752531
Who the fuck ever said too much water is bad
>>36756123
In general real whole foods that you prepared yourself are better than an alternative
>>36756156
>He doesn't know about drowning
Joke aside something to do with kidneys over working or some shit
>>36756156
>>36756156
Virginia Woolf right before she drowned
>>36756177
Key word being shit
>>36756156
>he doesn't know about hyponatremia
>>36756177
>water intoxication
>>36756156
Terri Schiavo
>>36756156
Something something if you drink too much water, it will make you pee away too many electrolytes and you will die something something
You have to run a lot and sweat a lot and eat less electrolytes than recommended also but yeah, there is a thing as too much water. I really doubt the lethal dose is even close to a gallon or two for someone with a normal diet and normal training.
>>36752383
Almost everything is okay in moderation
>>36756326
Okay isn't really good though
>>36756123
Basically
>>36756741
Are French fries or potato chips considered a processed food to be avoided?
>>36752383
It's impossible to do a longitudinal study where you absolutely and completely control for diet/nutrition/exercise. You rely on self report data which is really inaccurate.
In addition, paid shills release fraudulent studies that make it even harder to tell what's good for you.
Don't eat too much and don't eat trans fats are the only absolutes we have after 200 years of research.
>>36752383
Humans and our ancestors evolved to fill many ecological niches. We can eat almost anything but don't get as much out of it compared to more niche creatures (a koala is fine just eating eucalyptus). Therefore, it stands to reason that there are a lot of different ways for a human to be nutritionally sound, and this is compounded by your personal genetics and the complexity of biochemistry in general.
>>36756875
>Don't eat too much and don't eat trans fats are the only absolutes we have after 200 years of research.
Also limit saturated fats and eat a variety of fruits and vegetables
>>36757023
>fell for the saturated fat is bad meme
>>36757023
Fruits are complete nonsense and should be treated like a dessert, vegetables are aight tho
>>36757043
>>36757062
Idiots like these you can safely ignore, OP
>>36756875
>Don't eat too much and don't eat trans fats are the only absolutes we have after 200 years of research.
This.
>>36757023
This still isn't conclusive.
>>36757089
>This still isn't conclusive.
Yes it is. Stop reading popscience articles.
>>36757023
Saturated fats are good for test. Fruits are just sugar and roughage. Veggies are a meme and unnecessary.
>>36757073
>brought to you by the nutritional experts who say eat good fats like olive oil, coconut oil and avocado because of their healthy fats but avoid beef. (Ignore the fact that beef often has less saturated fat because I'm a nutritionist)
>>36757115
You have no idea what you're talking about.
>>36757118
I've never heard of a nutrition expert saying to eat coconut oil
>>36752481
>Another thing to consider is that not everyone is working towards the same goal.
Especially the corporations that run most farms. Who care way more about their bottom line than your health and well being.
Same is true even for non-corporate farms. A dairy farmer isn't going to promote the idea that pasteurized cows milk is a waste of time and not even good for you.
Most people have skin in the game, and thus have very biased opinions. A lot of idiots also want to appear like they know shit, and latch on to trends they deem written by someone smarter than them.
>>36757150
>>36757043
>>36757089
>saturated fat isn't bad for you
http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Saturated-Fats_UCM_463756_Article.jsp#.Vw2J8FNrVEI
"Scientifically sound research dating to the 1950s has proven the link between saturated fats and LDL-cholesterol, which increases heart disease risk. This body of evidence comes from the most rigorous kind of dietary studies that precisely measure what people eat."
>>36757062
>Fruits are complete nonsense and should be treated like a dessert
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/burden-of-disease-study-shows-a-world-living-longer-and-with-more-disability/2012/12/13/9d1e5278-4320-11e2-8061-253bccfc7532_story.html
"The package of seven papers totaling 196 pages is being published in the Lancet. It is the first time an entire issue of the journal has been given over to one research study."
"In charting risk factors, the researchers found that diets low in fruit were responsible for more disease than obesity or physical inactivity"
Refer back to this post, OP >>36752646
Some people learn about nutrition from nutrition authorities, other people google "[thing I like] is healthy" and lap up any clickbait article that makes them happy.
This guy on youtube says that we are meant to eat fruit like the apes that we are.
>>36756776
Deep fried foods are unhealthy full stop.
