[HN Gopher] Effect of Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet versus High-Carb, ...
___________________________________________________________________
Effect of Low-Carb, High-Fat Diet versus High-Carb, Low-Fat Diet
Author : mikequinlan
Score : 40 points
Date : 2022-12-13 19:44 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.acpjournals.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.acpjournals.org)
| mattwest wrote:
| Every time I see some study anchored in dietary impositions, I
| can't help but wonder:
|
| How have we managed to complicate diet and health so much?
|
| We are humans. We are supposed to move. A lot.
|
| Eat mostly whole food and move. Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you
| can. Run if you can.
|
| Buy food in the produce section. Buy food in the meat section (if
| you eat meat). Buy whole grains. It's not expensive. Maybe it
| takes time to prepare. Try to find value in that time. Do it with
| family and friends. There's no food product, diet, or gimmick
| that's going provide a greater marginal benefit
| fedeb95 wrote:
| This should be the diet. Let's eat less junk food and we'll be
| better
| hnuser123456 wrote:
| And in my case, don't speedrun 100% grubhub for all the 100+
| restaurants in the college town
| pushedx wrote:
| I'm an All Tacos% runner myself
| fpoling wrote:
| Coach potatoes spend approximately the same amount of calories
| as modern-day hunter-gatherers. The current thinking is that a
| body has an energy budget to spend. If one does not move, that
| energy is spent on other things like hormone synthesis.
| Conversely walking or even running for 5 miles each day will
| not decrease the weight.
|
| So been overweight is really about eating too much. This does
| not mean that one should not move. That has a lot of benefits,
| it is just loosing wright is not one of them.
| mattwest wrote:
| Having more muscle mass increases BMR.
|
| Having a higher cardiovascular capacity increases the number
| of potential calories you can burn per hour.
|
| Weight loss strategies that don't include exercise can work,
| but it is silly to do so. Exercise improves longevity, mental
| health, and expedites weight loss. All things equal, if you
| add a 5 mile walk to your daily regiment, you will lose
| weight faster.
| dualboot wrote:
| Cool. Glad that works for you. Not everyone can walk. These
| discussions are always very "me me me" and rarely of much
| value.
| mattwest wrote:
| Over 99% of humans can walk. I don't think that's very
| "me me me".
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Over 99% of humans can walk.
|
| Clearly not, even before considering particular
| disability; average age of children first walking is over
| a year, and the number of children under 1 is well over
| 1% of world population.
|
| More relevant to the discussion, though, in the US, 13.7%
| of adults have a mobility disability with serious
| difficulty walking or climbing stairs. [0]
|
| [0] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infogr
| aphic-d....
| mattwest wrote:
| You know what. You are right. This is an excellent
| critique and I'm quite literally quivering in my boots at
| the sheer intellectual dominance exuding from your
| comment. I've learned my lesson and in the future will
| consider my opinions to be irrelevant and not useful.
| Please continue enlightening the world with your critical
| thinking prowess. I look forward to reading your future
| work.
| wizofaus wrote:
| Except those that regularly take part in physically strenuous
| activities are often very much aware that excess weight makes
| those activities much harder (particularly if you're at all
| competitive), which provides extra motivation for being
| concerned with what and how much you eat. Anecdata, yes, but
| everyone I know that was overweight in the past and has now
| lost it and kept it off has done so by taking up some sort of
| sport/regular physical activity (mostly cycling). I don't
| know anyone who's done so just by dieting alone.
| eastbound wrote:
| The root cause for a lot of people is being addicted to the
| sugar hit. And for a reason: We like to perform. At first for
| baccalaureat, then for exams, then at work. I need my sugar
| hit, because I love being a good coder, focussed and in the
| flow. I love feeling clever. Sugar is a bit like cocaine, if I
| understand well, in terms of the way it works on dopamine. And
| our society demands a lot from us.
|
| I wish I got into slow living, but I don't have enough
| friendships to be happy with less work. Vicious circle ;)
| Rodeoclash wrote:
| We're also fundamentally lazy creatures. Useless expenditure of
| energy does not promote survival. We're predisposed to do
| nothing. Couple that with our ability to amuse ourselves with
| endless entertainment and it's tough to get people moving.
| jibe wrote:
| "It's not expensive"
|
| Maybe whole grains are not expensive, but the outside walls of
| a grocery store (produce, meat, eggs, dairy) are very
| expensive, and have gotten a lot more expensive on the last two
| years. Especially if you are buying higher end (organic,
| pasture raised, etc..) stuff. Nuts and seeds, also very
| expensive right now. Good oils like olive oil also expensive.
