Reddit reviews The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet
We found 20 Reddit comments about The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
There's a strong argument that the US Government is responsible for creating the obesity epidemic in the first place, so in so far as it needs to reverse the damage it's caused with incorrect dietary guidelines, then yes.
Here's the gist of the problem: During the 1960s and 1970s, there was much concern about the high rate of heart disease in the United States. Policy makers developed dietary recommendations in the late 70s early 80s based on what turned out to be a very poor understanding of what causes heart disease. These recommendations called for a low-fat diet, which over the last 3 decades has contributed to an enormous increase in the amount of carbohydrates we consume. Studies are beginning to show that fat was not the culprit at all, and that high carbohydrate diets are actually to blame for the obesity epidemic.
Sources: Good Calories Bad Calories,, The Big Fat Surprise, and The Art and Science of Low Carbohydrate Living.
My dad lost 30 pounds by switching his breakfast from cereal and skim milk to eggs and bacon. I had the privilege of sharing this information with the good doctor at a meet and greet. This method really works.
Edit: I suggest reading The Big Fat Surpise and watching The Magic Pill on Netflix. Also this podcast is amazing. Game changers.
Your lipid numbers mean nothing.
Hell all of them are within the 10-20% of lab variance.
You need more education on the matter.
Watch
Read These
common misconception, fat doesn't make you fat. also chicken has so much protein I wouldn't even consider it a fat source. highly recommend reading the book big fat surprise about the studies that brought about all of our popular and incorrect nutritional beliefs. educate yourself!
So far - this is absolutely the best for me - really going over the history of the studies, the players, and the reasons for low fat. http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425
I actually bought it as an audiobook.
I feel like the advice parrot doctors always give about "saturated fats are bad mmkay" is bullshit and there is growing evidence showing that "sat fats = cardiovascular disease" was a false correlation initiated by a highly self-promoting un-Hippocratic nutritional researcher in the 20th century who became very influential in the AMA and American Heart Association. Check out [this book.] (https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425)
I think high cholesterol is bad IF you have high inflammatory markers (high C-Reactive Protein) but I think the 20th century panic about there being some kind of automatic causative relationship between high LDL cholesterol and heart disease was deadly, negligent bullshit.
Researchers and doctors scaring people off the fats we've been eating since we were apes, and scaring them toward refined carbs and trans fats has killed millions of people. People say "well our ancestors didn't live long though, but that's correlated to vaccines, not fat consumption.
This is something I am still reading about though, having only recently begun really giving a shit about my diet. It's really worth reading.
Them's fighting words girl. Talk to me again after you've watched this video. and read this book and this book. Until then sit yo' ass down and shut the fuck up.
Read The Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Here is a lecture she gave which covers a lot of the major points.
Nobody forces you to see a dietician.
Try the following for four full months:
Cut the carbs way back, possibly even going for a nutritional ketogenic diet - read r/keto and FAQ there and figure out your ideal dietary macro ratio
Use MyFitnessPal to track your macros (carbs, fats, proteins)
Test your blood glucose at morning when you wake up, and one hour after breakfast, lunch, and supper and see how your body responds.
If asked, just say you are cutting back on sugars. Some people have outdated and incorrect views on dietary issues and you don't need the drama.
Go to your MD at the end and have your blood work done: A1C, lipids, etc.
Then see what the results say.
If you want, read Nina Teischolz or Gary Taubes to see the history and influence behind the false dietary advice we have all been receiving
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425
https://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About-ebook/dp/B003WUYOQ6&ved=0ahUKEwiHtu3P6cnTAhUq5oMKHeVuBtEQFgg9MAI&usg=AFQjCNF2CzzGvUeIeOAh3Ehvdzgs1WiFDg
The article was written by Nina Teicholz. She's the author of [The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet] (http://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425/)
I'll drop a few links to science that I think are quite compelling. To get a complete run-down I'd recommend just reading a book like Nina Teicholz's Big Fat Surprise. She really gets into the history of where the mainstream recommendations came from.
