Re:The lactose-tolerance mutation
by troels on Monday October 29, 2012 @03:48AM
(#4711431)
In general, reducing fat (especially the animal kind) is good for modern people, since we tend to get too much of it.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
What you said was gospel in 1990, but nowadays there is much dispute over the role of fat in a healthy diet.
Re:The lactose-tolerance mutation
by ImprovedSilence on Monday October 29, 2012 @09:53AM
(#4712234)
Agreed, I thought the optimal ratios of calorie intake is 30% from fat, 30% from protein, and 40% from carbs. fat is 9 calories/gram, and 4 calories/gram for carbs and fat. At least that's what I try to go by when backpacking. but still, at the rate I drink milk, I'd be consuming way too much fat if I upped it to whole...
Re:The lactose-tolerance mutation
by seestheday on Monday October 29, 2012 @01:16PM
(#4713290)
I believe that the 30/30/40 ratio comes from the zone diet. To my knowledge there hasn't been any scientific verification on why this is the desired ratio. I've seen lots of other people claiming different ratios work better (e.g. some people claiming that 60%+ fat is best). I'm of the opinion that the ratios don't matter nearly as much as food quality. Does anyone have studies/references that can prove me wrong?
Eating non-sick/happy animals and animal products just seems to make more sense to me. Garbage in garbage out.
Reducing fat means it takes more of it to get the feeling of being full. The milk is also full of growth hormones and carbohydrates which we get too much of, so drinking more of it is potentially worse than a bit more fat.