| mattwest wrote:
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00588-7
|
| "The percentage of the population who can afford the least-
| cost diet adhering to food-based dietary guidelines
| (henceforth 'a nutritious diet') increases from 15% (at the
| median) in countries with rural and informal food systems to
| nearly 100% in countries with industrial and consolidated
| food systems (Fig. 1). We estimate that nearly all residents
| of industrialized countries and a median of 82% in countries
| with an emerging and diversifying food system are able to
| afford a nutritious diet"
|
| Besides, the question is relative to what? What percent of
| your income is worth spending on healthy food? Put a number
| on it and then we'll talk.
| jibe wrote:
| _A recommended diet is considered affordable if it does not
| exceed 63% of the median income_
|
| 63% of income on food is expensive
|
| _the question is relative to what_
|
| Relative to the standard American diet, what you are
| suggesting is expensive. Processed foods may be bad for
| you, but they are unarguably cheap calories.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| I think this works but only in a vacuum. I'm a single human
| with a humans natural stressors, getting dopamine from food.
| Food these days are literally engineered to maximum
| craving/hunger/whatever, with a bunch of ads and marketing also
| designed by people with literal lifelong studies of how to get
| people craving junk. Armies of em.
|
| This isn't even talking about what sort of thing forever
| chemicals are doing to me. No idea what microplastics in my
| bloodstream are up to.
|
| Im just a dude, my dude. I didn't make the game so hard.
| mattwest wrote:
| I'm sorry to hear about your loss of free will.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Dude I'm just a guy, I'm not like perfect or anything. I
| get tired, sleep like crap sometimes, get stressed about
| money and inflation like everyone else. Sometimes I don't
| feel like fighting a whole system with armies of
| psychologists keeping me a lazy consumer or whatever, so
| maybe some dinners is something out of a microwave or a
| can. Condemn me, or whatever, for not being so free willed
| as others here. I'm just not as enlightened I guess.
| mattwest wrote:
| No one is perfect. I'm sorry for being snarky, but how
| else can we make meaningful change without starting with
| personal responsibility. We can't blame big food for our
| choices.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Im not tying to shift blame, I'm pointing out that this
| is much less simple than the original poster described.
| It's no so simple as just walking more and taking the
| time to eat whole food precisely because there is a
| broader system designed to keep people fat consumers that
| should be seriously and skeptically examined for dodging
| their influences on society. We know cigarette kept
| dodging their involvement in getting kids addicted early.
| We know Perdue was lying about how their opioids worked
| to guarantee addiction cycles. We know the original
| nutrition guidelines were originally developed by the
| agriculture department and that several agribusinesses
| had their thumbs on the scale to skew what was told to
| the entire nation on how to eat well.
|
| Are those kids who were exposed to cigarettes personally
| responsible? How about those folks who are addicted to
| opioids now? And of course all those Americans at the
| time, they just should've decided against following
| official nutrition guidelines by their government
| (assuming they can afford to! Poor kids were fed
| according to these guidelines in school lunches...)
|
| And that's just the stuff we know about!
| fpoling wrote:
| The so-called Low-Fat diet still allowed for 20%-30% of calories
| to come from fat. There are a lot of indications that this is not
| really low to make a meaningful conclusion. One needs to target
| max 10%-15% of calories from fat to make a difference.
| JesseMReeves wrote:
| Maybe ancient nomadic humans ate low-carb / keto in winter (which
| is why it seems good for using up fat resources efficiently) and
| high-carb in summer (which is why it seems good for filling up
| fat storages)?
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Many comments so far responding with a reader's personal feelings
| on how all people should eat. This was a study of the effect of
| these diets _on diabetics_. As such, it 's not a huge surprise
| that low-carbohydrate, high-fat would come out ahead, given
| diabetes is a disease that prevents your body from properly
| processing carbohydrates. The authors here have made no claim
| whatsoever that anyone who is not diabetic would see any of these
| same effects and would even want to see these same effects (note
| that the only thing that might matter here to a non-diabetic is
| the LDL change, which was worse for the high fat diet). It's just
| too bad the participants that saw improvement still didn't stick
| with it and all benefits disappeared 3 months after the
| intervention was complete.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Note that many of the beneficial effects to blood markers are
| identical so long as weight is lost. Yes, ad libitum consumption
| maybe lower on HFLC, but both diets when equated for deficit off
| TDEE, protein grams, and fiber grams will result in improved
| blood markers.
