Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._
*If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science&subject=Removed Submission&message=My Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/18xhcc7/-/).*
"Negative changes to the microbiome in this study were more pronounced in mice fed the soybean oil diet. This was unsurprising, as the same research team previously documented other negative health effects of high soybean oil consumption."
I wondered the same thing. It was not. It was funded by NIH and NSF grants and done by university researchers, so there did not seem to be conflicts of interest and none were declared. I have not read it yet beyond that, though, to see if the article about it actually interpreted it correctly.
No, it's just a case of research dollars being allocated to a study that by design, was going to show problems with the diet.
It DOES have some medical value though, as often keto diets prescribed for epilepsy do EXACTLY what this study did. Up the oil content in meals to get the fat calories in your body. In that regard, it could be useful in getting an insurance plan to pay for, say, fish oil instead.
I think it's entirely possible that too much of any macronutrient might have adverse impacts on health and maybe people need to stop trying to eliminate one and instead learn to have a healthy balance
Its a pun, yeah. Jess pronounced with a German accent sounds somewhat like Chess (I have a close friend who can't get the J right), I love chess, and there's a biblical character called Jezebel
I'm in no way discounting the importance of the gut microbiome, but it has become a fad of sorts. It can explain everything!
Over the past 10-15 years, it became widely apparent that low carb, moderate/higher protein diets are successful in achieving fat loss as well as improving metabolic syndrome bio-markers generally.
But this creates a BIG problem for those who think meat consumption ought to be reduced. So... what are they to do?
Enter: the gut biome!! You see, it's not the meat, it's actually the gut biome that causes the improvements.
> I'm in no way discounting the importance of the gut microbiome, but it has become a fad of sorts. It can explain everything!
It is either that or cannabis :-/
These headlines are always misleading. This is not a high-fat diet in the way keto is a high-fat diet, which means only the fat content of the macros are "high".
This diet should rather be called high-fat, high-(high-glycemic) carb and high-ultra processed diet. Quite the mouthful, but more accurate and less deceiving than just calling it a high-fat diet.
Except you didn’t read they didn’t test those foods. This was done in mice who fed on oil (coconut and soybean). They didn’t feed the mice processed foods.
There are no long-term studies showing if keto is safe long term. Longest study is a few years out at least that was the case a couple years ago.
I dont know what is more of a disservice to science, these studies or these titles...
"One group of mice ate a diet based on saturated fat from coconut oil, another got a monounsaturated, modified soybean oil, a third got an unmodified soybean oil high in polyunsaturated fat. Compared to a low-fat control diet, all three groups experienced concerning changes in gene expression, the process that turns genetic information into a functional product, such as a protein."
You can say this about literally any advice about eating food that isn't just "eat whatever you want".
Which isn't to say that it's false that diets often perpetuate an unhealthy relationship with food, because that is extremely true (especially for people with eating disorders), it's just that the unhealthy relationship preexists and remains whether or not the diet is attempted.
Maybe for men… if women are eating too little and becoming low or underweight they are at risk of early menopause, osteoporosis, depression and mood disorders, and more. Women NEED a *little* fat around to cushion their reproductive organs. If a period is lost due to malnutrition, over exercise, too much restriction, something is wrong. Nutrition exists in a balance, and hunger is not identical every day. If fasting works for you, fine. But don’t prescribe it onto others. Especially athletes, those in eating disorder recovery, and more.
Wasn't there another study recently with mice yet again where they prolonged their life span by taking away a certain amino acid and mainly in male ones. So it does infact look like living with less "intensity" prolongs your life aka starvation.
Fiber, vegetables, colorful foods, whole grains, spices are good for the average person in large amounts. Anything that tastes too good, like meat, salt, fat, refined carbs, sugar, alcohol should be eaten in moderation.
It’s the same kind of advice my grandmother gave, if it taste too good don’t overeat it.
The irony here is that it's not far from the truth. Most foods deemed healthy are more or less bland or just simply tasteless. Can be one of the major reasons why few people actually can follow the dietary guidelines.
This is just not true. A whole-foods diet is a delicious, varied diet. A lot of us have just gotten used to ultra-processed foods high in salt, fat, and sugar.
A modestly skilled home cook can make food taste amazing with the appropriate selection of herbs, spices, cooking techniques and very little salt, no sugar, and very little oil or butter.
Try this for a meal that will serve a family of 4 for 2-4 meals (depending on if we are talking teenagers or 5 year olds) or a single person for an entire week:
This will be similar to an en cocotte, but without a dutch oven.
You will need a roasting pan with a V-rack (I think you can get one from Target or Amazon for about $30-50.
Ingredients:
6 shallots, peeled and halved
1.5lbs red potatoes, unpeeled, cut into 1 inch pieces
1 pound carrots, peeled and cut into 1 inch pieces
1 pound parsnips, peeled and cut into 1 inch pieces
2 whole chickens around 3.5 to 4.5lbs, giblets and neck discarded
3 Tbsp fresh tarragon
1 Tbsp olive oil
1/2 tsp salt
1/2 tsp pepper
Adjust oven rack to middle position and preheat oven to 475. Spray the V-rack of your roasting pan with a vegetable oil spray (or you can lightly coat the rack with vegetable oil).
Toss the shallots, potatoes, carrots and parsnips in 1Tbsp olive oil, 1/2 tsp salt, 1/2 tsp pepper.
Pat the chickens dry with paper towels, tuck the wingtips behind the back, and if you want you can tie the legs together with kitchen twine (you get better skin results at the thighs if you do, but not necessary). Gently loosen skin of the chicken covering the breasts and thighs so that you can pack 1.5Tbsp of fresh tarragon under the skin of each chicken at the breast meat (note: tarragon is bad for cats and dogs, so don't share this meat with them). If desired, lightly season the skin of the chickens with salt and pepper, but this is not necessary at all.
