I improved mine significantly by just cutting out processed foods. Almost everything I eat is made from whole ingredients, and no artificial or "diet" anything. I'm in much better shape, both mentally and physically, because of it. It also helps with portion control, since I'm getting the maximum amount of nutrients from my food, so I don't "feel hungry later".

> processed foods

> whole ingredients

These are utterly meaningless terms. You "process" food by cutting and cooking it. Everything is processed. Everything is GMO -- have you seen what corn looked like before humans bred it? Everything is organic. Everything is "whole". Nutrition is too complicated and too individualized for these nonsense labels.

> I'm getting the maximum amount of nutrients from my food

This is utter nonsense. Some processing steps remove some nutrients from some foods. Other processing steps add nutrients that you need. Plenty of foods have nutrients that are completely unavailable for your body until you cook it (many veggies) -- PROCESSING! Other nutrients are destroyed by too much cooking (Vitamin C, I believe). You better be glad the salt you eat is "processed" by adding iodine to it. The water you drink is "processed" by adding fluoride to it. Those last 2 are some of the biggest public health successes in human history.

I'm glad you're feeling better, but it's 100% from paying attention to what you're eating, and 0% from this bullshit about "whole" or "unprocessed" foods with "maximum nutrients". Stop spreading this bullshit.

What a weird hill to die on. I think you might be reading more "woo" into the comment you're responding to than is necessary. It's fine if you keep eating your microwaveable factory slop and keep convincing yourself it's identical to cutting a carrot or cooking vegetables but I'm skeptical you'll convince many people of this

> ” You "process" food by cutting and cooking it. Everything is processed”

No one means that cutting a carrot make it into “processed food”. You are changing a mostly commonly understood definition to a new wanna-be-technically-correct one you just made up only to suit your argument.

There is a grey area in the definition of processed foods, but it’s not close as large as your definition maintains.

There is no commonly understood definition of processed foods. That is the problem. People throw the term around like it does mean something but they can't define it.

Please show me I'm wrong and give a concise definition of what makes some food processed. The internet needs a good definition as these conversations always just end up with hand waving as there is no consensus of what food is what.

My dictionary says ”industrially produced food”, i.e. frozen and ready to eat meals, snacks, confections, etc.

The issue is that the plastics and non-stick coatings leach off plasticizers and forever-chemicals which cause hormone and neurotransmitter disruption in humans, which cause obesity, diabetes, autoimmune disorders, cancer and other serious disease.

This is a first. I've never even heard of a definitions of processed foods that is based on their packaging. But what you're saying is that it is not the food or things added to the food but the packaging that makes it processed?

Bread is processed food, and yet that’s insufficient to qualify it. I guess we need better words or less shortcuts.

The UN has a well defined categorization of foods according to the amount and type of processing [1]. You can identify the processing level of many food item by using this search engine [2].

[1] https://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/CA5644EN.pdf

[2] https://world.openfoodfacts.org/product/3017620422003/nutell...

Thank you for these links. If nothing else, the UN document at least defines what it's talking about. It's 3rd tier, "processed food", is basically: watch out, they added oil, salt, or other preservatives. The same people worried about "processed foods" are adding their own oil to foods (rightly so, usually!). But when a factory does it, LOOK OUT!. I mean, yes: watch your salt intake if you eat a lot of canned foods. That's real advice.

It's not until you get to Tier 4 (ultra-processed foods) that you start to see anything legitimately concerning. And indeed if the advice everyone was parroting was "avoid ultra-processed foods as defined by the FAO", then I'd care a lot less about it. Even still, the FAO says that ingredients added to ultra-processed foods include:

> varieties of sugars (fructose, high-fructose corn syrup, ‘fruit juice concentrates’, invert sugar, maltodextrin, dextrose, lactose), modified oils (hydrogenated or interesterified oils) and sources of protein (hydrolysed proteins, soya protein isolate, gluten, casein, whey protein, and ‘mechanically separated meat’).

