>all my life I've been taught saturated fat is generally

when people unironically went on keto diets

>>42676750
There are people here who have said they've been doing keto for years lmao.

>>42676750

This.

>>42676725
if you think eating avocado's is unhealthy you are retarded.

saturated fat is fine

sugar is bad

you were meemed by the jews.

File: ketogenic.jpg (289KB, 1777x689px) Image search: [Google]

289KB, 1777x689px

>>42676750
>>42676770
>>42676774

sure thing lad, its saturated fats that are evil

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

>>42676781
Avocado is mainly unsaturated fat.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/06/15/CIR.0000000000000510

>In summary, randomized controlled trials that lowered intake of dietary saturated fat and replaced it with polyunsaturated vegetable oil reduced CVD by ≈30%, similar to the reduction achieved by statin treatment.

OY VEY SCIENCE IS JEWISH

>>42676770
>atherosclerosis is an acute disease

>>42676789
>sugar is bad for you therefore saturated fat isn't

Brainlet.

>>42676789
>A is bad
>B is not A
>B is not bad
whewwww check out Bertrand Russell over here!

>>42676781
>if you think eating avocado's is unhealthy you are retarded.
>would need to eat an entire kilogram of avocado to get close to passing the 20g limit of saturated fats/day

Ketofags aren't scarfing down avocados and coconuts boyo.

>take advanced nutrition courses in university
>talk to numerous doctors, including cardiologists
>talk to nutrition professors
lmao no you didn't fag

>>42676789
lecturer looks fat and out of shape lol

>>42676789

>>42676809
Lustig claims that sugar is the root cause of most or all diseases of civilization and affluence, including cardiovascular disease, NAFLD and diabetes.

Lustig is also a Jew, a conman, a liar, salesperson and idiot though.

>>42676725
>advanced nutrition courses
>nutrition professors

lmao, how out of date is the stuff you're working with?

>>42676798
oops.

i eat coconut oil by the spoonful too tho

http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/it-aint-the-fat-people#section1
>all my life I've been taught smoking is good for you
>take advanced health class
>talk to numerous doctors
>tall to professors
>they all agree smoking is good for you
The same reason why scientists think climate change is correct is why this is happening. Nobody wants to be the "nutcase" who attempts to do what science is meant to do, cause debate

>>42676822

I studied health science in undergrad and am now a med student you sperg. I'm trying to unclog your arteries.

>>42676725
/fit/ has always been garbage when it comes to nutrition

>lol saturated fat is good for you
>lmao cholesterol helps you make test
>top kek protein intake for lifters should be 1g/lb
>muh chicken, rice, broccoli
etc

>there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

Healthy fats reduce risk, but no evidence of saturated fats increasing risk.

who remembers when oats + GOMAD was unironic advice?

>>42676781
>i am uninformed and proud

File: 1503888343355.jpg (34KB, 573x540px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 573x540px

>>42676809
>>42676814
Hurr A and B and C

He specifically proves with reactions how fructose creates dense LDL cholesterol which causes the blocked artery pic in OP. But you blame Saturated fats for doing that.

>>42676867
>amerifats saw the actual good advice of 1g/kg protein intake
>"BIGGER IS BETTER"
>why do i have kidney stones

File: MPW-48706.jpg (88KB, 600x472px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 600x472px

>>42676856
Tell that to hurricane Harvey

>>42676867
>saturated fat is good for you

Dietary saturated fat is necessary and not evil

>cholesterol helps you make test

Dietary cholesterol aids production yes

>top keke protein intake for lifters should be 1g/lb

It's true, but we're talking about lean mass you fucking retard, not total body weight

>chicken, rice, broccoli

You mean good carbs, good protein and god tier veg?

Kill yourself.

>>42676855
>literally no better than butter

But why?

>>42676875
>prospective cohort studies

disregarded

>>42676856
surely you realise smoking is a bad example?

>>42676887
>1g/kg

Holy shit, never fucking open your dumb fucking mouth again.

File: ss victim.jpg (22KB, 351x484px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 351x484px

>>42676880

>>42676900
well done, you fell for all the memes!

File: e36.jpg (60KB, 882x731px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 882x731px

>>42676882
>he thinks saturated fat consumption doesn't increase LDL

Hmm...

>>42676905
Nah. Go back to the 70s and you'll see a bunch of doctors being paid to say smoking is good. Other doctors followed along with group think. Perfect example, anon

Except in this case it's the sugar industry funding studies in the 70s to hide the fact sugar gives you diabetes

Nutitionists are mouse fucking hacks, and doctors have no training or experience to guide dietary suggestions at all. If you're fit, you can eat basically whatever, you will not get metabolic disease or athersclerosis.