Please keep in mind that nutrition science is a mess. For every study I link that concludes fat is fine you can find some that conclude the opposite. Locking people in a cage and feeding them an exact diet until they die is really hard to do these days so 'hard proof' about nutrition is rare. But they did it a few times, as summarised here:
The effect of replacing saturated fat with mostly n-6 polyunsaturated fat on coronary heart disease: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
One high profile example is the Minnesota Coronary Experiment. Ancel Keys, the guy who first blamed fat, was a leading contributor but the results were not what they expected and the data was buried. The data was recently dug up and published. Replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fat successfully lowered cholesterol but resulted in much higher rates of death. Critics say that's because it was probably confounded by transfats in the unsaturated group... but that would admit that advice to reduce saturated fat directly contributed to harm... and also that cholesterol is an unreliable risk marker.
Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)
People with a low cholesterol still get heart disease. Look at table 2 in the following paper, the group with the lowest representation was people with high HDL. Unfortunately the authors conclude that "I guess we just need to lower cholesterol even more".
Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease
>In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with CAD, almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL ≥60 mg/dL
Evidence from epidemiology (observation studies of various populations, shows correlations) is quite mixed. Some studies show that cholesterol is even a positive thing.
Is the use of cholesterol in mortality risk algorithms in clinical guidelines valid? Ten years prospective data from the Norwegian HUNT 2 study.
>Our aim was to document the strength and validity of total cholesterol as a risk factor for mortality in a well-defined, general Norwegian population without known CVD at baseline... If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the 'dangers' of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.
Figure 1, figure 2 and Figure 3 from that paper are good to look at.
Ten-Year Survival in 75-Year-Old Men and Women: Predictive Ability of Total Cholesterol, HDL-C, and LDL-C
>Total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) were not significantly related to prognosis in either sex. HDL-C was associated with dismal prognosis in men but not in women. Elderly men with HDL-C <40mg/dL deserve particular attention for cardiovascular prevention.
Cholesterol, lipoproteins, and coronary heart disease in women.
>LDL did not prove to be powerful in predicting cardiovascular disease in women.
Women have naturally higher HDL than men and high HDL basically always wipes out the risk of LDL in these epidemiological studies. Having a high HDL basically indicates that you're healthy in general and have a well-functioning lipid sysem. HDL particles generally do cleanup, but they also happen to indicate that your LDL particles are working better. LDL particles that are larger are better and cleaner, when LDL particles shrink they're much more likely to get damaged, oxidised and stickier.
When your LDL is measured in a blood test, they measure the total mass. It doesn't tell you how many particles there are or how big and healthy they are. 2 people with the same LDL might have wildly different particles counts and health status.
LDL Particle Number and Risk of Future Cardiovascular Disease in the Framingham Offspring Study - Implications for LDL Management.
Small Dense Low-Density Lipoprotein as Biomarker for Atherosclerotic Diseases.
And how do we increase our HDL and the healthfulness of our LDL particles? Eat a high-fat diet. It makes sense right? You're burning the cholesterol as energy, meaning you have a high turnover of particles and you're keeping them fresh. People with high LDL and low HDL (diabetics) are basically having an energy crisis between fat and sugar and letting their particles get damaged and stagnant, and that's when you really have risk.
There are many trials comparing low-carb to low-fat diets and low-carb always wins. This is mainly because people tend to spontaneously eat less because they're more satiated. They also demand less insulin from your liver so they're better at reversing the damage of diabetes. These diets consistently raise HDL and LDL particle size. Total cholesterol usually goes down because the subjects were fat and diabetic to start with, but they tend to ultimately have a higher cholesterol than other diets. That's because the particles are bigger and healthier, not because there's more of them.
Randomised Controlled Trials Comparing
Low-Carb Diets Of Less Than 130g Carbohydrate Per Day
To Low-Fat Diets Of Less Than 35% Fat Of Total Calories
Note that they're still eating up to 30% of carbs, i.e. you don't need to go full keto to see benefits.
The conclusion of all this is that Low-HDL-and-High-LDL is bad because it indicates you have diabetes and have a sick metabolism. It's not because LDL itself is bad. This means you could just ignore cholesterol numbers and directly test for diabetes. Markers of insulin resistance are powerfully stronger predictors of heart disease than anything to do with cholesterol.
Comparison of two surrogate estimates of insulin resistance to predict cardiovascular disease in apparently healthy individuals
Added sugars drive coronary heart disease via insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia: a new paradigm
I think I'll leave it at that. Sorry for the word bomb. Let me know if I can clear anything up!
I did lots of research back in high school while I was trying to get my health in order, and I discovered one of those sodium studies. It showed that, if you feed Americans about 10 times their usual sodium intake, it increases their blood pressure by about 1/1. This was a statistically significant result, but in most cases hardly the determining factor for heart disease.
