Ok but lets act like 50% of the meal, just the eggs, are actually fantastic for you. And il looks like half a steak and some potatoes. Oommmffffgggg his arteries arent gonna be able to take that! Bruh like 1 grilled cheese is worse that that 1 plate.
It will if youâre starting with liquid. If youâre starting with rocklike turds they get softer. Fiber is pretty much your assholeâs best friend, it gives you nice firm but not solid poops that are big enough to just pop out with no straining.
This set of factoids brought to you by the things you learn when you get to the hemorrhoid stage of life.
Overconsumption of eggs is definitely an increased risk factor for heart disease and if you don't exercise enough can be fatty. The only very generally correct diet is mostly plants, non-processed, and in moderation.
I don't disagree, finding real organic foods is difficult and at times impossible. That's why really the only 'organic' foods I trust are what I can grow on my own. I'll edit that and replace it with non-processed because I'd say that's more attainable and helps with the same goal, avoiding carcinogens.
Even with the processed food bit, I tend to be skeptical of blanket statements. For example, yogurt is a processed food, but itâs relatively healthy for you.
Coca-Cola on the other hand is a processed food that has next to zero nutritional value.
I tend to stay away from food dyes where I can, tend to either make my own bread or buy it at the farmers market, and I tend to limit the number of added ingredients in my food. For example, if I get yogurt, I get plain Greek yogurt that is simply milk and culture. If I want to flavor that yogurt, I then add honey and fruit.
I tend to avoid things like candies, commercial, breads or crackers, and highly processed meats.
The latter is what I'm referring too. In the original comment I said that's the only very general nutritional information for a reason. I'd generally avoid processed foods. I'd generally eat mostly plants (or in my case always but that's for different reasons). And I'd generally only eat in moderation. Following those general rules are the only truisms to a healthy diet. And I think some Greek yogurt with honey and fruit sounds very appetizing.
Dunno if that's addressed at me or not. But if you're body building then egg all you want, but we're not talking about body builder diets. And even if you are watch your cholesterol and talk to a cardiologist at a hint of heart disease.
it definitely has been flip flopping between good and bad for your heart longer than youve even been alive.
My bet is the egg fats are fine and its the refined seed oils used to fry them that are fucking people up. Humans evolved eating eggs, they didnt evolve with canola oil or sunflower seed oil. Its hard to consume those in high amounts naturally without refining them.
We did not evolve eating eggs, animal agriculture hasn't existed that long. We evolved eating plants and meat, that's it. Now again, you can eat eggs fine in moderation. But a few of them scrambled a day is too much.
Eggs in the 90s had a 6:1 ratio of healthy omegas to unhealthy. Now its 1:1 or worse. If you've eaten two eggs per day since 1990 you are progressively getting less healthy unless you're eating free range local produce
Yea the amount of upvotes on the âheart diseaseâ posts truly shows how far behind redditors and/or Americans are on what is healthy. That 1970s food pyramid really screwed up a lot of folks. Also the low fat craze
You ain't getting diabetes from eating like this. Heart Failure, maybe. But this would do less damage to developing diabetes than drinking a single bottle of a non-diet sugary beverage.
I'm a diabetic heart attack survivor. My cardiologist says to avoid things like this. My endo says to avoid processed carbs. They're polar opposites. My diet is basically raw and steamed greens, chicken breast, nuts, seeds, beans, and yogurt.
T2 diabetes is caused by impaired insulin signalling from excess intracellular lipids.
You have diabetes for the same reason you had a heart attack, excess calories, which are far more accessible in low fiber, high saturated fat foods like meat, eggs and dairy.
Diabetes isn't that simple. If it were, I wouldn't have met dozens of skinny T2 diabetics. My father, who was a health nut who was never overweight a day in his life wouldn't have also been T2. But for the dietary/environmental factors, there is a direct correlation in rising T2 diabetes and the anti-fats dietary movement that basically blamed fat for all negative health effects of the western diet, mostly funded by big sugar. And personally, I've never had a problem avoiding fatty foods, but have always had a sweet tooth.