| sph wrote:
| You need to prove that first, it is not a given. Because a n=1
| counter argument is seeing my triglycerides, blood pressure and
| heart rate drop significantly in 2 weeks, while still being
| overweight on a very low carb diet and having lost a negligible
| amount of weight (can't do much in two weeks).
|
| It is possible that some markers improve as a function of
| weight, but it is not necessarily so.
| atlgator wrote:
| Funded by Novo Nordisk, an insulin manufacturer.
| mikequinlan wrote:
| Effect of Calorie-Unrestricted Low-Carbohydrate, High-Fat Diet
| Versus High-Carbohydrate, Low-Fat Diet on Type 2 Diabetes and
| Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease
|
| Result:
|
| The mean age was 56 years (SD, 10), and 58% were women. Compared
| with the HCLF diet, participants on the LCHF diet had greater
| improvements in hemoglobin A1c (mean difference in change, -6.1
| mmol/mol [95% CI, -9.2 to -3.0 mmol/mol] or -0.59% [CI, -0.87% to
| -0.30%]) and lost more weight (mean difference in change, -3.8 kg
| [CI, -6.2 to -1.4 kg]). Both groups had higher high-density
| lipoprotein cholesterol and lower triglycerides at 6 months.
| Changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol were less
| favorable in the LCHF diet group than in the HCLF diet group
| (mean difference in change, 0.37 mmol/L [CI, 0.17 to 0.58 mmol/L]
| or 14.3 mg/dL [CI, 6.6 to 22.4 mg/dL]). No statistically
| significant between-group changes were detected in the assessment
| of NAFLD. Changes were not sustained at the 9-month follow-up.
| altairprime wrote:
| n=165
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Meaning the diets were not maintained (on avg) after the trial?
| Can't imagine how difficult it must be to run a properly
| controlled dietary study. Even if you feed the participants,
| how can you be sure they're not ingesting additional food
| outside of the experiment for months on end?
| cableshaft wrote:
| I did a Keto diet for 4 months and lost 45lbs. Those pounds
| started coming back quick after I eased off of it (my
| triglycerides and cholesterol numbers were getting worryingly
| high). I also found it incredibly difficult to jump back into
| Keto for any sustained period of time afterwards. Tried and
| failed within a couple of weeks multiple times, kind of like
| whenever I try to go off of caffeine.
|
| Been finding just eating lower-carb (not as low as keto, and
| some days where there have been carb binges) and focusing
| more on whole foods and not eating high-fat foods and my
| triglycerides and cholesterol numbers are back to normal
| levels, and I'm back to losing weight again, albeit a lot
| slower (down 25 lbs this year).
|
| I know another guy who lost 107lbs off Keto (he was my
| initial inspiration to try it, in fact) and he eventually
| went off it and he had regained about half of that when I saw
| him last (according to him).
|
| I'm sure there are people who have been able to keep the
| weight off, but it was difficult for me.
| AnEro wrote:
| Exactly why it is normal that nutritional science is taken
| with a grain of salt, not cause researchers are slacking or
| producing bad studies. Just the fact they have data sources
| with a giant astrix attached.
|
| Imho i think this also plays into the misinformation in the
| space. It's hard to prove anything and I find I mostly wait
| for a good meta analysis before putting my eggs in that
| basket
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Aside: "astrix"?
|
| If intended to be funny, it certainly is. If not, I believe
| "asterisk" is the word you're looking for.
|
| However, I could see astrix becoming the word of 2023.
|
| Related: https://www.asterix.com
| chasebank wrote:
| Why not run these trials in a prison?
| chrisco255 wrote:
| Ha, probably ethics reasons. Plus prisons aren't
| representative of general population.
| peter_retief wrote:
| Still so much resistance to the high fat diet. It works and it
| seems to be way healthier than any high carb diet
| hirundo wrote:
| > It remains unclear if a low-carbohydrate, high-fat (LCHF) diet
| is a possible treatment strategy for type 2 diabetes mellitus
| (T2DM)
|
| N=1 personal non-random uncontrolled experiment: 4+ years of
| drug-free diabetes control to below pre-diabetic levels via an
| LCHF diet, regularly measured with continuous glucose monitoring.
| I suspect that the success rate among self-selected followers is
| higher than among the randomly assigned.