>>36757221
It's a good thing we discovered that link to saturated fat by feeding herbavors animal fats and studied self reported food diaries which is the gold standard of nutrition. Im glad we followed the advice of replacing saturated fats with healthier options like trans fats, vegetable oils and sugar like all the experts suggested. It's amazing how much we reduced heart disease and cardiovascular risk since then. Thank God. Bad science may be "accepted science" but it's still bad. And wrong.
>>36752383
Because compared to other disciplines, nutrition science is extremely young.
>>36757221
You're linking a study from the 1950 that has been debunked many times over, as proof of anything?
Are you some special kind of stupid?
>>36757221
>Scientifically sound research dating to the 1950s has proven the link between saturated fats and LDL-cholesterol
And more recent research has put the "Saturated fat == bad" myth to bed.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=chd+cvd&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/
http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638
>>36752606
>bake two giant pieces of chicken breast
>bake a pile of mushrooms/asparagus
>full as fuck
>500 calories
>go buy fast food
>1500 calories for a combo
>hungry in 4 hours.
gee i wonder why fast food is for fat fucks?
gee i dunno?
>>36752606
>being this delusional
>>36752383
everything is a myth the only thing that really matters is total calories ingested
>>36757354
The studies they're referring to were done on humans in laboratories. Metabolic ward experiments.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
>>36757367
>You're linking a study from the 1950 that has been debunked many times over, as proof of anything?
The study you're thinking of hasn't been "debunked," it's just had conspiracy theories built around it. The link I posted doesn't rely on a study from the 1950s as its evidence, it just says the data really started in the 1950s.
>>36757372
Why pretend you even understand what those studies say? From the AHA FAQ: "A report appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine that raised questions about the saturated fat-heart disease link. However, that report has been heavily criticized by experts in the scientific community and the authors have issued several corrections and explanations."
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/scientists-fix-errors-controversial-paper-about-saturated-fats
Fucking goober. "More recent research" as if you're even familiar with the history of the science.
>>36757446
Bro, I've seen you post before.
Why do you so adamantly cling to a losing argument like you have skin int he game. you're fucking wrong. Admit it already.
>>36757501
For the good of the board, I have to set you cuckolds straight. It annoys me to see people spreading all this bullshit about nutrition and confusing people.
>>36752606
> Define fast food
Theres a street vendor near me who sells broccoli, chicken and sesame seed noodles. Takes about 6 minutes from start to finish, even with fresh ingredients (you can even bring your own if you want and he charges just for the spices, oil and and fuel) its still about 600 calories.
>>36757335
Neither one needs to be deep fried. My question is what defines a processed food. Because the only requirement for either of those is to be cut with a knife and heated with some fat. A tablespoon of butter is enough to bake a pound of chips or fries. And they would be no more "processed" than some sauted spinach.
>>36757221
>talking about a study in the fucking 50's
>you
just delete that post
>>36757697
Fresh off the boat from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You've got no reputation here, you've got no name, you've got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on 4chan by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is 4chan. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it.
>>36752481
this honestly. everyone has their opinions and goals
>>36757727
>>36757532
I'm pretty sure samefag here just proved he's actually just a low test loser trying to make everyone else eat a low T diet so someday he looks just a little better reletive to anyone else and the tfwngf threads won't hit so close to come.
![Kleenex-small-box[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/Apv2hKW.jpg "Kleenex-small-box[1].jpg")
>>36757926
Second post is me, first post is some other guy having a laugh. You can tell by my other post a few seconds after the copypasta >>36757728
I'm sorry you had to learn that your favorite foods aren't healthy. Life can be pretty cruel. Here, have a tissue.
There's no perfect diet. Just fucking go by calories and win
Fresh off the boat from reddit, kid? heh I remember when I was just like you. Braindead. Lemme give you a tip so you can make it in this cyber sanctuary: never make jokes like that. You've got no reputation here, you've got no name, you've got jackshit here. It's survival of the fittest and you ain't gonna survive long on 4chan by saying stupid jokes that your little hugbox cuntsucking reddit friends would upboat. None of that here. You don't upboat. You don't downboat. This ain't reddit, kid. This is 4chan. We have REAL intellectual discussion, something I don't think you're all that familiar with. You don't like it, you can hit the bricks on over to imgur, you daily show watching son of a bitch. I hope you don't tho. I hope you stay here and learn our ways. Things are different here, unlike any other place that the light of internet pop culture reaches. You can be anything here. Me ? heh, I'm a judge.. this place.... this place has a lot to offer... heh you'll see, kid . . . that is if you can handle it.
