https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM
Is it the type of fat, or the process through which it's extracted, that's most important? I don't know if the answer is as clear as we'd like it to be.
Going back to the article: Isn't it possible that the trans fat in question is actually toxic like other trans fats, but in a way that's narrowly beneficial in this circumstance?
Based on what evidence? Here's a good roundup of our best evidence, and it shows that seed oils improve health outcomes: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
Since you like Youtube videos, here's a good talk between Gil Carvalho and Simon Hill that also goes through the evidence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ri4S7MLu3A
Another summary of the evidence on seed oils by Layne Norton: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2fSaFnt0FM
I skimmed your video and it's the same old low-carb narratives with very little evidence cited which should always be a red flag. People who can't point to our best metaanalyses or human health outcome research on something to back their point will generally spin narratives because it's all they have left to do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans_fat#Health_risks
> Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils were an increasingly significant part of the human diet for about 100 years, especially after 1950 as processed food rose in popularity.[66] The deleterious effects of trans fat consumption are scientifically accepted.
> The most important health risk identified for trans fat consumption is an elevated risk of coronary artery disease (CAD).[72] A 1994 study estimated that over 30,000 cardiac deaths per year in the U.S. are attributable to the consumption of trans fats.[30] By 2006 upper estimates of 100,000 deaths were suggested.[73] A comprehensive review of studies of trans fats published in 2006 in the New England Journal of Medicine reports a strong and reliable connection between trans fat consumption and CAD, concluding that "On a per-calorie basis, trans fats appear to increase the risk of CAD more than any other macronutrient, conferring a substantially increased risk at low levels of consumption (1 to 3% of total energy intake)".[60]
Whole Foods, for example, banned trans fats 20 years ago, but they sell many products with vegetable and seed oils, and those are generally healthy.
>certain types of vegetable oil and hydrogenated oil shortened the survival of stroke-prone spontaneously hypertensive rats by decreasing platelet number, increasing hemorrhagic tendency and damaging kidney functions, which could not be accounted for by their fatty acid and phytosterol compositions.[0]
The whole article is worth a read. Note this is about vegetable oils in general but the discussion at hand is about lipids from meat vs lipids from other sources.
[0]Medicines and Vegetable Oils as Hidden Causes of Cardiovascular Disease and Diabetes https://karger.com/pha/article/98/3-4/134/272344/Medicines-a...
One possible exception to the “trans fat bad” thing for example is that when I last looked into it several years ago, Conjugated Linoleic Acid (“CLA”) which can be either cis or trans were generally regarded as probably beneficial.
Though frankly I’ve no idea how that would be. Regular linoleic acid itself is considered harmful (at least in the historically excessive amounts we are currently exposed to). It suppresses mammalian metabolism (being required by hibernators to induce the start of their winter torpor cycling), is very prone to oxidizing and generating free radicals and lipid peroxides which cause havoc in lipoproteins and blast holes in cardiovascular tissue, and even without all that it’s breakdown products tend to increase inflammation, though this can be paradoxically hidden by linoleic acid’s ability to suppress the immune system. But somehow when you conjugate three of the things together and get CLA, it behaves differently and can seemingly scavenge for free radicals.
Red meat alone does not cause heart disease. It’s based off the fraudulent study regarding saturated fat and heart disease, which the sugar industry paid for.
More likely, is the breads used in SAD (which have very high amounts of sugar vs other countries’ bread) has a much heavier hand in heart disease.
Further, the science about cholesterol and what markers mean what amount of heart disease risk isn’t even a clear science. LSL vs HDL vs triglycerides. It seems we know triglycerides elevated is not good, but it’s not clear on LDL and HDL alone (there’s also the size of the particle that matters in determining cardiovascular risk)
Show me a study of a population who eats steaks, vegetables, avoids processed foods, and is athletic and I’ll show you a healthy heart.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/13/well/eat/how-the-sugar-in....
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9794145/#:~:tex....
A lot of the recent research claiming that there's no link has also been paid for by industry groups. You can't just dismiss one and accept the other.
Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
>why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?
I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.
They're nameless government entities. Depending if you feel knowledge always grows you may change your ideas. Waves of ignorance litter the medical field today, as hysteria was accepted as the only disease women could have: the wandering womb theory. Consensus of ignorance is still ignorance.
There's no real evidence that high red meat is bad. There's no evidence that eating more veggies is bad.
I can't believe I'm about to spend time responding to someone who opens with this, but here we go.
>It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job.
Where are you getting this information? Looking at the CCS guidelines, for example, one sees that the authors are MDs or PhDs at medical schools.
>They're nameless government entities.
Not a single one of the bodies I cited is a government entity. What are you even talking about?
That is not they key problem as you originally laid out. Your original position is that they key problem is they ARE wrong. Further, I don't know that I've ever read any sort of paper or written guidelines that explicitly says "we might be wrong here." Should those all be ignored for that reason? The papers you yourself cited in a comment above don't explicitly say they may be wrong, yet you have no problem taking them as 100% established fact. This seems like a bit of a double standard and sloppy logic.
>Coupled with the intense lobbying
Do you have evidence for corruption in these institutions?