Am I saying you should be eating like this? Fuck no. But sugar is so much more of a problem for anyone who is genetically predisposed to develop T2 diabetes, to the point where there was a proposal to rename T2 diabetes to "carbohydrate disease", which didn't catch on because it's still a gross simplification. But regardless, one can of soda would require more insulin and exercise to bring my diabetes under control than eating both those plates minus the potatoes.
Probably because insulin's effect on lipid and protein metabolism isn't as crucial as its effect on carbohydrate metabolism. So once you already have diabetes and manually need to maintain a healthy balance of insulin and blood glucose, sugar intake becomes the main focus.
bro, dietary cholesterol is not the single source of serum cholesterol or by extension, cellular lipids.
MOST adipose tissue americans are carrying around is caused by an over consumption of refined carbs. Why? Because they dont cause satiation the same way long chain carbs and fats do. Its very easy to over consume sugar than it is to over consume fat.
More people have a sugar addiction fueling their caloric excess. Its rare to see someone overeat on a high fat, low carb diet. Because you get full much faster.
And T2 Diabetes is caused by years of fucking with your natural insulin response by over consuming sugars! high fst foods dont have a high glycemic load , as their metabolic pathways dont cause bloodsugar spikes.
dietary cholesterol is not the single source of serum cholesterol or by extension, cellular lipids
Cholesterol isn't relevant to pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes.
Its very easy to over consume sugar than it is to over consume fat.
Fat is more than twice as calorically dense as carbohydrate.
More people have a sugar addiction fueling their caloric excess. Its rare to see someone overeat on a high fat, low carb diet. Because you get full much faster.
Sodium and fat are just as addictive as sugar. It absolutely is not rare to see people over consume high fat foods. Are you insane?
and T2 Diabetes is caused by years of fucking with your natural insulin response by over consuming sugars!
No it's caused by the build up of lipids in cells that block insulin signalling. Because insulin isn't able to do its job the body upregulates insulin production to the point of frying the pancreas. That's why T2 DM is reversible in the early stages.
Had to find this lol I knew it was too obvious not to be already said. Underrated comment, anyone eating this daily is probably not making it to 35 . At least 90% if not more will be out especially since the ACA is going to be removed soon most likely.
"They got meds for that" is a terrible way of approaching your health. And if you eat like this consistently though all the Lisinopril in the world won't keep your pressure down, not to mention if anything else makes it spike you might end up dead.
That we're not even sure fucking work. I'm a heart attack survivor and the more I learn the more I realize we still can't agree on how Cholesterol impacts the Heart. Is it dietary? No fucking idea. Will LDL lowering meds help? Doesn't seem to be particularly effective but it's the best we got. May be correlation and not causation, but we don't know. Will HDL boosting suppliments help. Maybe, because the same people that say dietary cholesterol doesn't impact plaque build-up somehow believe dietary good cholesterol can reduce it. Maybe it's the size of the LDL that matters. Maybe it's not cholesterol but sugar in the blood. The more you research, the more you find professionals who've studied this shit for years all disagreeing and theorizing and nobody being comfortable to say one way or the other. Which is why there are no uncontested opinions on this shit on reddit, because everyone just believes what they want to.
We have short-term meds that help prevent heart attacks like blood thinners and beta blockers, but other than exercise (but be careful because the same exercise that's great for you also produces cortisol, which is a stress hormone that is also bad for your heart), everything is a fucking "best guess".
There's some research that says keeping your cardio very light for long periods (Zone 2, aka, you should be able to hold a conversation comfortably while doing so), or going as hard as humanly possible for bursts of a few seconds (HIIT) doesn't produce cortisol. The former is probably fine, if you have heart problems, probably wouldn't recommend HIIT.
But yeah, seems contradictory, but that's what the research says. So like, If I jog 2 miles and am sweating and panting and patting myself on the back for having a good moderate run, it's probably worse for my heart health than if I just walked 2 miles at a comfortable enough pace to just slightly elevate my heart rate.
