Large analysis finds that low-fat diets have low impact

Re:Large analysis finds that low-fat diets have low impact by Sharlin on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:36AM (#10500216)

One sees what one wants to see. There's also a correlation of consumption of any meat and health issues. I don't claim to know what is the real causation here, but presumably it's more complicated than "processed==bad", especially as "processed" has no good definition and is mostly used as a fnord to make people uncomfortable.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Large analysis finds that low-fat diets have low impact by dschiptsov on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @07:45PM (#10503824)

>There's also a correlation of consumption of any meat and health issues.

Nope. Meat is just an evolutionary adaptation which allows the human race to inhabit northern regions.

There are obviously some crosscultural differences in comsumption of meat, but there are no replicable studies that meat eaters of, say, Japan, Middle East, Greece, Georgia or Nepal are worse off than strict vegetarians of India.

This adaptation happened, perhaps, at Homo Erectus time, so, do not worry, everything is already OK.

What we never had in our long past are supplements and substitutes. One should look here.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Large analysis finds that low-fat diets have low impact by pd1 on Tuesday November 03, 2015 @10:35PM (#10504431)

We also never in our long past lived past 60.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Large analysis finds that low-fat diets have low impact by dschiptsov on Wednesday November 04, 2015 @06:13AM (#10505770)

I should have put supplements in double quotes.

[ Parent | on HN ]