| coreyp_1 wrote:
| How did you get the continuous glucose monitoring? I have only
| found it available through a prescription. (I'm in the US.)
|
| In OTC A1C tests, I reduced mine from 10.6 to 7.6 to 6.0 over
| the course of 6 months with keto. I wanted to get a continuous
| glucose monitor so that I could discover if any foods were
| unwittingly sabotaging my efforts, but I can't find any that I
| can buy without a formal diagnosis and prescription.
|
| I haven't gone to a doctor yet b/c I don't have a primary care
| physician and, to be blunt, it's expensive, even with
| insurance!
| ntonozzi wrote:
| You can get a CGM from Levels Health
| (https://www.levelshealth.com/) but it will cost you and I
| don't think it will be covered by insurance.
| kmonsen wrote:
| There is also push health, supersapiens and nutrisense.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| I have also met adults who control their diabetes with hclf
| (high complex carbs, 0 to no simple carbs)
|
| I believe that the common denominator is nearly zero sugar.
| hirundo wrote:
| Agree, and I succeeded with that too, but for a shorter
| period. As a raw vegan my blood sugar was low, but I
| developed brain fog and intense cravings after about six
| months. I believe that path is sustainable for people with
| lower protein requirements and a healthier digestive system
| than mine.
| sph wrote:
| > As a raw vegan my blood sugar was low
|
| Interestingly, as a pre-diabetic zero carber my blood sugar
| is excellent in as little as a week. Not meaning to make
| fun of your diet, just observing that what you ingest !=
| what's in your blood stream, we are very complex chemical
| machines.
|
| In this case a moderately high carb diet like yours results
| in low sugar, while a diet with <5g of carbs a day results
| in healthy sugar levels.
|
| (The reason is insulin. Remove dietary carbs, you generate
| less insulin, so blood sugar flatlines, with
| gluconeogenesis to maintain the minimal levels to function,
| while the rest of the energy is provided by fatty acids)
| hollerith wrote:
| A carrot, a cabbage, a bell pepper or a butternut squash will
| contain a significant amount of carbs, all of which is in the
| form of simple sugars (glucose, fructose and sucrose mainly)
| so they avoid those foods?
| kmonsen wrote:
| They come with fibers to offset it
| hollerith wrote:
| What food or foods have been your main source of fat while on
| this LCHF diet?
| anonymousab wrote:
| I'm not OP, but I also adhered to an LCHF diet for ~8 months
| a few years ago. I found that, early on, maintaining a
| consistently high ratio of fats was hard, but over time, it
| simply became a natural aspect of things like e.g. eating
| normal/non-extra-lean beef.
|
| For the first while I found that using coconut oil or olive
| oil was a trivial way of adding just pure fat to my daily
| numbers. Both of them are relatively cheap (though high cal)
| and can be added to any heated drink like coffee or tea with
| minimal impact on for flavor. Over time, this just became
| unnecessary, but it was helpful early on as it was trivial to
| prep a small container with n grams of oil every morning.
|
| There are also nutrient bars that are explicitly higher on
| fat and protein and lower on carbs for this very purpose,
| e.g. 'good fats' bars.
|
| Unlike what others report, while I felt generally good and
| had energy for day to day things, I simply could not ever
| work up enough energy for more rigorous cardio or
| weightlifting, compared to when I'm on a normal/carb-rich
| diet.
| hirundo wrote:
| Beef, butter, eggs.
| mountain_peak wrote:
| N=2 10+ years of ultra low carb diet, but not quite as high fat
| as the study (obviously a greater percentage of protein). My
| BMI has been ~18 and I've been a runner my whole life, but
| (like my father), had neuropathy and 'fuzzy' vision in my 30s,
| and eventually found out that I was glucose-intolerant with
| large 'spikes' in my glucose levels after meals with carbs. Two
| weeks after cutting out carbs, vision fuzziness went away, and
| pins-and-needles subsided (although I still can't tolerate heat
| or cold in my feet).
|
| Never looked back. Never went on any drugs, running is slower,
| but can last much longer. Don't really feel hungry - just eat
| to my activity level and snacks.
|
| Eating is simple - if it has more than 2g of carbs per serving,
| then I don't eat it. Only supplements required are chlorides:
| sodium - that's easy, potassium - from NoSalt, and magnesium -
| an occasional capsule.