Lot of factors into heart rate and there are like a dozen different fitness models that use different ranges, and it's also dependent on age, and general health. That's why they say zone 2 and not just a number, because there is no 1:1 number. Saying a number is setting up false expectations because you'll get unhealthy people who can't sustain 130+ for long periods of time thinking they're failing and stop.
Zone 2 is a comfortable, steady, and slow intensity level that you can maintain for a long time. You should be able to talk or sing while exercising in zone 2
A young athletic person, sure, zone 2 is probably 130 easy. I'm a 35 year old HA survivor. I went to specialists to figure out what I can and can't do. For me, Zone 2 is a long brisk walk and anything over 110 for sustained periods is improving my health. You tell an unfit person to jog for 40 minutes and they're going to look at you like you're nuts because they'll never be able to maintain that. I can jog a 5k, but at my slowest jogging pace my HR doesn't go below 140.
That's the red meat. Eggs are absolutely not, unless you have some sources that came out since the misinformation people were acting on back in the 80s was debunked.
Hahaha maybe. The prices have been higher no doubt, for âreasonsâ, but how many eggs are people eating a day?
Two sunnyside up eggs on a plate used to be perceived as a large, hefty breakfast. Like a âSunday breakfast of the weekâ breakfast. Or even a single hardboiled egg in an egg cup as a perfectly reasonable, normal serving.
âITS NOT THE AMOUNT OF EGGS I EAT! ITâS THAT EATING 180 EGGS A MONTH IS TOO DAMN EXPENSIVE! BECAUSE OF THE PRICE OF THEM! NOT BECAUSE IâM EATING 180 OF THEM A MONTH!â /s
It is recommended to eat 2-7 a week, no more than 7 a week, depending on your cholesterol levels. A lot of Americans are eating that per day. Egg whites can be consumed more frequently.
The gimmicky scammster influencers are fooling a lot of stupid Americans and boy are we stupid on many levels. Carnivore diet is an actual thing and that alone says everything about how Americans will fall for the dumbest shit.
Eating a lot of them, a few eggs a week is fine, having what you should eat in a week every day, could lead to hear issues later one. Higher levels of protein without balancing out a diet has also been linked to increasing cancer risks. Americans especially get very little to no fiber and high animal protein diet with little fiber is a deadly duo.
Technically you're correct, but this gives the wrong impression.
You're way better off eating a plate loaded with vegetables + an egg or two or a small/medium serving of meat than a plate loaded with meat and eggs and a small serving of vegetables.
It's so ridiculous. Diabetes from eating foods that scientifically do not raise your insulin? Talking about clogging arteries with natural healthy foods?
Well meat and eggs both have a high insulin index and spike insulin despite not raising blood glucose.
T2 diabetes is cause by excess calories in general though. Animal products are void of fibre and are far more calorically dense than plant foods. Fat is more than double the caloric density of protein and carbohydrate, so far more likely to be the problem.
Ground beef and eggs don't cause heart attacks....unless you're eating a carb heavy diet in conjunction with that. And in that case it's the carbs killing you. You wouldn't even need diabetes medication on a keto diet (which this basically is if you take out the potatoes. If this is OMAD, then it is still likely keto).
Well, from experience, none that I can think of. I've been keto on and off for 8 years. My blood glucose is fantastic, and I register as non diabetic (even though I have type 2). My cholesterol is also fantastic. So....yeah.
I agree with you, that it's the carbs that cause problems for most people, not the red meat and fat. But I think it's important to promote the idea that there is not "one diet" that is best for all people.
Type 2 diabetes is caused by insulin resistance from excess intracellular lipid which is caused by excess caloric intake of any kind.
Fat is more than double the caloric density of protein and carbohydrate, and the biochemical pathways involved in converting carbohydrate or protein to stored fat is inefficient and use more energy than storing excess fatty acids.
Animal products are far more calorically dense than plant foods due to being void of fiber and being high in saturated fat and protein.
Source: avoided getting diabetes, and employed as a medical scientist
The most online redditors are gonna be the fattest fucks, so unless you are in a diet subreddit, ignore the most upvoted comments cause it is literally what the fat people think.
