I will treat myself to a bowl of Lucky Charms every once in a while, though.
What was the obesity rate in 1993 vs. 2023?
Looking in my stock cupboard, the raw fats I do get are probably the best bang for the buck nutritionally.
They were fine with trans fats being bad, but when saturated fats are also demonstrated to impact health outcomes by the exact same methodology, they resist it because it condemns their favorite foods.
It seems the health benefits are contingent on what you replace saturated fat calories with (i.e. replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats does seem to reduce heart disease, but replacing them with processed carbs does the opposite.)
The state of HN on nutrition discourse is completely screwed.
Dietary cholesterol not an issue: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6024687/
Decent Summary of our current understanding of the health effects of different kinds of fats: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-abo...
If canola and other scary industrial seed oils are so bad, how come it improves health outcomes especially when swapped to from butter? How come canola has even more impressive nutritional profile than olive oil? How come unsaturated fats improve health outcomes when swapped to from saturated fats?
Here’s a good roundup of the research: https://www.the-nutrivore.com/post/a-comprehensive-rebuttal-...
If you can honestly say that you feel good after eating anything fried in canola oil or soybean oil then I don't know what to tell you. Good luck with that. To me it is blatant garbage. It is disgusting rancid toxic waste. Inedible. I feel good after eating eggs or steak fried in clarified butter and have no cardio health issues whatsoever. Have been eating this way for decades. Blood checks are all good. No issues. None.
Canola is primarily monounsaturated.
> Saturated fat is essential for health.
Saturated fat is literally not essential.
> Cholesterol is nutritious
> All of that bullshit advice against saturated fat and dietary cholesterol has been completely debunked many years ago. It was fraudulent science.
You're spouting dangerous, pseudoscientific nonsense.
It is 35% polyunsaturated and whatever monounsaturated fat it contains is inferior quality for human needs. Rancid toxic trash.
> You're spouting dangerous, pseudoscientific nonsense.
You're a boomer living 50 years in the past with outdated fraudulent industry "research".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_paradox
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/317118
My relatives eat huge amounts of saturated fat and animal products many have lived to 100 years old (not a western diet). We don't have heart disease in my family. I've been mostly animal based for the past 20 years, eating multiple times the recommended daily allowance of saturated fat and cholesterol, and latest blood checks / blood pressure are perfect. Also cut excess sugar/carbs out of my diet 20 years ago. I am living proof for myself. Whenever I eat a meal high in canola oil I instantly feel like absolute shit, but I feel good after eating fatty red meat (burgers only with no fries or sugar drinks). The vegetable oil fries and soft drinks are what kills you. Not the burger.
But, yes, sugar is more consistently a problem than fat.
I think that is part of what happened to me. My blood sugar levels were going up, despite no changes in diet or medication. I wanted to see how much dietary carb levels were affecting that, and decided to try lowering carbs. Nothing radical--just lowering from the 50-60% calories from carbs that is typical to around 40% [1].
I did not attempt to cut calories during this. In fact I did things that would increase calories of some items. E.g., if I was getting a sandwich (50% calories from carbs) I'd order it with mayo or extra cheese or extra meat to get the percent from carbs <= 40%.
Blood sugar did come down, but to my surprise so did weight. It turned out I was eating something like 30% fewer calories, because I wasn't hungry enough for more.
[1] I picked 40% because it is easy to calculate. If something is N calories, it is 40% from carbs if it has N/10 g of carbs. That makes it easy to keep a running total throughout the day of how many grams over or under you are from 40%.
I also don’t think he meant every day
Nice work! You gotta do what works for you and I'm glad you've found a system that works for you. Keep it up!
People who haven’t updated their nutritional information priors live in this weird world where anything that tastes good is either too sugary or too fatty. Like, if that’s true, what are we supposed to eat? Baked Boneless skinless Chicken breast with no salt?
In fact, I worked with a lady whose job it was to put the “helpful nutrition grab and go” labels at the food company I worked for, and she had a lot of power over recommendations and her basic beliefs were humans should eat the blandest, least flavorful carbs and proteins, and anything that tastes good is bad for you.
Hard boiled eggs were a “red” item but a Cliff Bar was green. Her and I were friends and went on walks together every day, but we constantly got in arguments about what was healthy and what wasn’t.
https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/product/egg-mcmuffin.html
This, with a cup of black coffee, is probalby a lot better than a bowl of Froot Loops. The official per-serving calories for Froot Loops, with milk, is 210. But I would guess that most people eat at least 50% more, putting it as the same calories as the McMuffin. And you're less likely to be hungry again in 30 minutes.
That comes to 455 calories, 49g carbs (3g of which are sugar), 21g fat, 19g protein, 4g fiber, 1090mg sodium, and 250mg cholesterol.
That's 40% of calories from carb, 43% from fat, 17% from protein. That mix is fine on the carbs, a little high on the fat, and a little low on the protein.
The cholesterol is high (over 80% of the RDA for a 2000 calories diet), but for most people dietary cholesterol doesn't have much affect on blood cholesterol so this is only an issue for some.
The sodium is a little under 50% of the RDA for a 2000 calorie diet, so might be something to think about in conjunction with your lunch, dinner, and snacking plans for the rest of the day.
That's the key here. For most people there is no need to have every item of every meal or snack be nutritionally great in every way. Things just need to not be so far out of whack that they will cause immediate harm (e.g., not cause a large spike in blood sugar if that is something your body has trouble handling well).
What you need is for the average over time to be good, where the amount of variation you can have over the averaging period is larger the shorter the averaging period.