>>36757926
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.
>>36758238
>BMJ
since the whole teicholz ordeal they've become the vixra of nutrition science
>>36756156
I told my doctor I was drinking a gallon of water a day and he said I should drink 1 or 2 glasses instead.
there's a lot of differences in the way bodies respond
not in terms of caloric deficits, but for example some people thrive on high carb diets and some thrive on the opposite
but in reality there's just not a lot of studies done on the health effects of certain foods, and it's extremely difficult to eliminate confounding variables in feeding (because people eat 3 times a day, and they're not going to eat the same shit for a long enough time to make significant health impacts)
Becausr most people are illiterate and form opinions on diet without taking into account everything
>>36758418
Please cite one fucking study on nutrition ever that takes "everything" into account. Do not post again until you find said study you arrogant retard.
>>36758238
>post studies
>they get shot down
>"I'll just google for more things that support me without re-evaluating my beliefs at all!"
>Because the trans fatty acid contents of MCE study diets are not available, one could speculate that the lack of benefit in the intervention group was because of increased consumption of trans fat. Indeed, in addition to liquid corn oil the intervention diet also contained a serum cholesterol lowering soft corn oil polyunsaturated margarine, which likely contained some trans fat.
This is a common flaw with these sort of studies from the 60s. "Polyunsaturated fat" was often given in the form of hydrogenated margarine so that it would be comparable to saturated fats like butter. It was a double-blind study where they didn't want the participants to know of any dietary changes, so they had to make the foods as similar as possible, and people would know the difference between unsaturated oil and a saturated spread. The control dieters were also eating trans fats, but wouldn't be eating as much. The confounding of trans fats make the data very messy. The mean duration to the diets was also just over 1 year, which, especially for the two horrible diets being tested, isn't enough time to see noticeable differences in death rates for a disease develops over a number of decades.
>>36758471
Because the trans fatty acid contents of MCE study diets are not available, one could speculate that the lack of benefit in the intervention group was because of increased consumption of trans fat. Indeed, in addition to liquid corn oil the intervention diet also contained a serum cholesterol lowering soft corn oil polyunsaturated margarine, which likely contained some trans fat. The MCE principal investigator (Ivan Frantz) and co-principal investigator (Ancel Keys), however, were well aware of the cholesterol raising effects of trans fat prior to initiating the MCE.77 Moreover, Frantz and Keys previously devised the diets used in the institutional arm of the National Diet Heart Feasibility Study (NDHS), which achieved the greatest reductions in serum cholesterol of all NDHS study sites.2 Hence, it is highly likely that this experienced MCE team selected products containing as little trans fat as possible to maximize the achieved degree of cholesterol lowering. Perhaps more importantly, it is clear from the MCE grant proposal that common margarines and shortenings (major sources of trans fat) were important components of the baseline hospital diets and the control diet (but not the intervention diet). Thus, confounding by dietary trans fat is an exceedingly unlikely explanation for the lack of benefit of the intervention diet.
>>36758458
"Everything" is pretty vague. But youre assuming theres one study that joins it all and theres no such thing, its up for the experts you retard.
>>36758471
>study contradicts me
>make up excuses why it's invalid
look in the mirror friend
>>36758496
Actually, it's up to the individual you faggot. What you choose to put in your body and the reasons you choose to do so are yours and yours alone. If you can't figure out what makes you feel good, perform at the level you desire and look how you want to look then you might as well eat slop that an "expert" made for you without ever questioning it's ingredients or nutritional value.
Tldr: fuck off
>>36758491
They say it's likely that the experimental diet used little trans fat because they were able to lower the cholesterol of the intervention group, but trans fats also lower HDL cholesterol, and they use total cholesterol as their measure instead of differentiating HDL and LDL. Another problem you could probably attribute to the time period of the study. It was a diet made up heavily of trans fats vs a diet with both trans and saturated fat, compared on average for about a year.