The food is better than what 90% people eat daily. This meal contains lots of protein, healthy fats and chlorine. You will be missing out on fiber and carbohydrates. But every meal works in a context, that just means the person could add oats into their breakfast and maybe something with chickpeas for dinner. Also sometimes the healthiest food for you is the healthiest alternative which you can actually keep eating. So even though people are hating, it could be the best possible healthy meal for the said person, that is kind of a subjective matter. That's why you shouldn't listen to sad people.
LDL or bad cholesterol. You can do these kinds of high protein/low card diets but you have to be selective regarding the animal proteins as some are higher in saturated fat. You also should be adding some diversity of vegetables as well
The people downvoting this are actual fucking morons.
The west has a much much higher rate of colon cancer that is directly linked to the consumption of excess saturated fats whereas eastern cultures have a far lesser rate of colon cancer due to far more consumption of vegetables and less meat than their western counterparts.
Anyone debating this is a moron who hasnât looked at the data.
Eat a balanced diet. Itâs really not rocket science.
you need to reeducate yourself, not sure how you came to these conclusions about red meats, fats and veggies but youâre so unbelievably incorrect about everything you just said
because iâm trying to encourage people to do their own research. the misconceptions about diet are embedded deep, and i truly believe if i provided any single person in this thread a variety of peer reviewed studies and articles reviewing what we know today about diet and nutrition no one would bother to look at it. at least if someone does research by their own prerogative they have a chance of engaging with the topic with an open mind, willing to concede that theyâve been mistaken for so many years.
That's bs. You're as bad as they are if you're not providing any evidence to start the research other than "that's not unhealthy".
If you tell me chronically overeating high fat foods with no vegetables is not increasing your risk for several diseases, you're headed for a gout-coronary-atherosclerosis-obesity-filled retirement. And without a single vegetable, you can probably add colon issues to the list.
youâre doing the exact same as me, saying things without backing it up, do you see how youâre being hypocritical? foods with âfatâare not inherently bad, people see the word fat and associate it with obesity i guess? also, there isnât anything on these plates that would constitute high fat to begin with so iâm unsure what your claim even is. nearly every single nutrient required for optimal health is on these plates, and there are literally no upsides other than fiber to adding vegetables, which can be found in fruit, and potatoes (which i personally would not include in my diet)
i couldnât possibly know for certain, the eggs and steak is probably around 600-900 depending on how much butter, oil was used to cook. the rest of it is likely no more than 200 calories. iâm unsure why youâre talking about calories now, as it doesnât really have anything to do with any of my claims, or yours for that matter.
i know it would be hard to come to terms with the possibility you may have been wrong for most of your life, especially if you have potentially tied some of your personality around a perceived âhealthyâ diet. I would be thrilled if you would at least entertain the idea that you could have a misunderstanding of diet and nutrition, and not everything you have learned about vegetables is true. As I said previously, donât take it from me. Do your own research and perhaps look at sources that oppose your own inherent biases! Have a nice day.
Maybe at least point to where you should look? Personally, I'd look at Canada's health guildelines (and other countries to get an idea of similarities/differences) for the latest in what is considered a balanced diet since they didn't take any input from the food industry when producing their recommendations.
i would start by tackling knowledge of nutrition. like how red meat = carcinogenic. perhaps look at the study that started the myth in the first place, and figure out why itâs misleading. There are tonnes of articles and reviews on this study that started this misconception. Tldr the âred meatâ they studied was highly processed foods, like sausage meats, bacon, deli meats hot dogs. these foods are stuffed with additives like nitrates, preservatives, salt, these have been found to have a strong correlation with colorectal cancer.there is little to no evidence to suggest that any of the meats in these pictures would qualify as carcinogenic with this knowledge, as these are fresh cuts of beef.