>>42676918
>he doesn't know that 80-140g/day is plenty for anyone not blasting roids or training 3+ hours a day
>he doesn't realize that protein takes a significant amount of energy for the body to process which takes away from the body's recovery capacity
>he doesn't realize that carbs are much more anabolic and growth promoting once base protein requirements are met, and allow for more energy for hard training sessions
>never gonna make it protonfeg

>>42676875
>People still citing Siri-Tarino
Holy dogshit

>>42676882
What you don't realize is that Lustig is lying to you, and twisting the science in very obvious and cringy ways. You might want to actually study physiology and biochemistry before you let some turbo-quack Jew on the internet ruin your health with memes.

Also any high-carbohydrate low-fat diet, including high-sugar, immediately tanks LDL cholesterol to <70 within a week in healthy normal-weight people. That isn't debated, not even by low-carbers.

High-carb can increase PRE-BETA VLDL-TG, but beta LDL is relevant (see recent consensus statement by panel of international experts https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28444290 )

>>42676894
Are you fucking serious?

>>42676969
>look at me guys I know more than people who have dedicated their lives to this topic!

So how the fuck do you know more about saturated fats than nutritionists and doctors?

>f you're fit, you can eat basically whatever, you will not get metabolic disease or athersclerosis.

Wow you're telling me if I'm already healthy I won't develop a disease? That's the definition of being fit you tard.

>>42676948
>sugar gives you diabetes
>morbidly obese people on a diet consisting of nothing but table sugar and vitamin pills actually reverse their diabetes

>>42676882
>dense LDL
>dense low density lipoprotein

>>42676948
https://academic.oup.com/her/article/20/1/101/632608/Tobacco-or-health-1602-an-Elizabethan-doctor

people knew it was bad for hundreds of years desu

>>42676991
I'm a biotech fag, I AM in the field. The saturated fats maymay was invented by the same people who said calorie restriction improves longevity because lab mice fed less then ad libitum lived longer, when this effect was actually just caused by the fact that ad libitum fed mice are all morbidly obese, so of course they live longer if you put them on a diet.

Plus, rodents don't even get athersclerosis without drug intervention, so their model for that is dogshit

>>42677014
LDL pattern B smart guy
37:00

>>42676999
That's just literally not true

>>42676725

>saturated fat consumption correlates with coronary heart disease
>therefore saturated fat consumption is bad
>well done lads, we're through here

Diets high in saturated fats, in conjunction with high sugar consumption (especially processed sugar) and an excess of calories, is what's bad for you. If you eat lots of saturated fat with minimal sugar and regularly exercise, you will be perfectly fine.

>>42677045
Caloric restriction studies have moved far beyond rodents; CR in rhesus monkeys have delayed the effects of aging. We're even aware of the cellular mechanisms that are most likely at play, such as reduced inactivation of the PI3K-mTORC1 pathway, so it's quite possible that CR in humans might extend lifespan (albeit probably for only a few years).

That's beside the point. You can't shit on the entire field without a fair bit of evidence m80. How many more RCTs need to be published before it's accepted as fact that saturated fat is bad for you?

File: doctors-tobacco.jpg (72KB, 393x512px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 393x512px

>>42676999
Proofs required vegan.
Unless it was a significant calorie deficit I don't see how this could happen
Carbs cause insulin to rise, simple carbs cause insulin to rise faster, increase in simple carbs cause insulin to be high all the time, this eventually causes insulin resistance, insulin resistance is diabetes

>>42677016
I'm not talking about back then. I'm talking about the group think that happened where doctors encouraged tobacoo use

>>42677115
reduced activation**

>>42676725
/fit/ generally likes to think they are smarter than someone with a PhD. Why do you think everyone here says SS and PP are bad books?

>>42677103
>If you eat lots of saturated fat with minimal sugar and regularly exercise, you will be perfectly fine.
Absolutely not.
It's actually the other way around - independent harm from refined sugar has never been found without weight gain. Saturated fat on the other hand is always toxic at high intakes

>>42677115
"Calorie restriction" doesn't exist. When you restrict calories, you lose weight until you die.

>>42677125
>Carbs cause insulin to rise, simple carbs cause insulin to rise faster, increase in simple carbs cause insulin to be high all the time, this eventually causes insulin resistance, insulin resistance is diabetes
That's not how that works at all.

>>42676725
The "everyone says it so it must be true" meme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFsQ4SET2nw

>>42677115
you have to understand, people who have a bachelors degree like to think they are much more educated than someone who is not a degree holder. Even I was humbled on this site many times and when i went back in for a 2nd degree to college.