| ablatt89 wrote:
| I think this is not so surprising, given that the calories are
| not restricted in the study. High carb, low fat foods I think are
| not satiating relative to low carb, high fat foods. As an
| example:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36051903/
|
| Any type of caloric restriction will improve health outcomes.
| user3939382 wrote:
| Weight isn't the product of calories in vs out, that's an
| overly simplistic model that doesn't account for the effect of
| hormones on how we metabolize different compounds and
| nutrients. This area of nutrition science is nascent and
| unsettled, and fraught with research funded by parties with
| conflicts of interest, but here's for example a pretty good
| talk that discusses some of the research
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKC3hiyLeRc&t=159s
| Beaver117 wrote:
| Here comes the CICO cult to lynch you. They never seem to
| understand that your body regulates its CO by
| reducing/increasing movement and NEAT, so how can you really
| measure it?
| mattwest wrote:
| Maybe you can't consciously manipulate NEAT, but you can
| control movement. You are literally saying that we can
| choose to move more in order to offset over-consumption,
| which is true. NEAT holds a different level of influence
| based on the individual. Adjust to it or pick an average
| percent and move on. This appeal to "CICO is
| oversimplification" is a distraction and excuse.
| Beaver117 wrote:
| NEAT holds a different level of influence every single
| day, maybe even hour, based on your body's supply of
| energy, hormones, and other unknown stuff. Have you ever
| been extremely fidgety while people next to you are
| completely still? You would have been burning at least 2x
| the calories they were in that time.
|
| Basically, its simple and accurate to measure calories
| in. But almost impossible to measure calories out. So
| TDEE actually shifts by a couple hundred calories every
| day. That's small but not insignificant, and explains why
| some people end up quite underweight and others quite
| overweight, even if they eat the same foods (over a long
| period of time).
| mattwest wrote:
| I'm am quite aware of how TDEE and NEAT work, but they
| average out in the long run. If you choose to give little
| credence to CICO, then so be it. I've spent the past
| decade in various sports which require different
| bodyweights and body comps, successfully going up and
| down as needed. I know it works, and it's not unique to
| me. For some reason I never have these arguments with
| other athletes. I wonder why
| ablatt89 wrote:
| I don't think that YouTube cites any sources that show
| there's scenarios where metabolism is significantly different
| for net weight and other health outcomes, when it comes to
| low fat vs low carbohydrate diets. There might be some
| genetic disorders causing some pathway to be inhibited, but
| on average, if we want to give generic advice for every
| individual, I think it's best to say to reduce calories and
| choose the appropriate method that satisfies your lifestyle
| and allows you to adhere to the diet, to improve your health.
|
| I don't think it's sustainable to do a keto diet if you live
| and partake in society. You might encounter many scenarios
| where food options are carb heavy, and in this case, keto is
| not an option whereas caloric restriction is.
| mattwest wrote:
| It's simple enough to be useful and applied. If you continue
| to reduce your calorie intake, you will lose weight. This is
| a fact. Build a model to explain weight gain/loss and calorie
| intake will always be the most influential variable full stop
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| You're correct with the caveat that the system is not
| totally static so TDEE tends to decline as the body endures
| deficits. Therefore it "appears" that CICO is broken... its
| not, it's just that to keep a static deficit over time you
| have to eat fewer and fewer calories.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Is it actually simple enough to be useful? We've known this
| for decades and it hasn't slimmed anyone down
| statistically. What precisely is it useful for? Because it
| isn't useful in losing weight... people simply aren't
| losing.
| mattwest wrote:
| Total BS. We've known if for forever and the reason
| "people simply aren't losing" is because they aren't
| doing a good job of counting. Go ask a fighter, wrestler,
| runner, or bodybuilder how they manage body weight. They
| don't do it by tossing a coin into the wishing well, I
| can tell you that.
| SamoyedFurFluff wrote:
| Dude I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I'm asking what is
| it useful for in a statistically significant manner. I'm
| not really interested in some outlier professional
| fighters or whatever have to say about it. What fat
| person doesn't know CICO is real? You don't think they've
| heard it a million times? Yet statistically we're only
| getting fatter. Trying the same stuff expecting different
| results is stupid, and yet we're telling every fatty out
| there CICO, millions of them, for decades, with nothing
| to show at a population level.
|
| This is stupid. Thus I'm questioning what CICO is useful
| for beyond some academic, theoretical sense. Actual
| applications. Because the application ain't applying.