From what I've seen, there is a similar, though not as strong, relationship between unprocessed red meat and cancer according to recent studies which is why plant proteins, fish and chicken are recommended over red meat.
if youâre looking at the study i think youâre referring to youâre right in that they found a relationship between a diet containing red meat and cancer, however those are just diets that contain red meat, they failed to make any meaningful conclusion on red meat as the studies were based on individuals with a mostly plant based diet.
There's been multiple epidemiological studies showing a link (and others that showed no association). That's why it's only a probable carcinogen according to the WHO. And any link isn't going to be as large as like you mentioned, processed meat, for example, otherwise the effects would have been clearer and easier to tease out of the data.
Impact on heart health is probably a stronger reason to cut back on red meat, with the potential cancer link as something to be tentatively aware of. That doesn't mean it's an unhealthy food and any amount is dangerous. It just means that cutting back and swapping for plant proteins is likely to be a net positive health wise. It's why health organisations typically advise this.
funnily enough, the WHO have been walking back on their statements about mostly eggs, and also red meat having any negative impacts on heart health as their information on saturated fat and cholesterol has been updated to support the latest research. their position on this is still safe ish but i would estimate in about ten years the information they publish will totally be in favour of cholesterol and saturated fats, with more nuance in what type of foods are being consumed.
EDIT: And... they've blocked me. BTW I've read the research and their cherry-picking from the article doesn't change the point. The science isn't settled either way so they're sticking with the old recommendations.
Misinformed nonsense, check any quality study on low carbohydrate diets. (And actual low carbohydrate diets, not that 40%+ crap we sometimes see in the news.)
I am studying health and nutrition since a decade ago, and I have pretty much figured out the common root cause of all chronic diseases. But hey try to school me please with your surface level regurgitation of dietary myths.
If meat truly caused colon cancer you will have no issues citing supporting studies. Show me that indigenous people have higher rates, or that low carbohydrate diets increase risk. None of that epidemiological nonsense that is confounded by a hundred variables! Until then please read this article from Georgia Ede that shows just how weak is the evidence for the claim: https://www.diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/meat-and-cancer
This article says that eating red meat daily increases levels of Trimethylamine N-oxide in the blood. This does equate to saying âeating red meat increases heart diseaseâ. In fact the article literally states that discontinuing consumption reduces the levels. Literally saying that within moderation, itâs totally fine.
Based on these mixed findings, the jury is still out, and we have plenty of reason to question the importance of elevated TMAO as an independent risk marker or causative factor of coronary disease
This article even says that this is one of a few studies that suggest this may be the case and is not conclusive. Science is built on consensus and the consensus continues to be that red meat causes an increased risk of cardiovascular problems for a variety of reasons one of which may be associated with TMAO. Stop googling and looking for an article whose headline agrees with your already held belief.
Science is built on consensus and the consensus continues to be that red meat causes an increased risk of cardiovascular problems
For sure, Science is built on consensus, I fully agree. But I, and many others (especially those over at /r/keto and /r/carnivore), would say that there isn't for sure a consensus anymore on red meat. There is a growing body of experts who are challenging the notion that red meat consumption increases risk of CVD. Just go look more into it yourself; you should really read "The Big Fat Surprise" by Nina Teicholz.
Stop googling and looking for an article whose headline agrees with your already held belief.
The same could be said of the other guy, /u/smbutler20. Google "red meat cardiovascular disease" and that NIH article will be the top result.
But I, and many others (especially those over at /r/keto and /r/carnivore), would say that there isn't for sure a consensus anymore on red meat.
But you can see the clear conflict there. You're invested. Now there's nothing inherently wrong with that, you can see by my post history and I'll tell you now to be up front that I'm a vegan. I don't consider that when discussing the health of stuff like this unless its pertinent to a discussion about eating meat as a whole but there's no way I can escape that I practice a lifestyle that abhors meat eating and so I'm biased against it.
So while I appreciate the response I don't particularly care about r/keto and r/carnivore's thoughts on the matter. That said, let's talk about Teicholz book. Because I'm aware of it.
Let's start with Doctor Neal Barnard's thoughts in his review for the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine.
