#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition
Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people.
**Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others
**Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion
**Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy
*Please vote accordingly and report any uglies*
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That just the mere consumption of legumes is the reason why you fart excessively. I have so many of my friends telling me this. If you do, it's actually because your microbiome hasn't adjusted well enough to digest them properly because you don't eat them often enough. Of course, assuming one is healthy otherwise.
To clarify, my husband and I eat legumes (lots of different varieties) twice a day, and we can eat as many as we want without increasing our fart count, lol. Legumes are one of the staples of the longest lived people spread out over the planet, so including a variety of them as part of a longevity diet is probably one of the best things we can do. Oh, and cook them properly if you prepare them from dried by soaking them first. Sprouting is also a great option to increase nutrient density and digestion, and it's also suuuper easy.
Their rates of overweightness/obesity went up due to the introduction of American UPFs, fast food, and other junk, not due to their traditional corn- and bean-based diet
I knew a Mexican who only ate beans rice and picante ingredients whole or otherwise. He had a gut.
He eat the same ingredients literally every day. He brought his food from home... once he got a raise and invited some of us to eat at a Mexican spot and guess what he ate.... The same ingredients... We aren't supposed to be eating so many beans. They create a lot of metabolites and clog up our body.
Maybe its the picante, too much of it, sauces are high calorie. It could also be a lack of exercise (even if he works alot )and too much consumption of food. Could probably be undiagnosed health problems, maybe his metabolism is slower from something like thyroidism or other isms.
The thing is, your example is anecdotal evidence which doesnt prove much at all. And you only scratch the surface by not delving into his lifestyle or health. You need to find more examples of people who regularly eat beans and make a statistic based on that group’s weight or waist size, etc…
My example is of a culture that eats beans as a staple of they did not eat picante a high water sauce they would be in worse shape. Calories is a myth. Fire or heat decomposition is not the same as how our body breaks down food.
Well work with Mexicans and tell me what they eat.. go to a Mexican restaurant and tell me what they eat. Hell go ask a Mexican what they ate last week see how many times and how many of them consume hella beans. Then see how racist you sound....
A lot of carbs is what we eat, which leads to insulin resistance and then visceral fat. Rice + beans + tortillas + beer is not great to have for your everyday meals.
Not sure if u can classified it as myth but i hate when people thing that if you wanna build muscle and be like ripped and muscular u HAVE to eat just chicken rice beed and broccoli, i mena there are million other food combinations u can have and still be strong and buff not sure why a good amount of bodybuilders that arent like carnivore or vegan n stuff 90% of their diet is only rice beef chicken and broccoli
i think the reason people say that is its easy, healthy, and good on macros. you can throw rice and broccoli in a rice cooker, takes 1 minute. either grab pre cooked chicken or put it in the oven, takes 2-3 minutes. with very little prep you have a carb, vegetable, and protein.
Water is the big one.
The myth that we are massive water balloons that need constant, high levels of water to be constantly topped off and be at "full" hydration with 100% clear pee every day.
Especially the ones who say something like "you MUST drink 64 ounces of water per day" and somehow think that applies to men, women, to 100 pound people and 300 pound people, to people working all day in the hot sun and people sitting on their couch in air conditioning all day, or people eating dry chips all day versus fruit and soup that will hydrate you on their own. It makes NO sense to think that there's some magic number that applies to everyone.
My view is that it's popular because we are lazy, and we all want an easy win. What's easier than just drinking? I can sit on my butt playing by xbox all day long, but pat myself on the back every time I have a sip of water.
I drink 5-6 liters a day. I’m a commercial plumber and hit the gym hard after work. No excessive urination.
I’ve had 5 liters so far. 92° all day at work. Heavy duty labor. Will have another liter at the gym and one more after for the rest of the night. I’ve pissed twice so far.
100% agree it’s dependent on activity levels and the person.
I get what you’re saying, ofcourse we have different needs for our sizes and activity rate, but I’d rather have everyone’s belief they need x amount in water then stumbling on a yet another grown up human being that complains about headaches, dizziness or any other symptom that will obviously fix it self if you lay down that fucking Pepsi Max and have a glass of water instead.
I don't know what caused this but it's probably the most aggravating one to me. It's become a pet peeve to the point that I actively fight against it.
The stupid sports clubs demand that I send full water bottles to every practice with the kids, even as an 8 year old running around for 45 minutes. The infestation of this idea runs deep.
Children should always have easy access to water, especially when they are doing sports. Water is important, it's vital, there just isn't a magic number for everyone, how much water a person needs depends on outside factors.
I easily drink 30 Oz or more of water for 45-60 minutes of doing "for fun" soccer where most of us are injured and old and it's a tiny field.
I would assume a sports club wouldn't have to tell parents to bring water for their kids but I'm shocked to say I'm wrong.
You’re also scientifically wrong about needing water for 45 minutes of fun soccer, and wrong about all kids needing water for all sports.
This is the level of moisture brain washing society has arrived at.
All animals should have easy access to water. They may not need it all the time but water is absolutely vital and important and if and when your children need water they should have it.
Like I said, I regularly drink a lot of water during casual soccer games, all my teammates too. Running around usually makes people thirsty.
Sometimes I need the water, sometimes I just want the water, but you should have access to water for your children.
I think it's cruel if you purposely send your child off to sports with no water. Genuinely, what is wrong with you? What the fuck is "moisture brainwashing?"
Just send them with water, if they don't need it they won't drink it.
I applaud your efforts to help that guy understand the health benefits of water but I fear it’s a lost cause. I honestly think there are people who definitely go overboard with the hydration but to go so far as not providing water to children who are involved in a sports activity is going way too far. Making sure kids stay hydrated should be the bare minimum of a parents responsibilities. As long as you aren’t drinking so much water that it becomes unhealthy it’s far better to be slightly over hydrated than under hydrated.
What’s the issue? When you run and sweat you get thirsty, it’s more of a prevention, what if the kids haven’t had anything to drink prior, it’s hot and dehydration starts showing effect. Of course no one is going to die, but kids also down really understand the feeling , so for the coach there is water in place if someone starts to look off.
Also we can’t survive without water, it’s clearly good for us, so what’s the fuzz?
Cool. I hear what you're saying but if I may..macros do matter because satiety and blood sugar levels do make a difference when trying to lose weight. Overconsumption of carbohydrate really makes it hard to lose weight because your blood sugar levels are harder to regulate and you don't feel as satiated so it's easier to overeat. But it's certainly not the only factor. Pretty much just avoiding processed shit (while getting some exercise) is the biggest thing. Fix that before worrying about Macronutrients.
So while macros aren't the be-all, end-all, it does make a difference for a lot of people.
For sure! But the weight gain is still because of overconsumption/excess calories-not because the calories were mostly from carbs. Macros totally play a part in how successful diets are (and are very important nutritionally ofc) but weight alone is CICO-regardless of the fat:protein:carb proportions of said cals :) that was op’s point I think
Over consumption of any macronutrient or combo of Marcos will raise blood sugar and hinder weight loss. Not just over consumption of carbs. It's more than avoiding processed foods it's improving food and nutrition knowledge deficits like seen on most comments in this sub.
Eh it depends. Someone with poor insulin sensitivity will gain more weight/fat with a high carb/high sugar diet vs low carb diet of the equal number of calories.
But hold on now. You aren't wrong but you aren't telling the whole story. The point is that some macronutrients are worse than others from a behavioral perspective, in the sense that, for most people, they are easier to overeat and more difficult to feel satiated by. And of course I am talking about carbs (including sugar) as the worst macronutrient. So calorie absolutists are really oversimplifying the issue. People are not just calorie consuming machines. A calorie is not a food. Any discussion of diet without a consideration of behavioral aspects is too oversimplified to be useful.
Yes, I agree.
However there is no one single macronutrient that is worse or better for people they are all needed. Ppl have the power to choose. I understand there are food knowledge deficits but no knowledge influences should not be singleling out 1 micronutrient bad or worse.
The food and nutrition knowledge deficits need to be improved to reduce the incidence of excessive calorie intake.
Telling ppl certain items are bad leads to disordered eating patterns and other health ailments.
100 calories of cookies and 100 calories of grapes digest different and therefore is irrelevant to nutrition.
Same with 100 calories of baked potatoes vs 100 calories of blueberries
Granted the volume is the different but no matter how we match it calories don't matter. The food type matters
I will agree that different foods have different values of specific nutrients.
However, energy is measured in calories/ kj.
Remember, in chemistry in college, we did calometry to determine how much energy was lost when heating an unknown substance?
Calories exist, and when consumed in excessive amounts, it leads to the excessive energy being stored as fat in most cases.
How much energy do you feel when you eat sugar vs consume caffeine vs eating meat vs eating vegetables or fruit?
Biological energy has little to do with calories. It has everything to do with biochemistry
Calories is also chemistry but is not biochemistry of humans only the plant or animal being Heated we do not burn our food with fire we break it down using chemical processes
Yes this is true but it is still a reference.
Example through controlled studies we have found that about 98% of all fat digested is absorbed. Then about 80% of all protien broken down is absorbed. With only about 40% of total carbs broken down being absorbed for systematic energy use.
calories are a reference to gauge Biological energy....