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-mea...
I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple independent groups of scientists to determine what the data does and does not say about what's healthy.
Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
You've cited the debunking of a demographer to try to debunk the work of cardiologists. Okay?
>Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet?
Once again, I, and probably the vast majority of people on HN, aren't properly educated to have a comprehensive view of the medical literature on the matter and properly digest it all. I'm not going to participate in a debate on the merits of guidelines published and signed by thousands of medical and scientific experts from around the world, to even try and assume I could do so with a couple of hours here and there when they're looking into these issues for 8 hours a day for years on end would be arrogant on my part.
>It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
If you want to challenge someone who might be able to give you an informed answer, your best bet is to talk to an actual expert on the matter. You can find some people in the articles below.
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
Ok…point taken
>..and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people?
In the last few years science has received a black eye because the populace was told we should blindly trust experts. We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. I can weigh their opinion, but blindly trust? Not any more.
So what? You're quickly approaching "Science is a liar sometimes" territory. Has scientific consensus been wrong in the past? Yes. So what?
>We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money.
Define "frequently," because I sure as shit haven't seen them be wrong more often than not, and I REALLY haven't seen them be wrong more often than commentators on the internet.
As a practical matter most of us would probably do better by ignoring the science and instead mimicking the practices of successful masters athletes. While there is a certain amount of survivorship bias, people who are still achieving sub-elite results into their 60's must be doing something right.
There is no evidence that participating in sports wears out joints. Joints evolved to move. The majority of people who need joint surgery lead sedentary lifestyles. Building strong muscles helps to stabilize joints and reduces the risk of injury.
Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.
Why?
>Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=...
Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data?
I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.
Rather, one needs to first do the science to understand the mechanisms, and 2nd do the labwork to understand the individual.. Then apply the mechanisms which will bring that individual to better health, and iterate too because often times the advice can either go too far, or not far enough.
https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale...
Checking out the research paper[1], the competing interests section declares that Chen “has patents pending on TVA and TVA derivatives.”
I don’t think the underlying reasoning is incorrect, but the way it’s presented is interesting.
That basically destroys his credibility on the topic.
I would be more skeptical if they made claims about benefit but we're taking no Acton to commercialize or protect it
Technology commercialization by universities is the way any academic research (potentially, eventually) reaches the public, and it's quite normal for the original researchers to be involved in the commercialization venture, as advisers, or as CEO. They know the topic best.
It's up to peer review and replication studies to confirm any effects. Even if there weren't any credibility issues with a piece of research this would be true.
You're probably right, but only because the actual problem has always been the excess calories.
Excess calories leads to energy poisoning, the cause for diabetes, with high blood glucose and high triglycerides being just energy excess that can't be quickly burned or stored.
Foods are not equal though. That saturated fat more easily leads to atherosclerosis, compared to monounsaturated fat, is a fact. So, if you eat a lot in excess, being selective matters.
Also, lay off the conspiracy theories, it's bad for your health.
The "Blue Zone Diet(s)" is still probably better than the American Big Mac and Sugar Cup diet, but it's unclear if they're actually living longer than people on other potentially wholesome diets.
no conflict = no interest
if the study is fraudulent due to methods then just stick with that, science is supposed to be reproducible so that nobody has to care about who did the hypothesis and conclusion at all
A churrasco or asado is a full day event. It starts with wood, and they get a fire going, and this last for hours and is a big social event. In other words hanging around wood smoke, now I can picture something that’s not red meat that could cause cancer in this scenario, but that never seems to bother researchers. They got the result they wanted and publish.
When a family member was diagnosed with cancer I was warned heavily about the difference between cooked meat and charred meat. Charring is linked to cancer where cooked meat is a bit more up in the air.
Looking into pork for example, it is recommended as an alternative because it seems to have a lower incidence of many cancer types in studies and it's a great meat to smoke.
Teochew people eat a lot of (from my anecdotal experience) and we don't have the same culture of charcoal burning our meat. I wonder whether a similar comparison could work for South East vs other parts of the Chinese diaspora...
A matched control study with this population and the general population is also underway, with the initial results being presented on Dec 8th at the WCIRDCD Conference.
If LDL is independently causal of atheroscelosis/CHD, it should be seen in this population.
Beef is also corn fed and corn finished which changes its nutritional characteristics.
If you want actual grass fed and grass finished beef, that's very rare and more expensive.
Something can help fight cancer and also be terrible for heart health. The body is a collection of complex systems.
Studies on red wine included people whose only source of fruit was red wine, which similarly skewed the results.
Too much of anything is bad, as is too little.
https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/trans-Vaccenic-aci...
Reviewing pubmed it seems to be a product from ecoli.
“There is a growing body of evidence about the detrimental health effects of consuming too much red meat and dairy, so this study shouldn’t be taken as an excuse to eat more cheeseburgers and pizza; rather, it indicates that nutrient supplements such as TVA could be used to promote T cell activity.”
I’m also curious about this being a trans fat. I’ve heard public health campaigning that trans fats are unhealthy, but this research highlights one as a potential cancer therapy. It is apparently another case of un-nuanced popular ideas about health and nutrition not being the whole truth.