Avoid sugars and foods with high glycemic indices. Absolutely avoid high-fructose corn syrup. Avoid hydrogenated fats; there is clear evidence they are harmful. Those sources of protein? Health nuts add that stuff to their soy milk all the time! Details matter!

My point is that there are specific processing steps that affect specific foods. Advice on how to identify and avoid those foods is fine. But that's not what anyone is saying: they're saying "avoid processed foods" and "eat whole foods". Those terms are meaningless as they use them. It's non-advice. It's water-muddying bordering on misinformation.

Highly processed foods tend to have higher caloric value and lower values of fiber and simple sugars or adding excessive amounts of sugars and fats.

I'm with you most of the way, but a lot of the long life prepackaged foods that are marketed to us are maximizing the bad and minimizing the good for the purpose of efficiency and profit.

Being forced to prepare foods from "wholefoods" (i hate this classification/tag as well) tends to make us more mindful of what we're eating and how much of it we're consuming.

"Stop spreading this bullshit."

Looking at the entirety of your comment, you should really apply this advice to yourself.

Highly processed or ultra-processed food is absolutely a meaningful term. The United Nations published so-called NOVA food classification which divides food into four categories by the amount of processing it received.

Category 4 is what OP was talking about. Industrially processed stuff full of preservatives, artificial coloring, hydrogenated oils, protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar etc. Unlike the other three categories, this sort of industrial processing is a relative newcomer, it wasn't even a thing 100 or 150 years ago, so it is entirely plausible that our guts and our gut biome may not be happy about it.

> Highly processed or ultra-processed food is absolutely a meaningful term.

And yet nobody said "avoid ultra-processed food as defined by NOVA". They said "avoid processed foods" and "eat whole foods". It's extremely generous to assume everyone reading the former translates that in their head to "avoid ultra-processed food as defined by NOVA". And the latter is meaningless.

Even if that is what they really mean, that's really surface-level advice. There are foods in Tier 4 that are just fine. There are foods in Tier 4 that are more nutritious than "whole foods" are. Note that if you add whey protein to your soy milk, you have just created an ultra-processed food!

It sounds like you're expecting others to provide complex-but-accurate advice when OP and most of the responders are happy with simple-and-implementable advice. A lot of the discourse around diets comes down to tension between these two.

Simple-and-implementable is something you can deploy in the moment without knowing things beforehand. If you're at a grocery store, you can ask yourself "is this really processed?" as a simple filter that will largely steer you right. Similarly, Michael Pollan's advice to "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants" resonates with a huge number of people because it's a simple, actionable, not very fussy way to approach eating.

Complex-but-accurate advice is stuff like 'let me look up if this follows the definition of tier 3 or 4 processed', or 'I have to have 5g net carbs today and this is 1.2g so I have 3.8g left'. This has a much higher cognitive load, requires a lot of research and pre-planning, and is unlikely to be implemented in the moment nor sustained long term. It's also a place where people can develop unhealthy psychological relationships with food and eating by being hypervigilant about complex rules.

Most people find their lives work best with simple-and-implementable rules of thumb for food.

You’re nitpicking

I appreciate your comment in that it has made me think about what a processed food actually is, and I think it's true that it's a bit of a gray area. Personally, I think my own definition of processed food would be things like Cheetos, Pizza from 7-11 or Pizza Hut, cookies, cakes, etc.

I did a quick google search and found that some countries use "NOVA" groups to classify how processed a food is, and I think it's a helpful guideline. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

Except that the term "processed foods" is a colloquial term that is ubiquitously used to describe only those foods that are industrially processed, thus often being stripped of many nutrients that you get from non-processed foods. Context is important.

That's a little pedantic. Of course all foods that aren't fresh picked and shoved into your mouth are "processed". But clearly the term as used here is processed with chemicals and fillers and preservatives and anti-caking agents, and the like.

Since virtually all the food we get at our stores is processed in this way it is leading to serious widespread health problems.

There is so much debate and disagreement in nutrition that "eat no or very little processed foods; eat a lot of vegetables and fruits; and don't eat too much" is basically all you need to do or say. A lot of people wildly overcomplicate it, but if you don't have a metabolic disorder or a clearly defined dietary condition, then you can have a diverse and healthy diet pretty easily. A plus is you almost always end up learning to cook.