>>36758525
The problem is the only other study like this is mentioned in the paper, the Sydney Diet Heart Trial, from the same time period, also used trans fats in their experimental group and its results are discounted because of that as well. It hasn't been replicated by any modern study using actual vegetable oil.
>>36758536
>Reddit tier speech
Look "everything" had individual choice, culture, habits, money, etc
Not just nutritional data
Ultimately nutrition as a field is fucked
>>36757926
LMAO you're so lucky this is an anonymous board, you reek of insecurities fagget
>>36758615
High HDL cholesterol has never been shown to be cardio-protective
http://time.com/4279691/hdl-cholesterol-drugs-heart/
Mean follow-up for participants in this cohort was 2.9 years (median 3.1 years).
It hasnt been replicated in humans because of massive publication bias. Seed oil companies dont want to lose their highly profitable product
>>36758827
>High HDL cholesterol has never been shown to be cardio-protective
I agree, but low HDL is a definite risk factor, which is what we're talking about here.
>Mean follow-up for participants in this cohort was 2.9 years (median 3.1 years).
Not all the patient data was used. Because of that, they had a small sample size as well.
>Participants were followed only while in hospital, and only about a quarter of randomized participants remained in the study for a year or longer.
Of autopsies:
>The mean age was 69.5, 36% were women, and the median follow-up was 298 days (316 days for intervention group, 217 days for control group).
The AHA says about the same thing I did about RCTs and their short length
http://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@fc/documents/downloadable/ucm_475005.pdf
"Many who question recommendations to reduce dietary saturated fats rely on studies that the American Heart Association and other organizations believe are limited and therefore less reliable. For example, some claims that saturated fat should not be reduced rely on randomized controlled trials, also known as RCTs. One problem with RCTs to study the diet is that there are challenges with dietary adherence in outpatient intervention trials. Furthermore, many of these studies follow subjects for a limited time period and evaluate only CVD risk factors and not CVD events. However, since the processes underlying atherosclerosis and acute coronary events can take decades to develop, short-term RCTs provide limited insight about event outcomes. As a result, these short term RCTs may not show a significant effect of saturated fat on CVD related morbidity and mortality during the study period."
>It hasnt been replicated in humans because of massive publication bias. Seed oil companies dont want to lose their highly profitable product
I just want you to re-read this until you realize how insane you sound.
>>36758952
You have yet to make any convincing argument that a combination of linoleic acid and trans fat that lowers total cholesterol will have a worse effect on HDL than saturated fat and trans fat and that HDL is a bigger risk factor than non HDL in this context
>The AHA
The AHA is paid to shill the seed oil military industrial complex. The mantra that "measures used to lower the plasma lipids in patients with hyperlipidemia will lead to reductions in new events of coronary heart disease" has been disproved time and time again
>>36759207
Without knowing what the HDL and LDL counts were, we can hardly even count this as a trial looking at the effects of cholesterol-lowering since cholesterol-lowering is meant to lower LDL specifically. Given all the flaws of the study, you can see how this paper doesn't make for a strong point against saturated fats being harmful and why this and the Sydney paper aren't a talking point among experts. It's a messy pile of data that's pretty much impossible to get meaningful information about PUFA and SFA from. It may be useful as a look into how not to design a study though.
>The AHA is paid to shill the seed oil military industrial complex. The mantra that "measures used to lower the plasma lipids in patients with hyperlipidemia will lead to reductions in new events of coronary heart disease" has been disproved time and time again
Jesus christ, listen to yourself.
>>36759326
Its a conspiracy DENYING the MASSIVE ROLE that food industry and politics play in this topic. LA lowers LDL and total chol. TF and SF raise both. Less TF and more LA will lower both. You only call it unreliable because it disagrees with the PREVAILING THEORY
>>36759207
Lol oh god. I was reading all that shit and all of those studies just to get here and find out you're just a fucking conspiracy theorist. Fuck off
>>36759697
>Its a conspiracy DENYING the MASSIVE ROLE that food industry and politics play in this topic.
In this case it would be a global conspiracy to promote polyunsaturated fats and warn against saturated fats since every officially recognized body of health experts in the world says the same thing. You're a crazy person so desperate for anything to support your belief that, even after the first three studies you posted were explained to you as incorrect and misleading, you went to find this old short-term study muddled with confounding by trans fats and incomplete data records that nobody else has given a shit about for 40 years because it's not accepted as a well designed trial, and whose results haven't been replicated in better designed trials since. You're a crazy person.
