MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

The Red Meat, Eggs, Fat, and Salt Diet

Government nutrition nannies get it wrong

Red MeatambrosekaneProgressives tend to believe that government knows best. The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause.

For years now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been recommending that "everyone age 2 and up should consume less than 2,300 milligrams (mg) of sodium each day. Some groups of people should further limit sodium intake to 1,500 mg per day, including adults age 51 or older, all African Americans, and anyone with high blood pressure, diabetes, or chronic kidney disease." Recent studies now suggest that this advice is killing more people than it's saving.

For example, New England Journal of Medicine published a study in August 2014 reported that that people who consume less 1,500 milligrams of sodium (about 3/4ths of a teaspoon of salt) are more likely to die than people who eat between 3,000 to 6,000 milligrams of sodium per day (1.5 and 3 teaspoons of salt).

Red meat has long been a government dietary no-no associated with higher risk of cardiovascular disease and colon cancer. Two recent studies find these claims to be overblown. A 2013 European study that followed nearly 450,000 people since the early 1990s found no significant increase in mortality among consumers of red meats, but higher risk of mortality for those who eat processed meats. A 2013 American study that followed 18,000 participants since the mid-1980s reported, "Meat consumption was not associated with mortality."

The food nannies over at the Center for Science in Public Interest famously called fettuccine alfredo a "heart-attack-on-a-plate" because of the large amounts of saturated fats in some restaurant versions of the dish. Americans have long been told to avoid eating milk, cheese, butter, yogurt, and bacon.

A 2010 study in the Journal of Clinical Nutrition reported that its "meta-analysis of [22] prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of [coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular diease]." A 2014 meta-analysis of 72 studies of saturated fat consumption also found that the "current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats." In addition, a 2014 Norwegian study in the Journal of Nutrition just reported "there was no association between dietary intake of SFA [saturated fatty acids] and incident coronary events or mortality in patients with established CAD [cardiovascular disease].

And then, of course, last week, the federal government's Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee walked back long-standing advice to cut back on the consumption of dietary cholesterol. High cholesterol foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster are no longer verboten. As the Washington Post reported,

The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.

The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.

Most of the government's recommendations were derived from "consensus statements" based largely on the results of observational epidemiological studies. The new revisions tend to be based on prospective epidemiological studies and random controlled trials. Observational studies may be good at developing hypotheses, but they are mostly not a good basis for making behavioral recommendations and imposing regulations.

Other areas in which observational epidemiology studies have misled regulators and the public are claims that exposures to trace amounts of synthetic chemicals are major causes of cancer and endocrine disruption. But those are topics for another time.

Finally, the new food findings are not a license to pig out. Eating fewer calories (I try, I do try) and consuming more fruits and vegetables is most likely good advice.

For more background see my colleague Jacob Sullum's prescient 2003 article, "The Anti-Pleasure Principle: The "food police" and the pseudoscience of self-denial."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • OldMexican||

    The Red Meat, Eggs, Fat and Salt Diet


    Yes! Finally! I knew there had to be one!

    Also known as the $8.00 breakfast at Denny's.

  • Aresen||

    You are presuming Denny's serves meat rather than an approximate facsimile thereof.

  • Zeb||

    If they do serve meat, I'm pretty sure it is processed meat (bacon, sausage, ham) which, much to my dismay, is apparently still not great for you. Cured meat products are the best thing in the world.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    My GP asked me if I ate healthy whole grains, I told him there are no healthy whole grains. Grains are fucking poison.

  • MichaelL||

    The worst is processed carbohydrates, the grains being the next. My medical theory was that when there were excess carbohydrates, in a diet that was containing too many calories, the liver would manufacture more cholesterol. Carnivores (dogs and cats) do best with meat alone. Humans do better with complex carbohydrates (non-starchy vegetables) and protein. But fats have little effect, in the absence of highly processed carbohydrates.

  • ||

    Motherfucking THIS.

    I won a trip to San Francisco on a weight loss contest. And before you think I was fat, I started at 195lbs and I'm 6' 1".

    I dropped ALL carbs and go to 156 in 11 weeks.

  • ||

    Zeb just eat unprocessed bacon.

    It's still good.

    I went on the Atkins diet some years ago. All the meat, eggs, and cheese you can eat. Never be hungry. Just no sugar or carbs and then slwoly add complex carbs to maintain.

    I lost 25 lbs. of stomach fat and ate well.

  • Chumby||

    Eggs over my ham-i.

  • Chumby||

    Eggs over my ham-i.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Butter-margarine-butter-margarine-butter margarine...

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Finally, the new food findings are not a license to pig out.

    [pulls face out of plate of fettuccine alfredo] Whaaaaaaaaa?

  • Dweebston||

    You're heartache on a plate, Fist.

  • OldMexican||

    Progressives tend to believe that government knows best.


    It's not a tendency. It is a theology.

    The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause.


    If 120 million dead and countless millions living a miserable life for decades as evidence of the total and utter failure of Socialism hasn't given the little red Marxians any pause, what makes you think that this little dietary faux pas is going to change their minds?

    -- "Because," said the scorpion while he and the frog were drowning, "is what I do." -- Aesop.

  • Zeb||

    Progressives tend to believe that government knows best.

    It's not a tendency. It is a theology.

    Then why do they disagree when Republicans are in charge?

  • ||

    Then why do [progressives] disagree when Republicans are in charge?

    They put on a show to disagree with Republicans to burnish their street cred but not for one second do they disavow the preternatural superiority of the state.

  • MichaelL||

    AMEN!! party situation is a sham!

  • Chumby||

    They hate Nixon but love his big government programs (e.g., EPA).

  • Groucho-Marxism||

    The parable of the scorpion and the frog comes from Orson Welles, not Aesop.

  • Bam!||

    Just give me all the bacon and eggs you have.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Wait, wait. I'm worried what you just heard was, "Give me a lot of bacon and eggs." What I said was, "Give me all the bacon and eggs you have". Do you understand?

  • DenverJay||

    You can have the eggs. They are nothing but a canvass used to hold real flavors, like peppers and cheeses.
    But you will get my bacon when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
    I ran across a jalapeno bacon used in a sandwich I ordered at Gilmore's Barefoot Pub in El Reno, OK. I have not been able to find it in a store. Does anybody know where to find such a thing? I will trade you 5 orphans and a monocle for the information.

  • ||

    Google ?

    Left eye monocle please.

  • SoCal Soccar Mom||

    It's a Hormel product. They sell it at my local Walmart.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I'm getting a foodie woodie.

  • Restoras||

    Settled science for the win.

    Stupid motherfuckers. Now it'll take a generation to re-program everyone.

    I wonder, what other settled science could possibly be not-so-settled?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    BPA killing children?

  • AlmightyJB||

    Yeah, anyone who ever says the science is settled knows nothing about science and is akin to a flat earther.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    If one has to act or decide on something involving a field of science one is not an expert on how can or should that person use scientific findings in that area to guide them?