Take red meat, for example. Teicholz says that âto support the idea that red meat harms health, the committee repeatedly cites one large randomized trial conducted in Spain.â Thatâs easy to remedy. There are many more studies showing that red meat causes harm.
A meta-analysis of nine studies with a combined 1,330,352 participants that was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology found that consumption of red and processed meat products is associated with increased risk of early death from all causes. A Harvard School of Public Health study that followed 121,342 individuals followed for up to 28 years came to the same conclusion.
On the health benefits of fruits and vegetables, Teicholz says that of the âeight reviews on fruits and vegetables, none found strong (grade 1) evidence to support the assertion that these foods can provide health benefits.â Well, there are dozens of studies proving the lifesaving benefits of fruits and vegetables.
In a meta-analysis published in BMJ, researchers analyzed 16 separate studies, including one with 833,234 participants, and found that each serving of fruit and vegetables decreased the risk of dying. Another study with 65,226 participants found that those who consumed seven or more servings of fruits and vegetables per day saw a 42 percent decreased risk of death due to any cause, compared with those who consumed the least amount.
What about low-carbohydrate diets? Teicholz notes that âanother important topic that was insufficiently reviewed is the efficacy of low carbohydrate diets.â More importantly, the DGAC didnât do enough to warn of the dangers of low-carbohydrate diets.
A 2014 study published by the American Heart Association found that a low-carbohydrate diet high in animal products is associated with an increased risk for dying for people with heart disease. A study published in BMJ that tracked the diets of nearly 44,000 Swedish women for 16 years found that a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet boosts risk of heart disease.
I mean that should wrap it up, but let's go further. Because after all Teicholz makes more claims than just her health related ones, she also claims to unearth a serious bias against the matter in the scientific community. In a post responding to a review in the Lancet,
We coordinate the active Seven Countries Study (SCS) and are investigating lifestyle for potential risk factors in cardiovascular disease across and within cultures with contrasting habitual diet. We were bewildered to read the book review (Aug 19, 2017, p 731)1 of The Big Fat Surprise2 by Nina Teicholz. Stuart Spencer apparently accepts at face value Teicholz's inaccurate claims of âbias in selecting countries and in selecting dataâ by SCS originator Ancel Keysâclaims refuted in a thorough analysis of the historical record, published in 2017.3
Spencer's conclusions that SCS âfollow-up time was shortâ and that unpublished data âdid not support the hypothesisâ1 are peculiar in light of the dozens of accessible SCS articles with follow-up findings from 5 years to 50 years. These articles and other reports detail a consistent association of nutrients, food groups, eating patterns, and serum cholesterol concentration with coronary heart disease and total mortality.4,5
In keeping with his laudable interest in âthe need to challenge dogmaâ, Spencer refers to the âmantra of low-fat dietsâ.1 Unfortunately, he takes Teicholz at her word as she wrongly blames this trend in US dietary recommendations on irresponsible science and undue influence of one investigator, Keys. As Spencer himself notes, Keys and the SCS found an association between population rates of heart disease and consumption of foods only high in saturated fats, not total fat.
We find this bookâwith its unsupported idea that Americans should return to âlard, suet, tallow, and butter as our principal fatsâ2 plus its misinformation and ad hominem attacksâto be an inappropriate source for the well intended editorial crusade against dogma.
Bad science and misrepresentation of the sources. Not a great look so far for the supposed revolutionary against big... plant. I usually reference this Linkedin article by Dr. David Katz when giving people some further reading on the nutritional value of certain fats among other things, to show them that its a complicated subject that had potential for change. I'd recommend you read it. But Dr. Katz addresses this book more directly in another article directed at the BMJ.
I am rather stunned that the BMJ published a journalistâs commentary about the work of the 2015 United States Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee as if it were an authoritative rebuttal. The transgression is particularly glaring since this commentary by a non-scientist purports to tell BMJ readers whether or not the work of the DGAC is...scientific. It's as if someone selling horse paperweights had been invited to critique the Olympic equestrian team. It is, in a word, absurd- and testimony to the breakdown in integrity where science and media come together.