>>42677115
All lab animals overeat when given the opportunity. All they prove is that obesity is bad for you, and no fucking shit.
Rapamycin's been a dead end for years, which you would know if you weren't a layman faggot.
Studies of the population, IE, fucking normies, are incapable of accounting for the fact that two thirds of people are sedentary and fat, and most of what's left is sedentary and skinnyfat, and that positive dietary choices are tightly correlated with greater exercise frequency and lower body fat percentage

But what really convinces me, personally, is that genuinely active and healthy weight people just don't fucking get athersclerosis or diabetes

>>42677185
>leading medical experts say it's true
>roiding fags on an afghan tapestry weaving message board say it's false
hmm..

File: daflk.gif (3MB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 480x270px

>>42676725
>doctors
General doctors are like engineers, not scientists. They follow doctrine, they don't make discoveries or know the latest studies. Most doctors think total cholesterol is a good measure of heart disease risk. In reality the ratio of HDL to LDL is the only predictor of heart disease. Doctors still get that one wrong even though the doctrine changed years ago.
>cardiologists
These guys are only slightly ahead of general practitioner doctors.
>"nutrition professors"
These people know less than doctors, I could literally shit out a nutrition professorship.

M8 my sister has a phd and assisted on a study about saturated fats for years but even she didn't know that the saturated fats meme was disproven by meta-analysis. I literally shattered her world when I told her and she looked it up. Now she questions everything in her field of study. Academia is cucked because apparently nobody looks at the actual data, they just believe what is repeated by the previous generation.

You're probably the type of faggot who believes anyone in authority. You probably believe Stephen Hawking when he said the atmosphere of the earth will be like Venus, 250 degrees and raining sulphuric acid because of man made global warming. Classic intellectual yet idiot. You only believe something because the rest of your peer group does and you subconsciously hope it ingratiates you with them, not because it is proven.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-intellectual-yet-idiot-13211e2d0577

>>42677231

>All they prove is that obesity is bad for you, and no fucking shit.

Semantics aside, when CR first came onto the scene in the 30s, it wasn't obvious that energy reduction would improve health. Now, the focus is on understanding the cellular processes that lead to health improvements under CR and creating drugs that mimic the effects.

>Rapamycin's been a dead end for years, which you would know if you weren't a layman faggot.

I worked directly under David Sabatini, the dude who discovered how rapamycin works. You don't know shit about shit, especially about modern mTOR inhibitors.

>Studies of the population, IE, fucking normies, are incapable of accounting for the fact that two thirds of people are sedentary and fat, and most of what's left is sedentary and skinnyfat, and that positive dietary choices are tightly correlated with greater exercise frequency and lower body fat percentage

That's why we need RCTs that account for all these factors at baseline, not shitty cohort studies.

Oh look, we do have these RCTs! >>42676798

>But what really convinces me, personally, is that genuinely active and healthy weight people just don't fucking get athersclerosis or diabetes

They can and do. A healthy weight person is obviously at less of a risk, but healthy weight doesn't mean good blood profile, and large consumption of saturated fats is a good way of disrupting blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels.

>>42677334
>M8 my sister has a phd and assisted on a study about saturated fats for years but even she didn't know that the saturated fats meme was disproven by meta-analysis.

Go ahead, post a link.

>inb4 the Siri-Tarino paper

>>42677481
It will probably be de Souza, or maybe Hamley if he's really up to date

File: Taubes.jpg (7KB, 192x293px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 192x293px

>docs tell ppl NO SAT FAT
>only healthy ppl listen to docs
>skewed statistics.jpg
>unhealthy slobs still eat SAT FAT
>and sugar
>and poly fats
>and cancer fats
>die
>rebel healthy eaters eat SAT FAT
>ignored
>docs blame it all on SAT FAT
>mfw

>>42677544
>i have no understanding of science yet i feel qualified to criticize it

>>42677481
>inb4 evidence that proves me wrong

kek, thanks for proving my point about you.

Here's another meta-analysis though : http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978

Stay blue-pilled bitch nigga.

>>42677463
>Now, the focus is on understanding the cellular processes that lead to health improvements under CR and creating drugs that mimic the effects.
Yeah, a titanic effor that produced dead ends and zero drugs
>I worked directly under David Sabatini,
Bullshit
You don't know shit about shit, especially about modern mTOR inhibitors
I know they don't do fuck
>That's why we need RCTs that account for all these factors at baseline
Swapping out parts of a fatty's diet has no implications for people of healthy weight. We already know why fat people get metabolic disease, they're FUCKING FAT.
>They can and do. A healthy weight person is obviously at less of a risk, but healthy weight doesn't mean good blood profile
Skinny fats can have mediocre cholesterol numbers and blood pressure because in spite of a normal BMI, their body fat is still elevated and their lean mass and basal metabolic rates are low. Lean and active people almost never have these problems.