  • Restoras||

    Maybe when the dire predictions of disaster turn out to be false you could be allowed to be skeptical?

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Sure. But what about when you're trying to act in ways where the result is way down the road? If I'm trying to make choices about diet, for example.

  • Restoras||

    Act away, just don't ask everyone else to follow you since the models that create those forecasts are deeply flawed.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    But how would I know they're flawed if I'm not knowledgable in that field? Should I assume everything scientists are saying is wrong? We know some of it is, but is most of it, and how to tell which's which

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Should I assume everything scientists are saying is wrong?

    No, you should assume that any statement a scientist makes is tentative based on the current state of the evidence and subject to revision on further data. And any "scientist" who claims otherwise is more aptly deserving of the label "charlatan".

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I agree it's wise to treat it as tentative. That's one reason for governments not to promulgate them. But if I have to act I need to choose.

  • GregMax||

    You don't HAVE to act in most cases. And you seem not to include making decisions based on your own experience. This obsession with relying on "experts" is kinda infantile.

  • MichaelL||

    Well said. Supposedly, the doctor who discovered stomach ulcers were caused by bacteria was laughed out of the first scientific presentation he gave. Now, the arrogant jerks are treating ulcers with antibiotics and acid (Proton pump) inhibitors. As a physician, the longer I practiced the more I realized how little I knew! I knew more than the others, with my two years of graduate school studies (in Anatomy, Zoology, and botany) that I completed prior to medical school. Then, they don't want your doctors to be too smart, do they?! Scientist who think thy know it all are deluded!

  • Galane||

    Wasn't the discoverer of Helicobacter Pylori as the cause of human ulcers a veterinarian in Australia?

  • Agammamon||

    The only way to know, the only way to tell, is if their *predictions* pan out.

    And I mean *future* predictions, not the stuff climate scientists do - 'oh look, my model *predicts* what happened in the past'.

    So, as for diet (or anything 'down the road') you're just going to have to wait.

    But, given the abysmal failure of the government's diet advice over the last several decades (starting before almost all of us were born), then I wouldn't be volunteering to be an early adopter of government standards.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Fair enough on that. Among other things I always found the recommendations to be politically suspect because governments don't do non political research, period.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    But, given the abysmal failure of the government's diet advice over the last several decades (starting before almost all of us were born), then I wouldn't be volunteering to be an early adopter of government standards.

    Something, something, proper role of government...

  • See Double You||

    Since it is impossible to really know what course is best, you can do what probably everyone does: act in accord with those studies that confirm your biases.

  • Ron||

    your making the assumption that scientist are saying anything when most of the time it politicians cherry picking elements of science to control gullible people with.

  • Rob||

    When it comes to diet, my doctor had a pretty good suggestion: eat a little of everything.

  • BDub||

    Its simple really. Just ask, "Are you certain?" If the answer is "Yes.", they are full of shit. Run. If the answer is, "No.", proceed with skeptical caution.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Restoras

    There is a concerted effort by many of the regulars not to give that thing the satisfaction of responding to it, thereby giving it the attention it needs.

    Your voluntary participation would be greatly appreciated.

    Thanks, in advance, for your consideration.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Francis, since you have the mentality if a teen girl you assume others do. I don't care who talks to me or who talks to whoever, I come here to make my comments and thoughts public.

  • Officer Jim Lahey||

    Cool story, Bo.

  • ||

    "The lady doth protest too much, methinks."

  • ||

    My 11:02 was directed at Bo, of course.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Et tu Tonio?

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Bo - Obviously Tonio is not boycotting you, dumbass.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I meant the crack Scarecrow.

  • Mrs. Premise||

    Don't call me Francis.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    If one has to act or decide on something involving a field of science...how can or should that person use scientific findings in that area to guide them?

    You rely on the available science knowing full well it has its limitations and uncertainties. You don't treat it as definitive, unquestionable dogma that is not open to dispute or question.

    In other words, keep a reasonable leve of intellectual modesty.

  • Almanian!||

    "Modesty is for people with no talent" - my girlfriend in middle school (true story)

  • AlmightyJB||

    Was she talented?

  • HeteroPatriarch||

    What do you mean "was?"

  • AlmightyJB||

    I assume he's been trading for new middle school girls as they graduate.

  • AlmightyJB||

    Exactly. Asking questions IS science.

  • MichaelL||

    But physical science, like chemistry and physics, are mathematically defined. Biological sciences cannot be so well defined. So, not all science attains the same level of certainty. That is why they have been mistaken about the dietary science, so far.

    My mother's dog became diabetic and her doctor told her she gave the dog "too much meat"!? Fact is, the dog food contained too much carbohydrate which poisoned the dog's (carnivore) body causing carbohydrate metabolism to be altered. Dogs need meat, not carbohydrates!

    "If you don't eat your meat, you can't have any pudding? How can you have any pudding, if you don't eat your meat?!" Avoid the pudding. The meat is much better for you!

  • Galane||

    Dogs are omnivores, though more reliant on meat than we human omnivores.

    Dogfood containing corn is a dietary disaster for many dogs. If they have really stinky crap and foul farts, try a dogfood with no corn in it.

    Whole kernel, unprocessed corn is worthless for humans to eat. It has to be processed with alkali to break it down to make the nutrients able to be processed by our digestive system.

    Alkali processing of corn is thousands of years old. Cornbread made from properly processed cornmeal is far more nutritious than corn on the cob.

    If humans could get any nutrition out of unprocessed corn, the phrase "Corn? When did I eat corn?" wouldn't exist.

  • gaoxiaen||

    That's a plus for corn on the cob. You can stuff yourself but it just passes through. When I was a kid, every one of us was skinny in the summer because we lived on corn on the cob and watermelon, with other foods as a sort of condiment.

  • ||

    Learn to recognize a scam. It is not difficult.

  • ||

    Look at their track record in the past twenty years ?

    Any predictions come true ? Nope

    Caught falsifying and destroying original data ? Yep

    I would advise caution and skepticism.

  • GroundTruth||

    The problem is not with the science, but the use of the science. Science is an ongoing search for knowledge. The issue is when politicians (or politically active scientists) decide they know best what is good for you. Once again, limited government is the solution.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    Agreed.

  • ||

    Deadspin recently ran an article calling for the arrest of"deniers".

    The writer was quite rational for a prog though. He didn't mean your average Joe who is just an idiot, he said. He was referring strictly to those who got paid to publish anti AGW stories.

    A commenter eminded him that the AGW believers were paid to post also and much hilarity ensued.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    The thing is, the Progressives (like just about everybody) really bought into the common misconception of evolution as being directional. A lot of bushwa is based on this idea, Marxism included. So the have no template for an idea going against the direction they perceived the last idea to be going.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Evolution is basically random shit that worked better than other random shit. So that random shit gets promoted to the top of the stack...until new random shit takes it's place.

    Random Shit.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Exactly. But that isn't the PERCEPTION, and so the meme of things 'evolving' from primitive simplicity to advanced complexity, from error to perfection, has spilled out into all KINDS of fields, most of which are only remotely connected to biology.