Really? Are you reading articles sponsored by Big Ag or something?

Fats and proteins = good, necessary, healthy

Carbohydrates = easy to farm and store

Except you need carbohydrates. Many people consider "carbs" as bread, sugar and other "bad" things but many things you consider "good" are also carbs, like veggies.

> Except you need carbohydrates

Your usage of need is directly contrary to the dictionary definition of need. Have you heard of ketosis?

> many things you consider "good" are also carbs, like veggies

Veggies are not good for the carbs they contain (Fiber has some value of course, but not really as a carbohydrate), but instead for the nutrients (commonly known as "vitamins/minerals") they contain in edible forms for our bodies.

There is no purpose to carbohydrates in and of themselves, they provide one energy-burning source and certain classes of carbohydrates are consumed to provide important nutrients, but the carbohydrate itself is never a high value intake.

"Never" is a bit extreme. It's almost never high value for the average programmer Joe, but super high value for athletes, physically taxing jobs, amateur runners and so on.

Both carbs value and dread come from their quick, easily convertible energy, which used to be a big plus when we were all working the land or building stuff, but indeed has very little value when we sit on our assets all day.

> Have you heard of ketosis?

Do you even lift?

> Really? Are you reading articles sponsored by Big Ag or something?

> Edit: downvoters really need to open up Wikipedia and read "Essential Nutrients" > This is a comical set of people downvoting me while literally stating facts, because Big Ag propaganda worked on them

Regardless of your facts, I’d say the downvotes are from your tone here.

See the guidelines[1], particularly the first two paragraphs under “In Comments”:

> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.

> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Fats are not universally healthy. Saturated fats (above a threshold) and Trans fats are bad for you, the latter being very unhealthy and basically the worst thing you can eat.

Conversely, the right carbohydrates can be very healthy when consumed correctly.

"Essential" means just that, essential. It doesn't say anything about how much you should eat, how often, when, or anything else. Plenty of unessential things are good to consume, like non-essential amino acids.

The leading cause of death for the developed world is heart disease, and a diet high in saturated fat and low in fiber is a great way to get it.

> Processed food is unhealthy

Wow, citation needed

> the right carbohydrates can be very healthy

For what reason? Because of the essential nutrients they carry, which are not the carbohydrate? Or because some carbohydrate(s) ha(s|ve) some emergent property due to interactions with the body?

Right, the former

The person I'm responding to is literally saying: "I don't know if carbs or protein and fat are better for me"

I, like anyone with any knowledge of nutrition, am saying "it's obviously protein and fat, the stuff that helps you grow"

You, nit-picker extraordinaire, are coming in and adding "if you eat only processed fat and protein, this is worse compared to a diet high in vegetables"

Please go away.

> I, like anyone with any knowledge of nutrition, am saying "it's obviously protein and fat, the stuff that helps you grow"

Every major study comparing keto and other more balanced diets disagrees with you. Carbs aren't just good for what they are mixed with, but also because they can displace more harmful sources of energy, like saturated fats. Most things that are 0 carb, have lots of saturated fat and cholesterol. Note: Dietary cholesterol can have a disproportionate affect on blood lipids depending on your genetics, despite all the people clamoring that it doesn't matter.

It's not nit-picking if you're giving blanket advice that's misleading.

Necessary does not mean sufficient. In biology, necessary doesn't even mean harmless. It is often best to get small, or even minimal, amounts of needed things, like salt or iron.

> Necessary does not mean sufficient. In biology, necessary doesn't even mean harmless

Has anyone even used the word "necessary" in the entire thread? What are you on about?

> It's not nit-picking if you're giving blanket advice that's misleading

What advice am I giving that's misleading?

I am stating: in general, carbs are unnecessary for your health, and the goal behind consuming them should be to acquire nutrients, not calories from carbohydrate sources. Carbohydrate sources can help with energy, but little else. Eating healthy proteins and fats should be prioritized.