>>42676725
>When did you realize /fit/ gives garbage nutrition advice?
Since always? This is 4chan bro

File: 1499272408043.png (29KB, 741x568px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 741x568px

>the (((medical establishment)))
>4chan
which one is more reliable?

>>42677638

>inb4 evidence that proves me wrong

You do know Sini has been thoroughly debunked, right? You're the one who's dogmatically latching onto these studies without a shred of critical thinking.

>observational studies

Fuck sake you're such a chump. First, they relied on food questionnaires. Second, the article looked at the data in 2 ways: most adjusted for covariates and least adjusted. Only the most adjusted data were reported in the abstract, yet the least unadjusted data showed a significant relationship between intake of saturated fats and increased all-cause mortality, mortality from cardiovascular disease, prevalence of CHD, risk of stroke and of T2DM. The paper has an overadjustment bias.

Here's de Souza's own advice:

>we should not ignore stronger and consistent evidence from better-designed studies that eating less saturated fat … reduces the chance of developing or dying from heart disease

>>42676926
is this supposed to be bad
if that was GOMAD and he's been progressing, he just needs to change up the program/add accessories and cut

>>42676781

Everyone who says saturated fat is bad will also tell you that sugar is bad. Why do fatheads always try to scapegoat with sugar as if nothing else could be unhealthy in addition to refined sugar?

That sugar is a poisonous terrible substance

It's really not, it's just consumed in excess very often

File: honlulu.png (556KB, 1149x730px) Image search: [Google]

556KB, 1149x730px

>>42676875

Anyone interested in this sort of thing take a watch of these videos that break down the studies used in this dairy industry funded meta-analysis. You'll get a better understanding of how studies can report misleading conclusions without actually falsifying data, and why you should be wary of people making claims that saturated fat is good for you. If you're not familiar with research like this, a phrase taken out of context can be used to make you believe anything.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-Tx9dCbv-g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Wi9dzkTiU4

>>42677738
Just today Salim Yusuf and his butt buddies at McMaster published their new epidemiological toilet paper in the Lancet with "valuable feedback" from de Souza. What do ya know - carbs bad, saturated fat harmless, low SFA harmful, low fat harmful! Also LDL doesn't matter, it's all about HDL and trigs! A whole new shit show to watch unfold with even lower quality evidence and another fat fucker with no background in nutrition saying carbs are bad and there's a conspiracy, because some peasants in rural India who eat white rice all day and have over 9000 deficiencies die earlier than some guy eating meat and eggs. No adjustment for diet quality, and obesity was measured by hips-to-waist RATIO

>>42677837
Link?

>>42677949
http://www.thelancet.com.sci-hub.bz/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/abstract

>>42677764
fatlash. people who were absolutely INCENSED that the industries pushing sugar have ruined the health of millions for profit felt that an extreme corrective measure was needed.

>>42678043
Are you seriously implying a significant number of people actually dropped cabs or even intentionally decreased their sugar consumption? The only thing in decades that accomplished that was novel sygar alcohols and artificial sweeteners

>>42677173
>independent harm from refined sugar has never been found without weight gain.

source

>>42677173
>When you restrict calories, you lose weight until your BMR matches your new, lower caloric consumption.
fixed that for you

>>42678219
Many of the reviews/meta-analyses that look at this specific constellation (healthy people eating refined sugar vs. normal carbs at maintenance) are funded by Cola/sugar industry so I don't like linking them. Easy to find if you look for sucrose reviews on pubmed etc.

90% of refined sugar is consumed from ultra-processed foods, most of which is also high in refined fat, saturated fat, salt, and low in fiber, minerals, vitamins, protein. So from a public health perspective it's pointless anyway. You don't see fat people buying bags of refined sugar and eating that, or at least using it in their cooking (protip: almost nobody cooks)

Sucrose is the same molecule in fruits and vegetables and refined sugars. Clearest results are seen in a few studies adding refined sugar to fruits and fruit smoothiest, and solid foods in general - no difference

>>42678273
So you become skinnyfat, great

>>42676781
Avacados actually have a really shit tier omega 3:omega 6 ratio. I dont want to be autistic but walnuts should be your only source of fat

>>42678328
>Easy to find if you look for sucrose reviews on pubmed etc

So post them

>>42676725
first time i saw recommended food infographic was when i realized 80%++ of nutrition information on this board is trash

>>42677989
>I'm not a nutrition expert
>gives nutrition advice

Hmm.