You're more likely to have cardiovascular disorders and clogged arteries from a carbohydrate-rich diet, usually heavy in sugars and wheat. In low-to-moderate quantities (0-600 cal/day, for me), carb sources like potatoes, carrots, and fruits appear essentially harmless, but one has only to look at the average American to see the impact of high carb intake.
Tom Naughton's "Fat Head" documentary is an excellent introduction to the subject of proper nutrition. It's also worth checking out the Doctors Eades' blogs and the books Wheat Belly and The Big Fat Surprise.
>Do they not still go to your arteries and clog things up?
They never did. Check out The Big Fat Surprise (or any other book/video/website/this subreddit's FAQ that deals with that) to see how we were mislead to think that and how science has advanced since then.
>I have a pretty large amount of carbs I intake with bread, rice, pastries I like to have sweet things from time to time so what can I/we replace these things with?
Meat, butter, cheese, eggs, vegetables, etc. Anything without a bunch of carbs, really.
>is it worth just giving a shot or not so much if its only going to last a few weeks?
I think most of us would recommend giving it at least 2 solid months. Coming from a high-carb diet, your body has to adapt to this new way of eating and it's a pretty slow process. If you only give it a little effort, you can end up in what's called "low-carb limbo" where you're eating too many carbs to start ketogenesis but not enough to fuel yourself.
You need to arm yourself with knowledge or you will never be able to adequately defend the position that keto is healthy. You should read this: http://www.amazon.com/The-Art-Science-Carbohydrate-Living/dp/0983490708
Read this because they are bound to throw weak-ass epidemiological studies at you: http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425
You can also watch some YouTube videos. Whatever type of media trips your trigger is fine.
In any case, if anyone is able to talk you out of this then that is an indication you don't know enough science to back your position and stand your ground. In other words, learn some stuff and stop being a newb.
If you want a better understanding of nutrition and why the advice always seem to be changing, check out the book The Big Fat Surprise It's really easy to read and is full of references to back up the info and for further reading.
Much of the 'traditional' - e.g. 20th Century - wisdom on nutrition seems to be inaccurate.
Source: http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&amp;qid=1414531319&amp;sr=8-1&amp;keywords=big+fat+surprise
>"Yeah, but we don't know what long term damage you are doing to your body."
I mean, the ketogenic diet has been around for over 100 years, to treat epilepsy. There are countless studies and trials proving its worth at least in that department, and pretty much no indications in the literature that it causes long-term health problems for people who are using it to manage epileptic fits.
You can go even further than that, back to 1863 when an undertaker named William Banting basically deduced the metabolic processes that lead to weight loss with a low-carb diet and wrote a book about it. It was popular enough to get four editions over the course of the 1860s. You can read the fourth edition here, among other places.
Meanwhile, we've watched diabetes skyrocket since the early 80s, which is exactly when the federal government created that mindless food pyramid. To this day, there is not a single clinical trial that establishes its scientific merit. We instituted it literally on the basis of a hypothesis that its creators presumed would be backed up with clinical trials.
>How do you all deal with negative/unsupportive family members?
I highly recommend your SO check out a book called The Big Fat Surprise. It lays out the historical evolution of nutritional science and how we got into our current mess. And along the way it exposes some shit that will keep you up at night. And you don't have to take the author's word for it -- the text has reams of citations from legitimate academic sources.
Relevant -- The Big Fat Surprise:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Big-Fat-Surprise-Healthy/dp/1451624425
I'm so sorry! Being stiff is miserable! I have disc herniations in my back and neck, and that pain comes raging back with carbs. Scientific studies are great and all, but I'm also a big believer in just paying attention to how you feel! If you're up for it, a good book about how studies aren't the be all end all is the Big Fat Surprise by Nina Teicholz. Well, its actually about low carb, but you can see how unreliable most studies are due to the way they're conducted http://www.amazon.com/Big-Fat-Surprise-Butter-Healthy/dp/1451624425
The only hard part about restarting Keto when pregnant is doing it gradually....the cravings don't disappear as quickly if you don't do it cold turkey. But you can totally do it! Its worth it not to be so moody :) best of luck to you!
A nice grilled steak, perhaps some bacon, full fat cheese on the side, and a tall glass of Vitamin D milk