Thoughts of eating processed bullshit with full of saturated and trans fats is only coming out of your side of this conversation.

In the same boat. Lately I try to just focus on cutting out processed foods and sugar.

Minimize saturated fat (by replacing it with unsaturated fat). Get enough protein. Eat healthy carbs*.

* On HN and other social media, "carbs" is a euphemism for sugar and cake rather than beans and vegetables, so people will talk about how carbs made them fat when you know they're not talking about slamming back-to-back cans of garbanzos.

And don't take any nutrition advice seriously that doesn't break fat apart into saturated and unsaturated.

I think "healthy carbs" might be a bit too vague. There are simple and complex carbohydrates, and the latter can be further broken down between starchy carbohydrates like grains and fibrous carbohydrates like vegetables. There is nothing inherently unhealthy about any of these types of carbohydrates: simple carbs (e.g. fructose) are in fruit, complex carbs in whole grains, etc. I think it is probably more helpful to avoid processed foods rather than to try and label carbohydrates themselves as healthy or unhealthy.

I don't think it's vague considering my second paragraph. Frankly, I think it's obvious. Avoid the Coca-Cola and cake and packaged goods that most people are referring to when they demonize carbs.

Fruit and vegetables, go ahead.

Whole fruit is probably fine. Fruit juices are more similar to that can of coke and should probably be avoided.

Step one of almost all diets should be "Don't drink calories".

Become a HydroHomie today.

> Fruit juices are more similar to that can of coke

It kills me how many people don't know this, or worse think that juice is healthy.

Agreed. I have found it very helpful to not think about how "healthy" something is. Rather think about how the body will use that food as fuel. Andy Galpin has a good video going through the physiology of how the body processes carbohydrates. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdMOsnILT00 Once I had an understanding of how macro nutrients are processed in the body and how they are used as fuel I could better match meals to intended outcomes.

"slamming back-to-back cans of garbanzos"

I think I just threw up a little bit in my mouth ...

You're missing out. Here's Internet Shaquille's video on how to prepare them as a snack in 5 minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EU76q3Vf3Q

Highly recommend you try it.

Garbanzo beans have the texture of old ear wax, is sort of my problem with them. I have never been able to tell if I even like how they taste, because the texture is just so very off-putting.

Do you like hummus?

I agree, yet I love them anyway. Shrimp, on the other hand...

A different take on PUFAs - https://raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturatedfats.shtml

A different take in the same way an astrologist's blog gives us a different take on the planet Saturn.

If anything Ray Peat, a quack, says is true, then why do things like PUFAs improve human health outcomes in the literature? He says PUFAs cause atherosclerosis and SFA protects against it, so why does human outcome data show the opposite? And how many animal studies is he going to bring up?

Ray Peat is a good example of how far contrarianism will take you in the nutrition celeb space. Probably because we like to decide on what we want to eat first and then shop for claims that support it which is 10000x easier than deciding on what to eat based on the greatest evidence.

Here's a good post that summarizes some PUFA literature in response to the social media "seed oil" scare: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...

Great questions. I'm busy right now, but I promise to go through the article in the next few days and respond. I'm open to having my mind changed, though I must admit I started feeling better when I started following Ray Peat's advice. I wonder if it could be that different people respond differently to different diets. Have you tried sharing your article on raypeatforum? You say that he's a "quack", but I've never seen him arguing in bad faith and people there are usually friendly and try to be objective and open to new ideas.

Feel free to email me (address in profile).

Nutritional arguments usually turn into epistemological inquisition: how do we know anything about anything, and what do we purport to be our standard of evidence? Do our beliefs actually entail from evidence that reaches that standard? And if evidence isn't what matters, what does matter and why?

As far as I can tell the best research is that saturated fat is pretty neutral. Earlier research blaming saturated fat was flawed.

There is a whole mountain of evidence that saturated fat increases LDL cholesterol and better markers like Apo B. Placebo controlled, double-blind interventions. You can even run the experiment on yourself with monthly blood panels.

Are you contesting that?