    So people expect science to 'evolve', and that any 'scientific' idea that has been superseded will never be returned to.

    Makes me wonder how much of present day culture could be said to trace its roots to common misunderstandings of the General Theory of Relativity?

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    True enough...and I must say that the perception to which you are referring is likely partially to blame for the Progressive idea that man can be perfected by right government.

    Historicism and all the other philosophical stuff going on during that time, likely fed off of Darwinism and the late Victorian era science that thought everything would eventually be solved by just the right set of partial differential equations.

  • lafe.long||

    Most of the government's recommendations were derived from "consensus statements" based largely on the results of observational studies.

    but... but... science experts! .. CONSENSUS!!1!!eleventy-one!

    Damned teathuglican deniers.

  • Dweebston||

    In fairness to lefty science advocates, I would take the word of a climate scientist as gospel truth before consulting a nutritionist. If a dietitian told me that the Pope lives in Vatican City I would demand she cite her sources. Climate research may be a colossal rent-seeking outfit with an eschatological fetish, but it's leaps and bounds better science than the Kiplingesque practices of the dietetics crowd.

  • MichaelL||

    Yet, you express an opinion that has no scientific reasoning as its basis! Everybody has an opinion. Too often those opinions are driven by emotions and not established physical science.

  • ||

    Stupid motherfuckers. Now it'll take a generation to re-program everyone.

    I think there are/were plenty of 'foundational' eaters who were either convinced that the 'settled science' was wrong or who didn't give a shit one way or the other still around and having/raising kids.

    I also think there are plenty of 'counter-cultural' kids who are, or have been, raised gluten-free by blathering idiots and are well aware that the dietary world is not flat.

  • Restoras||

    Fair enough but when I've brought this up in casual conversation I get treated like a heretic. It's all "are you serious??" and "but the government says!!" and "nobody thinks that way!!".

    It'd be pathetic if it wasn't so frightening.

  • ||

    It'd be pathetic if it wasn't so frightening.

    Well, staters gonna state. But I find plenty of people who, even if the government does say so, can still reason out that even if every cheeseburger were *guaranteed* to subtract 10 min. off the end of your life, losing a week in 80 yrs. from 2 cheeseburgers every week is pretty tolerable.

    Especially, if you enjoy meat/cheese in general, grilling, and sharing the cheeseburgers with your kids/freinds/etc.

  • ||

    Though, in a measure of agreement, I know just as many who blot the orange "grease" off their pizza and trim their steaks in some sub-conscious misguided belief that they're doing some good or being healthy. Though more out of habit/culture than any government mandate/suggestion.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Huh.

    I took my kids to the local dinner recently for breakfast. We all had some mix of meat and eggs (scrambled, omelette, bacon, sausages....) and the lady seated next to us gave me a look after a told my sons, "eat all the eggs and bacon on your plate. It's good for you."

    Yes, I'm killing my kids, Lady. Now fuck off.

    My husband and I are constantly re-programming our kids. The diet information they get in school and from the media is awful.

    But, food is probably the primary reason my oldest son is a self proclaimed libertarian. A few years ago, he was gaining weight - getting pudgie in the middle - and developing acne. I put him on a low carb diet and both issues were resolved in a few weeks. He monitors his own diet now, eating low carb/high fat, and is a really healthy kid. The lesson he learned is that the government cannot be trusted to tell you how to eat and, therefore, it can't be trusted to tell you much of anything else.

  • MichaelL||

    Glad you figured it out. A diet high in highly refined carbohydrates (sugar, flour, corn syrup) is the problem!

  • Zeb||

    The worst, I think, has been the low fat thing (which largely caused people to replace fat with sugars). It's amazing how many people still believe that fat is what makes you fat. I suppose it just makes sense to people because it's called "fat".

  • JLKrueger||

    Yep, my wife and I fell for the line a long time ago. Then I started reading the label details on the "reduced/no fat" products. Very high on the list is high fructose corn syrup in virtually every instance.

    In the last couple of years have gone completely away from "low fat" products and instead look for those with fewest additives of any kind.

    Fresh is best in most cases. Though it does take some thought.

    I'll still occasionally enjoy some nice Italian lunch meats, pizza and other foods deemed bad by the food Nazis.

    We're not going to live forever anyway. Might as well enjoy what time we have!

  • ||

    JLK it's even better to eat food that isn't a "product.

    Just eat a kind of meat or fish and vegatables.

    Not "products". And remember that "products" isn't the same as a "recipie".

    Please excuse my spelling. My computer shows the words I type to post so that it comes out looking like a printer running out of ink and I can't proofread before posting.

    Anyone know what's happening there ?

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Yes, it's amazing how over-sweet most "low fat" deserts are. Even in recipes, I've learned that if I'm baking something of the kind for my Lady, I can expect to want to cut the sweetening agent by at least a third, and often more.

  • Galane||

    The right kinds of fats aid your nervous system health.

    The protective "insulation" of nerves is a fat called myelin. It's a major component of brains.

    The right kinds of food to support myelin production are extremely vital for pregnant women and for all from birth through early adulthood.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci.....laims.html

  • gaoxiaen||

    I was looking at peanut butter and the low fat peanut butter had the same number of calories as regular peanut butter. I figure why not just eat the delicious one. They're not lying when the candy label says no fat.

  • ||

    DDT is a net bad for poor swampy countries ?

  • ||

    This was posted for a comment way back up there.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I hate when that happens.

  • From the Tundra||

    Recent studies now suggest that this advice is killing more people than it's saving.

    Now, where did I leave my shocked face?

    ...consuming more fruits and vegetables is most likely good advice.

    There can be a ton of sugar in fruits. People often get tripped up in their weight loss efforts by eating too much, especially citrus.

    I've mentioned the book before, but this is a great look at how we got to this point:

    Death by Food Pyramid: How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health

  • ||

    Yeah, I try to avoid a lot of fruit. I'll occasionally have a berry smoothie or some berries & cream, but I stay away from bananas and citrus (except for the splash of OJ in my smoothie) and grapes.

    Mostly I just eat protein and veggies (when I'm being "good")

  • ||

    I only consume fruit in pie form and occasionally in juice form as a mixer for mah boozes.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    as a borderline diabetic, the a dice I've been given is that you are far ether off eating the whole fruit than a puree; breaking down the skin and cell-wale slows how hrd the sugars hit your system.

    Of course, in ten years who knows what they'll be saying, but it made some kind of sense to me.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Except that actual fruit has fiber that slows the metabolism of the sugars in fruit, so you don't get the insulin spike which results in fat storage. It's probably better for somebody who really needs to lose 100lbs to stay off fruit for a while but it's not like eating a candy bar (fruit does have lots of micro nutrients)

  • ||

    But remember that the sugar in fruit isn't the same as a complex carb or corn syurp.

  • MJGreen||

    Moderation does not apply to red meat.

  • sarcasmic||

    Dietary Puritans - eating things that taste good is a sin.