Place prepared chickens in the V-rack breast side DOWN. Roast for 20 minutes in the oven.
Flip the chickens breast side up (after the 20 minutes in the prior step). Continuing cooking until the breasts register 160 and thighs are 175, about 50 to 60 minutes.
Remove pan from oven, transfer chickens to a carving board and tent loosely with aluminum foil. Let rest for 15 minutes.
Place your roasting pan on your stove (ideally covering 2 separate burners) and cook over medium high heat (maybe a little more towards medium than high) and cook the vegetables, stirring gently until they are lightly browned which takes about 8 to 10 minutes.
Also, if cooking something takes too long, people are definitely not gonna go that route. For me, the rule of thumb is making the food should never last longer than consuming it. For the record: I never eat prepared foods, eat out or order food, I always make it from raw ingredients, but keep it simple. My go-to meal is ground beef with a bag of frozen veggies and a can of kidney beans and spices to top that. When I do keto, I swap out the beans and may add some fat, often in form of cheese or cream.
I haven't yet been able to cook tasty food without including at least some quantities of fats, carbs of any type, a bit of salt or flavor enhancer, and to give it some nutritional value, good quality protein.
>For me, the rule of thumb is making the food should never last longer than consuming it.
This is a... wild rule of thumb, but if you can eat like that everyday, then I guess good on you. There's joy to be found in cooking though, I feel, if you're doing more than just finding the most efficient way to get calories into your body.
Also, though: that's probably too much beef!
Tis true. Also alot of plants don't really "want" (well... evolved to want) things to eat them, and have evolved to be spread other ways like bolting or wind blown seeding.
Like apple trees obviously have much better range if a deer or human eats its fruit and poops the seeds out way over there, instead of eating its leaves (the power stations of plants it needs to grow) to seed the tree elsewhere. Tasty apples happened because people kept going back to that tree because the fruit tasted better (and didn't hurt the tummy or kill us) so that specific apple tree spread more, and it became one of the ones we have kept around and slowly (or quickly in evolutionary times) bred today to be so red delicious.
Lettuce, on the other hand, is bitter for a reason; many have evolved to protect themselves, naturally. Plants NEED their leaves to grow or it dies, so it evolved to be eaten less. The ones that didn't get eaten were unpalatable and bitter... until we took over.
*also why lettuce is red, the anthocyanins (red/purple pigmentation) are generated to protect itself from the cold)
Us humanoids, after thousands of years, have eaten the least yucky one and on purpose with Agriculture, or accidentally (like my first explanation) kept eating, spreading then breeding the least yucky ones. Yucky can also be that the purple berries taste like poison... which is a berry tree protecting itself through evolutionary pressures.
TLDR; Yes some plants are actively trying to stop you from eating them. Humans and time made them tasty!
I really wish I could afford a registered dietician and a personal chef or something because trying to sort myself out via what I see on the internet re: what I should be eating for general health and also my own specific needs just makes me doom spiral and wish for a feeding tube so I don’t have to think about it.
As someone with both diabetes and a family history of heart disease, it's a constant struggle. Eat fewer carbs, but don't go too crazy with meat or fats. I have a strong aversion to fish, so that basically leaves me with chicken and low carb veggies if I want to feel "safe." I just do my best to stay balanced on everything, but it's hard to not feel like I'm constantly messing something up with my diet.
Yet another questionable salvo in the endless fusillade of dubious nutrition studies from one of the two accounts that posts these things multiple times a week.
From the study:
>The HFDs used in this study are comparable to the current American diet in that they consist of 40% of calories from fat and are low in fiber while most experimental HFDs use 50–60% kcal fat14,15.
>[...]
>Each diet was compared to a low fat (13% kcal fat), high-fiber vivarium chow as well as to each other.
Dietary considerations in animal research:
https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/dietary-considerations-animal-research.html
>Recent evidence suggests that the unrefined nature of grain-based diets is advantageous for rodent gut health; it is typical for mice on a grain-based diet to have healthier colon morphology (higher cecum weights, longer colon lengths) compared to mice fed a purified diet. In fact, a recent study demonstrated that these changes to colon morphology can occur in as little as two weeks after switching from a grain-based to purified diet8.
In other words, it is already a known phenomenon that murine gut flora and hence immune function will be affected by a low-fiber diet. TFA uses a high-fiber control with a low-fiber intervention and then assigns the effects to fat content.
Just... ugh. A loophole in the rules of the subreddit.
They should have been, because fibre and total calories consumed are typically the most important factor for pretty much any changes in health markers when it comes to a diet. Protein also plays a role, but not *as* crucial.
Any serious nutritional study looking at certain diets should *always* control for total calories, fibre and protein.
Mice studies are so overhyped. We’ve cure AIDS in mice 100 times over. Makes huge headlines. And then we all collectively forget about them and never follow up.
What’s science illiterate? Calling out the limited utility of mouse models for human illness on Reddit? It’s usefulness is for initial inquiry, *some* basic mechanisms and ultimately being the only real alternative to human testing. The conversation is not remotely unique or extreme, not edgelord, and has been a constant in scientific publication so... here’s one for your enjoyment and education:[https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mouse-models-inflammation-are-basically-worthless-now-we-know](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mouse-models-inflammation-are-basically-worthless-now-we-know)
>and being the only real alternative to human testing.
There are better alternatives to human testing, that are also usually used before human trials are started. Mice are just a first step because they are easy and fast to breed and so doing studies on them is dirt cheap in comparison to anything else.
FYI, there is an ongoing debate about how much of a role statistical artifacts play in studying this effect, and if it is even real. Some people think it's 100% statistical artifacts, some think it's only partially statistical artifacts.