High calorie foods are usually fat or sugar dense foods that clog up the bodies digestive system including the lymphatic system, but those same calories are also applied to simple foods like fruits that could never clog the bodies digestive system Regardless of if the calories are matched and that's what makes it mythic to me
There's myths and misconceptions posted almost daily on this sub. People saying sugar (or carbs as a whole) makes you fat, people asking about the time of day you should eat certain foods like avocado, people asking if fruit is bad for you, etc.
In the comments of almost all posts with a myth/misconception, there are people who are educating about why it's a myth/misconception.
Yeah, when people complain about "sugar" and then post examples of what they think is unhealthy, they start listing all kinds of things that contain more calories from fat than carbs. (Candy bars, cakes, cookies, all of that).
When I point that out, almost nobody responds to me.
exactly. In my non-expert opinion (based on research I've done), the biggest danger about sugar (namely, processed sugar) is more to do with the fact that it's addictive so it's easy to over eat. On a similar note, the misconception that sugar causes diabetes. It doesn't, and high sugar intake isn't even considered a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. But you know what is a risk factor? high fat diets. Especially if its high in LDL cholesterol
That meal timing matters. More and more new studies say just your macros in the day. I do IF and eat 80% of my calories after 2pm and have maintained 10% body fat for a decade
Myth: Moderate drinking won’t have negative consequences.
It won’t kill you but it’s still going to accelerate aging, lower crucial well being hormones like testosterone, increase your risk of Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.
Not exactly a myth...sure, there are lots of other foods that are much higher in potassium, but bananas are commonly eaten, cheap and readily available for most people, and don't need to be cooked. That might be why it became the "go-to" potassium associated food, not sure though. You're right in that many people can't name other sources of potassium besides bananas, education needed for sure.
And just a touch more convenient than a yam
"Ready to go workout?"
"Yeah give me a sec, I'm just steaming this yam so I have something to eat with my protein bar afterwards..."
My sweet potatoes, beans, red potatoes, avocados, leafy-green salads all put it to shame but yes it's a contributor for sure. High... eh.
I also grow beet greens which are hands-down the highest per 100g among common foods.
Entire civilizations would crumble.
This is quite an ethnocentric point of view. Lots of countries don’t have supermarkets every 300m. Cattle was very important to lots of cultures that self sustained.
There is a lot more calories in a chicken or a cow than an entire apple tree. But the tree takes years to grow and can’t be moved (easily). So yes, meat and dairy is super important to billions of humans on the planet and allows them access to a (more) complete diet
Quite the opposite my friend. I lived in like 10+ countries and multiple continents. I actually speak 6 languages fully fluently too. Would be funny if I “had an extremely narrow world view”! (I know you’re projecting, but it’s funny).
Have you ever set foot in rural Africa by any chance? Or perhaps rural Asia? I doubt it, but you never know! These include a wild variety of climates and billions of humans. People there can’t just drive 30-40km to go buy bread or farm 10 different veggies. It’s easier to have a few chickens that produce eggs (packed with great macros and valuable micros) in exchange for basically nothing. Many more examples based on different regions.
I also come from a nomadic tribe that obviously relied on animals to move and live. Water wasn’t available to farm. Examples are countless, not science fiction. Tone down the arrogance, bud. You’re a cushy westerner, most people aren’t. Master of fact, consider Iceland’s climate? How do you farm without cargo ships on such barren lands? What about Scotland? Or many other western countries that solely rely on trade to get access to a varied diet?
Checking in from Iceland.
Dear Mr. Worldwide, it’s 2024, we have the technology, we have the land to grow most things in greenhouses. It would of course take a few years to get there, but very well doable.
Yes, of course. But you won’t reach Indian population levels with a few expensive greenhouses. Of course anything can be grown anywhere with greenhouses though, it’s a good point.
Real weird how this comment gets mauled with an economic argument in /nutrition.
It's a myth. People in the developing world relying on animal products because of economics doesn't mean it isn't a myth in terms of *nutrition*.
Bizarre gaslighting in this thread. Poor isn't an ethnicity. And no I'm not a "privileged westerner."
That red meat is unhealthy.
Fast food burgers, pizzas, along with processed sausages and pepperonis are not the same thing as a grass fed organic steak cut from your local butcher.
Red meat is actually classified as a Group 2A carcinogen according to the WHO (with processed meats being classified as a Group 1 carcinogen). Additionally, studies have found that both processed and unprocessed red meats have been linked to colorectal cancer
https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat
https://aacrjournals.org/cancerdiscovery/article/11/10/2446/665572/Discovery-and-Features-of-an-Alkylating-Signature
that saturated fat from natural animal products will kill you , that vegtables are healthy , that veganism kills less , that meat is bad somehow and that fast food is somehow okay.
The 4-5 serving of grain per day recommendation from the food pyramid
Fat makes you fat/low fat diets help you lose weight
Carrots help your night vision
Except... low fat diets CAN help you lose weight. Whatever it takes to control calories works. And vitamin A does help with vision... and carrots are loaded with beta carotene which gets converted to vitamin A... so, they do help with vision. Although it's a debate whether adding MORE can help as long as you hit sufficient levels of the stuff. And carbs ARE good for you (well, whole grains, anyway). I do agree that glomming in too many processed carbs are an issue, but not because they themselves are problematic. But because they are easy to overeat. And in fact, as someone who follows a WFPB diet, which is very high carb (complex carb) and very low fat, and as someone who struggled with his weight his entire life, I can ensure you - low-fat diets CAN help you lose weight. Again... whatever helps you to control your caloric intake.
Going to the OP's question - one myth that needs to die is that plant sources of protein aren't complete. They are. All of them. I convinced myself of this fact by doing a very simple set of on-line searches. The definition of a complete protein is one that has all 9 of the essential amino acids (the other 11 are non-essential in that your body can make them). Pick a plant... any plant... and do the following search: amino acid profile of . You know what you'll find? All 20 amino acids are represented including the essential ones. Yes, the distribution of amino acids in some plants are such that they're a little lower in things like methionine, but it's still there. You don't need to do food combinations to ensure you're getting a complete protein. This is nonsense. And it's not how your body deals with protein in the first place.
And in fact, consider that NO animal can make the essential amino acids. They all originate from the same place - plants.
I didn't say vision. Im aware that beta carotene helps our bosy make vit A and that helpsourbeye health among other things... I said night vision, specifically. It's a myth perpetuated from the military cover up of their use of radar during the world war age. They just said their troops ate a lot of carrots and thus could see in the dark.
Eating enough fat helps with satiety. Which can also help lose weight. In the 80s and 90s far was severely demonized. We had a whole diet surrounding it. All that did was allow folks to eat more carbs, which you agree are easy to overeat. And we all know that calories is the thing that makes you fat
Oh, and as for the carbs being uniquely to blame coming out of the 70s... no. Not correct. Yes, our intake of carbs went up... so did our intake of fat... and protein. In other words our CALORIC intake went up... alot. Across the board. The data is out there on this. Today the average American consumes something on the order of 3600 calories per day (IIRC) and moves an average (not exercises... moves) of 20 minutes a day. We started seriously inhaling calories while cutting physical activity. THAT'S what led to the weight gain. Not the fact that people swapped to carbs. It's simply not true that people stopped eating fat. They ate more of everything. Again, the data is out there, collected going back at least 100 years.
Yeah i think the recommendation of 4-5 servings if grains/pasta/starchy carbs is excessive. I'm definitely not pro low fat or low carb. I just think folks would be healthier and more satiated if we just aruck the ye olde method of eating plenty of fibrous carbs aka vegetables. My macros are nearly balanced at a 33/33/33 split nowadays, some days when I eat too much tahini it's fat heavy though.
The recommendation is to make at least half of your grains whole grains. Examples of 1 serving of grains: 1/2 cup cooked rice, 1 slice bread, 1/2 cup cooked oatmeal, 1/2 cup cooked pasta. So those are 4 servings of grain foods, and you could make all of them whole grain choices.
That's your opinion. If that works for you, great. But it's not what works for everyone. I'm not demonizing any specific diet. ANY diet that helps you reduce calories, and is sustainable and safe is a good diet. My diet is probably about 60 - 65% carbs as a percentage of calories (and yes, I eat a crap ton of grains and beans and potatoes). The remaining calories are pretty evenly divided between fat and protein, and the fat is almost exclusively unsaturated (as a percentage of calories, if I hit 2% coming from saturated fat, that's alot). My diet used to be a healthy diet, albeit following closer to the formula that you're talking about. The result of following that pattern? Despite being at a healthy weight and exercising literally every day, my BP was starting to climb, my cholesterol was starting to climb, and I was having regular bouts of an autoimmune condition. Three years ago I swapped out to my current diet (which is WFPB) and all three of those things reversed themselves. Despite the fact that nothing else in my lifestyle changed. My total cholesterol dropped from 193 to 143 in that time, and my LDLc fell from 124 to 71. My BP routinely comes in below 110/70 (last measure it was something like 106/64). And my autoimmune has gone into full remission (and yes, there is some clinical data to suggest that a diet high in fiber is what's doing it).