  • ||

    If God didn't want me too eat animals, he wouldn't have made them out of meat.

  • McKenna||

    Amen, brother.

  • Chumby||

    There is a place for all of God's creatures. On the plate right next to the mashed potatoes.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Obviously you've never tried balut.

  • Restoras||

    The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause

    Are you fucking kidding? If anything they will double down. Progressives will never, ever admit that government was wrong because if they did it would call into question their entire belief structure, and upon further scrutiny it would be revealed that the entire progressive ideology is wrong.

    People don't do that, and most especially people that have adopted something as a religion.

  • Dweebston||

    Science is an evolving, cumulative process given to both refinements and major upsets, except when it's politically inconvenient.

  • Restoras||

    But Dweebston, politicians can't just stand their and wait for science to figure it all out with stronger certainty! They have to act now! And they can't Act Now! if the public has any lingering doubts so why not just use the Best Consensus available Now! to Get Something Done!

  • WTF||

    We must do something! This is something! Therefore we must do it!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

  • Restoras||

    Damn you!

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    Great minds...

  • Restoras||

    Ummm...yes. That is basically it.

    We've gotta protect our phoney baloney jobs! We must do something about this immediately!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTmfwklFM-M

  • Steve G||

  • Restoras||

    Yeah, kinda like the non-apology apology.

    We were wrong but you should still do what we say anyway.

    Classic progtard bullshit.

  • Francisco d'Anconia||

    In response, DGAC called for diet and weight management interventions by “trained interventionists” in healthcare settings, community locations, and worksites.
    DGAC also called for policy interventions to “reduce unhealthy options,” limit access to high calorie foods in public buildings, “limit the exposure” of advertisements for junk food, a soda tax, and taxing high sugar and salt items and dessert.

    “Align nutritional and agricultural policies with Dietary Guidelines recommendations and make broad policy changes to transform the food system so as to promote population health, including the use of economic and taxing policies to encourage the production and consumption of healthy foods and to reduce unhealthy foods,” its report read.

    Our saviors...

    OMFG!

  • ||

    It is just a little nudge. For your own good, of course.

  • JLKrueger||

    Yes, but the new reason for pushing the plant-based diet is climate change! And, and...sustainability!

    They'll never quit.

  • Don'tTreadOnMe||

    But we need plants to take CO2 out of the atmosphere so we SHOULD be eating the motherfucking animals who are eating our earth-saving plants!!! Get on it!

  • D.D. Driver||

    "DGAC recommended Mediterranean-style and vegetarian diets as the best options. Vegan, lacto-ovo vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian, and Mediterranean diets are the most environmentally friendly, with the least greenhouse gas emissions, it said."

    It's not about sound nutritional advice, it's about AGW.

  • ||

    "It's not about sound nutritional advice, it's about AGW."

    Bingo.

  • ||

    Didn't watch the link but the Inuit did pretty well and had excellent dental health with a meat ONLY diet.

    The Egyptians who ate mostly grains had rotten teeth and no novicane.

  • Aloysious||

    Most of the government's recommendations were derived from "consensus statements" based largely on the results of observational epidemiological studies

    'Consensus' is often used as a bludgeon to discredit and silence critics, as most people here well know.

    That 'consensus' =/= 'there is nothing more to learn' is a point certain individuals will not learn from this article.

  • Restoras||

    I don't recall who it was, but I believe a commenter here speculated that the concept of "consensus science" has been popularized to make it easier for journalists to write about the science, especially if they don't have scientific backgrounds. Conveniently, that same "consensus" then becomes a bludgeon over which to beat the "deniers" into line. In this case it seems the truth can prevail, though obviously not without brainwashing nearly two generations of people first - and let's face it that was the whole point all along.

  • Aloysious||

    Can't disagree.

    I think of it as an aspect of magical thinking. 'Consensus' or 'conventional wisdom' helps make an arbitrary and seemingly irrational world make some sort of sense. Can put minimal effort into thinking about complex problems without resorting to explicitly using the words 'because magic'.

  • Restoras||

    'Consensus' or 'conventional wisdom' helps make an arbitrary and seemingly irrational world make some sort of sense

    Funny...isn't that exactly the same thing that religion does?

  • Aloysious||

    I laughed.

    Yes, it does.

    As a layman, who isn't a super-genius and doesn't play one on the internet, I learn more here than just about anywhere else.

  • WTF||

    Huh, just a totally unrelated coincidence, I'm sure.

  • Agammamon||

    Funny...isn't that exactly the same thing that religion does?

    Its what religion *tries* to do, but consistently fails to accomplish.

  • Restoras||

    Indeed it does fail - and yet remains remarkably pervasive around the world.

  • ||

    Allahu Akbar !

  • Dweebston||

    It seems more likely that science is a practice just as ripe for politicking as any other, and certainly isn't immune to the special-interest jockeying we've come to expect as a matter of course in, say, academia. The consensus narrative is just the technical version of the "all right-thinking people know" canard.

  • Ron||

    if consensus was proof then we should all be Muslim since there are more Muslims than any other group. Further proof that consensus is useless for anything but forcing people into a belief wether it be theological religion or Scientific religion

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    The food nannies over at the Center for Science in Public Interest famously called fettuccine alfredo a "heart-attack-on-a-plate" because of the large amounts of saturated fats in some restaurant versions of the dish.

    Well, if you eat creamy pasta dishes routinely, you're going to get fat.

    So, we'll give them half a point.

  • Restoras||

    I don't think you will, if you run a calorie deficit.

  • thom||

    You might not get fat but you won't feel good. Your body really does need nutrients in order to function properly, so add a side of steamed broccoli or something...

  • Restoras||

    I don't disagree with that at all. Personally, rich, creamy dishes like that make me feel ill so I avoid them or just eat a small portion.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I never feel well after eating pasta dishes.

    Same with breakfast, if I eat some pancakes I feel sluggish the rest of the day.

  • Restoras||

    For me, it's the carbs. I've cut back on simple carbs like that a lot the last couple of years, and now whenever I eat them I feel awful.

    Eggs for breakfast, or leftover steak or other meat, and I feel much better during the day and am less hungry at other appointed mealtimes.

  • Radioactive||

    that only happens to me when I eat slugs for breakfast...wonder why?

  • Restoras||

    You have to fry them in bacon fat first.

  • ||

    It's the pasta spiking your blood sugar.

    Afterwards you have a high followed by a low and then hunger ?

    Eat more animal protien.

  • Agammamon||

    That's what the canned peas are for.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Better yet, skip the alfredo and go directly for the carbonara with peas. Or maybe orecchiette with broccoli rabe and sausage!

  • Radioactive||

    give them shit...

  • Doctor Whom||

    Progressives tend to believe that government knows best. The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause.

    Never underestimate the power of doublethink. To illustrate, I will give you the Cliff Notes version of my Facebook feed:

    1. Look at all of those halfwits in office (Team Red only, please).

    2. We should trust the government that those same halfwits have a big hand in running to make all of the decisions over our lives.

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    I thought that too when I read that. Progressives don't reflexively think any government position is correct, or else we wouldn't see the constant push to change or tweak the standards. It's better to say progressives are people who believe the government can and should arrive at and enforce/encourage accurate answers and questions on these matters.

  • ||

    "It's better to say progressives are people who believe the government can and should arrive at and enforce/encourage accurate answers and questions on these matters."

    The government should and enforce PROGRESSIVE answers and questions...

    FTFY

  • Sevo||

    "Progressives tend to believe that government knows best. The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause."

    Ha and ha. These studies were funded by Big Cow!

  • Doctor Whom||

    Studies are Divinely inspired and inerrant, but only insofar as they tend to prove what I want to believe.

  • Ivan Pike||

    Eat meat. But ensure you eat plenty of fat as well. Berries are good, but no vegetables.

  • sarcasmic||

    I once asked a female vegetarian how she could keep a boyfriend if she didn't eat meat. She was not amused.

  • ||

    Same way as the kosher dude who refused to eat clams kept his girlfriend?

  • Officer Jim Lahey||

    She lets him watch her eat sushi?

  • MJGreen||

    Well done.

  • sarcasmic||

    Watch? Why not join in the fun?

  • Almanian!||

    I hate sushi

  • sarcasmic||

    How do you keep a girlfriend if you don't eat sushi?

  • Adans smith||

    For years I've ate a diet of beef,lamb,seafood,fish,cheeses,fresh veggies ,some pasta and french bread and a few stout or lagers daily I don't care that much for eggs or pork,except bacon.I almost never eat breakfast though.I'm 6',178,the same as I was 20 years ago. I credit the beer.

  • Radioactive||

    yes...need to make sure we get plenty of beer, wine and liquor with our salt, red meat, shell fish, pasta and dairy...next up sugar...to the ramparts my free range children!!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Peanuts. So the recommendation for kids has changed overnight from don't give peanut products early to give as early as possible.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    Yeah, my daughter is seven months old and the pediatrician told my wife since no one in our family is allergic, including our son, that we can give it to her.

    She has thus been happily eating peanut butter for a month now.

  • Adans smith||

    Peanut butter was a staple for my sack lunches as a kid. The my mother took a job at a pizza joint not far from home. Baked subs for lunch a couple times a week. Great stuff,and cold pizza in the mornings at times.Only time I eat breakfast.

  • Rhywun||

    Yup, saw this on the news this morning. I thought it was pretty obvious that denying your kids peanuts would lead to more peanut allergies but what do I know.

  • DEG||

    The Red Meat, Eggs, Fat and Salt Diet

    That sounds like pretty damn good eating. It's only missing chocolate and booze. I assume fried chicken and pulled pork fall under the fat portion of the diet, correct?

  • Jordan||

    Fried with lard = good
    Fried with partially hydrogenated vegetable oils = bad

    Opposite of government recommendations, of course.

  • DEG||

    Of course!

  • Officer Jim Lahey||

    Use crushed pork rinds for the breading for chicken.

    Haven't tried it, but I can't imagine how that would be anything but awesome.

  • Restoras||

    You mad, beautiful, genius...

  • DEG||

    I'm intrigued, but I'm too cheap to subscribe to your newsletter.

  • MichaelL||

    It works great! But, I don't seem to have much of a problem with such a low amount of carbohydrate used in breading my chicken fried steaks, venison, of course!

  • thom||

    Coconut oil is your friend. And butter.

  • Restoras||

    And olive oil

  • thom||

    I keep a small bottle of olive oil with the condiments at my house and basically put it on everything. It's hard to overdo it with olive oil.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    As a nice alternative, on occasion, I'd suggested toasted sesame oil. Much stronger taste, though.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    Christ, I love olive oil. I keep several bottles on different shelves hither and yon throughout the hovel. I drink it like booze, practically.

  • checkdempremises||

    I drink a shot of it pure a day.

  • Jordan||

    Yeah, I meant crap like canola oil and corn oil.

  • Rhywun||

    Is there a lard substitute that doesn't taste like... lard?

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Duck fat. Thank me later.

  • D.D. Driver||

    If you're frying something, ghee is wonderful.

  • Eggs Benedict Cumberbund||

    Tallow...beef fat, but duck fat is da bomb.

  • Suellington||

    Pork lard has ver little taste with very good mouth feel. Duck fat is wonderful. Coconut oil too.

  • OldMexican||

    "The Anti-Pleasure Principle: The "food police" and the pseudoscience of self-denial."


    Albeit there are those self-deluded idiots who live their own clptrap, most little red Marxians who prescribe a life of asceticism do so as a way to mask the failure of their economic system, like when people eat grass to supplement their diet in North Korea. There is NO fundamental difference between THAT and the Climatey Changey "mitigation" policies prescribed by the other little red Marxians: both have the purpose of masking the truth.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Progressives tend to believe that government knows best.

    I'm not so sure about this. Progressives believe that they know best, and government is the only way they know to force everybody else to follow their sage advice. When other people (anybody else) are in charge, government's not all that good any more. Of course, it's not ruined, it hasn't got cooties and needs to be thrown out. Disinfectant after takeover by the Right People (them) will do the job.

    But that's just quibbling over an otherwise fine fun article.

  • OldMexican||

    Most of the government's recommendations were derived from "consensus statements" [...] Observational studies may be good at developing hypotheses, but they are mostly not a good basis for making behavioral recommendations and imposing regulations.


    Denier!

  • checkdempremises||

    I wonder if the governments advice against dietary cholesterol has anything to do with low-T in men today? Cholesterol is a precursor to testosterone production in the body.

    Eat a shit ton, move a shit ton, eat big steaks and piles of eggs and glasses of milk and tons of fruits and veggies and drink coffee and go pick up heavy things and put them down and do some motherfucking pull ups and go swimming in the nude when its cold as fuck outside. Get drunk every once in awhile and have great sex. Fight a nigga or two. Poop every single day. Secret to healthy life.

  • Aloysious||

    Poop every single day.

    There are people that don't? wierdos.

  • checkdempremises||

    I know some people who might poop 3 times a week. They are doing something wrong.

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    When I was in college, I had a buddy complain to me that the cafeteria food made him crap once a day. He said he only did it once a week at home and was quite happy about it.

  • ||

    He's fuckde up.

  • Steve G||

    Everything contributes to T deficiency. Shitty sleep, lifting 3lb weights, getting no sun (cause it's bad, mmkay*), eating soy, and eating low fat.

    * mark my words, they'll be doing a 180 on sunlight exposure in another couple years...

  • GregMax||

    They already are. There's those who suggest vitamin D is critical to cancer resistance and some other thing.

  • Steve G||

    Yeah, metabolic syndrome (CVD, Diabeetus) is in there too if I'm not mistaken. Is it any wonder why folks with darker skin (requiring even more sunlight to produce the same amt of Vid D as pale skin) have higher rates of disease? Makes for a pretty compelling theory..