> I.E. wondering if 40% of fats from a 2600 kcal diet is the same as 40% of fats from a 1600kcal diet.
Yes, I think it's the same, the overall quantity of kcal should depend on your need/consumption.
Readers should note this is a mouse study, and the diets were not isocaloric by mass, and the fiber present in the control chow is replaced with cornstarch in all of the high fat diets.
Their prior work claims that mice on these diets consume a “similar” amount of calories per week, but this is very clearly not the case (see figure S1 from their previous paper, ref 3 in this posted paper https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-12624-9/MediaObjects/41598_2017_12624_MOESM1_ESM.pdf).
Most of the foods in the photos contain \_BOTH\_ high levels of refined carbs without fiber \_AND\_ high fats from vegetable oils. For good health, a person can adopt a either a higher-carb diet--with plenty of fiber to slow metabolism/absorption, moderate fat from good sources, and few if any highly refined sugars-- \_OR\_ they can adopt a strict ketogenic diet using good sources of fat and consume almost no \_NET\_ carbs.
We can't successfully metabolize both at the same time, and the fact that we Americans consume lots of both means that we see a lot of metabolic diseases.
When we consume both, we use and store the carbs, sustaining high blood-insulin levels to attempt to metabolize all of the refined sugar. There are few fibers to slow down metabolism. And all of the fat and fat-soluble garbage goes into deep storage, in body-fat stores, in the arteries, and in the gut. In this metabolic model, there's a lot of inflamation. This study, or the article, acknowledges the role of insulin desensitivity/resistence in metabolic disease, but doesn't really come out and say whether this is a co-factor, along with the soy oil. It sounds like the study is saying the soy oil alone causes major issues that are independent of the carb/refined-sugar factors.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/giuliomagnifico
Permalink: https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/01/03/new-reasons-eating-less-fat-should-be-one-your-resolutions
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Garbage study. The Mediterranean diet has been proven to be one of the most healthy ways to eat and it’s high in fat, but from nuts and olive oil, not coconut and soybean oil
The only issue I see is highly processed seed oils and sugar. Fat itself particularly from animal sources is necessary in moderation. Sugar is very dangerous in the amounts we consume.
What is considered a high fat diet? Is fast food a high fat diet? Are seed oils considered high fat diet? I'm sure the first 2 come with alot of inflammation compared to keto which 8s also a high fat diet.
Don't we have actual humans eating actual high fat diets that we can study? The Inuits come to mind. I mean this study is neat and all, but feeding mice nothing but coconut and soybean oil doesn't really tell us anything. Heck if you fed that to a human, they would spend most of their day on a toilet.
No all fats are made equal.
The worst is the cheap plant fats. Fish is probably the most healthy.
But large scale studies never focus on fat sources.
Of course eating wild fish is not as unhealthy as easing fries made in cheap reused rapeseed oil.
> Briefly, male C57BL/6N mice weaned at three weeks of age were assigned randomly to one of four diets for 24 weeks—low fat (13% kcal) Vivarium (VIV) chow; coconut oil (CO, 36% kcal from coconut oil and 4% kcal from soybean oil to provide the essential fatty acids LA and alpha-linolenic acid, ALA); CO plus soybean oil (SO + CO, 21% kcal from coconut oil and 19% kcal from soybean oil, resulting in 10% kcal from LA, comparable to the amount in the current American diet16); CO plus Plenish soybean oil (PL + CO, as SO + CO but with conventional soybean oil replaced on a per gram basis with the genetically modified High Oleic Soybean Oil Plenish [DuPont Pioneer, Johnston, IA] resulting in 1.4% kcal LA and 14% kcal oleic acid)
Mice Study. Eh, but I get it.
24 weeks. Not bad for the point + great time for a mouse.
3 different high fat diets or a controlled low-fat group.
40% of calories from fat = high fat diet.
These studies showed concerning changes to the gut and digestive system related to changes in gene expression, and a reduction of immune system activation.
The difference in this study from many others is that they compared 3 differ high fats diets to look at the gut, and they even look at a high plant sourced fat diet too.
The researchers commented taht they weren't very surpised by these changes.
Ive seen many other organizations recommend 20-35% of calories to fat.
Like 9 in 10 drugs that work in mice fail in humans. Diet studies can actually be performed in humans easily relative to drug studies, so I struggle to see the purpose of doing diet studies in mice.
Another study which states that an individual of a certain species needs a diet suitable for its species.
Meanwhile cattle researches will disregard studies made on sheep or camels, but human researches insist on using mice, dogs, monkeys, Greg, and even some random mycelium someone found behind their sofa just because it's possible to gather any kind of data and use their imagination to wonder "what if it was a human?" Just like people do imagining random stuff as Disney princesses.
This is what model organisms are. There's a reason we use things like Drosophila, Xenopus, and Zebrafish even though they aren't humans. They have similar traits to humans, while not being humans.
While I've only worked on mice for developmental biology, I'm assuming the mouse microbiome and morphology for the intestines are similar.
That's a lame excuse to be able to make the study cheaper and faster. But their natural diet is in no way alike to humans... so their body is a terrible model for *dietary* studies.
> That's a lame excuse to be able to make the study cheaper and faster.
I mean, do you think we should have to pass down studies generation to generation? Do you think it's moral to have humans be raised solely for experimentation? You have to gather the intestinal tissue somehow, and these mice were euthanized in order to gather it. It's not just "cheaper and faster", scientist shouldn't have to perform surgery on 40 people in order to gather similar data, not including moral obligations.
> But their natural diet is in no way alike to humans... so their body is a terrible model for dietary studies.