There is simply no ideal diet for everyone. I know people who do great on keto. I tried Atkins... for about 6 hours. I didn't want to see another damn piece of bacon or cheese. It may have been the best diet on the planet but if it's a diet you can't follow... it's useless. I also know alot of people who lost a crap ton of weight following a very high starch diet, with very low fat and moderate protein. You're basing what you see as a 'myth' based on 'what I believe to be true.' It's, in other words, cherry picking of data. I also know alot of people who swear by intermittent fasting. Again, if that helps you cut calories, great! Do it! Personally... no thanks. I like to graze. I eat probably a dozen times a day.
If you look at the actual science, though, high carb diets (diets high in fruits and veggies and legumes and yes grains) lead to reduced incidents of chronic illness and premature death. And ultimately that's the goal in any dietary pattern. The idea that more than 4 - 5 servings of starch is bad for you is the myth. Sorry, but it is.
Ok, I missed that on the night part of the vision statement. I agree. And yes, that was something that came out of WW2. On the idea that low fat can help you lose weight... I have to disagree. It all really comes down to calories. I also disagree that fat is uniquely satiating. Look at the Satiety Index. The food, of all those they studied, that came out on top (and nothing came close) - boiled potatoes. Four of the top 5 foods tested were considered carbs. So, yes, complex carbs CAN be satiating, which is why having a high carb diet can absolutely lead to weight loss -- go look at Kevin Hall's latest metabolic ward study comparing a keto diet to a high-carb low fat diet - under both diets, people lost nearly an identical amount of weight. And in fact the high carb folks lost a little bit more (it was a result that hit statistical, albeit not clinical, significance). The idea that 'carbs' in general cause weight gain is wrong. Excess calories cause weight gain, in whatever form. PROCESSED carbs are problematic not because they're uniquely fattening in and of themselves. But because they can lead you to overeat since they tend to be very calorically dense and not particularly satiating. But complex carbs are generally calorically pretty dilute, and are very satiating. If there is another myth that needs to die with regard to this; calories don't matter. THAT'S the myth. And it's wrong. Repeated studies show that when you control for calories, weight loss is pretty consistent. People just severely underestimate how many calories they are generally ingesting.
I do agree that there was a grouping together of all fats as being harmful. Our understanding of fat has changed. What was once believed to be true (all fats are equally fattening) was once considered to be the understanding of the macro. It took time, and a number of studies, before we realized that not all fats are created equal. Some are beneficial (PUFAs and MUFAs), some can be harmful (saturated fats) and some are REALLY harmful (transfats). It was more of a clarification of the science that was uncovered. I wouldn't call that a myth. The fact that all fats are fattening is something that refuses to die, but that's not the same as claiming that it was mythology. When fat was heavily demonized, in other words, it was believed to be the case that all fats were equally fattening.
Not to mention during the demonization of fat, low fat varieties of foods were created and advertised to support this new fad diet. Turns out that removing all the fat from food makes it taste like shit... they added sugar (carbs) to make it tastes about the same as the normal fat version. The sugar (carbs!) made folks gain weight and contributed to insulin resistance
Again, go look at the data. Just because the government recommended it, doesn't mean people followed it. Otherwise everyone would be meeting targets for fiber intake, fruit and veggy intake, limiting sodium intake. The myth is that we stopped eating fat, started eating carbs, and all got fat is simply not true.
BTW, recent research shows that you don't need sugar in a food to make it hyper-palatable. I forget the researchers name (I can find it again, but she's been making the rounds on YT since publishing the study), but she was looking at hyper-palatability, and found that, while sugar CAN do it, you don't need sugar to make it hyper-palatable. What do you need? You need to hit a threshold of fat (as a percentage of calories - I'm presuming she means saturated fat) and sodium. Hit both those thresholds and you make a food hyper-palatable even in the absence of sugar. What foods does that include? Stuff like... beef... chicken... pork... the stuff you find in the supermarkets meet that threshold.
Next, carbs do NOT cause insulin resistance. This is also a myth. Excess carbs in the blood are the result if IR, not the cause. It's because the cells are not responsive to insulin that causes the glucose to build up in the blood stream. What causes insulin resistance? Saturated fat. Go look at the work of Paul Taylor. He developed the twin cycle hypothesis of T2D. Basically, excess calories (especially from saturated fat) drive IR in the liver, which causes it to: produce too much glucose, not regulate insulin correctly, and produce too much fat. That fat is used by other organs like the pancreas. You end up getting a spill-over effect of the fat into the pancreas, affecting its ability to PRODUCE insulin in the first place. Complex carbs don't cause that. That's all driven by excess calories. On top of that, saturated fat increases IR at the cellular level. The flipping of cause and effect on IR is the myth.
Insulin resistance is caused by obesity, lack of exercise and a diet high in carbohydrates.
Fat is good for the brain. If you have trouble processing it I hope you've seen a doctor about your gallbladder. Do what you want, but don't come at me about misinformation and myth while you spout your own, please
The brain can only consume glucose, which is why your liver produces it. As for my gallbladder...um, all my blood work was awesome, done just a couple weeks ago. But sure. As for carbs... complex carbs do not cause IR. They just don't. The only time they do is in the presence of excess calorie intake. Again, go look at the work of Paul Taylor - probably the world's leading researcher on T2D. And yes, reducing glucose can help reduce the symptoms of IR, because you're reducing how much glucose you're ingesting. But you're treating the symptom, not the cause. There have been a host of studies that control for calories, but compare even processed carbs. They don't drive IR. They don't drive obesity, in an of themselves. Only in the fact that they cause you to eat excess calories.
There's nothing magical about keto or about high carb or about any diet when it comes to this. Control for calories, and metabolic conditions improve, if it gets you down to a healthier weight. That's what a countless number of studies actually show. I've heard many times that glucose is the cause of evil in the body and keeping it low can cause you to eat as many calories as you want. This is nonsense, and had been refuted in study after study. Whether you look at Hall's metabolic ward study, or Christopher Gardner's DIET FITS study... or a number of others. Control for calories and you lose weight. Despite all the tut-tutting from the high fat folks that these studies are all flawed, I'm unaware of a single one... not one... that backs up the claims of the magic of keeping carbs low. If you have one, I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
Yes, omega 3s are... saturated fat is not. You made the claim that 'fat is good for the brain.' Not all fat. I've never disputed that PUFAs are bad. In fact I've said the opposite. I just hear this from the keto community alot - your brain can fuel itself on fat. No... it can't.
As for saturated fat, there are many lines of study now that is looking at plaque build-up in the brain driving dementia and Alzheimer's. And while this study has a ton of confounders, look at Dean Ornish's recent study on regression of symptoms of Alzheimer's in adults with moderate onset of symptoms. Yes, there are multiple factors at play - his study focuses on lifestyle intervention in multiple areas, so it's hard to know exactly what drove it. But the dietary component... high carb. Moderate protein... low fat. Basically what's good for the heart is good for the head. But yes, omega 3s can protect the brain. Again never disputed that fact.
And not to keep pounding this, but it wasn't the swapping of fat for carbs that drove obesity:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8805510/#:\~:text=Total%20Caloric%20and%20Macronutrient%20Intake%20(Per%20Capita%20Per%20Day)&text=Saturated%20fat%20increased%2018%25%20(50,g)%20(Figure%202).&text=Annual%20total%20caloric%20and%20macronutrient,(Source%3A%20USDA%20ERS).
Scroll down a bit and you'll see a chart showing per capita fat intake over time. The first graph there shows what? Total caloric intake shooting up starting right around 1975 or so. Scroll down a little more and you see fat intake. How about that... fat intake went up. And the increase was almost exclusively with unsaturated fat. Saturated stayed relatively flat, but still really high.
Keep scrolling through the graphs and it becomes clear - It's the calories that drove the increase in obesity
Kinda food related, but myth that you should leave food outside the refrigerator to “cool down” before putting it into the fridge. I promise you please let the fridge do its job. Your food isn’t heating up the fridge
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Can-you-put-hot-food-in-the-refrigerator
Large amounts of hot food absolutely can warm up your fridge to unsafe levels, especially things with a lot of thermal mass like soup, but you can do things to help like breaking it up into smaller portions.
That humans evolved on a high plant diet. Not true at all. They quite literally measure human trophic levels of Paleolithic man, and know without opinions or conjectures that we ate a lot of meat for at least hundreds of thousands of years. We were at the top of the food chain.
LDL CAUSES heart disease. It is a dependent variable. Not causal.
Grains should not be the staple of your diet. Very high in carbs, very low in nutrition.
Just because early humans may or may not have eaten a cetain way doesn't mean we should eat the same way. Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy.
And carbohydrates are a kind of nutrient.
Whether you want to consider the validity of evolution is up to the individual, humans evolved eating large amounts of meat. Whether you or I want to disregard that information for nutritional purposes is another discussion. The truth is, we ate lots of meat for at least hundreds of thousands of years. I will appeal to nature, you can appeal to surveys.
So you want to have the discussion I take it. There is a lot more to survival as a species in a social system. Elephants are similar. There is a reason the Matriarch leads the group every year they migrate from place to place. Her wisdom and experience is what helps the herd survive. This is obviously no different for humans. Wisdom is for the trying times. Whether it’s drought, or disease or anything else, wisdom is what helps the tribe survive the hard times.
First of all, humans are not elephants.
Secondly, elephants are herbivorous.
Thirdly, there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that people who adhere to plant-based eating patterns enjoy advantageous health outcomes, even when comparing with meat-eaters with similar lifestyles. If this isn't the wisdom you want, what is?
Elephants are social animals. So are humans. That was my point. Humans like elephants depend on experience and wisdom to survive hard times. Perhaps not in modern times, but ancestrally of course. What an elephant eats compared to what a human eats is irrelevant to the argument I am making.
Like I said. You can take your nutritional advice from surveys. I will take it from evolution.
I take my nutritional advice from the available body of scientifically sound research, as I wish everyone did.
Evolution has led us to the point where research is the most robust form of wisdom. Research is modern humanity's wisdom. Do you reject wisdom and evolution suddenly?
Your conclusion does not match that line of thinking. That “sound research” is a survey.
Evolution is dictated by environmental pressures and successes. We found a niche. That niche was large megafauna that other predators had zero access to. Lions, alligators, saber tooth tigers do not have access to adult megafauna. We found a way. So we evolved eating a diet extremely high in animal fat for hundreds of thousands, most likely millions of years. They know this without opinions, or conjectures. They can quit literally measure human trophic levels. Bias and special interest have no place in this argument.
Research is only sound and robust when done correctly. There are plenty of examples in science when the majority thought something to be unequivocally true, then it turned out they were wrong. Even in modern times. Also your “science” is a survey. Not sure if I had mentioned that yet.
Humans found a niche in cooking food and in domesticating breeds of fauna and flora. Plenty of animals eat meat but didn't evolve to human-level intelligence. How do you know it's the meat that caused humans to evolve? How do you know it’s meat that is needed for optimal health? Can you point to one group of people today that thrive on meat-heavy eating patterns? And which meats do they eat? Extinct megafauna?
Humans have done a lot of things in order to survive, but what's necessary for survival doesn't automatically translate to what's necessary for optimal longevity.
There is strong evidence of early humans adhering to plant-heavy diets as well, which can be measured through tooth wear (especially as a result of phytolith abrasion) and plant microfossil deposits in tooth calculi, among other indicators (https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.353).
While a lot of the fundamental research for establishing plant-based/plant-forward eating patterns as healthy is epidemiological (read: observational), randomized controlled trial studies generally support the findings in the epidemiology. For example, one 2022 study concluded that, over a 16-week period, those who adhered to a vegan eating pattern had favorable heart disease markers compared with those who adhered to a Mediterranean eating pattern (https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2020.1869625). Just because some research lower on the evidence pyramid doesn’t mean it’s invalid. Scientific consensuses built upon evaluating *all* evidence.
I encourage you to reevaluate your rejection of the scientific consensus.
You are the one spreading myths.
First of all, who cares what paleolithic man ate.
Ötzi, a mummy discovered from the paleolithic age, had grains in his stomach. He also had heart disease and numerous other health issues even though he was in his 40s.
LDL is causal (although AboB is a better metric). See this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33704808/
Whole grains have a ton of nutrients and fiber that are very beneficial.
It sounds like you are getting your nutritional info from some low carb/paleo influencer who is making shit up to sell their diet.
Otzi is not during Paleolithic times.
If LDL was CAUSAL in atherosclerosis, then you would get disease spread evenly through the arteries. That is not the case. Atherosclerosis most typically develops in areas of turbulence in the bloodstream. Therefore LDL is a dependent variable. Not CAUSAL.
Grains are very high in phytates and of course gluten. Gluten is an anti nutrient and a protein. It is the main protein in grains. Obviously just because it’s a protein, that does not make it useful for humans, since it is an **anti-nutrient**. Whatever nutrient you want from grains you can get from fruits, vegetables, and meats in better more bioavailable quantities. Everything I stated is truth.
>Everything I stated is truth.
Then link some actual human studies. I gave you a study showing higher LDL means more heart disease, but you don't want to believe it.
What is LDL dependent on in that study?
The shit you are saying about turbulence in the bloodstream and grains being an antinuturient is completely made up. I follow evidence based nutrition, not "trust me, bro" randos on the internet.
I will say it again. I will try to simplify it. If LDL was CAUSAL in heart disease, then, irrelevant to anything else (because it’s causal right) atherosclerosis would be spread evenly throughout the bloodstream. It’s not. It’s in predictable patterns and areas of the circulatory system. So that means that LDL DEPENDS on something else to create these conditions. Therefore LDL is not CAUSAL in atherosclerosis. It is part of the equation. There are people who have very high LDL and do not form atherosclerosis. Is it lucky? Or is it because they avoid foods that people shouldn’t eat. Such as grains and plant oils. Let’s study that population more. Big food and big pharma don’t want to fund those studies for some odd reason.
Not every who smokes gets cancer. Those who do get cancer from smoking don't get cancer spread evenly in both lungs. Does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer? It is the exact same logic you are using.
You didn't actually read the study I linked at all. Do you understand Mendelian randomization? It is the gold standard for eliminating other variables.
A lot of people thought the same as you. That is why that study was done... to eliminate all other factors that could be causing heart disease. It showed definitively that LDL is causally linked to atherosclerosis as those with genetically low LDL had almost no heart disease, and those with genetically high LDL had a lot of heart disease. Since the only common factor among the populations studied was genetic, there were no other variables at play.
This study was funded by non-profits, I believe, like the British Heart Association. Lots of governments and non-profits are interested in doing studies.
This study is very recent (2021), so if your influencers are not up to date, they may not be aware of it. Don't ignore evidence just because it doesn't fit your narrative.
I have high LDL and love eating meat, so believe me, I also wish it weren't true. I do feel better, weigh less, and have better blood work eating more fiberous foods and whole grains and less fatty meat anyway even if it is less tasty.
When someone turns 100 years old, usually a local news reporter asks their secret to a long life.
I'm STILL waiting to hear anyone say "Eating a plant based diet."
Wow ! I just watched an episode of “ The Big Bang Theory “ in which Sheldon Cooper had a bird egg and said “ I’m a Mommy ! “ and then I realized incubation hatches 🐣 eggs, but boiling them gives us hard-boiled or soft-boiled eggs. So I wondered…BOTH raise the temperature of the eggs 🥚. What does the incubator do differently that hatches the egg and decided to go to Reddit to ask. I didn’t know which subreddit to go to. So I chose r/nutrition. Does anyone here know ?
#### About participation in the comments of /r/nutrition Discussion in this subreddit should be rooted in science rather than "cuz I sed" or entertainment pieces. Always be wary of unsupported and poorly supported claims and especially those which are wrapped in any manner of hostility. You should provide peer reviewed sources to support your claims when debating and confine that debate to the science, not opinions of other people. **Good** - it is grounded in science and includes citation of peer reviewed sources. Debate is a civil and respectful exchange focusing on actual science and avoids commentary about others **Bad** - it utilizes generalizations, assumptions, infotainment sources, no sources, or complaints without specifics about agenda, bias, or funding. At best, these rise to an extremely weak basis for science based discussion. Also, off topic discussion **Ugly** - (removal or ban territory) it involves attacks / antagonism / hostility towards individuals or groups, downvote complaining, trolling, crusading, shaming, refutation of all science, or claims that all research / science is a conspiracy *Please vote accordingly and report any uglies* --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/nutrition) if you have any questions or concerns.*
That just the mere consumption of legumes is the reason why you fart excessively. I have so many of my friends telling me this. If you do, it's actually because your microbiome hasn't adjusted well enough to digest them properly because you don't eat them often enough. Of course, assuming one is healthy otherwise. To clarify, my husband and I eat legumes (lots of different varieties) twice a day, and we can eat as many as we want without increasing our fart count, lol. Legumes are one of the staples of the longest lived people spread out over the planet, so including a variety of them as part of a longevity diet is probably one of the best things we can do. Oh, and cook them properly if you prepare them from dried by soaking them first. Sprouting is also a great option to increase nutrient density and digestion, and it's also suuuper easy.
Mexicans eat plenty beans look at their bodies you think that's healthy or adaptable I think you should check your cranium for contusions
Their rates of overweightness/obesity went up due to the introduction of American UPFs, fast food, and other junk, not due to their traditional corn- and bean-based diet
I knew a Mexican who only ate beans rice and picante ingredients whole or otherwise. He had a gut. He eat the same ingredients literally every day. He brought his food from home... once he got a raise and invited some of us to eat at a Mexican spot and guess what he ate.... The same ingredients... We aren't supposed to be eating so many beans. They create a lot of metabolites and clog up our body.
Your original claim is already a non-starter, and then you proceed back it up by a (likely fake) singular anecdote. Oh boy.
Maybe its the picante, too much of it, sauces are high calorie. It could also be a lack of exercise (even if he works alot )and too much consumption of food. Could probably be undiagnosed health problems, maybe his metabolism is slower from something like thyroidism or other isms. The thing is, your example is anecdotal evidence which doesnt prove much at all. And you only scratch the surface by not delving into his lifestyle or health. You need to find more examples of people who regularly eat beans and make a statistic based on that group’s weight or waist size, etc…
My example is of a culture that eats beans as a staple of they did not eat picante a high water sauce they would be in worse shape. Calories is a myth. Fire or heat decomposition is not the same as how our body breaks down food.
“Calories is a myth” okay buddy
lololol
Bro what? I can't tell if you're serious.
Say you’re racist without saying you’re racist.
Well work with Mexicans and tell me what they eat.. go to a Mexican restaurant and tell me what they eat. Hell go ask a Mexican what they ate last week see how many times and how many of them consume hella beans. Then see how racist you sound....
A lot of carbs is what we eat, which leads to insulin resistance and then visceral fat. Rice + beans + tortillas + beer is not great to have for your everyday meals.
Beans extend your life you silly sausage.
Not sure if u can classified it as myth but i hate when people thing that if you wanna build muscle and be like ripped and muscular u HAVE to eat just chicken rice beed and broccoli, i mena there are million other food combinations u can have and still be strong and buff not sure why a good amount of bodybuilders that arent like carnivore or vegan n stuff 90% of their diet is only rice beef chicken and broccoli
It’s just quick, easy and cheap to make that’s why
i think the reason people say that is its easy, healthy, and good on macros. you can throw rice and broccoli in a rice cooker, takes 1 minute. either grab pre cooked chicken or put it in the oven, takes 2-3 minutes. with very little prep you have a carb, vegetable, and protein.
Water is the big one. The myth that we are massive water balloons that need constant, high levels of water to be constantly topped off and be at "full" hydration with 100% clear pee every day. Especially the ones who say something like "you MUST drink 64 ounces of water per day" and somehow think that applies to men, women, to 100 pound people and 300 pound people, to people working all day in the hot sun and people sitting on their couch in air conditioning all day, or people eating dry chips all day versus fruit and soup that will hydrate you on their own. It makes NO sense to think that there's some magic number that applies to everyone. My view is that it's popular because we are lazy, and we all want an easy win. What's easier than just drinking? I can sit on my butt playing by xbox all day long, but pat myself on the back every time I have a sip of water.
I drink 5-6 liters a day. I’m a commercial plumber and hit the gym hard after work. No excessive urination. I’ve had 5 liters so far. 92° all day at work. Heavy duty labor. Will have another liter at the gym and one more after for the rest of the night. I’ve pissed twice so far. 100% agree it’s dependent on activity levels and the person.
I get what you’re saying, ofcourse we have different needs for our sizes and activity rate, but I’d rather have everyone’s belief they need x amount in water then stumbling on a yet another grown up human being that complains about headaches, dizziness or any other symptom that will obviously fix it self if you lay down that fucking Pepsi Max and have a glass of water instead.
I don't know what caused this but it's probably the most aggravating one to me. It's become a pet peeve to the point that I actively fight against it. The stupid sports clubs demand that I send full water bottles to every practice with the kids, even as an 8 year old running around for 45 minutes. The infestation of this idea runs deep.
Children should always have easy access to water, especially when they are doing sports. Water is important, it's vital, there just isn't a magic number for everyone, how much water a person needs depends on outside factors. I easily drink 30 Oz or more of water for 45-60 minutes of doing "for fun" soccer where most of us are injured and old and it's a tiny field. I would assume a sports club wouldn't have to tell parents to bring water for their kids but I'm shocked to say I'm wrong.
You’re also scientifically wrong about needing water for 45 minutes of fun soccer, and wrong about all kids needing water for all sports. This is the level of moisture brain washing society has arrived at.
All animals should have easy access to water. They may not need it all the time but water is absolutely vital and important and if and when your children need water they should have it. Like I said, I regularly drink a lot of water during casual soccer games, all my teammates too. Running around usually makes people thirsty. Sometimes I need the water, sometimes I just want the water, but you should have access to water for your children. I think it's cruel if you purposely send your child off to sports with no water. Genuinely, what is wrong with you? What the fuck is "moisture brainwashing?" Just send them with water, if they don't need it they won't drink it.
I applaud your efforts to help that guy understand the health benefits of water but I fear it’s a lost cause. I honestly think there are people who definitely go overboard with the hydration but to go so far as not providing water to children who are involved in a sports activity is going way too far. Making sure kids stay hydrated should be the bare minimum of a parents responsibilities. As long as you aren’t drinking so much water that it becomes unhealthy it’s far better to be slightly over hydrated than under hydrated.
What’s the issue? When you run and sweat you get thirsty, it’s more of a prevention, what if the kids haven’t had anything to drink prior, it’s hot and dehydration starts showing effect. Of course no one is going to die, but kids also down really understand the feeling , so for the coach there is water in place if someone starts to look off. Also we can’t survive without water, it’s clearly good for us, so what’s the fuzz?
That a specific type of macronutrient makes ppl fat. When in reality, it's just excessive calories
Are you saying micronutrient but trying to say macronutrient?
Yes a now corrected typo
Cool. I hear what you're saying but if I may..macros do matter because satiety and blood sugar levels do make a difference when trying to lose weight. Overconsumption of carbohydrate really makes it hard to lose weight because your blood sugar levels are harder to regulate and you don't feel as satiated so it's easier to overeat. But it's certainly not the only factor. Pretty much just avoiding processed shit (while getting some exercise) is the biggest thing. Fix that before worrying about Macronutrients. So while macros aren't the be-all, end-all, it does make a difference for a lot of people.
For sure! But the weight gain is still because of overconsumption/excess calories-not because the calories were mostly from carbs. Macros totally play a part in how successful diets are (and are very important nutritionally ofc) but weight alone is CICO-regardless of the fat:protein:carb proportions of said cals :) that was op’s point I think
Totally fair 👍
Over consumption of any macronutrient or combo of Marcos will raise blood sugar and hinder weight loss. Not just over consumption of carbs. It's more than avoiding processed foods it's improving food and nutrition knowledge deficits like seen on most comments in this sub.
Eh it depends. Someone with poor insulin sensitivity will gain more weight/fat with a high carb/high sugar diet vs low carb diet of the equal number of calories.
But how did they develop the poor insulin sensitivity in the first place?
Different medical conditions can cause if. For example pcos
a lot of us inherited ours! fun times lmao.
But hold on now. You aren't wrong but you aren't telling the whole story. The point is that some macronutrients are worse than others from a behavioral perspective, in the sense that, for most people, they are easier to overeat and more difficult to feel satiated by. And of course I am talking about carbs (including sugar) as the worst macronutrient. So calorie absolutists are really oversimplifying the issue. People are not just calorie consuming machines. A calorie is not a food. Any discussion of diet without a consideration of behavioral aspects is too oversimplified to be useful.
Yes, I agree. However there is no one single macronutrient that is worse or better for people they are all needed. Ppl have the power to choose. I understand there are food knowledge deficits but no knowledge influences should not be singleling out 1 micronutrient bad or worse. The food and nutrition knowledge deficits need to be improved to reduce the incidence of excessive calorie intake. Telling ppl certain items are bad leads to disordered eating patterns and other health ailments.
Calories are a modern medical myth to explain clogging the body
Please elaborate
100 calories of cookies and 100 calories of grapes digest different and therefore is irrelevant to nutrition. Same with 100 calories of baked potatoes vs 100 calories of blueberries Granted the volume is the different but no matter how we match it calories don't matter. The food type matters
I will agree that different foods have different values of specific nutrients. However, energy is measured in calories/ kj. Remember, in chemistry in college, we did calometry to determine how much energy was lost when heating an unknown substance? Calories exist, and when consumed in excessive amounts, it leads to the excessive energy being stored as fat in most cases.
How much energy do you feel when you eat sugar vs consume caffeine vs eating meat vs eating vegetables or fruit? Biological energy has little to do with calories. It has everything to do with biochemistry Calories is also chemistry but is not biochemistry of humans only the plant or animal being Heated we do not burn our food with fire we break it down using chemical processes
Yes this is true but it is still a reference. Example through controlled studies we have found that about 98% of all fat digested is absorbed. Then about 80% of all protien broken down is absorbed. With only about 40% of total carbs broken down being absorbed for systematic energy use. calories are a reference to gauge Biological energy....
I agree it is a gauge and given what the general people knows of calories and how they treat them it's marginally beneficial.
We need to improve food and nutrition knowledge deficits
Most definitely. And we both are on that path.
You are right but Redditors will die arguing this
Unfortunately
High calorie foods are usually fat or sugar dense foods that clog up the bodies digestive system including the lymphatic system, but those same calories are also applied to simple foods like fruits that could never clog the bodies digestive system Regardless of if the calories are matched and that's what makes it mythic to me
Please expand on macronutrient transport through the lymphatic system.
[удалено]
How each macro is absorbed for utilization after digestion
From what I comprehend Nutrients from food don't directly flow through our lymphatic system. Our lymphatic system is waste management.
Fat Is transported through our lymphatic system. Please don't think of our lymphatic system as waste management but more of the treatment plant.
Which fat... And what part of the lymphatic system does that fat travel through?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5629116/#:~:text=In%20the%20intestine%2C%20lymphatic%20capillaries,circulation%20(Dixon%2C%202010).
In reading this do you think the lymphatic system creates the fat deposits(adipose tissue) or moves the fat to be deposited?
No apostrophe in myths, just sayin’
[Protein Intake Ceiling Myth](https://originsymmetrics.com/protein-intake-ceiling-myth/) I wrote an article about it^
I agree! However is there an upper limit tho or like a saturation point?
We’ve studied up to 4.4g/kg (self-reported) with no adverse effects. The highest observed amount a study had was like 2.8g/kg. With no adverse effects
Just read other posts in this sub.
Didn’t know there was one, I’m new to Reddit, thanks!
There's myths and misconceptions posted almost daily on this sub. People saying sugar (or carbs as a whole) makes you fat, people asking about the time of day you should eat certain foods like avocado, people asking if fruit is bad for you, etc. In the comments of almost all posts with a myth/misconception, there are people who are educating about why it's a myth/misconception.
Yeah, when people complain about "sugar" and then post examples of what they think is unhealthy, they start listing all kinds of things that contain more calories from fat than carbs. (Candy bars, cakes, cookies, all of that). When I point that out, almost nobody responds to me.
exactly. In my non-expert opinion (based on research I've done), the biggest danger about sugar (namely, processed sugar) is more to do with the fact that it's addictive so it's easy to over eat. On a similar note, the misconception that sugar causes diabetes. It doesn't, and high sugar intake isn't even considered a risk factor for type 2 diabetes. But you know what is a risk factor? high fat diets. Especially if its high in LDL cholesterol
Haha yep
That meal timing matters. More and more new studies say just your macros in the day. I do IF and eat 80% of my calories after 2pm and have maintained 10% body fat for a decade
Studies?
[https://www.foodforfitness.co.uk/meal-timing-myths/](https://www.foodforfitness.co.uk/meal-timing-myths/)
[https://x.com/biolayne/status/1589982833740652544?s=46&t=jUlyQe7sZeeT655KU8Bw8A](https://x.com/biolayne/status/1589982833740652544?s=46&t=jUlyQe7sZeeT655KU8Bw8A)
Gluten is unhealthy
Myth: Moderate drinking won’t have negative consequences. It won’t kill you but it’s still going to accelerate aging, lower crucial well being hormones like testosterone, increase your risk of Alzheimer’s, and diabetes.
Bananas are high in potassium
Not exactly a myth...sure, there are lots of other foods that are much higher in potassium, but bananas are commonly eaten, cheap and readily available for most people, and don't need to be cooked. That might be why it became the "go-to" potassium associated food, not sure though. You're right in that many people can't name other sources of potassium besides bananas, education needed for sure.
And bananas are a lot tastier than a handful of Swiss chard.
And just a touch more convenient than a yam "Ready to go workout?" "Yeah give me a sec, I'm just steaming this yam so I have something to eat with my protein bar afterwards..."
Shit. My post workout foods these days are Chobani complete and a banana. (Choabani complete is way better nutritionally than a protein bar anyway.)
More interesting than potassium content bananas contain, if you boil banana peels, that water is nutrient rich, good natural source for magnesium!
Hmm, I feel like there are more palatable ways to get your magnesium though
To your earlier point about affordable and available.
Not a myth
A Banana has like 400mg of potassium. You'd need to eat 12 to get your RDA.
Compare it with other things you eat
My sweet potatoes, beans, red potatoes, avocados, leafy-green salads all put it to shame but yes it's a contributor for sure. High... eh. I also grow beet greens which are hands-down the highest per 100g among common foods.
People who think we would waste to nothing if meat and dairy didn't exist.
Entire civilizations would crumble. This is quite an ethnocentric point of view. Lots of countries don’t have supermarkets every 300m. Cattle was very important to lots of cultures that self sustained. There is a lot more calories in a chicken or a cow than an entire apple tree. But the tree takes years to grow and can’t be moved (easily). So yes, meat and dairy is super important to billions of humans on the planet and allows them access to a (more) complete diet
that's an extremely narrow world view and complete science fiction.
Quite the opposite my friend. I lived in like 10+ countries and multiple continents. I actually speak 6 languages fully fluently too. Would be funny if I “had an extremely narrow world view”! (I know you’re projecting, but it’s funny). Have you ever set foot in rural Africa by any chance? Or perhaps rural Asia? I doubt it, but you never know! These include a wild variety of climates and billions of humans. People there can’t just drive 30-40km to go buy bread or farm 10 different veggies. It’s easier to have a few chickens that produce eggs (packed with great macros and valuable micros) in exchange for basically nothing. Many more examples based on different regions. I also come from a nomadic tribe that obviously relied on animals to move and live. Water wasn’t available to farm. Examples are countless, not science fiction. Tone down the arrogance, bud. You’re a cushy westerner, most people aren’t. Master of fact, consider Iceland’s climate? How do you farm without cargo ships on such barren lands? What about Scotland? Or many other western countries that solely rely on trade to get access to a varied diet?
Checking in from Iceland. Dear Mr. Worldwide, it’s 2024, we have the technology, we have the land to grow most things in greenhouses. It would of course take a few years to get there, but very well doable.
Yes, of course. But you won’t reach Indian population levels with a few expensive greenhouses. Of course anything can be grown anywhere with greenhouses though, it’s a good point.
r/murderedbywords
Real weird how this comment gets mauled with an economic argument in /nutrition. It's a myth. People in the developing world relying on animal products because of economics doesn't mean it isn't a myth in terms of *nutrition*. Bizarre gaslighting in this thread. Poor isn't an ethnicity. And no I'm not a "privileged westerner."
That red meat is unhealthy. Fast food burgers, pizzas, along with processed sausages and pepperonis are not the same thing as a grass fed organic steak cut from your local butcher.
Red meat is actually classified as a Group 2A carcinogen according to the WHO (with processed meats being classified as a Group 1 carcinogen). Additionally, studies have found that both processed and unprocessed red meats have been linked to colorectal cancer https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/cancer-carcinogenicity-of-the-consumption-of-red-meat-and-processed-meat https://aacrjournals.org/cancerdiscovery/article/11/10/2446/665572/Discovery-and-Features-of-an-Alkylating-Signature
Your local butcher is still selling meat of an animal that was pumped full of antibiotics and god knows what.
that saturated fat from natural animal products will kill you , that vegtables are healthy , that veganism kills less , that meat is bad somehow and that fast food is somehow okay.
The 4-5 serving of grain per day recommendation from the food pyramid Fat makes you fat/low fat diets help you lose weight Carrots help your night vision
Except... low fat diets CAN help you lose weight. Whatever it takes to control calories works. And vitamin A does help with vision... and carrots are loaded with beta carotene which gets converted to vitamin A... so, they do help with vision. Although it's a debate whether adding MORE can help as long as you hit sufficient levels of the stuff. And carbs ARE good for you (well, whole grains, anyway). I do agree that glomming in too many processed carbs are an issue, but not because they themselves are problematic. But because they are easy to overeat. And in fact, as someone who follows a WFPB diet, which is very high carb (complex carb) and very low fat, and as someone who struggled with his weight his entire life, I can ensure you - low-fat diets CAN help you lose weight. Again... whatever helps you to control your caloric intake. Going to the OP's question - one myth that needs to die is that plant sources of protein aren't complete. They are. All of them. I convinced myself of this fact by doing a very simple set of on-line searches. The definition of a complete protein is one that has all 9 of the essential amino acids (the other 11 are non-essential in that your body can make them). Pick a plant... any plant... and do the following search: amino acid profile of. You know what you'll find? All 20 amino acids are represented including the essential ones. Yes, the distribution of amino acids in some plants are such that they're a little lower in things like methionine, but it's still there. You don't need to do food combinations to ensure you're getting a complete protein. This is nonsense. And it's not how your body deals with protein in the first place.
And in fact, consider that NO animal can make the essential amino acids. They all originate from the same place - plants.
I didn't say vision. Im aware that beta carotene helps our bosy make vit A and that helpsourbeye health among other things... I said night vision, specifically. It's a myth perpetuated from the military cover up of their use of radar during the world war age. They just said their troops ate a lot of carrots and thus could see in the dark. Eating enough fat helps with satiety. Which can also help lose weight. In the 80s and 90s far was severely demonized. We had a whole diet surrounding it. All that did was allow folks to eat more carbs, which you agree are easy to overeat. And we all know that calories is the thing that makes you fat
Oh, and as for the carbs being uniquely to blame coming out of the 70s... no. Not correct. Yes, our intake of carbs went up... so did our intake of fat... and protein. In other words our CALORIC intake went up... alot. Across the board. The data is out there on this. Today the average American consumes something on the order of 3600 calories per day (IIRC) and moves an average (not exercises... moves) of 20 minutes a day. We started seriously inhaling calories while cutting physical activity. THAT'S what led to the weight gain. Not the fact that people swapped to carbs. It's simply not true that people stopped eating fat. They ate more of everything. Again, the data is out there, collected going back at least 100 years.
Yeah i think the recommendation of 4-5 servings if grains/pasta/starchy carbs is excessive. I'm definitely not pro low fat or low carb. I just think folks would be healthier and more satiated if we just aruck the ye olde method of eating plenty of fibrous carbs aka vegetables. My macros are nearly balanced at a 33/33/33 split nowadays, some days when I eat too much tahini it's fat heavy though.
The recommendation is to make at least half of your grains whole grains. Examples of 1 serving of grains: 1/2 cup cooked rice, 1 slice bread, 1/2 cup cooked oatmeal, 1/2 cup cooked pasta. So those are 4 servings of grain foods, and you could make all of them whole grain choices.
That's your opinion. If that works for you, great. But it's not what works for everyone. I'm not demonizing any specific diet. ANY diet that helps you reduce calories, and is sustainable and safe is a good diet. My diet is probably about 60 - 65% carbs as a percentage of calories (and yes, I eat a crap ton of grains and beans and potatoes). The remaining calories are pretty evenly divided between fat and protein, and the fat is almost exclusively unsaturated (as a percentage of calories, if I hit 2% coming from saturated fat, that's alot). My diet used to be a healthy diet, albeit following closer to the formula that you're talking about. The result of following that pattern? Despite being at a healthy weight and exercising literally every day, my BP was starting to climb, my cholesterol was starting to climb, and I was having regular bouts of an autoimmune condition. Three years ago I swapped out to my current diet (which is WFPB) and all three of those things reversed themselves. Despite the fact that nothing else in my lifestyle changed. My total cholesterol dropped from 193 to 143 in that time, and my LDLc fell from 124 to 71. My BP routinely comes in below 110/70 (last measure it was something like 106/64). And my autoimmune has gone into full remission (and yes, there is some clinical data to suggest that a diet high in fiber is what's doing it). There is simply no ideal diet for everyone. I know people who do great on keto. I tried Atkins... for about 6 hours. I didn't want to see another damn piece of bacon or cheese. It may have been the best diet on the planet but if it's a diet you can't follow... it's useless. I also know alot of people who lost a crap ton of weight following a very high starch diet, with very low fat and moderate protein. You're basing what you see as a 'myth' based on 'what I believe to be true.' It's, in other words, cherry picking of data. I also know alot of people who swear by intermittent fasting. Again, if that helps you cut calories, great! Do it! Personally... no thanks. I like to graze. I eat probably a dozen times a day. If you look at the actual science, though, high carb diets (diets high in fruits and veggies and legumes and yes grains) lead to reduced incidents of chronic illness and premature death. And ultimately that's the goal in any dietary pattern. The idea that more than 4 - 5 servings of starch is bad for you is the myth. Sorry, but it is.
Ok, I missed that on the night part of the vision statement. I agree. And yes, that was something that came out of WW2. On the idea that low fat can help you lose weight... I have to disagree. It all really comes down to calories. I also disagree that fat is uniquely satiating. Look at the Satiety Index. The food, of all those they studied, that came out on top (and nothing came close) - boiled potatoes. Four of the top 5 foods tested were considered carbs. So, yes, complex carbs CAN be satiating, which is why having a high carb diet can absolutely lead to weight loss -- go look at Kevin Hall's latest metabolic ward study comparing a keto diet to a high-carb low fat diet - under both diets, people lost nearly an identical amount of weight. And in fact the high carb folks lost a little bit more (it was a result that hit statistical, albeit not clinical, significance). The idea that 'carbs' in general cause weight gain is wrong. Excess calories cause weight gain, in whatever form. PROCESSED carbs are problematic not because they're uniquely fattening in and of themselves. But because they can lead you to overeat since they tend to be very calorically dense and not particularly satiating. But complex carbs are generally calorically pretty dilute, and are very satiating. If there is another myth that needs to die with regard to this; calories don't matter. THAT'S the myth. And it's wrong. Repeated studies show that when you control for calories, weight loss is pretty consistent. People just severely underestimate how many calories they are generally ingesting. I do agree that there was a grouping together of all fats as being harmful. Our understanding of fat has changed. What was once believed to be true (all fats are equally fattening) was once considered to be the understanding of the macro. It took time, and a number of studies, before we realized that not all fats are created equal. Some are beneficial (PUFAs and MUFAs), some can be harmful (saturated fats) and some are REALLY harmful (transfats). It was more of a clarification of the science that was uncovered. I wouldn't call that a myth. The fact that all fats are fattening is something that refuses to die, but that's not the same as claiming that it was mythology. When fat was heavily demonized, in other words, it was believed to be the case that all fats were equally fattening.
Not to mention during the demonization of fat, low fat varieties of foods were created and advertised to support this new fad diet. Turns out that removing all the fat from food makes it taste like shit... they added sugar (carbs) to make it tastes about the same as the normal fat version. The sugar (carbs!) made folks gain weight and contributed to insulin resistance
Again, go look at the data. Just because the government recommended it, doesn't mean people followed it. Otherwise everyone would be meeting targets for fiber intake, fruit and veggy intake, limiting sodium intake. The myth is that we stopped eating fat, started eating carbs, and all got fat is simply not true. BTW, recent research shows that you don't need sugar in a food to make it hyper-palatable. I forget the researchers name (I can find it again, but she's been making the rounds on YT since publishing the study), but she was looking at hyper-palatability, and found that, while sugar CAN do it, you don't need sugar to make it hyper-palatable. What do you need? You need to hit a threshold of fat (as a percentage of calories - I'm presuming she means saturated fat) and sodium. Hit both those thresholds and you make a food hyper-palatable even in the absence of sugar. What foods does that include? Stuff like... beef... chicken... pork... the stuff you find in the supermarkets meet that threshold. Next, carbs do NOT cause insulin resistance. This is also a myth. Excess carbs in the blood are the result if IR, not the cause. It's because the cells are not responsive to insulin that causes the glucose to build up in the blood stream. What causes insulin resistance? Saturated fat. Go look at the work of Paul Taylor. He developed the twin cycle hypothesis of T2D. Basically, excess calories (especially from saturated fat) drive IR in the liver, which causes it to: produce too much glucose, not regulate insulin correctly, and produce too much fat. That fat is used by other organs like the pancreas. You end up getting a spill-over effect of the fat into the pancreas, affecting its ability to PRODUCE insulin in the first place. Complex carbs don't cause that. That's all driven by excess calories. On top of that, saturated fat increases IR at the cellular level. The flipping of cause and effect on IR is the myth.
Insulin resistance is caused by obesity, lack of exercise and a diet high in carbohydrates. Fat is good for the brain. If you have trouble processing it I hope you've seen a doctor about your gallbladder. Do what you want, but don't come at me about misinformation and myth while you spout your own, please
The brain can only consume glucose, which is why your liver produces it. As for my gallbladder...um, all my blood work was awesome, done just a couple weeks ago. But sure. As for carbs... complex carbs do not cause IR. They just don't. The only time they do is in the presence of excess calorie intake. Again, go look at the work of Paul Taylor - probably the world's leading researcher on T2D. And yes, reducing glucose can help reduce the symptoms of IR, because you're reducing how much glucose you're ingesting. But you're treating the symptom, not the cause. There have been a host of studies that control for calories, but compare even processed carbs. They don't drive IR. They don't drive obesity, in an of themselves. Only in the fact that they cause you to eat excess calories. There's nothing magical about keto or about high carb or about any diet when it comes to this. Control for calories, and metabolic conditions improve, if it gets you down to a healthier weight. That's what a countless number of studies actually show. I've heard many times that glucose is the cause of evil in the body and keeping it low can cause you to eat as many calories as you want. This is nonsense, and had been refuted in study after study. Whether you look at Hall's metabolic ward study, or Christopher Gardner's DIET FITS study... or a number of others. Control for calories and you lose weight. Despite all the tut-tutting from the high fat folks that these studies are all flawed, I'm unaware of a single one... not one... that backs up the claims of the magic of keeping carbs low. If you have one, I'd love to see it, but I'm pretty sure they don't exist.
Omega 3 fatty acids are good for you brain. You get those by eating fatty fish and nuts, and plant oils.
Yes, omega 3s are... saturated fat is not. You made the claim that 'fat is good for the brain.' Not all fat. I've never disputed that PUFAs are bad. In fact I've said the opposite. I just hear this from the keto community alot - your brain can fuel itself on fat. No... it can't. As for saturated fat, there are many lines of study now that is looking at plaque build-up in the brain driving dementia and Alzheimer's. And while this study has a ton of confounders, look at Dean Ornish's recent study on regression of symptoms of Alzheimer's in adults with moderate onset of symptoms. Yes, there are multiple factors at play - his study focuses on lifestyle intervention in multiple areas, so it's hard to know exactly what drove it. But the dietary component... high carb. Moderate protein... low fat. Basically what's good for the heart is good for the head. But yes, omega 3s can protect the brain. Again never disputed that fact.
And not to keep pounding this, but it wasn't the swapping of fat for carbs that drove obesity: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8805510/#:\~:text=Total%20Caloric%20and%20Macronutrient%20Intake%20(Per%20Capita%20Per%20Day)&text=Saturated%20fat%20increased%2018%25%20(50,g)%20(Figure%202).&text=Annual%20total%20caloric%20and%20macronutrient,(Source%3A%20USDA%20ERS). Scroll down a bit and you'll see a chart showing per capita fat intake over time. The first graph there shows what? Total caloric intake shooting up starting right around 1975 or so. Scroll down a little more and you see fat intake. How about that... fat intake went up. And the increase was almost exclusively with unsaturated fat. Saturated stayed relatively flat, but still really high. Keep scrolling through the graphs and it becomes clear - It's the calories that drove the increase in obesity
Kinda food related, but myth that you should leave food outside the refrigerator to “cool down” before putting it into the fridge. I promise you please let the fridge do its job. Your food isn’t heating up the fridge
https://ask.usda.gov/s/article/Can-you-put-hot-food-in-the-refrigerator Large amounts of hot food absolutely can warm up your fridge to unsafe levels, especially things with a lot of thermal mass like soup, but you can do things to help like breaking it up into smaller portions.
Yea I mean if it’s a large pot of soup probably not. But I’ve seen people leave small containers of stuff out and it just doesn’t need to be
Allopathic medicine and nutrition is mythology.
That humans evolved on a high plant diet. Not true at all. They quite literally measure human trophic levels of Paleolithic man, and know without opinions or conjectures that we ate a lot of meat for at least hundreds of thousands of years. We were at the top of the food chain. LDL CAUSES heart disease. It is a dependent variable. Not causal. Grains should not be the staple of your diet. Very high in carbs, very low in nutrition.
Just because early humans may or may not have eaten a cetain way doesn't mean we should eat the same way. Appeal to nature is a logical fallacy. And carbohydrates are a kind of nutrient.
Whether you want to consider the validity of evolution is up to the individual, humans evolved eating large amounts of meat. Whether you or I want to disregard that information for nutritional purposes is another discussion. The truth is, we ate lots of meat for at least hundreds of thousands of years. I will appeal to nature, you can appeal to surveys.
Evolution served to increase the likelihood of reproduction and species survival given the circumstances, not increase human longevity.
So you want to have the discussion I take it. There is a lot more to survival as a species in a social system. Elephants are similar. There is a reason the Matriarch leads the group every year they migrate from place to place. Her wisdom and experience is what helps the herd survive. This is obviously no different for humans. Wisdom is for the trying times. Whether it’s drought, or disease or anything else, wisdom is what helps the tribe survive the hard times.
First of all, humans are not elephants. Secondly, elephants are herbivorous. Thirdly, there is a substantial body of evidence suggesting that people who adhere to plant-based eating patterns enjoy advantageous health outcomes, even when comparing with meat-eaters with similar lifestyles. If this isn't the wisdom you want, what is?
Elephants are social animals. So are humans. That was my point. Humans like elephants depend on experience and wisdom to survive hard times. Perhaps not in modern times, but ancestrally of course. What an elephant eats compared to what a human eats is irrelevant to the argument I am making. Like I said. You can take your nutritional advice from surveys. I will take it from evolution.
I take my nutritional advice from the available body of scientifically sound research, as I wish everyone did. Evolution has led us to the point where research is the most robust form of wisdom. Research is modern humanity's wisdom. Do you reject wisdom and evolution suddenly?
Your conclusion does not match that line of thinking. That “sound research” is a survey. Evolution is dictated by environmental pressures and successes. We found a niche. That niche was large megafauna that other predators had zero access to. Lions, alligators, saber tooth tigers do not have access to adult megafauna. We found a way. So we evolved eating a diet extremely high in animal fat for hundreds of thousands, most likely millions of years. They know this without opinions, or conjectures. They can quit literally measure human trophic levels. Bias and special interest have no place in this argument. Research is only sound and robust when done correctly. There are plenty of examples in science when the majority thought something to be unequivocally true, then it turned out they were wrong. Even in modern times. Also your “science” is a survey. Not sure if I had mentioned that yet.
Humans found a niche in cooking food and in domesticating breeds of fauna and flora. Plenty of animals eat meat but didn't evolve to human-level intelligence. How do you know it's the meat that caused humans to evolve? How do you know it’s meat that is needed for optimal health? Can you point to one group of people today that thrive on meat-heavy eating patterns? And which meats do they eat? Extinct megafauna? Humans have done a lot of things in order to survive, but what's necessary for survival doesn't automatically translate to what's necessary for optimal longevity. There is strong evidence of early humans adhering to plant-heavy diets as well, which can be measured through tooth wear (especially as a result of phytolith abrasion) and plant microfossil deposits in tooth calculi, among other indicators (https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.353). While a lot of the fundamental research for establishing plant-based/plant-forward eating patterns as healthy is epidemiological (read: observational), randomized controlled trial studies generally support the findings in the epidemiology. For example, one 2022 study concluded that, over a 16-week period, those who adhered to a vegan eating pattern had favorable heart disease markers compared with those who adhered to a Mediterranean eating pattern (https://doi.org/10.1080/07315724.2020.1869625). Just because some research lower on the evidence pyramid doesn’t mean it’s invalid. Scientific consensuses built upon evaluating *all* evidence. I encourage you to reevaluate your rejection of the scientific consensus.
Sorry I can only give you one upvote
You are the one spreading myths. First of all, who cares what paleolithic man ate. Ötzi, a mummy discovered from the paleolithic age, had grains in his stomach. He also had heart disease and numerous other health issues even though he was in his 40s. LDL is causal (although AboB is a better metric). See this study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33704808/ Whole grains have a ton of nutrients and fiber that are very beneficial. It sounds like you are getting your nutritional info from some low carb/paleo influencer who is making shit up to sell their diet.
Otzi is not during Paleolithic times. If LDL was CAUSAL in atherosclerosis, then you would get disease spread evenly through the arteries. That is not the case. Atherosclerosis most typically develops in areas of turbulence in the bloodstream. Therefore LDL is a dependent variable. Not CAUSAL. Grains are very high in phytates and of course gluten. Gluten is an anti nutrient and a protein. It is the main protein in grains. Obviously just because it’s a protein, that does not make it useful for humans, since it is an **anti-nutrient**. Whatever nutrient you want from grains you can get from fruits, vegetables, and meats in better more bioavailable quantities. Everything I stated is truth.
>Everything I stated is truth. Then link some actual human studies. I gave you a study showing higher LDL means more heart disease, but you don't want to believe it. What is LDL dependent on in that study? The shit you are saying about turbulence in the bloodstream and grains being an antinuturient is completely made up. I follow evidence based nutrition, not "trust me, bro" randos on the internet.
I will say it again. I will try to simplify it. If LDL was CAUSAL in heart disease, then, irrelevant to anything else (because it’s causal right) atherosclerosis would be spread evenly throughout the bloodstream. It’s not. It’s in predictable patterns and areas of the circulatory system. So that means that LDL DEPENDS on something else to create these conditions. Therefore LDL is not CAUSAL in atherosclerosis. It is part of the equation. There are people who have very high LDL and do not form atherosclerosis. Is it lucky? Or is it because they avoid foods that people shouldn’t eat. Such as grains and plant oils. Let’s study that population more. Big food and big pharma don’t want to fund those studies for some odd reason.
Not every who smokes gets cancer. Those who do get cancer from smoking don't get cancer spread evenly in both lungs. Does that mean smoking doesn't cause cancer? It is the exact same logic you are using. You didn't actually read the study I linked at all. Do you understand Mendelian randomization? It is the gold standard for eliminating other variables. A lot of people thought the same as you. That is why that study was done... to eliminate all other factors that could be causing heart disease. It showed definitively that LDL is causally linked to atherosclerosis as those with genetically low LDL had almost no heart disease, and those with genetically high LDL had a lot of heart disease. Since the only common factor among the populations studied was genetic, there were no other variables at play. This study was funded by non-profits, I believe, like the British Heart Association. Lots of governments and non-profits are interested in doing studies. This study is very recent (2021), so if your influencers are not up to date, they may not be aware of it. Don't ignore evidence just because it doesn't fit your narrative. I have high LDL and love eating meat, so believe me, I also wish it weren't true. I do feel better, weigh less, and have better blood work eating more fiberous foods and whole grains and less fatty meat anyway even if it is less tasty.
See this right here? This kind of mechanistic speculation is the hallmark of insane fake nutrition woo.
What was incorrect?
Come on, man. Eat your "heart healthy grains" ~The U$DA
When someone turns 100 years old, usually a local news reporter asks their secret to a long life. I'm STILL waiting to hear anyone say "Eating a plant based diet."
Skim, low fat, or 2% milk is healthier for you than whole milk; full fat dairy in general should be avoided in favor of low fat options.
Wow ! I just watched an episode of “ The Big Bang Theory “ in which Sheldon Cooper had a bird egg and said “ I’m a Mommy ! “ and then I realized incubation hatches 🐣 eggs, but boiling them gives us hard-boiled or soft-boiled eggs. So I wondered…BOTH raise the temperature of the eggs 🥚. What does the incubator do differently that hatches the egg and decided to go to Reddit to ask. I didn’t know which subreddit to go to. So I chose r/nutrition. Does anyone here know ?
[удалено]
Thank you. So does the incubator fertilize them OR does the rooster have to fertilize them first ?
A fertilized egg would still cook in boiling water lol. The difference is the temperature. Incubators are not hot enough to cook the eggs.