>>42678352
https://pastebin.com/CgTUgdUn

Also, you can look at the guideline papers for sugar by AHA, WHO, IOM, EFSA etc.

None of the big organizations currently see good evidence that sugar causes any metabolic or cardiovascular harm. All the "limits" are basically to get people to stop eating processed junk food, and to stop getting fat from overconsuming calories.

>i'm too stupid and uneducated to be informed about anything so I use meme arrows to passive-aggressively participate in discussions where I should probably just stay silent

hmm great website

Loneliness is a bigger health threat in the US than obesity or smoking. Sorry guys but 4chan is worse than anything else in this thread. Get friends.

>>42678607
I'm not going to read all those. Post the "healthy people eating refined sugar vs. normal carbs at maintenance" ones.

>>42676926

>starting

>STARTING

God I hate when people shit talk SS like it's comparable to a body builder's routine

>>42676798
http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2017/06/28/saturated-biases-where-the-aha-advice-on-coconut-oil-went-wrong/
http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/06/16/guest-post-vegetable-oils-francis-bacon-bing-crosby-and-the-american-heart-association/
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/882564
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2017/06/29/one-more-swipe-at-the-american-heart-association/

>>42678933
>some obese mom
>Gary "calories aren't real" Taubes
>Tom "calories aren't real" Naughton
Classic, transparent low-carb bullshit just as we like it

File: 6a00d8341c5a0553ef015390755e91970b-800wi.jpg (68KB, 640x486px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 640x486px

>>42679005

>>42678933

I'll just use the first link here to show some examples of how saturated fat promoters mislead people.

>n 1961, the AHA called for us all to swallow less saturated fat to reduce our risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD – heart/blood vessel disease and stroke). By the 1970s, whole milk consumption in the US was plummeting.

They try to make you think saturated fat intake was plummeting because whole milk, which contains saturated fat, became less popular. This says nothing about total intake from all sources, and cheese consumption in particular rose highly.

>The backlash against fats helped fuel the increase of carbs that in turn contributed to rises in obesity and diabetes – both of which increase CVD risk.

According to nutrient intake data on Americans between 1909 and 2010, carb intake decreased since 1909 and then gradually increased in the late 70s/early 80s until by 2010 it was just a bit less than what it was in 1909. Fat intake on the other hand increased continously throughout the century. The AHA and other organizations also called for people to eat less sugar. Maybe instead there was a "sugar backlash" that made people eat more fat? Or maybe people just eat whatever they want

www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/nutrient_content_of_the_us_food_supply/KilocaloriesandMacronutrientsPerCapitaperDay1909-2010.xls

These are the lies they try to pass off so that you'll stop trusting the American Heart Association, which makes it easier for them to get you to believe other dumb shit, while also trying to endear you to fat and see carbs as evil without any real scientific basis.

The blog author criticizes an AHA report about coconut oil and claims they left out relevant trials that are favorable to coconuts. These trials they list involved specific diet interventions that lead to weight loss in the participants, which would not be appropriate for studying coconut oil itself since weight loss would confound any result.

>>42682307
>>42678933

Most of the complaints are vague and ignore the elephant in the room, which is that because coconut oil is a highly saturated fat, it increases LDL. Whether the data is consistent about it being better or worse than butter hardly matters.

>>42676725
no science shows sat fat is bad

>>42676725
>caring about arteries

what ya wanna live to 100 nigga? get fucked

>>42682343
DAILY REMINDER IF YOU TAKE TWO GRAMS OF CAFFEINE ANHYDROUS TO THE DOME MERE SECONDS AFTER WAKING, YOUR BLOOD WILL BE SO THIN AND SO TRAVELING AT FUCKING LIGHT SPEED IT WON'T MATTER HOW INOPERABLE YOUR ARTERIES HAVE BECOME

>>42682343

*No, science shows sat fat is bad

File: 1503266729381.jpg (173KB, 786x576px) Image search: [Google]

173KB, 786x576px

>>42676725
being THIS indoctrinated by the sugar industry

Brainlet here i didn't understand anything in this thread

If i eat a diet with lean meats, 8+ servings of fruits/veggies, beans, low fat dairy and nuts will i be okay?

Sugar milk and anything processed causes cancer

>>42682565
Dairy really bad.
Beans are debatable and any nut besides peanuts.

>>42682581
>Dairy really bad.
Is because of all the hormones and shit that cows are fed? Greek yogurt has good macros no?

