patrick.net

YesYNot says

I happen to agree with Willet that the balance of evidence is that normal bmi is healthier in general. But it is only one of many risk factors. Waist circumference to height is probably better. Diet and exercise and bloodwork are important as well. On top of probably being less healthy, for the young / middle age, being overweight is often a stepping stone to being obese.

Perhaps - we'll certainly get more clarity in the next 20 years as my generation consists of far fewer smokers.

Speaking of Wiley, came across this graphic which is tied to some of his research, just as you mentioned it:

It's funny how low carbers throw out all observational studies that they disagree with even when the studies are well done, repeatedly state that correlation is not causation, then throw out a plot of obesity with a point when the low fat guidelines came out. When the plot is in their favor, correlation = causation regardless of how thin the evidence is.

Nobody is on a low fat diet. As your graphic points out. They just drink more sugar and have more sugar added to things like pasta sauce.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2012/09/more-thoughts-on-macronutrient-trends.html

YesYNot says

It's funny how low carbers throw out all observational studies that they disagree with even when the studies are well done, repeatedly state that correlation is not causation, then throw out a plot of obesity with a point when the low fat guidelines came out. When the plot is in their favor, correlation = causation regardless of how thin the evidence is.

It's funny how high carbers refuse to consider that the people with some of the worst health outcomes in the world are huge carb eaters who lather on the ghee and vegetable oil, and the healthiest are largely pescatarians, including several (France, Norway) that consume large quantities of diary. Almost all (Greece, France, Norway, Japan) use conspicuous amounts of salt, either by pickling vegetables, in soy sauce, etc.

thunderlips11 says

People born in 1920 didn't live to see 65 on average.

PatNet has had some excellent tables on the history of life expectancy, I will try to find them. Bottom line though, most of the change occurred in childhood mortality, due mainly to vaccines and potable water, and reducing childhood mortality has a dramatic impact on life expectancy at birth. In contrast, 50 years of Medicare, spending trillions of USD, has had only a modest effect on life expectancy at 65, around three years. Even to the extent that people in that cohort are living longer today, it's mainly due to fewer people smoking. I used to listen to a lot of old radio, and I lost count how many ads claimed that doctors recommended a particular brand of cigarettes for my "T Zone." (I knew a doctor who started his practice in those years, but he smoked a different brand, until around the time the Surgeon General told everybody to quit.) In terms of life expectancy, the Surgeon General's warning in 1955 did about as much as Medicare in 1965, and at far lower cost. Government can be really useful when it supports research and evidence-based decision-making guidelines, but it can swiftly become a double-edged sword when it enables chronic revenue models and gets captured by the resulting industrial complexes, e.g. military-industrial complex and medical-industrial complex.

Hmm, the very website you posted has this chart:

It seems to me that if ~2/3 of the macronutrient calorie increase in coming from Carbs, that is primarily what we should be worried about vis-a-vis the Obesity Epidemic.

We should be spending 2/3 of our efforts getting people to consume less (refined) Carbs, and only 1/4 of our energy/funds on reducing fat.

thunderlips11 says

It's funny how high carbers refuse to consider that the people with some of the worst health outcomes in the world are huge carb eaters who lather on the ghee and vegetable oil,

I don't know of anybody who advocates lathering on ghee and vegetable oil, but those wouldn't be classified as high carbers. They're just vegetarians.

Ironman says

I stopped drinking soda long time ago, just because of the sugar content.

I betcha a Big Mac that the majority of the massive increase in Carb Calories is coming from sugary drinks and 'diet' low-fat snacks packed with corn syrup, corn, and soy.

thunderlips11 says

It seems to me that if ~2/3 of the macronutrient calorie increase in coming from Carbs, that is primarily what we should be worried about vis-a-vis the Obesity Epidemic.

If that were the only piece of information we had to go by, I would agree with you.

YesYNot says

I don't know of anybody who advocates lathering on ghee and vegetable oil, but those wouldn't be classified as high carbers. They're just vegetarians.

Indians have some of the highest rates of heart disease in the world, even when they live in the US, even versus Blacks. US Indians are far more likely to be Vegetarians than any other ethnic group, probably at least half of US Indians are vegetarians.
http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Coimbatore/coronary-artery-disease-on-the-rise-in-coimbatore/article8379180.ece

http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2016/01/26/researchers-seek-clues-to-heart-disease-in-indians-south-asians/

YesYNot says

If that were the only piece of information we had to go by, I would agree with you.

Well, the own charts above either show a slight decrease or no change in fat consumption. Yet obesity has exploded (age?) and carb consumption is on a strong uptrend since the 1970s-1980s

Of course, the problem with looking at fat and carbs is, how much is from healthy fat like butter and red meat, and how much is from unhealthy fat like margarine or vegetable oil. Most Diet Snacks, French Fries, etc. are also saturated with Vegetable Oil. And carbs, how much is from refined carbs and sugar.