That's pretty settled science. Low-carb influencers don't even deny that, so they instead try to hand-wave that high LDL/ApoB aren't a problem. Usually with some quackery over how atherosclerosis works, usually claiming that lipids only pass through the arterial endothelium when it's inflamed (false, they pass through anyways).

The balance of evidence showing that LDL cholesterol and better markers like Apo B cause CVD and atherosclerosis is so huge I'm not sure where I'd start if I wanted to deny it.

What research do you think is so convincing that it supersedes this balance of evidence?

I was going to ask what you think "LDL" cholesterol means with regard to its actual fractional measurement instead of calculated volumetric level, but then I decided you seemed content with your worldview and it wasn't really disturbing me personally.

As I get older, I find more enjoyment using my magnifying glass for discovery than burning

What exactly do you think your distinctions change? We can actually skip all that and focus on the Apo B marker.

Well, I'll do you one better: I'll dismiss the whole conversation about LDL concentration and focus only on the better marker most causally linked to CVD that's carried by LDL and other lipoproteins. (LDL concentration is merely a proxy)

So, don't put that magnifying glass away too fast: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolipoprotein_B#Role_in_lipop...

My understanding of the low carb argument here is that LDL isn't inherently bad, but oxidized LDL is and that LDL requires a high blood sugar environment for oxidation. I don't have any reason to know if that's right or wrong. I hope it's right, but I also have made efforts to avoid processed meats high in saturated fats (like salami, cold cuts) just in case.

Oxidation is what makes LDL recognizable to scavenger receptors. It's immediately eliminated from the blood.

We can actually wash our hands of LDL discussion because we have a better marker for atherosclerosis: Apolipoprotein B.

Even though LDL is a proxy for Apo B (you basically can't have high LDL and low Apo B nor vice versa), it's better to focus on Apo B which is carried by lipoproteins like LDL and is more causally linked in CVD.

You have tapped into a logical fallacy. A is associated with B. B is associated with C. This in no way indicates that A causes C. It just doesn’t. You have to show that A and C are associated, then you have to determine causation. You can’t skip steps.

I see this all the time in nutrition “science”, and it is just bad science.

Do you think there is no research into saturated fat and heart disease (A->C)? I beg you to google it instead of washing your hands of it because one guy on HN doesn't have the time to walk you through the literature.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat#Association_with...

> What research do you think is so convincing that it supersedes this balance of evidence?

You seriously need to ask yourself that question before asking it of others.

If you're asking me what the scientific consensus is or what the balance of evidence shows, start with this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_lipoprotein

Did you confuse saturated and unsaturated fat? Saturated fat isn't bad for you and unsaturated fats have some serious issues in how your body uses them. This comment feels like it was posted by someone in 1997

I think you might have them confused yourself. First result from google: "Saturated fats (including a type called trans fat) tend to stay solid and can cause fatty deposits in blood vessels, leading to atherosclerosis ("hardening of the arteries"). By contrast, unsaturated fats stay liquid at room temperature and are less likely to clog your arteries."

Nope, there are recent studies that dispute this. Of course, there are older studies that dispute those newer studies.

However, it is clear that dietary fat does not just directly go into your circulatory system.

is first result from google a good standard? agreed on trans fat being bad

Lol. That's like the arguments used back in the 80's or 90's against saturated fat, where the biased literature funded by the sugar industry produced commercials of people running cold water over lard to show that it remained solid hence clogged arteries.

Saturated fat is only solid at room temperature, not biological temperature. Put a tablespoon of coconut oil or butter in your mouth and see how it melts. More importantly, our body makes saturated fat. It's part of every cell's membrane. The science on which fats are good for us is still being debated, but I think the overall consensus so far is somewhat as follows: animal fats have more toxins (such as dioxins), and tend to come with cholesterol; non-animal fats are cleaner (whether saturated coconut oil or unsaturated types). Consuming too much fat blunts insulin sensitivity, but consuming too many carbs does likewise but in different ways. Carbs seem to be the bigger villain, but trans fats and low quality [rancid] oils are bad too. Having a good omega-3:6 ratio is anti-inflammatory and good for us. Eat lots of non-starchy vegetables, plenty of high quality protein, and reduce sugar consumption.