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32252-3/fulltext

>follow 13500 people over 7.5 years

Interpretation

"High carbohydrate intake was associated with higher risk of total mortality, whereas total fat and individual types of fat were related to lower total mortality. Total fat and types of fat were not associated with cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, or cardiovascular disease mortality, whereas saturated fat had an inverse association with stroke. Global dietary guidelines should be reconsidered in light of these findings."

>durr fat is bad

File: 1503817139037.png (128KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 250x250px

>>42676725
>sat fat causes plaques
HAHAHAHAHA

Yogurt is fermented and can add beneficial bacteria but only homemade or 0 sugar kind at Whole Foods but still not that great. The rest is processed. Kefir is best. Our bodies weren't meant to process milk cheese bread however in little quantities it's not a big deal bc our bodies can handle it but every day or every week is too much.

>>42676783
Wikipedia is shit.

Doctors will kill you. The best thing u can do is to have never taken anti biotics or any Jew medicine. Healthy organic food is the cure for most diseases. And I don't mean organic food and processed I mean strictly only organic food.

>>42682581

>Beans are debatable and any nut besides peanuts.

Who's debating that beans and nuts are bad for you?

>>42682581
peanuts aren't nuts

>>42682615

"Carbohydrate" can mean anything from Mountain Dew to wild blackberries. A study's conclusion isn't as important as how it was concluded.

>>42677334 <-- Mot a faggot
>>42677481 <-- Nancy-boy who is not smart enough to realize modern liberalism is a Jewish religion

Here's your link, in today's news no less, you stupid cuck

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/large-study-suggests-carbs-not-fats-bad-for-you/

>>42682802

If you're eating enough berries to cause T2 diabetes, you're probably gonna die from having your asshole ripped apart from horrible shits.

Or, you know, you could try that diet where you only eat 40 or 50 bananas a day. That's healthier than a diet based on mostly fat, right?

The study also concludes on health effect and mortality for each different kind of fat and they all lead to a lower mortality rate than carb focused diets.

>>42676725
Fuck off. Heart disease happens when sugar and insulin spikes cause arterial tearing and chronic inflammation as the body tries to repair it with cholesterol.

>>42682867
Can it be reversed or does it cause perm scarring

>>42682769
Google.

>>42682827

>The researchers noted that their study did not look at the specific types of food from which nutrients were derived. And, that, said Bethany O'Dea, constitutes a "major flaw from a nutrition standpoint."

From another press release
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/08/170829091027.htm

>The second paper from the PURE study assessed fruit, vegetable and legume consumption and related them to deaths, heart disease and strokes.
>The study found current fruit, vegetable and legume intake globally is between three to four servings per day, but most dietary guidelines recommend a minimum of five daily servings.
>"Our study found the lowest risk of death in those who consumed three to four servings or the equivalent to 375 to 500 grams of fruits, vegetables and legumes per day
>fruit intake was more strongly associated with benefit than vegetables
>Previous research has shown that eating fruits, vegetables and legumes decreases the risk of cardiovascular disease and deaths, but most studies were conducted mainly in North America and Europe with a few from other parts of the world.

If you're studying people for whom the vast majority of carbs come from heavily processed foods and who rarely eat fruits or vegetables, and find that those who eat less sugary junk food are better off, it's not damning to other carb sources like fruits and beans, which the study found beneficial for the few people eating them. In these populations of overweight and obese people with high disease burdens, a higher fat diet was less terrible than a higher sugar diet.

>>42682879

Google is debating that? Or do you mean I should type "beans are bad" into google and read paleo blogs that spout unsupported bullshit about "lectins" and "antinutrients" while every health organization tells you to eat more beans and nuts and explains their many benefits?

>>42676725
https://youtu.be/uc1XsO3mxX8

>>42676894
>oh look, another hurricane happened
>in hurricane alley

>>42676856
Educate yourself

http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/38868-smoking-is-good-for-you/

>>42677833

>no replies

Nobody who's here talking about how good saturated fats are has an opinion on this video that explains exactly why these recent pro-saturated fat papers are poor quality evidence?

>>42676725
Is eating saturated fat more dangerous than being obese?

>>42682882

True, but none of that actually makes fat bad

File: IMG_0692.png (131KB, 364x852px) Image search: [Google]

131KB, 364x852px

>>42676887
>thread has nothing to do with Americans
>yurocuckolds still can't stop thinking of us

>>42682956

In that study, no. Other research, particularly on saturated fat and trans fat, does point to it being bad. Polyunsaturated fats and to a lesser extent monounsaturated fats, of course depending on what they're coming from, are mostly seen as healthful. Using the terms "fat" and "carbohydrate" that broadly when they describe so many different kinds of foods with different health effects is dumb.