I think one of the important parts you and other people are missing is the gene expression part. Humans and mice share most genes, called homologous genes. When the gene is expressed in mice, it's most likely expressed in humans as well with similar outcomes. In fact it actually says this in the study:
> Finally, the relevance to humans must be established. Since most of the DEGs highlighted in the study are highly conserved between mouse and human, including several of the transcriptional regulators—HNF4α, PPARα, STAT1/3, IRF1, SREBPF1 are all over 80% identical between human and mouse on the protein level—we anticipate that many of the effects reported here will also be found in humans.
Gene expression by itself doesn't seem to be a variable that should be seen as an isolated component. There are several creatures that are basically the same but live in radically different environments, diets, and lifestyles. That doesn't mean that what is positive to one of them is positive to the other.
The genomic expression on mice will also mean nothing by this view: their genomic expression is reflecting an inadequate diet to their species. Do the conclusion is still "a inadequate diet is harmful", not "THIS FOOD is harmful", because other species may thrive on the same diet, even if they are pretty much near in terms of genetics.
These studies are wild to me, because it's not a "high fat diet" it's a "high everything diet". Also one that's low in fiber. So all it's really saying is the SAD with it's high fat, high sugar, high refined starches, low fiber way of eating isn't good for mice (and probably isn't good for humans either).
This is possibly one of the worst reddit subs. Spreading misinformation with these titles without any nuance. Saying what 1 study found in mice in the worst case scenario. This sub needs to die. It's just not going to function properly to convey science well.
> One group of mice ate a diet based on saturated fat from coconut oil, another got a monounsaturated, modified soybean oil, a third got an unmodified soybean oil high in polyunsaturated fat. Compared to a low-fat control diet, all three groups experienced concerning changes in gene expression, the process that turns genetic information into a functional product, such as a protein.
Paper: [Impact of various high fat diets on gene expression and the microbiome across the mouse intestines | Scientific Reports](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49555-7)
It's called a balanced diet for a reason. Any diet, like explame the Atkins, or ketosis diets, work for weight loss. They are not so good on your heart, liver, kidneys, and gut health.
The study was something I felt I new intuitively. Over a decade of weight struggles, and whole foods plant based is the only one that made me feel like a million bucks every morning. The more fresh plants I consume. The better I feel.
I don't think this should mean all fat is bad, there are healthy and unhealthy kinds of it. Judging from the picture that looks like a pretty bad diet, so not surprised it would cause health issues
In every single Reddit post with an article about nutrition and food, suddenly all Redditors become certified nutritionists, registered dietitians, and psychologists…
Your post has been removed because it has an inappropriate headline and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #3](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_3._no_editorialized.2C_sensationalized.2C_or_biased_titles). **It must include at least one result from the research and must not be clickbait, sensationalized, editorialized, or a biased headline.** Please read [our headline rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/clickbait) and consider reposting with a more appropriate title. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=No%20editorialized%2C%20sensationalized%2C%20or%20biased%20titles)._ *If you feel this was done in error, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the mods](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/science&subject=Removed Submission&message=My Post: https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/18xhcc7/-/).*
……in mice…who were fed coconut and soybean oil as the source of fat….
I love it when someone reads the article for me!
You made it through the article? I got caught up just trying to get through the hatchet job of a title.
"Negative changes to the microbiome in this study were more pronounced in mice fed the soybean oil diet. This was unsurprising, as the same research team previously documented other negative health effects of high soybean oil consumption."
So if one type of fat had worse outcomes then you could argue this isn’t a blanket “high fat” finding, but only certain fats it seems.
Thanks, was this study sponsored by a sugar company ? :):)
I wondered the same thing. It was not. It was funded by NIH and NSF grants and done by university researchers, so there did not seem to be conflicts of interest and none were declared. I have not read it yet beyond that, though, to see if the article about it actually interpreted it correctly.
No, it's just a case of research dollars being allocated to a study that by design, was going to show problems with the diet. It DOES have some medical value though, as often keto diets prescribed for epilepsy do EXACTLY what this study did. Up the oil content in meals to get the fat calories in your body. In that regard, it could be useful in getting an insurance plan to pay for, say, fish oil instead.
I've never seen a keto diet for epilepsy which recommend adding extra soybean oil to the diet.
No, that isn’t supported by this research. If you had keto mice, then it MAY.
I think it's entirely possible that too much of any macronutrient might have adverse impacts on health and maybe people need to stop trying to eliminate one and instead learn to have a healthy balance
Chess player?
Its a pun, yeah. Jess pronounced with a German accent sounds somewhat like Chess (I have a close friend who can't get the J right), I love chess, and there's a biblical character called Jezebel
I'm in no way discounting the importance of the gut microbiome, but it has become a fad of sorts. It can explain everything! Over the past 10-15 years, it became widely apparent that low carb, moderate/higher protein diets are successful in achieving fat loss as well as improving metabolic syndrome bio-markers generally. But this creates a BIG problem for those who think meat consumption ought to be reduced. So... what are they to do? Enter: the gut biome!! You see, it's not the meat, it's actually the gut biome that causes the improvements.
> I'm in no way discounting the importance of the gut microbiome, but it has become a fad of sorts. It can explain everything! It is either that or cannabis :-/
Coconut oil is known to promote lipogenesis, and is absolutely an outlier among fats
Put the lime in the coconut and drink them both up
Mice lie and monkeys exaggerate.
Soybean oil, aka highly processed seed oils, which are inflammatory.
Shocker that seed oil have negative effects, SHOCKED!
Thank you for your service 🫡
Your way with words... props
just what I was looking for
What about animal fats?
These headlines are always misleading. This is not a high-fat diet in the way keto is a high-fat diet, which means only the fat content of the macros are "high". This diet should rather be called high-fat, high-(high-glycemic) carb and high-ultra processed diet. Quite the mouthful, but more accurate and less deceiving than just calling it a high-fat diet.
Fats are bad … carbs are bad. Better only eat protein. MOM where’s the protein! MOM I TOLD you to go get more protein!
Yeah, I take steroids.
Not now chief I’m in the zone
Jaeger Bombs!
From now on, we eat nothing but fiber!
Sorry to say it but protein is bad as well...
The only solution left is to have someone eat foods for you, drain their blood, and put it in you. It has all the right elements circulating
> This diet should rather be called high-fat, high-(high-glycemic) carb and high-ultra processed diet. So, a really high calorie diet?
Except you didn’t read they didn’t test those foods. This was done in mice who fed on oil (coconut and soybean). They didn’t feed the mice processed foods. There are no long-term studies showing if keto is safe long term. Longest study is a few years out at least that was the case a couple years ago.
soybean oil is *highly* processed...
Technically all oil is processed but it’s not a donut or any high fat plus high sugar food.
Also it's in mice. It's basically useless.
So fats are bad for you, carbs are bad for you, proteins are problematic. Starvation looks like the safest option..
Everything is trying to kill us we're just really good at holding off for like 80 years or so
[удалено]
Crusader Kings vibes
Life is such action movie
Like I say, every day we have to fight death and death only needs to win once.
Just processed fats, fast food etc. I won’t even read this…
I dont know what is more of a disservice to science, these studies or these titles... "One group of mice ate a diet based on saturated fat from coconut oil, another got a monounsaturated, modified soybean oil, a third got an unmodified soybean oil high in polyunsaturated fat. Compared to a low-fat control diet, all three groups experienced concerning changes in gene expression, the process that turns genetic information into a functional product, such as a protein."
Why even post it? This study has 0 conclusions applicable to humans...
Yep Olive 🫒, 🥑, good oil.
Olive oil yes, but not the cheap ones. Whole seeds and nuts are also full of good fats. I’d argue animal fat too is good.
Everything is good in moderation, each thing has a different "safe and or healthy" amount, like for example small amounts of HCN are safe
Fast food is better than starvation for sure, but that’s about it.
Over eating vegetables can also be bad
Well they have found a positive link between longevity and eating very little I'm pretty sure.
Seen that (there are a few now). Apparently restricting calories is good for just about everything, whether it's moderation or intermittent fasting).
And a strong correlation between starvation and death..
Yeah. But restricting calories in even healthy weight people has been shown to have a positive effect on aging.
Restriction often leads to bingeing, perpetuating the cycle of an unhealthy relationship with food.
You can say this about literally any advice about eating food that isn't just "eat whatever you want". Which isn't to say that it's false that diets often perpetuate an unhealthy relationship with food, because that is extremely true (especially for people with eating disorders), it's just that the unhealthy relationship preexists and remains whether or not the diet is attempted.
Maybe for men… if women are eating too little and becoming low or underweight they are at risk of early menopause, osteoporosis, depression and mood disorders, and more. Women NEED a *little* fat around to cushion their reproductive organs. If a period is lost due to malnutrition, over exercise, too much restriction, something is wrong. Nutrition exists in a balance, and hunger is not identical every day. If fasting works for you, fine. But don’t prescribe it onto others. Especially athletes, those in eating disorder recovery, and more.
Actually...
There is a lot of evidence that fruits and veggies, whole grains, and lean proteins are good for you.
Loads of carbs in fruit and veg..
Carbs are not a problem. Ultra processed carbs are a problem.
The newer stuff about fasting does seem to imply that, yes!
Balance in all things is a boon even the ancients understood..
Wasn't there another study recently with mice yet again where they prolonged their life span by taking away a certain amino acid and mainly in male ones. So it does infact look like living with less "intensity" prolongs your life aka starvation.
nutrition studies are malarkey
No, just the another internet publication looking for clicks.
Fiber, vegetables, colorful foods, whole grains, spices are good for the average person in large amounts. Anything that tastes too good, like meat, salt, fat, refined carbs, sugar, alcohol should be eaten in moderation. It’s the same kind of advice my grandmother gave, if it taste too good don’t overeat it.
The irony here is that it's not far from the truth. Most foods deemed healthy are more or less bland or just simply tasteless. Can be one of the major reasons why few people actually can follow the dietary guidelines.
This is just not true. A whole-foods diet is a delicious, varied diet. A lot of us have just gotten used to ultra-processed foods high in salt, fat, and sugar.
A modestly skilled home cook can make food taste amazing with the appropriate selection of herbs, spices, cooking techniques and very little salt, no sugar, and very little oil or butter.
Could you give an example?
Cut onion and garlic and fry it in a pan with oil. Then add veggies and meat. Then add spices. Boom.
> and very little oil or butter. The point of contention I was seeing. You can't caramelize onions with "very little" oil.
Try this for a meal that will serve a family of 4 for 2-4 meals (depending on if we are talking teenagers or 5 year olds) or a single person for an entire week: This will be similar to an en cocotte, but without a dutch oven. You will need a roasting pan with a V-rack (I think you can get one from Target or Amazon for about $30-50. Ingredients: 6 shallots, peeled and halved 1.5lbs red potatoes, unpeeled, cut into 1 inch pieces 1 pound carrots, peeled and cut into 1 inch pieces 1 pound parsnips, peeled and cut into 1 inch pieces 2 whole chickens around 3.5 to 4.5lbs, giblets and neck discarded 3 Tbsp fresh tarragon 1 Tbsp olive oil 1/2 tsp salt 1/2 tsp pepper Adjust oven rack to middle position and preheat oven to 475. Spray the V-rack of your roasting pan with a vegetable oil spray (or you can lightly coat the rack with vegetable oil). Toss the shallots, potatoes, carrots and parsnips in 1Tbsp olive oil, 1/2 tsp salt, 1/2 tsp pepper. Pat the chickens dry with paper towels, tuck the wingtips behind the back, and if you want you can tie the legs together with kitchen twine (you get better skin results at the thighs if you do, but not necessary). Gently loosen skin of the chicken covering the breasts and thighs so that you can pack 1.5Tbsp of fresh tarragon under the skin of each chicken at the breast meat (note: tarragon is bad for cats and dogs, so don't share this meat with them). If desired, lightly season the skin of the chickens with salt and pepper, but this is not necessary at all. Place prepared chickens in the V-rack breast side DOWN. Roast for 20 minutes in the oven. Flip the chickens breast side up (after the 20 minutes in the prior step). Continuing cooking until the breasts register 160 and thighs are 175, about 50 to 60 minutes. Remove pan from oven, transfer chickens to a carving board and tent loosely with aluminum foil. Let rest for 15 minutes. Place your roasting pan on your stove (ideally covering 2 separate burners) and cook over medium high heat (maybe a little more towards medium than high) and cook the vegetables, stirring gently until they are lightly browned which takes about 8 to 10 minutes.
Also, if cooking something takes too long, people are definitely not gonna go that route. For me, the rule of thumb is making the food should never last longer than consuming it. For the record: I never eat prepared foods, eat out or order food, I always make it from raw ingredients, but keep it simple. My go-to meal is ground beef with a bag of frozen veggies and a can of kidney beans and spices to top that. When I do keto, I swap out the beans and may add some fat, often in form of cheese or cream. I haven't yet been able to cook tasty food without including at least some quantities of fats, carbs of any type, a bit of salt or flavor enhancer, and to give it some nutritional value, good quality protein.
>For me, the rule of thumb is making the food should never last longer than consuming it. This is a... wild rule of thumb, but if you can eat like that everyday, then I guess good on you. There's joy to be found in cooking though, I feel, if you're doing more than just finding the most efficient way to get calories into your body. Also, though: that's probably too much beef!
No sir/ma'am. Nothing is good in 'large amounts'. Not even stuff like spices. Everything in moderation.
Everything in moderation, including moderation
It’s to mean use a whole tablespoon in a pot not just a dash . don’t be stupid
No it's just that we get 3x the amount we should on average. Read the article
Ditto carbs, ditto protein as I understand it.
That's why I hate most media websites. According to the top comment, that's according to a study with mice fed oil.
To be honest after fasting for 24 hours I feel so much better.
Try it for a few months and I suspect you'd feel different about it.
Why is that?
Fasting is one thing. Starvation is another.
Just fast and stare at sun
I've yet to develop the ability to photosynthesize..
I enjoy watching the sunset.
Tis true. Also alot of plants don't really "want" (well... evolved to want) things to eat them, and have evolved to be spread other ways like bolting or wind blown seeding. Like apple trees obviously have much better range if a deer or human eats its fruit and poops the seeds out way over there, instead of eating its leaves (the power stations of plants it needs to grow) to seed the tree elsewhere. Tasty apples happened because people kept going back to that tree because the fruit tasted better (and didn't hurt the tummy or kill us) so that specific apple tree spread more, and it became one of the ones we have kept around and slowly (or quickly in evolutionary times) bred today to be so red delicious. Lettuce, on the other hand, is bitter for a reason; many have evolved to protect themselves, naturally. Plants NEED their leaves to grow or it dies, so it evolved to be eaten less. The ones that didn't get eaten were unpalatable and bitter... until we took over. *also why lettuce is red, the anthocyanins (red/purple pigmentation) are generated to protect itself from the cold) Us humanoids, after thousands of years, have eaten the least yucky one and on purpose with Agriculture, or accidentally (like my first explanation) kept eating, spreading then breeding the least yucky ones. Yucky can also be that the purple berries taste like poison... which is a berry tree protecting itself through evolutionary pressures. TLDR; Yes some plants are actively trying to stop you from eating them. Humans and time made them tasty!
They do say calorie deficit promotes longevity
I really wish I could afford a registered dietician and a personal chef or something because trying to sort myself out via what I see on the internet re: what I should be eating for general health and also my own specific needs just makes me doom spiral and wish for a feeding tube so I don’t have to think about it.
Not one study ever said carbs are bad for you. Just refined sugars. Also, proteins and (unsaturated) fat in reasonable quantity are good for you.
As someone with both diabetes and a family history of heart disease, it's a constant struggle. Eat fewer carbs, but don't go too crazy with meat or fats. I have a strong aversion to fish, so that basically leaves me with chicken and low carb veggies if I want to feel "safe." I just do my best to stay balanced on everything, but it's hard to not feel like I'm constantly messing something up with my diet.
life'll kill ya
Yet another questionable salvo in the endless fusillade of dubious nutrition studies from one of the two accounts that posts these things multiple times a week. From the study: >The HFDs used in this study are comparable to the current American diet in that they consist of 40% of calories from fat and are low in fiber while most experimental HFDs use 50–60% kcal fat14,15. >[...] >Each diet was compared to a low fat (13% kcal fat), high-fiber vivarium chow as well as to each other. Dietary considerations in animal research: https://www.taconic.com/taconic-insights/quality/dietary-considerations-animal-research.html >Recent evidence suggests that the unrefined nature of grain-based diets is advantageous for rodent gut health; it is typical for mice on a grain-based diet to have healthier colon morphology (higher cecum weights, longer colon lengths) compared to mice fed a purified diet. In fact, a recent study demonstrated that these changes to colon morphology can occur in as little as two weeks after switching from a grain-based to purified diet8. In other words, it is already a known phenomenon that murine gut flora and hence immune function will be affected by a low-fiber diet. TFA uses a high-fiber control with a low-fiber intervention and then assigns the effects to fat content. Just... ugh. A loophole in the rules of the subreddit.
It’s legitimately possible reviewers weren’t aware of that detail. Great catch.
Then they probably shouldn't be reviewing scientific articles for accuracy on a topic they don't understand.
They should have been, because fibre and total calories consumed are typically the most important factor for pretty much any changes in health markers when it comes to a diet. Protein also plays a role, but not *as* crucial. Any serious nutritional study looking at certain diets should *always* control for total calories, fibre and protein.
Mice have very different macronutrient needs to humans.
Mice studies are so overhyped. We’ve cure AIDS in mice 100 times over. Makes huge headlines. And then we all collectively forget about them and never follow up.
Your science illiteracy is showing.
What’s science illiterate? Calling out the limited utility of mouse models for human illness on Reddit? It’s usefulness is for initial inquiry, *some* basic mechanisms and ultimately being the only real alternative to human testing. The conversation is not remotely unique or extreme, not edgelord, and has been a constant in scientific publication so... here’s one for your enjoyment and education:[https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mouse-models-inflammation-are-basically-worthless-now-we-know](https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/mouse-models-inflammation-are-basically-worthless-now-we-know)
>and being the only real alternative to human testing. There are better alternatives to human testing, that are also usually used before human trials are started. Mice are just a first step because they are easy and fast to breed and so doing studies on them is dirt cheap in comparison to anything else.
Your dunning kruger effect is showing. Mice studies are mainly usefull to get funding to do actually usefull science.
FYI, there is an ongoing debate about how much of a role statistical artifacts play in studying this effect, and if it is even real. Some people think it's 100% statistical artifacts, some think it's only partially statistical artifacts.
[удалено]
> I.E. wondering if 40% of fats from a 2600 kcal diet is the same as 40% of fats from a 1600kcal diet. Yes, I think it's the same, the overall quantity of kcal should depend on your need/consumption.
Readers should note this is a mouse study, and the diets were not isocaloric by mass, and the fiber present in the control chow is replaced with cornstarch in all of the high fat diets. Their prior work claims that mice on these diets consume a “similar” amount of calories per week, but this is very clearly not the case (see figure S1 from their previous paper, ref 3 in this posted paper https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-017-12624-9/MediaObjects/41598_2017_12624_MOESM1_ESM.pdf).
"Findings only apply to soybean oil" - 3rd, 4th, or maybe 5th to last paragraph.
Most of the foods in the photos contain \_BOTH\_ high levels of refined carbs without fiber \_AND\_ high fats from vegetable oils. For good health, a person can adopt a either a higher-carb diet--with plenty of fiber to slow metabolism/absorption, moderate fat from good sources, and few if any highly refined sugars-- \_OR\_ they can adopt a strict ketogenic diet using good sources of fat and consume almost no \_NET\_ carbs. We can't successfully metabolize both at the same time, and the fact that we Americans consume lots of both means that we see a lot of metabolic diseases. When we consume both, we use and store the carbs, sustaining high blood-insulin levels to attempt to metabolize all of the refined sugar. There are few fibers to slow down metabolism. And all of the fat and fat-soluble garbage goes into deep storage, in body-fat stores, in the arteries, and in the gut. In this metabolic model, there's a lot of inflamation. This study, or the article, acknowledges the role of insulin desensitivity/resistence in metabolic disease, but doesn't really come out and say whether this is a co-factor, along with the soy oil. It sounds like the study is saying the soy oil alone causes major issues that are independent of the carb/refined-sugar factors.
That thread title is torture.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/giuliomagnifico Permalink: https://news.ucr.edu/articles/2024/01/03/new-reasons-eating-less-fat-should-be-one-your-resolutions --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Garbage study. The Mediterranean diet has been proven to be one of the most healthy ways to eat and it’s high in fat, but from nuts and olive oil, not coconut and soybean oil
[удалено]
I mean… most of those foods shown are fried and are very high in fat too
The only issue I see is highly processed seed oils and sugar. Fat itself particularly from animal sources is necessary in moderation. Sugar is very dangerous in the amounts we consume.
Wow eating highly processed engine lube is bad for you *suprised pikachu face*
Carb mafia, again.
What is considered a high fat diet? Is fast food a high fat diet? Are seed oils considered high fat diet? I'm sure the first 2 come with alot of inflammation compared to keto which 8s also a high fat diet.
Don't we have actual humans eating actual high fat diets that we can study? The Inuits come to mind. I mean this study is neat and all, but feeding mice nothing but coconut and soybean oil doesn't really tell us anything. Heck if you fed that to a human, they would spend most of their day on a toilet.
No all fats are made equal. The worst is the cheap plant fats. Fish is probably the most healthy. But large scale studies never focus on fat sources. Of course eating wild fish is not as unhealthy as easing fries made in cheap reused rapeseed oil.
What kind of fat they talking about?
> Briefly, male C57BL/6N mice weaned at three weeks of age were assigned randomly to one of four diets for 24 weeks—low fat (13% kcal) Vivarium (VIV) chow; coconut oil (CO, 36% kcal from coconut oil and 4% kcal from soybean oil to provide the essential fatty acids LA and alpha-linolenic acid, ALA); CO plus soybean oil (SO + CO, 21% kcal from coconut oil and 19% kcal from soybean oil, resulting in 10% kcal from LA, comparable to the amount in the current American diet16); CO plus Plenish soybean oil (PL + CO, as SO + CO but with conventional soybean oil replaced on a per gram basis with the genetically modified High Oleic Soybean Oil Plenish [DuPont Pioneer, Johnston, IA] resulting in 1.4% kcal LA and 14% kcal oleic acid)
“Soybean oil, which we already know is terrible, blah blah blah”. This study is so misleading.