>>36754862
Except for when you want growth hormone production, such as after heavy lifts. Insulin grows both fat and muscle.
>>36756326
Even heroin
>>36757023
The advice to avoid saturated fat and cholesterol is why every male over 40 has low-t and can't pop a damn boner. Shitty diet and being lazy are the product of fucked up hormones. People only do what their brains tell them, need to change what the brain wants.
>>36757114
Stop reading diet guidelines from vegan websites and the 60s.
>>36760001
Keep up with the thread, bro.
>>36752383
I was wondering about this yesterday
>high fat gives you heart attacks
>high carb gives you heart attacks
>high protein gives you heart attacks
>>36760029
There are a lot of ways to have a shitty diet and lifestyle.
>>36759781
Stay mad Crisco employee your shilling is not wanted here.
>>36759948
>food industry has no influence over guidelines
>CHEAP INDUSTRIAL SEED OILS and EXCESS W6 are bad ergo ALL PUFA ARE BAD
>science cant experience paradigm shifts
>ad verecundiam
>ad antiquitatem
>ad hominem
And I didnt dig it up Ramsden et al did and got it published YESTERDAY April 12 in the BMJ. You should go read their other pubs and stop deluding urself into thinking that Big Agri and their "health experts" are doing everything in the publics best interest.
>>36760204
>Stay mad Crisco employee your shilling is not wanted here.
Ironic considering if that trial went as you imagine it did, you'd have to believe trans fats aren't bad for you either.
>the all-powerful seed-oil industry that owns the world is keeping down the weak and penniless saturated fat suppliers
>there's paradigm shifts a-comin', just you wait
I don't know how these thoughts can enter your head without you ever thinking "maybe I'm just wrong and the whole rest of the world is right"
Fair enough, Ramsden et al dug it up, but it's just adding new data to a paper that was published decades ago. The problems of the original publication didn't go away. Like I said, it's a messy data set to try to pull anything useful out of.
>>36760345
>Ironic considering if that trial went as you imagine it did, you'd have to believe trans fats aren't bad for you either.
Do walk me through that logic.
>I don't know how these thoughts can enter your head without you ever thinking "maybe I'm just wrong and the whole rest of the world is right"
Tropical oils and animal agriculture are big and its rather unfortunate they didnt get the first pickings on some of ur "health authorities" but still != the whole world dingbat.
>Like I said, it's a messy data set to try to pull anything useful out of.
And LIKE I SAID that's just YOU being in the 1st stage of Kubler-Ross because it challenges ur worldview and based on ur posts possibly ur academic or seed oil company shilling career.
>>36760548
>Do walk me through that logic.
Because we know at the very least that the control diet included trans fats. While it's impossible that the experimental diet didn't, if you pretend that the experimental diet was all omega-6 PUFA rather than trans fat, you're saying omega-6 fats are worse than trans fats as well. The real kicker is that at best, you're arguing that a diet high in nutritionally empty omega-6 rich oils are bad for you, which I wouldn't even disagree with really, but that's not an argument for saturated fats not also being unhealthy.
>And LIKE I SAID that's just YOU being in the 1st stage of Kubler-Ross because it challenges ur worldview
The thing about my views on this particular topic is that they're based on more than a single small, short-term study with shady methodology on a handful of people that hasn't been successfully replicated in 40 years since, and it's in line with what every group of qualified experts believes is true.
Industry shills are one thing, but even worse is a denialist just looking for anything they can find to pretend their fringe beliefs aren't completely crazy, filling in all the holes with conspiracy theories, and ignoring everything else.
>>36757397
Gee I wonder what is self discipline? You must be really fucking fat and steal if you just have to eat after that. Also, who the fuck told you to get some kind of combo meal? There is lots of healthy options. Oh yea, I forgot that you're probably Amerifat kek.
>>36752606
fatty detected
>>36760762
Im too tired to write a thorough cogent reply to this right now tbqh.
So Ill just leave it with I never thought SFA are good in ridiculous quantities which is true for basically everything but AHA saying eat less of them because it will lower cholesterol is bullshit. Cancer lowers cholesterol. And look at Ramsdens other papers and the papers they cite.
Good night anon.