>>42676991
Most doctors are as informed as you are outside of their specific area of study.

>>42682987
false

>>42677334
This man knows what he's talking about

>>42682987

>"Intake of total fat and each type of fat was associated with lower risk of total mortality (quintile 5vsquintile 1, total fat: HR 0·77 [95% CI 0·67–0·87], ptrend<0·0001; saturated fat, HR 0·86 [0·76–0·99], ptrend=0·0088; monounsaturated fat: HR 0·81 [0·71–0·92], ptrend<0·0001; and polyunsaturated fat: HR 0·80 [0·71–0·89], ptrend<0·0001). Higher saturated fat intake was associated with lower risk of stroke (quintile 5vsquintile 1, HR 0·79 [95% CI 0·64–0·98], ptrend=0·0498). Total fat and saturated and unsaturated fats were not significantly associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality."

>>42683025

In that study, as we pointed out, relative to what would have been mainly refined/processed carbs, yes. Poly and monounsaturated fats, although we're not told the source of them, were better than saturated fats.

File: IMG_20170826_112653.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>42682954
Back by copious amounts of saturated fat

File: rkrauss.png (213KB, 1508x528px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1508x528px

>>42676948

Or the meat and dairy industries hiring researchers and funding studies today with heavy publicity in order to make their products look harmless.

>>42679113
you are an ass hat

>>42682739
>our bodies were not meant to process milk

Well I'm not black, so...

>>42677576
>Not understanding confirmation and selection bias

>>42677334

>M8 my sister has a phd and assisted on a study about saturated fats for years but even she didn't know that the saturated fats meme was disproven by meta-analysis.

In 2009, a meta-analysis was published that showed replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat lowered heart disease risk

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19211817

News outlets didn't give a fuck about it because it's boring and not what people want to hear. People who write books telling you that you can eat bacon and cheese all day didn't care about it because it goes against their business model. One year later, this study is published >>42683085 >>42677833 and blown way out of proportion by people who profit off of its message, and people who before didn't give a shit what research said about the fats they eat are now expert dietitians who think it's THE study that encompasses all the research ever done and is without any flaws. Even after it's reviewed by major health organizations and found to be low quality evidence, they tell themselves it's all a conspiracy by the sugar industry. Do they ever try to read and understand this research to be sure that it's good information? Do they read previous research to get a better understanding of why every expert group thinks it's bullshit? No, because all they want to hear is that they can eat all their favorite foods with no consequence.

For a board that hates Health At Every Size, a lot of people here have the same deluded attitude.

File: sonycat.jpg (38KB, 268x265px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 268x265px

>this entire fucking thread

all this bullshit and the take away point is don't eat junk food. if you didn't already understand that then you're probably fat

>>42677334
i lost it at the he doesn't even deadlift part

>>42683085
>le meat is bad maymay

What a moron lmao

>>42683301

The point is more that the sugar industry is not the only industry that makes an effort to protect their profits. People are happy to call foul play if a sugar trade group does something shady but for some reason the much larger animal agriculture industries are ignored entirely when they do the same things.

>saturated is stable, doesnt oxidize easily
>unsaturated oxidizes easily
>veg oil consumption rise is directly correlated with heart diseases rise
>pro-inflammatory and pro-cancer omega-6s can only be found in unsaturated fats

Better eat that healthy soybean oil from Mcdo OP, low in saturated fats !

>>42684015

If only the stability of a substance's chemical bonds were what determined if it's healthy or not to eat.

>>42682954
There is nothing wrong with being obese as long as you are strong. Read the fucking sticky

ive been testing this saturated fats thing and only eaten 3 meals a day of burger king, mcdonalds or kfc for the past 5 days, nearly 5000cal a day and the protein macro being the deciding factor on what i order. So far i can report memory loss, nose bleed once in shower, incredible vascularity, chest pains, 3kg weight gain and i feel like sleeping a lot more after every meal. pretty sure this is killing me but ill stop after this week dunno how some people manage to eat like this all the time

>>42677125
>insulin to be high all the time, this eventually causes insulin resistance, insulin resistance is diabetes
>not knowing intramyocellular lipid
kindly neck yourself

>>42684064
Because you should just be sticking to burger king. Shit is the bomb diggity

>>42684097
its been like 75% of the meals, had everything (considering protein goal) on mcdonalds menu and theres only so many wicked wings i can eat