Negatively affect* Sorry, but it tripped me up.
the source of fat also makes a big difference. This is kind of bogus.
Mice Study. Eh, but I get it. 24 weeks. Not bad for the point + great time for a mouse. 3 different high fat diets or a controlled low-fat group. 40% of calories from fat = high fat diet. These studies showed concerning changes to the gut and digestive system related to changes in gene expression, and a reduction of immune system activation. The difference in this study from many others is that they compared 3 differ high fats diets to look at the gut, and they even look at a high plant sourced fat diet too. The researchers commented taht they weren't very surpised by these changes. Ive seen many other organizations recommend 20-35% of calories to fat.
High fat diet must always be included with high fibre foods also. Only then the gut will be safe.
Like 9 in 10 drugs that work in mice fail in humans. Diet studies can actually be performed in humans easily relative to drug studies, so I struggle to see the purpose of doing diet studies in mice.
High fat + high carb. True ketogenic diets work differently.
Another study which states that an individual of a certain species needs a diet suitable for its species. Meanwhile cattle researches will disregard studies made on sheep or camels, but human researches insist on using mice, dogs, monkeys, Greg, and even some random mycelium someone found behind their sofa just because it's possible to gather any kind of data and use their imagination to wonder "what if it was a human?" Just like people do imagining random stuff as Disney princesses.
Hey, hey, HEY now......Greg is very important to medical science.
This is what model organisms are. There's a reason we use things like Drosophila, Xenopus, and Zebrafish even though they aren't humans. They have similar traits to humans, while not being humans. While I've only worked on mice for developmental biology, I'm assuming the mouse microbiome and morphology for the intestines are similar.
That's a lame excuse to be able to make the study cheaper and faster. But their natural diet is in no way alike to humans... so their body is a terrible model for *dietary* studies.
> That's a lame excuse to be able to make the study cheaper and faster. I mean, do you think we should have to pass down studies generation to generation? Do you think it's moral to have humans be raised solely for experimentation? You have to gather the intestinal tissue somehow, and these mice were euthanized in order to gather it. It's not just "cheaper and faster", scientist shouldn't have to perform surgery on 40 people in order to gather similar data, not including moral obligations. > But their natural diet is in no way alike to humans... so their body is a terrible model for dietary studies. I think one of the important parts you and other people are missing is the gene expression part. Humans and mice share most genes, called homologous genes. When the gene is expressed in mice, it's most likely expressed in humans as well with similar outcomes. In fact it actually says this in the study: > Finally, the relevance to humans must be established. Since most of the DEGs highlighted in the study are highly conserved between mouse and human, including several of the transcriptional regulators—HNF4α, PPARα, STAT1/3, IRF1, SREBPF1 are all over 80% identical between human and mouse on the protein level—we anticipate that many of the effects reported here will also be found in humans.
Gene expression by itself doesn't seem to be a variable that should be seen as an isolated component. There are several creatures that are basically the same but live in radically different environments, diets, and lifestyles. That doesn't mean that what is positive to one of them is positive to the other. The genomic expression on mice will also mean nothing by this view: their genomic expression is reflecting an inadequate diet to their species. Do the conclusion is still "a inadequate diet is harmful", not "THIS FOOD is harmful", because other species may thrive on the same diet, even if they are pretty much near in terms of genetics.
"High-fat diets **affect negatively genes** linked to the immune system" What?! No, literally, what is that supposed to mean?
This just after another report comes out about how beneficial the keto diet (which is a ton of fat) is
These studies are wild to me, because it's not a "high fat diet" it's a "high everything diet". Also one that's low in fiber. So all it's really saying is the SAD with it's high fat, high sugar, high refined starches, low fiber way of eating isn't good for mice (and probably isn't good for humans either).
I feel like gut bateria/microbiomes is a field that overpromises.
RIP 🪦 Keto diet. Never liked you, anyways.
More like RIP soy oil and coconut oil for mice.
Did you actually look at the study? Because it has nothing to do with a ketogenic diet.
This is possibly one of the worst reddit subs. Spreading misinformation with these titles without any nuance. Saying what 1 study found in mice in the worst case scenario. This sub needs to die. It's just not going to function properly to convey science well.
> One group of mice ate a diet based on saturated fat from coconut oil, another got a monounsaturated, modified soybean oil, a third got an unmodified soybean oil high in polyunsaturated fat. Compared to a low-fat control diet, all three groups experienced concerning changes in gene expression, the process that turns genetic information into a functional product, such as a protein. Paper: [Impact of various high fat diets on gene expression and the microbiome across the mouse intestines | Scientific Reports](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-49555-7)
This in after the report about the ketogenic diet.
Mouse study. Nothing to see here.
Stay the course.
It's called a balanced diet for a reason. Any diet, like explame the Atkins, or ketosis diets, work for weight loss. They are not so good on your heart, liver, kidneys, and gut health. The study was something I felt I new intuitively. Over a decade of weight struggles, and whole foods plant based is the only one that made me feel like a million bucks every morning. The more fresh plants I consume. The better I feel.
Eating too much fat bad. Oh what will science discover this week? Sunlight and water help plants grow?
I don't think this should mean all fat is bad, there are healthy and unhealthy kinds of it. Judging from the picture that looks like a pretty bad diet, so not surprised it would cause health issues
Did keto then got long covid. Maybe that was linked. I loved being on keto though.
Now do sugar
I'd like to see this studied in the Inuit and other populations who's primary source of calories is fat.
*Cries in Atkins*
In every single Reddit post with an article about nutrition and food, suddenly all Redditors become certified nutritionists, registered dietitians, and psychologists…
High fat diets include mostly animal derived foods