I think Warfarin (SP?), Statins, and Nitroglycerin Pills have done a huge amount in enhancing lifespan. The ironic thing is that most of them are relatively 'ancient', long-since generic, dirt-cheap, drugs that can be had for pennies even in the most remote town in the most third world country.

Of Interest:

Of course, this means the lion's share of longevity has come from child birth/infancy/youth disease reduction.

thunderlips11 says

Well, the own charts above either show a slight decrease or no change in fat consumption.

One chart showed slight increase, one showed a slight decrease. So, basically no change to the fat consumption.
Big jump in carbohydrates, and mostly from sugar. Sugar consumption has gone up 20 lbs/yr. That is 36,300 Cal / yr, or 100 Cals / day. That is the equivalent of 10 lbs of weight
gain / yr from extra sugar consumption.

So, basically, nobody went on a low fat diet. They just added sugar.
Also look at the data from 1910 and on. We used to eat tons of carbohydrates with no obesity epidemic. How can you look at that plot and just blame carbohydrates.

YesYNot says

Big jump in carbohydrates, and mostly from sugar. Sugar consumption has gone up 20 lbs/yr. That is 36,300 Cal / yr, or 100 Cals / day. That is the equivalent of 10 lbs of weight

gain / yr from extra sugar consumption.

So, basically, nobody went on a low fat diet. They just added sugar.

They may not have, because they substituted a milkshake or 6oz. piece of steak with diet snacks, which are full of (hydrogenated) vegetable oils, which is a fat.

Completely agree about the sugar, which is also added to foods, including those that aren't obviously sweet.

thunderlips11 says

which are full of (hydrogenated) vegetable oils, which is a fat.

The dietary guidelines and especially the McGovern report did not advocate eating more sugar or inventing (in the lab) and eating large quantities of trans fat (partially hydrogenated oils). In fact, the pyramid puts sugar and oil at the very top, with the admonishment to use sparingly. Nobody did that. The McGovern report linked too much fat, sugar, and salt to heart disease, cancer, obesity, and stroke. Nothing has changed. These are still the culprits.

If you want to know more about the McGovern report and how it was corrupted into the guidelines, this six minute video is helpful.

www.youtube.com/embed/ffUZfngcWPA

YesYNot says

The dietary guidelines and especially the McGovern report did not advocate eating more sugar or inventing (in the lab) and eating large quantities of trans fat (partially hydrogenated oils). In fact, the pyramid puts sugar and oil at the very top, with the admonishment to use sparingly. Nobody did that. The McGovern report linked too much fat, sugar, and salt to heart disease, cancer, obesity, and stroke. Nothing has changed. These are still the culprits.

Yes, this is correct. I suspect the sugar and trans (but not all) fats are the main culprit.

thunderlips11 says

Warfarin (SP?), Statins

A 2011 study published in NEJM reported that Warfarin caused 1/3 of emergency hospitalizations in people over 65. Statins vary, for example in clinical studies, "Vytorin failed to show much effect."

Your graph showed several causes of death by disease type, including especially "Diseases of the circulatory system." I would not attribute the change during the period primarily to drugs, however, because the reduction in smoking had probably a larger effect. NIcotine is a vasoconstrictor, and smoking can cause hypertension, stroke, and cardiac arrest; a third of all smokers die from smoking related causes, with the obvious respiratory diseases accounting for only a subset of that total.

Really, the best way for adults to increase their life expectancy is to refrain from killing themselves: don't smoke, don't drink too much alcohol, don't become morbidly obese, avoid "trans fats" (hydrogenated oils as you and YesYNot mentioned); eat reasonable quantities of healthy food and get some exercise.

thunderlips11 says

sugar and trans (but not all) fats are the main culprit.

I think so too. Salt is consumed almost exclusively as a condiment or seasoning, so the effect of sodium depends probably on what it is eaten with, e.g. trans fats. Likewise fat includes a range of products from cold pressed olive oil (good) to subsidized hydrogenated corn oil (bad). As is often the case, the subsidized and advertised product is the worst:

www.youtube.com/embed/cuOlD0JZhM4

curious2 says

NIcotine is a vasoconstrictor, and smoking can cause hypertension, stroke, and cardiac arrest; a third of all smokers die from smoking related causes, with the obvious respiratory diseases accounting for only a subset of that total.

Good catch.

In my limited experience, Warfarin needs to be monitored and adjusted regularly. It's easy to see how it can cause hospitalization when the dosage isn't adjusted frequently. Once a year doesn't cut it, and twice a year is probably inadequate for the very aged/sick.