>>42676725
>they all agree saturated fat consumption is bad for health, and that consumption should be kept at a minimum
Then they're pseudoscientific hacks.
>When did you realize /fit/ gives garbage nutrition advice?
Except /fit/ didn't.
>>42676881
>>42677764
>>42677833
>why you should be wary of people making claims that saturated fat is good for you
No, you shouldn't.
>>42678043
>>42682951
>no replies
Below
>Nobody who's here talking about how good saturated fats are has an opinion on this video that explains exactly why these recent pro-saturated fat papers are poor quality evidence?
Those videos are bullshit.
>>42676991
>So how the fuck do you know more about Saturated fats than nutritionists and doctors?
Nutritionists and doctors agree that it's healthy. Hacks keep pushing this anti-saturated fat garbage.
>>42677173
>Absolutely not.
Absolutely yes.
>>42677294
>leading medical experts say it's true
If they were leading medical experts they would actually know shit about science and biology and quit spouting dietary memes.
>>42683085
>>42683230
>In 2009
Have a few more recent, and consistent.
>https://authoritynutrition.com/it-aint-the-fat-people/
>https://authoritynutrition.com/top-8-reasons-not-to-fear-saturated-fats/
>https://authoritynutrition.com/saturated-fat-good-or-bad/
>https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/
>http://www.uib.no/en/node/103172
>http://www.healthline.com/nutrition/5-studies-on-saturated-fat
>http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/early/2017/03/31/bjsports-2016-097285
>http://press.endocrine.org/doi/full/10.1210/jcem.85.1.6291
>https://breakingmuscle.com/fuel/why-all-humans-need-to-eat-meat-for-health

>>42684388
The autism never stops

>>42682889
Yup don't be a brainwashed faghot think for yourself Ik it's difficult

>>42676725
lol good luck getting swole with your "healthy" artery twink

>>42684388
maximum coping

Most 'professors' are shills, some are basically retarded and only manage to get by because they're good at remembering what they read in a book 30 years ago in college. Science is advancing and corrects itself all the time while some people don't try to even keep up with the changes. According to newer studies there's no proof saturated fat is bad for your health, however, trans fats are a serious health risk and a lot of people who "avoid saturated fats" don't realise trans fat is what's causing all the health issues.
>Mfw OP fell for the "saturated fats are bad" jew

>>42685002
This reeks of broscience but lucky for you that is my favourite kind of science so I believe you

>>42685737
Nah it's real proven studies type of science. Trans fats are artificially modified fats which don't get digested the same way natural fats do, this obviously isn't healthy at all. Some brands of margarine are filled with them btw.

Until about 5 minutes ago we were convinced dietary fat was the cause of the obesity epidemic.

i realized /fit/ had no fucking clue about anything nutrition related when people started parroting that dietary fat can't harm your health

Fuckers were just looking for excuses to keep eating their deep fried burgers

>>42685869
I said i fucking believe you cunt. Stop mansplaining to me and spread the good word.

File: 1502626965816.png (555KB, 622x640px) Image search: [Google]

555KB, 622x640px

>>42685996
>deep fried burgers
Does such a thing exist?

>>42684421
Yes, we all know not reading never stopped your autism.
>>42684892
Maximum shitposting.

File: 1457342987164.jpg (44KB, 500x350px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 500x350px

>>42686043
In America anything is possible

>>42677172
>i don't know there are phd's on both sides of this argument saying completely opposite things.

>>42686026
>stop mansplaining and start manspreading

>>42676725
and you have proof that saturated fat is blocking arteries?

>>42685869
>>42685002
there's no proof that trans fats are bad for you.

>>42682307
>>42682321
The snackwell effect on low fat foods causes apparent higher consumption of every macronutrient, so it's not necessarily inconsistent either.

Your weight loss comment is rich. AHA's own source does not specifically exclude interventions inducing weight loss, emphasizing her point of an ill-defined and inconsistently applied selection criteria.

The report isn't just about coconut oil, it's predominantly about trials on saturated and unsaturated fat in general. And I would say the rest of her complaints are very clear if you read them. Scrolling down to the end there's a link to the second part of the post with a 500 word letter to the editor summing them up in a concise manner. A proper Cochrane analysis does not see risk reduction on par with statins.

>Whether the data is consistent about it being better or worse than butter hardly matters.
It matters very much because pseudoscientific exaggerations are incompatible with an allegedly science-based organization.

File: tmp_20251-Screenshot_20170729-1008051780133025.jpg (618KB, 952x1512px) Image search: [Google]

618KB, 952x1512px

>>42676750
Bro are you telling us Joe Rogan is bad for health advice too?? Wtf bro??

>>42685869
>Some brands of margarine are filled with them btw.
nope, it's against health regulations.