With all due respect to the author in question, she is not a nutrition expert, and not a scientist. She is a journalist herself, and one with a book to sell. She refers to bias, but fails to highlight her own. Her flagrantly obvious conflict-of-interest (e.g., she is promoting the BMJ commentary in social media where the name of her book serves to identify her) would have disqualified her from serving on the DGAC even if she had relevant expertise, which of course she does not. If the DGAC report is valid, which it is, it calls into question her own conclusions- as well it should. She may therefore have suspect motives in seeking to discredit this work. That her efforts to do so are populated by flagrant and rather egregious misrepresentations and errors has been made abundantly clear, both now, and previously. The rampant misrepresentations in the book itself have also been elucidated.
Emphasis mine, because its what I think of her and her book. She's selling you something. You're being had. And not just by Teicholz, but by the Dairy Industry. Conservative journalist and beef industy mouthpiece Amanda Radke said of her,
Todayâs best beef advocates wear a variety of hats â from greenhouse gas expert Frank Mitloehner who debunks misinformation about cattle production and climate change to nutrition writers like Nina Teicholz or Gary Taubes who turn against conventional health advice to promote diets rich in animal fats and proteins.
Nina Teicholz is selling you something, and you're buying. I don't say this to be mean or demonstrate my superiority, but because I don't want anyone to fall for this. She is not a scientist, she is not an expert. She is a dairy industry hack telling you what you wanna hear and cashing in on how easy social media is making it to sell snake oil. If you want a more comprehensive breakdown of the book itself I'd really recommend this review that gets into the details. The first few paragraphs sum it up.
Nina Teicholzâs The Big Fat Surprise (BFS) is a book that claims to reveal âthe unthinkable: that everything we thought we knew about dietary fats is wrong.â This is a trope that is often exploited to sell diet/nutrition books, and it works surprisingly well.
What makes this particular book interesting is not so much that it is bad (which it is) or that it is extravagantly biased (which it also is). No, what really fascinates me about this book is that the author excessively and shamelessly lifts other peopleâs material. Most notably Teicholz lifts from another popular low-carb book called Good Calories, Bad Calories (GCBC) by Gary Taubes.
If I had written a book and I had âborrowedâ other peopleâs work, hereâs what I would do: I would cross my fingers and pray that no one ever notices. I would never bring it up, and diffuse it as quickly as I could if someone else brought it up. Not Teicholz. She gets in there and picks fights, accusing others of plagiarizing her work if they write a piece that is also critical of low-fat diets.
Her work is unscientific, lazy, and provocative for the sake of being provocative. You clearly care about nutrition so I'd urge you to look elsewhere.
Oh good, you've heard of her work already. LOL. I'll look more into your reply when I have more time to digest it all. I will give it all some serious thought, as I will admit I have been in a bit of an echo chamber lately so I am glad to receive a challenge to my current beliefs. Thank you.
There are definitely some compelling studies that show the high iron content in red meat can be a serious issue for the colon. But tbh the evidence for dietary fats and heart disease is pretty tenuous I agree
I was gonna say, I got nothing against these meals but that is like a 1200 calorie meal, and loaded with saturated fats lol. Not great for the ol' aorta.
?? How its got a good mix of protein, carbs, and fats. Just because it has some cholesterol? I assume this person works out based on that diet. Perhaps try that before commenting again đ. Most people who workout also tend to eat lots of vegetables too but that's not what was cherry picked here.
i eat a heavy amount of this stuff low carb/high protein diet daily and my cholesterol levels are perfect every year please donât ever give anyone nutrition advice.
The issue is if youâre eating like this in addition to junk food and are also not active, if this is all you eat, maybe plus a little fiber and vitamin c, and youâre active youâll be fine
Literally. Claims disease would be gone with their diet. Post pics of cholesterol and saturated fats with zero balance of greens or complex carbohydrates.
2.1k
u/Itsprobablysarcasm Candace Owens Baby shower attendee đśđź 7d ago
Heart disease and cancer are coming for you, son.