God I hate US Hospitals and the Medical Industry. It's medicine by numbers, at a much higher cost.

Oh and speaking of Maize, Here is a fun link for you:
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-tragic-legacy-of-center-for-science-in-the-public-interest-cspi/

The reason salt is important is that it is used to make you eat more. Salt, oil, and sugar have bliss points. Put the right amount in food, and it releases dopamine when you eat it. So, people do experiments on just the right amount of oil and salt to add to chips and fries to make you eat as many as possible. That's why you can eat a shitty vegan diet. Chips and soda are vegan, and people just keep jamming it in their faces. No one is getting fat on plain potatoes.

Here's what I think is a good article on the the relative 'goodness' of saturated fat, trans fat, sugar, pufas, and low fat.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/truth-about-saturated-fat_b_9427698.html

It's carbs, and simple carbs. I did the South Beach Diet once, and lost a ton of weight. The diet is hardcore, but illustrates that decreasing carb intake results in weight loss. I was not exercising at the time. I have put on weight during periods of routine exercise, and now when I want to lose weight, I decrease my carb intake in a less rigorous way than the South Beach. I eat well - lots of cheese, meat, and lots of veggies. And I lose weight.

Wrt diabetes (and obesity) it's clear. Low carb, high fat, moderate protein will almost guarantee you not getting diabetes, and you can even reverse it in many cases. If you have the grits to work out hard, then increase protein accordingly which is excellent for weight loss. That this is still debated is ridiculous. If Americans would suddenly switch to avoiding carbs (esp. fast carbs) at all cost, diabetes would likely become insignificant. Don't get me wrong, almost everybody loves some kind of carbs, but the science is clear.

mell says

Don't get me wrong, almost everybody loves some kind of carbs, but the science is clear.

The vast majority of respected nutrition researchers disagree with your conclusions.

Ironman says

The number of adults estimated to be living with diabetes surged to 422 million by 2014, a nearly four-fold increase on 1980 figures,

This is as global meat, dairy, oil, and processed carb production per capita has increased and whole plant food consumption has decreased.

Eating large quantities of tasty bad food is pleasurable. And as folks have pointed out, companies research products that hit the sweet spot, which takes salt, sugar, fat and carbs. Depending on what type of fat, the fat and salt won't hurt you unless you have a BP issue. The sugar and carbs will hurt you. If you can get pleasure out of eating better foods, for example, salad as a meal without a toxic dressing, you can pig out and not put on weight.

The vast majority of respected nutrition researchers disagree with your conclusions.

--------------

Not sure why you feel the need to lie. Nobody with a brain respects researchers who are married to bad science.

The biggest reason, most of us don't eat real food anymore. Since when do dyes and chemicals constitute a meal? It's cheap, and there's quantity, but there's no quality, no nutrition. So we eat, still feel hungry because we got nothing of value, eat again, and again... You don't have to be a pot bellied African to be malnourished.
A related outcome of this is we end up with a high amount of toxins in our body. How does the body control toxins so they don't rage through our system unchecked and kill us? Fat. Fat cells are used to trap the toxins until such time as they can be released through exercise or other detox practices. And lastly, we eat an inordinate amount of meat product, and empty processed carbs(not to be confused with highly valueable complex carbs), instead of fruits and veggies.

Oh yeah, and we've replaced discipline with hedonism, but fat and happy are not synonymous...

Do people really eat that much meat? The butcher never has a line, and the shelves are always stocked of meat.

I think most people fill their carts with shit that doesn't take much of any preparation. Cereal, bread, frozen pizzas etc. It does seem people eat a lot of chicken, especially freezer bags of breaded chicken etc. when i think of eating meat, i think of unadulterated red meat that you have to cook. We are a meat and vegetables household, and I don't feel that we eat an excessive amount of meat. A couple slices of bacon with 2-3 eggs for breakfast, if any. A fatty protein with a couple vegetables for supper. Lots of salads.

Its all the carb crap that people are eating that is making them fat. And all the sugary drinks. We have a dozen glass jugs we take down the street to fill with water about once a week. Keep a couple bags of lemons on hand and ice to spruce up the water sometimes. We get the kids a gallon of whole milk too

errc says

Do people really eat that much meat?

Depends on what you think is alot. Historically, and still today in many countries, meat is a flavoring(sparse), or something eaten on special occasions. So if you eat meat every day, yes, that's a lot.

