Comment by CuriouslyC | Hacker News Reader

Comment by CuriouslyC | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Just some research studies on the metabolic effects of saturated fats that might prove interesting:

Overfeeding Polyunsaturated and Saturated Fat Causes Distinct Effects on Liver and Visceral Fat Accumulation in Humans. http://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2014/02/1...

Substituting dietary saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat changes abdominal fat distribution and improves insulin sensitivity. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00125-001-0768-3

Saturated fat stimulates obesity and hepatic steatosis and affects gut microbiota composition by an enhanced overflow of dietary fat to the distal intestine. http://ajpgi.physiology.org/content/303/5/G589

The influence of the type of dietary fat on postprandial fat oxidation rates: monounsaturated (olive oil) vs saturated fat (cream). http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/12037652

Saturated Fatty Acid-Mediated Inflammation and Insulin Resistance in Adipose Tissue: Mechanisms of Action and Implications. http://jn.nutrition.org/content/139/1/1.short

Stearoyl-CoA Desaturase-1 Mediates the Pro-lipogenic Effects of Dietary Saturated Fat. http://www.jbc.org/content/282/4/2483.short

A saturated fatty acid–rich diet induces an obesity-linked proinflammatory gene expression profile in adipose tissue of subjects at risk of metabolic syndrome. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/90/6/1656.short

Substitution of saturated with monounsaturated fat in a 4-week diet affects body weight and composition of overweight and obese men - Here they show consuming monounsaturated fat instead of saturated fat causes weight and fat loss. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag...

I would love to look at counterpoint articles if you have any.

Do these studies control for carb intake?

A pretty huge collection of studies I have show that a low-carb diet, high in fats (saturated and unsaturated) is hugely effective in reducing bad LDL and increasing good HDL and LDL.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzEPvoDPVTV5SzJlSHV0Y21rZ0k...

When I was a neurology professor at a highly-ranked Children's Hospital, half the staff was on a LCHF diet.

Some do, some don't.

One of the big wins for low carb high fat diets is that people tend to self regulate better. I hear people say "I ate as much as I wanted and I lost weight" all the time. Thus it is important that calories also be controlled.

The big issue with carbs is that when you have too much glucose floating around, the liver responds by converting it into palmitic acid. Palmitic acid seems to be one of the worst saturated fatty acids in terms of metabolic effects, and hepatic fat production tends to result in increased levels of low density lipoprotein. Fructose is even worse than glucose in this respect, as its primary metabolic fates are hepatic glycogen storage (which is very limited) or conversion to fat. Note that these issues only occur when you consume carbohydrates in excess of your body's ability to readily store or metabolize them - consumed in moderation, carbs are just fine.

I could grab a load of studies from the appendix of her book, but rather than swap PubMed links I'd recommend you read it: http://thebigfatsurprise.com/

It shows you the human factors that led to the distortion and exaggeration of the science to maintain the position of the originating scientists.

This is a perfect demonstration of why nutrition discussions fucking suck.

Someone provides a long list of peer-reviewed published studies; you respond with a shitty book.

To add: this is also why many other discussions suck: politics, economics, religion, etc.

Everyone's a fucking expert, can disregard science because [someone on tv] disagrees with peer-reviewed studies, and there's no obvious correct answer.

At least on HN it's moderately fact-based, even in disagreement. If you dare to read discussions--dare I call them that--on somewhere like Facebook or Reddit...well, godspeed.

Nutrition discussions suck because nobody is demonstrably wrong. It doesn't matter if you can back your opinion up with a study, because the other can can back up his contradicting opinion with another study. There are no canonical facts, because the studies are just so hard to control. We know nothing, in the end.

Giving the benefit of the doubt here, presumably at the end of that book is also a long list of peer-reviewed studies that the author based the book on.

Both the parent comment and the book are essentially distillations of the current scientific knowledge on the effects of fat in a person's diet.

Pretty much all of the first part of the book is footnoted, chapter length disections of poor science in nutrional studies.

It's a "shitty book"? Oh well, all the parts where she discusses the methodology flaws in studies are completely bogus then, because you think the book is shitty. Good argument.

Still, you clearly know more than the Economist, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition and the BMJ who all gave it good reviews. We're totally lucky to have you here to enlighten us.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com