Would be interesting to see, what super healthy people eat?! Like some Greek grandmas who live on some of the Greek Islands (who eat lots of fish, fruits, veggies and olive oil) and some Inuits who only eat lots of fish and then some Argentinian rancher who only eats tons of meat.
All are healthy and live to a high age, even so the Nutrition is different. Maybe it's the sun and the hard outdoor work, who also help.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-20898379
What do you guys think about Paleo?
![1-s2.0-S0735109704007168-gr2[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/CEun0r1.gif "1-s2.0-S0735109704007168-gr2[1].gif")
>>36761358
>AHA saying eat less of them because it will lower cholesterol is bullshit. Cancer lowers cholesterol.
If that was your point, this just got a whole load nuttier. Yes, cancer can lower cholesterol, and that has nothing to do with the cholesterol-lowering effects of avoiding saturated fat. Cancer makes you lose weight, that doesn't mean advice to maintain a healthy weight is bad too. It's not like this is the only study that ever looked at the effects of cholesterol lowering. It's well established that lowering LDL cholesterol is good for heart health. That's been shown most clearly with statin drug trials. Maybe not every way to lower cholesterol is healthy, but this isn't the study to say vegetable oils are less healthy than saturated fats, much less that eating less SFA isn't healthful.
It wasn't a healthy intervention at all. Here's the original publication
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/9/1/129.full.pdf
>Procurement of suitable foods for the treatment diet, (with the desired polyunsaturated fat, which were yet palatable, stable, and indistinguishable from the corresponding components of the control diet) presented a great challenge. It was achieved through cooperation of the study nutritionists, the hospital dietitians, manufacturers of food products, and the Food Inspection Division of the Minnesota Department of Agriculture. Products that proved particularly useful were filled milk and ice cream, a whole egg substitute, soft margarine, whipped topping, filled cheese, low fat ground beef with added vegetable oil, and filled sausage products.
They just artificially recreated all the foods from the control diet using what would have had to be hydrogenation to match their taste/texture and make them impossible to tell apart. The intervention was ice cream, whipped topping, and sausage with the animal fat replaced by oils manufactured to be like animal fats. Just two terrible diets.
>>36761472
The inuit paradox is bullshit though
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25064579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749
Because you cant define health. The word doesnt mean anything and should stop being used on this board and everywhere else.,
Aside from the medical sense obviously.
Also
>hey im not in agonizing pain, what i eat, how much i exercise, sleep and socialize must be optimal.
>>36761778
Hey fuckface, your attitude bothers me. Rather than cut you down with the lethal steel of my katana, I'm going to leave you with a stern warning...
I know you are one of those people that sucks and slobers all over the dick of official seeming authorities, especially when it suits you. When pressed, you say that you are merely following the Science, that it has been proven beyond doubt, you end by questioning the mental state of anyone would go against what you state as unalterable fact. I know you, little faggot. Don't even think about telling me what year it currently is.
You and your desperation for one single clear consensus must go back to where you came from. This place isn't for you, and never will be. We will not be shamed into accepting the official narrative or general consensus on anything. This little patch of shit is ours.
The truth is stranger than fiction... People like you would rather we never look for it, just accept the answers we are given.
>>36756178
stones in my pockets that was an underrated post
>>36752383
>Why are there so many confusing theories and facts about nutrition?
Because nothing is knowable with absolute certainty and we don't actually understand how anything in the universe works, and everything you take as fact or proven is really just the best guess that hasn't been disproven yet, based 85% on a preexisting network of equally good guesses and 15% on observable outcomes.
We have hardware and software capable of operating at the same speed and capacity as a human brain, but we don't have brain.baks or fully fledged AI because we have no idea how the brain works. We have good guesses and a working model that seems to produce consistent observable outcomes, but that doesn't mean we're right or know anything about anything.
Even the microtear theory of how muscle is built has been disproven because we don't know dick about fuck.
Eat some food. If your muscle starts twitching, eat some salmon for magnesium; magnesium is the name we gave a thing that does some things and one of those things is consistently produce an observable result wherein your muscle stops twitching. You're going to die and all the people who will care will die too until eventually nobody is left and all the names we have for things and guesses as to why they work will be gone, save hard-copy publication in languages no other lifeform will understand. Which will too wither in cosmic radiation and cease to be.
Just eat some shit and live.