| rhinoceraptor wrote:
| This is like saying the way to become financially
| successful, is to simply earn more money than you spend.
|
| These two explanations are correct, but not particularly
| helpful, because they are tautologies.
| raajg wrote:
| The conclusion is in line with Tim Ferris's 'Slow Carb Diet'
| smcleod wrote:
| Note: Very small sample size (165 participants) of primarily
| older aged people (mean 56 years), all located in the same
| geographic region.
| Beaver117 wrote:
| Yet another useless study clouding peoples minds. Stop eating
| ultra processed foods, meat is okay, rice is okay, most bread
| from the store isnt (look at the ingredients). Potatoes are
| possibly the most nutritious vegetable provided you dont deep fry
| them in seed oil. Stay away from cheap oils like canola, corn,
| soybean, safflower. Stick to olive oil, coconut oil, tallow,
| lard, ghee, etc BUT KEEP IT LIMITED.
|
| No need to go on a restrictive keto or carnivore diet, it does
| have some benefits yes but you're missing out on variety.
| idlehand wrote:
| Potatoes are a brilliant food. They're filling, contain an
| appropriate amount of calories, a lot of nutrients and a lot of
| potassium which helps balance out all that salt we're eating.
| StephenSmith wrote:
| https://www.healthcanal.com/nutrition/potato-diet
| CabSauce wrote:
| Do you have any studies to support your recommendations?
| Beaver117 wrote:
| No, I learned these myself through trial and error
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I sincerely hope you spent time on a 100% ghee diet to
| justify saying you figured this out through trial and
| error.
| Beaver117 wrote:
| I certainly did. Can't say anything bad about it.
| Although now I don't use it much, I don't use much
| oil/fat at all.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I think you're mistaking me, I mean 100% ghee. Only ghee.
| smegsicle wrote:
| instead of saying something you think is ridiculous and
| then accusing others of misunderstanding you, why not
| just say what you actually mean?
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| > I sincerely hope you spent time on a 100% ghee diet
|
| I thought I did.
| sprayk wrote:
| what is the difference between a processed food and an
| unprocessed food? what degree of processing makes a food ultra-
| processed? what ingredients should I be looking for and why?
| what is so nutritious about potatoes, and why does frying
| change anything? what is special about seed oil?
| N_A_T_E wrote:
| Generally speaking, I think of processed foods as anything
| padded with sugar, salt and/or fat. Food which comes from a
| factory, not a farm. Processed foods are digested quickly
| which has issues. They have a high caloric density with low
| nutrients due to the sugar,salt+fat.
|
| Think candy, chips, soda, bread, cured meats and things in
| bags. Low in nutrition, high in calories.
| pushedx wrote:
| One rule of thumb is to be wary of anything not sold on the
| perimiter of a grocery store.
| piaste wrote:
| "Processed" is a slightly confusing shorthand for "has
| undergone processes which either damaged its nutritional
| properties or added a ton of unhealthy shit for the sake of
| becoming more appealing and/or easier to preserve and
| consume".
|
| A chopped apricot or a smoked salmon are in a literal sense
| processed food, but nobody is referring to that kind of
| processes. Rather, they're referring to the processes that
| turn an apricot into a Sachertorte, or a salmon into
| spreadable salmon-flavoured cheese. Dehydrating, extensive
| cooking, adding massive amounts of salt/sugar/fats -
| processes that destroy vitamins and other nutritionally
| important characteristics and mix the original food with
| large quantities of unhealthy ingredients.
| Beaver117 wrote:
| "I know it when I see it"
|
| Just be aware of whats in your food. I don't look for
| specific ingredients just learn what the makeup of your food
| is and decide if you should be eating that. Awareness is 80%
| of the battle.
|
| Boiled/roasted potatoes are really satiating for their
| calories. But most people associate potatoes with a lot of
| fat, like french fries or mashed potatoes which make them
| very high calorie.
|
| Deep frying anything I think should be a special occasion,
| you shouldn't be having deep fried food every day or even
| week, it adds a lot of useless calories. Stir frying is
| healthier
|
| Seed oils (modern oils like canola, invented in 1974) are
| suspicious. There is a lot of conspiracy theories out there
| and not a lot of data, but I try to stay away from it. After
| all we've been using olive oil for thousands of years, no
| need to stop.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| Why is rice ok? It is processed, high carb, low fiber. Good if
| you are starving, tastes good, but seems like it should be
| skipped as much as a typical junk food.
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-13 23:02 UTC)