  • Beautiful Bean Footage||

    Interesting. No wonder I hate Seattle so much, my body is preprogrammed to...

  • KimInGA||

    It sure didn't help things, that's for sure. Highest concentration of cholesterol in the body? Your brain. And most of the cholesterol that gets there is what your body produces, not what you consume. That's why statins are so scary. They "work" by inhibiting the body's production of cholesterol.

    I like all the advice. Pretty much exactly what I do except for the cold swimming and fighting. But I'm a chick, so it's all good. I'll let the cavemen fight each other.

  • checkdempremises||

    Look at those cavemen go, it's the freakiest show.

  • DenverJay||

    You can't be a chick. Everyone knows that there are only 3 libertarian chicks in the whole world, and your name is not on the list. Therefore, it is unpossible.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    After a day of throwing dumbbells around and supplementing a healthy diet with copious amounts of thick, dank stout it is refreshing to roll down a snowy hill at two in the morning naked while wrestling a transvestite werewolf.

    This isn't possible unless a man is vigorous and tone.

  • ||

    Nobody wants to fight me anymore. I tried fighting coyotes, but I think I scared them off.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Is Butt-Chugging still good?

  • Radioactive||

    forever and always

  • Bo Cara Esq.||

    "The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause"

    These are the same people that were simultaneously subsidizing certain foods while trying to get people to not partake of them, so any pause is doubtful.

  • GroundTruth||

    Potato pancakes (cooked in bacon grease) with sour cream and bacon for dinner tonight! Heavy on the salt!

  • DEG||

    I haven't had good potato pancakes in a while. Those sound delicious.

    The last time I had potato pancakes they were sweet potato pancakes with bacon. They were quite tasty.

  • Restoras||

    sweet potato pancakes with bacon

    Was the bacon in the pancake, or served as a side? Either way sounds delicious.

  • DEG||

    The bacon was in the pancake and on the pancake.

    I don't know if the pancake was fried in bacon grease. The pancake's taste wasn't quite right for that. I could be wrong, the restaurant where I had them has two awesome signs up. One says "Vegetarian: Indian word for bad hunter" and the other "Bacon is an herb".

  • Restoras||

    I going to have to try this.

    I would guess that the choice of frying medium would depend on temperatures - what the optimal temperature is to fry shredded sweet potatoes and what oil/fat provides that temperature.

  • GroundTruth||

    The trick with getting it right is to take the skillet right to the point that the grease begins to smoke, then put in the potato, then goose the temp up full and keep shaking the pan so that the bottom doesn't stick. After about 1 minute drop the temp to just lower than the smoke point. You've got to be bold when working with oil and grease, or the starch just soaks it up.

    And the bacon will be on the side.

  • thom||

    People need to get over the fact that vegetarians exist. It comes off as needlessly defensive when people mock other people for making their own dietary choices.

  • See.More||

    People need to get over the fact that vegetarians exist. It comes off as needlessly defensive when people mock other people for making their own dietary choices.

    I, for one, appreciate vegetarians, for they will be the ones eaten when the ravenous aliens arrive.

    See, after observing our planet for some time before invading, the aliens will have noticed that some animals eat plants, and other animals eat those animals. Thus, they will arrive at the distinct conclusion that plants are what "food" eats. Therefore, since vegetarians eat what food eats, they must be food.

  • GroundTruth||

    I'd be happy to leave vegetarians and vegans alone, if they would just return the favor and stop telling me that I'm evil for thinking that Bessie will make a nice steak or that Wilbur really would be crunchy as bacon.

  • DenverJay||

  • thom||

    Ah yes, this straw man. For every time I've ever seen a vegetarian do this, I've had at least dozens of experiences of meat eaters complaining about it. It's similar to all the horrible things that progressives claim libertarians do. Don't bow to that level. You might not like veggies, but simply repeating the same tired lie about them over and over won't make it true.

  • See.More||

    You might not like veggies, but simply repeating the same tired lie about them over and over won't make it true.

    No lie, bro! Veggies are what food eats...

  • ||

    meater

  • brec||

    High cholesterol foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster are no longer verboten.

    Eggs have about 20% of calories from saturated fat, which is still "verboten".

    Meanwhile, here's a critical discussion of the 2010 JCN article cited by Ron:

    http://plantpositive.com/siri-.....lysis-par/

  • checkdempremises||

    When I was a lad I ate 4 dozen eggs every morning to help me get large.

  • David Wall||

    Last year I watch my father-in-law die over 8 weeks after a relatively minor neck surgery. The underlying issue causing his death was a lack of physical strength and bodily stamina--he could not complete necessary rehab programs because of his lack of strength and stamina. Over the years his activity level and his low meat & egg diet (proscribed by physicians) contributed to his overall muscle mass decrease along with metabolism decreases and other bodily functions associated with decreased strength. I was told this was very common in the elderly and led to susceptibilities to infection and other issues that lead to death.

    Eggs, red meat etc. are the best foods for building and maintain muscles and bodily strength. They are also important foods for maintaining energy necessary for a more active life-style. I wonder if this is an underlying issue to what is reported here. No causes are given in these correlational studies.

  • Steve G||

    all the more reason, older folks should worry less about cardio and more about lifting things. It's good for the muscles AND bones. People don't fall down and break hips because they haven't been hitting their target HR zone.

  • brec||

    I'm 69. I climb 98 floors of Stairmaster stairs six days a week, and do (primarily) resistance training for 50 minutes thrice a week.

    I eat no animal products; I eat whole (not refined) plant-based foods with no added oil. I adopted this regimen 2+ years ago after declining a double bypass and associated advice against taxing exertion.

    (It's not that I believe that condiment-sized portions of meat or fish once or twice a week would kill me; just that for practical purposes it's easier to draw a bright line.)

    I've done a lot (hundreds of hours) of my own research of the nutrition literature. I believe that the evidence for the diet-heart hypothesis** is overwhelming, and that recent "sat. fat is OK" metastudies are flawed.

    **That fat, in particular saturated fat, raise, to a genetically-influenced degree, blood cholesterol, specifically that contained in low-density lipoproteins, which in turn is an essential cause of atherosclerosis.

    Meanwhile, I'm still a libertarian and don't believe that the Feds should be telling us what to eat.

  • Agile Cyborg||

    The elderly stud has spoken...

  • GroundTruth||

    Ye gods! I hope that 69 is not "elderly"! Perhaps "senior", but "elderly"?

  • Steve G||

    Yeah, "stud" is a stretch too. Those workout figures, as vague as they are, aren't beyond the realm of a moderately fit 69 yr old. But good on him nonetheless.

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    So Taubes and Teicholz are wrong?

  • brec||

    In case this is a serious question: yes.

    Re (mostly) Teicholz:
    http://www.foodpolitics.com/20.....troversial

    and this comment thereon is particularly informative on diet-heart:
    http://www.foodpolitics.com/20.....1871254224

  • Steve G||

    Wow, what a load of crap. From the second link:
    "3) Meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials with 300,000 subjects and with a mean follow-up of only three years establishing that lowering LDL significantly reduces both coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality independent of changes to HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and non-lipid effects of specific interventions.

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm..."

    That commenter is taking quite a bit of license with that pub since it specifically did not say that.
    I'd be curious if your hundreds of hours of research included the likes of Dayspring/Dall and where you find their conclusions to be flawed. I have no doubt some folks have gone the low fat route and stopped/reversed clogged arteries (Esselstyn), but other folks have gone the low carb route and done the same (Boyd Eaton). Granted, 'paleo' doesn't automatically mean either high (sat) fat or low carb, but those are the most common directions people go in. The problem I see though is one route has a singular focus (heart health) and the other has a whole host of other benefits that just happen to include heart health.

  • brec||

    "did not say that" ? It seems to me to say that in the Abstract, in the last sentence of Results through Conclusion.

    As far as I know Dayspring/Dall (and Otvos) argue for specific measurements related to blood lipids and forms of cholesterol as being the best predictors of CHD, but I'm not familiar with the implications for diet. Otvos's work for a while persuaded me to get his NMR LDL-P testing instead of traditional TC/HDL/TG/(calc.) LDL, but then I switched to VAP to get direct LDL-C.

    I have not encountered work by Eaton demonstrating prevention/regression. It was indeed Esselstyn's work that persuaded me to switch from mostly-paleo to my current regimen. (I was diagnosed with CAD 2+ years ago.)

  • brec||

    ...and a critical review of Teicholz's book.

  • Steve G||

    dead link

  • brec||

    Here's a live (I hope!) version of the link:

    A critical review of Teicholz's book.

  • Ivan Pike||

    to a genetically-influenced degree

    What does this mean?

  • Restoras||

    Some people are genetically predisposed to things like hypertension, heart disease, etc, conditions that can be (not necessarily) exacerbated by salt, fat, etc.

    For everyone else, eggs, fat, red meat, etc., chow down.

  • Chumby||

    This seems unfair. The genetics thing. That maybe somebody (perahps a rich white dude like Brian Williams) might be less predisposed to contract a disease. Govt needs to make this equal. And start a tax.

  • brec||

    It means that there's significant variation due to genetics among persons with respect to the response of serum lipid levels to changes in dietary saturated fat and/or dietary cholesterol.

  • Ivan Pike||

    Thanks for the reply. Restoras as well. I thought this is what you meant, but the phrasing confused me a bit so I wanted to make sure.

  • D.D. Driver||

    I am not a paleo-guy, but I do think that the paleos are onto something in one respect: if our bodies have evolved to consume animal fats, animal fats are far more likely than not to be pretty damn good for us.

    That is not to say other diets could not be "as good" as the diet that our bodies have evolved to consume, but I am highly skeptical that another diet is "better" than the one natural selection has chosen for us.

    Until modern times, the constant struggle has been getting enough calories. There are two source of calories fats and carbohydrates. And a huge reservoir of carbohydrates is locked up on cellulose. We call cellulose "fiber" because we cannot process it. Other animals that are true herbivores (like ruminants) have evolved physiologies that can process cellulose. The non-human great apes, as another example, have a larger-volume large intestine and a small-volume small intestine. The exact opposite of humans. This is because the other great apes are hindgut fermenters (i.e., they can break down cellulose in their large intestines).

    Modern humans can, nevertheless, survive on a plant-based diet but only because we have developed plants (through artificial selection) that are high in simple carbohydrates like starches and sugars.

    But, until someone can explain to me why our bodies have evolved to consume a diet that is "unhealthy" for us, I am going treat that proposition as unscientific nonsense.

  • brec||

    We are omnivores, in the sense that we can obtain calories from both plant and animal sources.

    But what evidence is there that we "evolved to consume" more than a minor proportion of calories from animal fats?

    The "diseases of [Western] civilization" -- specifically coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes -- are rare or unknown among large populations which eat primarily plants.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Coronary heart disease and diabetes are rare and unknown among large populations which eat primarily animal based diet as well. Just FYI. See Taubes book.

  • brec||

    Alas, my Taubes period was for about 2.5 years ending in late 2012 when I was diagnosed with CAD. Since then I've been in my Esselstyn period.

  • KimInGA||

    This is not true. Heart disease rates are terrible in India, and they eat a whole heck of a lot less animal fat than say France.

    This is not to say that traditional diets that were mostly (90%) vegetarian aren't healthy. They are. But so are traditional diets heavy in meat. Humans are omnivores and can be healthy on a wide range of food sources. We just do poorly on highly processed crap, which we're not exactly alone in. Domesticated dogs for example can get fat pretty easily on crap food too. Mine would be like a walking sausage if I didn't limit her food intake at every meal.

  • ||

    Eat real food with a lot of vegetables and don't eat out of boxes.

    When you go to the grocery store stay on the outside aisles. That's also where they sell the beer and wine.

    Don't go up and down the aisles to get your food.

    Except for the Inuit. They ate only meat and had healty teeth and gums.

  • Steve G||

    OMG, please tell me you buy into the China Study, ...please

  • brec||

    Heh. Please, please tell me you are a fan of Denise Singer.

    On second thought, don't. :)

  • brec||

    Oops... Minger.

  • Steve G||

    what evidence is there that we "evolved to consume" more than a minor proportion of calories from animal fats?

    what, like aside from the archeological evidence that correlates growth in our brain size with a shift away from plant-based diet to one w/ more meat? The change in our gut in line with that shift? The alignment of our nutritional needs w/ the nutritional density that animal products supply?

  • D.D. Driver||

    Exactly. Aside from all of that, there is no real evidence.

  • D.D. Driver||

    "But what evidence is there that we "evolved to consume" more than a minor proportion of calories from animal fats?"

    The evidence is in your guts. Animals that derivative most of their calories from plant sources can break down cellulose. Animals that cannot break down cellulose typically get most of their calories from animal fats.

    Cows can get calories from grass because they can break down cellulose. They are ruminants. Remember the four -chambered stomachs? The reason that cows have a four-chambered stomach is that it used to break down and process cellulose ("fiber") into sugars. The non-human great apes have an enlarged large intestine for the same purpose. Humans have neither. We crap out fiber because we can't get calories out of cellulose.

    To believe that humans should not eat animal fats is to believe that natural selection "got it all wrong." Which is a pretty incredible scientific claim and requires a pretty high level of proof to convince me that it is true.

  • melissajtubbs||

    my friend's aunt makes $62 an hour on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her pay was $14934 just working on the computer for a few hours. Visit this site.........
    ➜➜➜➜➜ www.netpay20.com

  • Almanian!||

    I dunno, my Mountain Dew and a Marlboro breakfast got me through my 40's.

    I had to back off a bit once I turned fitty...

  • Rhywun||

    Toss in vodka and you just described my evenings.

  • Duelles||

    Who has not known that low fat foods have replaced fat with worse nutrition? Like sugars. I have been a fat, meat, salt eater for many years. It simply takes a lot more energy to break these things down to the useful glucose our bobbies consume, so they are a bit of time released energy for normal people. Add some good fiber and live long and prosper.