Data has been coming out over the past decade on how all the unsaturated fat touted as healthy is actually harmful, as it disrupts our hormone balance and increases inflammation. On the other hand, saturated fats are good for hormone balance, but I definitely wouldn't go out of my way to eat bacon or other high-toxin saturated fat. I'll just stick to the basics as stated in the previous paragraph.

The solidness of saturated fats has nothing to do with whether it is healthy or harmful to humans. Fatty acids are not transported by having them enter the bloodstream unchanged.

The strong scientific consensus is that saturated fats are worse for you than unsaturated fats.

The idea that saturated fats are better than unsaturated fats is a small minority opinion. It's all the rage with wellness influencer types, but it is currently supported by far less evidence than the consensus.

Who are you gonna believe? "scientific consensus" or your own lying eyes?

Show me evidence that replacing unsaturated fat with saturated fat improves human health outcomes.

You'll find that this "debate" cashes out into two sides: one side points to the balance of scientific literature on human health outcomes, and the other side hand-waves over mechanistic speculation.

For example, the latter side likes to blame seed oils when they actually improve human health outcomes: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...

> Minimize saturated fat (by replacing it with unsaturated fat).

No.

> * On HN and other social media, "carbs" is a euphemism for sugar and cake rather than beans and vegetables, so people will talk about how carbs made them fat when you know they're not talking about slamming back-to-back cans of garbanzos.

Maybe that's because nobody wants to slam down cans of garbanzo beans. Garbanzo beans suck unless they're made into something like hummus, and eating too much of that results in gas and gastrointestinal upset. That doesn't mean it's good for you or optimal in any way.

> And don't take any nutrition advice seriously that doesn't break fat apart into saturated and unsaturated.

Don't take any nutrition advice from somebody saying there are "healthy" carbs. There is no such thing, except degrees of contraindication. Only endogenous carbs can be considered healthy in a human being, so long as the body is properly regulating it.

Can you elaborate on why choosing saturated vs unsaturated fats is not important?

Also: to your "garbanzo beans suck" point- I actually love them—but not those awful canned ones! I enjoy raw sprouted chickpeas from our local farmers market on salads, or simmering some dried ones with onion, tomato, a bay leaf and some yogurt until they are just "al dente".

Garbanzos in a can suck. If you get them dried/fresh and cook them they are out of this world

>> Minimize saturated fat (by replacing it with unsaturated fat).

> No.

Let's make this simple: show me evidence that replacing unsaturated fat with saturated fat improves human health outcomes.

It's trivial to find sources for the opposite. Just google "saturated vs unsaturated fat" and find any article that has sources like https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

You surely must at least be able to acknowledge that you're posting from a fringe position?

Oh suddenly everything makes so much more sense as a non-native speaker ... I was always asking myself how people speaking about diet keep recommending to avoid rice, noodles and whole grains?

Just try stuff out, you have your whole life to figure out what works for you diet wise. You won't die if you cut out carbs or meat or only eat hard boiled eggs for a week or something.

It may feel like a huge sacrifice eating a hyper-restrictive diet for 2-3 weeks but you have thousands of weeks of life. Personally I feel pretty dialed in with a diet high in fatty meats (beef, salmon) fibrous carbs and cooked vegetables (raw vegetables mess my stomach up).

Currently I am playing around with my "default weight" and if it can be adjusted. There is a weight we all sit at if we eat a relatively healthy diet to satiety and I am wondering if it can be adjusted. i.e. if someone sits at 170-180 for years and then goes through some intense shift that drops them to 150, will they bounce all the way back to their old "normal" range or is a new lower one established where they can consume the same number of calories to satiety but their weight remains in the lower range.

There are different types of carbs. Generally simple carbs (usually called "sugars") are more likely to get converted to fat if you do not use them for energy right away.

A few decades ago food companies came out with "low fat" versions of snacks that had a lot of sugar in them. They still made people fat because people are more of them, since they thought the low fat versions were better for them.

And now there are a lot of people pushing low-carb or no-carb diets saying all carbs are bad. Your body does not process whole wheat bread the same way as a ho-ho. I knew a dietician who said being on a ketosis diet is as good for you as being on a cirrhosis diet. On the other hand, there are some breads that have high fructose corn syrup added, so you need to look out for that.

The same principle applies to fats. Omega-3 fatty acids are good for you, and other types of fats are not. There are saturated fats (aka trans fats, generally bad), polyunsaturated, monounsaturated (not as bad). Your body does not process these in exactly the same ways, so saying you are eating more or less fat than before is not really as useful of a statement as it seems.

So you cannot say that all fats are equally bad or all carbs are equally good.

I do not think the same principle applies to the other two macros. I think you can say alcohol is bad and protein is good and leave it at that.

Nutritionists will tell you what really matters is what type of fat/protein/carbohydrate. It's not one or the other. You need to eat plant based whole foods protein, fat and carbs too. For the most part, humans are carbohydrate processing machines (good carbs: like beans, whole grains, fruits, vegetables), these should be your staples.

I disagree with this advice. I think getting carbs as low as you're personally able to and maximizing fat + protein is going to be way more successful

source: me, a guy who lost 50 pounds 5 years ago and hasn't regained it

That diet is good for weight loss it’s not good for overall health. Search on google scholar about “Whole food plant based diet” you will find many studies on this diet especially focusing on cardiovascular health improvements.

A good starter is the BROAD study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nutd20173

> fats vs proteins vs carbohydrates

There's a Stanford professor who did a study comparing low-carb vs. low-fat diets. The surprising result: both groups lost weight.

My take (speculative): both groups cut out a lot of processed food. It's the processed food that's making us fat.

You may be right about processed food, but I have a more boring speculation: most people lose weight by starting any diet simply because they begin to think more carefully about the food they are ingesting.

The corner of the weightlifting world I keep an eye on has centralized around protein, veggies, and few carbs.

The other angle to look at is satiety; good food should also have a satiety so you don't go back and munch. :)

That was common knowledge in 1950 bodybuilding.

I have simple rule to start with that helps with so much. If it has a processed sugar, I don't buy it. (I have an exception for organic sugar because, how bad can the processing be?) This includes maltodextrin, artificial sweeteners, etc... (also no artificial colors or flavoring, also great indicators of how toxic the product is)

Why? Because if it has that one ingredient (group) it's almost always a low quality product that will make me sick.

I haven't had the flu for over 20 years.

I doubt any such consensus exists, but for me the number one rule is this: eat more protein. You can eat somewhat high carb diet and still be fine if you're getting enough protein.

Protein: Good, eat as much as you can

Fats: Some good (unsaturated), others less good (saturated), but mostly NBD. Eat whatever you want without regard to fat contents, but do make choices with less saturated. Your brain (aka your moods) will thank you.

Carbs: Some good, some bad. try to keep it under 35 grams per meal and 100 per day. Try to eat low glycemic/complex carbs. Avoid sugar and sugar equivalents.

I don't think there's a silver bullet. The % for each macro - if it's a low carb or high fat or high protein really depend on the individual and the specific needs. My wife for example can't go on low carb or she'll have major headaches even after the "adaptation period", while I don't even get minor headaches. Also the amount of fat may vary, high fat diets tend to be better for overweight people while healthy people are OK with more balanced diets. The most important things are defining an objective and understanding how your own body works. My current diet was made for slowly losing body fat (mild caloric deficit) and it's like this: Breakfast: whole milk, oats, whey protein, flaxseed and chia seeds. Lunch: brown rice, vegetables, meat (steak twice a week, chicken or fish the other days) Afternoon snack: 2 boiled eggs Dinner: lunch without rice. It works for me but the whole milk and the steaks are really bad for some people.

This might be considered an implementation detail, but I know that eating 2 or 3 eggs in the morning keeps me satisfied longer than carbs, and that that feeling of satiety keeps me away from grazing on more carbs. So, a win.