Also, to be clear, carbs are a necessity for good health. They are the only thing your brain will use to function, so no carbs... Again these are complex, not processed. Think nuts, whole grans, seeds, rice, sprouted.

errc says

Nobody with a brain respects researchers who are married to bad science

People with brains are not persuaded by the likes of Gary Taubes and meat and egg board funded research. Moreover, even Taubes and Attia don't think the research is settled in their favor. Last I checked, Taubes couldn't even convince himself and his wife enough to feed his kids the same diet he tells other people to eat.

NuttBoxer says

Also, to be clear, carbs are a necessity for good health. They are the only thing your brain will use to function, so no carbs... Again these are complex, not processed. Think nuts, whole grans, seeds, rice, sprouted.

Carbs are actually the only (almost) non-essential fuel source if you want to take it to the extreme. The liver can perfectly convert fat to glucose needed for the brain, it can even do so with protein (as long as you eat enough protein) though fat is faster. If you have a functioning liver and want to keep it functioning, low carb is perfect (mild ketosis). You can live healthily with 20g -150g of carbs per day. Trained bodies could theoretically do zero, no need to go extreme though ;) It will take a while to revise those recommendations, a whole industry was built on the high carb myth, but I expect them to be slashed soon at least to 200g from ~300g, if not lower.

More propaganda from the fat police

I could take this thread seriously if you guys were so willing to present bullshit graphics to suit your narrative.
It's more like this...

mell says

Carbs are actually the only (almost) non-essential fuel source if you want to take it to the extreme.... Trained bodies could theoretically do zero,

This would mean eating zero plant foods and zero fiber. If you really believe it, you should give it a go and let us know what happens.

http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf

O/KA78Z7}U.UF;[W@e Ax4.*7W277Iao|~ FNS~2(@' r&S0TDr.j3~Ah=S,'z2|6b B.6-PM=l3`taF }83a yAtayyLWMC00I:06 7OMp+ +W&`-v ]7[k}^wu^OJ7oG~/iaq"t?91[F xa;kP @r@OIkuW :A&A-A, A,B $x A-2 d$&A,]j^};{w_G M;N[M?]4U;otPZ@AA;`am 8kim a-o)HfA &)b 3 )_GSM~M}4MW::Pawgh4C8{8ia.

YesYNot says

This would mean eating zero plant foods and zero fiber. If you really believe it, you should give it a go and let us know what happens.

Fiber is indigestible to humans and not a requirement for life. If it was, Eskimos and Siberians would all be dead because of limited access to it.

Grain products weren't consumed until the last "hour" of human existence only 12,000 years ago; Anatomically Modern Humans (Homo Sapiens Sapiens) have been around for 200,000 and Homo Sapiens for 500,000. And for much of that hour, there was no long-term storage of grasses that were only available in narrow windows of a few weeks during the entire year in most climes. Nor were most fruits available most of the year. Hundreds of thousands of years of grain-free Homo Sapiens.

Furthermore, most of those wild grasses, fruits, and starches were not only greatly limited to time availability, but were far less palatable, less nutritious, and were far smaller than modern varieties.

Humans pack on the pounds quite easily because they had to. Most mammalian omnivores don't stay at the same ideal weight year round, but fluctuate, as do most creatures generally. That is why it is a struggle to stay at a relatively lean weight amidst abundance.

errc says

I think most people fill their carts with shit that doesn't take much of any preparation. C

Indeed. You should avoid the middle aisles of the supermarket, and just shop the produce, meat and dairy aisles. Even nuts can be purchased that have added no-no's. Raw or minimally processed is OK. Feeding kids carbs with elevated sugar levels (i.e. sugary cereals) always seems a bit crazy from a number of perspectives.

In WA state supermarkets can now sell hard liquor. Soon you will be able to buy cocaine and LSD. Heroin maybe.

mell says

a whole industry was built on the high carb myth

What industry is that? I'm aware of Adkins, and low carb fads. Never heard of a high carb fad though...

NuttBoxer says

mell says

a whole industry was built on the high carb myth

What industry is that? I'm aware of Adkins, and low carb fads. Never heard of a high carb fad though...

There's also the Atkins industry, but it is much much smaller than the carb industry pushing sugar/HFCS into everything as well as the whole cereal/whole grain mafia. High carb was never a fad but silently established by literally adding sugar to everything, esp. "low-fat" designer foods which used to be very popular when fat was the devil. My, times have changed, but they won't go down without a fight. Even leading cancer researchers now say that out of the 3 essential nutrients, carbs (esp. fast) are the most likely ones to promote cancer, the jury on protein is maybe (in too high doses esp. if you don't work out for it) and it's fat does likely not promote it at all.

the jury on protein is maybe (in to

----------------

I don't think that it's the (animal) protein that is harmful, rather the type of CAFO protein that CAFO SAD'ers consume.

Its actually kinda hard to over eat animal proteins and fats. They are very satiating.