  • brec||

    The alternatives to animal fats are not limited to refined carbohydrates.

  • Ron||

    What I want to know is will this new info stop Michelle Obama from destroying kids school lunches.

  • GroundTruth||

    What odds are you giving on that?

  • albo||

    I get my protein in steak and eggs and pork and my carbs in beer. I figure I'll live to be 100.

  • Restoras||

    And even if you don't you will have lived well.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    Don't like the nutritional and dietary advice you're getting? Wait five years.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    "And then, of course, last week, the federal government's Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee walked back long-standing advice to cut back on the consumption of dietary cholesterol."

    And Boom! goes the dynamite. If you think that's dumb, just consider what the surgeon general does with his time.

  • LynchPin1477||

    people who consume less 1,500 milligrams of sodium (about 3/4ths of a teaspoon of salt) are more likely to die than people who eat between 3,000 to 6,000 milligrams of sodium per day

    Statements like this are almost always bull shit, but I never really believed that more than 3/4 tsp of salt could be that bad for you. It's such an insanely small amount.

  • ||

    Especially since all salt does not contain the same amount of sodium.

    Kosher salt has more mass than sea salt yet has less sodium.

    Even I know that.

  • joiblesslokinca||

    my friend's aunt makes $62 an hour on the computer . She has been laid off for five months but last month her pay was $14934 just working on the computer for a few hours. Visit this site.........
    ➜➜➜➜➜ www.work-mill.com

  • Jay Bones||

    Anti-science articles like this have a funny theme in common; the authors lay in the shadows as decades of research piles up data that says something they don't like, then the second they think they've found a little bit of contrary data, no matter the quality of it, they make their attack and say "look at THIS! ignore all the other stuff, this NEW data means all the stuff we've studied extensively for the last century is completely wrong!"

    When you cite the National Dairy Council funded meta-analysis by Ronald M. Krauss et al as a serious attack on the diet heart hypothesis, you're not taking a logical view of the science. Your links also appear incorrect since you cited the 2014 Chowdhury et al paper that stated the guidelines of low intake of SFA aren't supported, but your link leads elsewhere. The Chowdhury paper was so badly designed that Walter Willett of Harvard School of Public Health demanded a retraction of the paper, had them correct many mistakes they made with their calculations, and expressed that they should be ashamed and had done "a lot of damage" by giving crackpot journalists a juicy but misleading study that they can write a clickbait article about.

    http://news.sciencemag.org/hea.....rated-fats

    Mark Hoofnagle's article about science deniers outlines what we see from people who write about how the world's experts are totally wrong about saturated fat

    http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/about/

  • Jay Bones||

    [continued]

    Drawing on isolated papers to the neglect of the broader body of research in order to portray the science as being "refuted" is one of the most common things we see in denialist journalism. It's an easy way to get people to read your articles, telling them their favorite foods are actually good for them, but it's irresponsible. These videos also help to explain the recent wave of saturated fat doubt casting, likening it to the tactics of the tobacco industry

    http://nutritionfacts.org/vide.....he-public/
    http://nutritionfacts.org/vide.....p-to-fail/

    Consider that the author of this pro saturated fat, anti government article is also a global warming denier and the context of its craziness becomes more clear

  • BiMonSciFiCon||

    Consider that the author of this pro saturated fat, anti government article is also a global warming denier and the context of its craziness becomes more clear

    I was going to be rude and snarky, but given that you must be new here, Ron is in no sense a "global warming denier." Given that you are wrong on that and don't seem to be interested in intellectual honesty, I've decided you're not worth my time.

    Also, given the tone of your response, I would wager you have some sort of financial interest in the diet-heart hypothesis.

  • Jay Bones||

    "Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths." Feel free to be rude and snarky though, it'll be easier for you than to actually respond to criticism. What financial interest do you think I might have in promoting a rational scientific approach over cherry-picking and sensationalism, and do you think people promoting this new-diet quackery have no bias?

  • ||

    Was the government wrong when it recently said that dietary colestrol is no longer bad for you ?

  • brec||

    What the report said:

    available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol...[my emphasis]

    But there is evidence from multiple experiments including this one that dietary cholesterol does affect serum cholesterol. Still, if one has to choose one's battles, saturated fat is probably a more productive target:

    The DGAC encourages the consumption of healthy dietary patterns that are low in saturated fat...

    (Just because the government shouldn't be in the health advice business doesn't mean that all the scientists who contribute to its advice are mendacious or incompetent.)

  • ||

    " global warming denier" ? OMG !

    *clutches pearls while somene passes smelling salts pass my nose*

  • John B. Egan||

    "Progressives tend to believe that government knows best. The unfolding fiasco over government nutrition misinformation should give them pause. For years now the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.."

    Does the author really think that The Centers for Disease Control are a bunch of Libtards, or is he just letting his bias loose to run free?

  • ||

    funny / NO

    pathetic / YES

  • lvirginia89||

    I make up to USD90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around USD40h to USD86h Someone was good to me by sharing this link with me, so now i am hoping i could help someone else out there by sharing this link Try it, you won t regret it! ...

    ........... www.Jobs-Fashion.Com

  • Galane||

    WTH is with these "health" advocates claiming that a well balanced omnivore diet is bad for humans, who happen to be omnivores?

    One should be suspicious of anyone in the medical profession who eats/advocates a vegetarian or vegan diet. I assume they failed or at least didn't pay attention in human biochemistry classes.

  • mgd||

    My doctor told me fifteen years ago that the amount of cholesterol in foods had no bearing on blood cholesterol levels. Nice of the feds to catch up.

    After trying an almost-no-fat diet and a low-calorie diet with almost no effect on my lipid levels or weight, I switched to a high-protein diet with carbohydrates from non-starchy fruits and vegetables. I've lost 50 pounds and have dialed back the statin prescription three dosages. Basically, I turned the government's food pyramid upside down and am doing fine.

  • stanford||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha­ I do......

    www.wixjob.com

  • ||

    Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do...... ✹✹✹✹✹✹ www.netjob80.com

  • Le Flaneur||

  • natch.life||

    Great article!

    Maybe a detailed post about cholesterol would help the majority of readers (what it is: produced by the body, less cholesterol building food = more body production, makes Vitamin D, is the healing element, no good-no bad: explanation of the pattern test, high cholesterol in an effect not a cause etc.). It will take the fear of eating an egg away.


    I disagree with the low calorie statement:


    90% of the population is obese/overweight, i.e. low calorie diets have failed completely. Effects from long term keto phases (thru low carb diets) are alarming.


    Every successful weight loss diet (long-term) is based on the same rules, independent of being Vegan or Paleo:

    1. Avoid fructose and high glycemic food
    2. Stabilize your blood sugar long-term, keep it as low as possible, but eat as much until satiated
    3. Enjoy life (don't count calories), have your cheat days, it won't harm, it will pamper your soul (and social life)


    Bernhard, natch.life

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online