aldarion

And what is ironic? It is healthier than what 90% of people in the West eat.

This is frankly evil. We really seem to be moving towards some crazy hybrid of the Animal Farm, 1984 and the Brave New World.

I don't use cloud at all. