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?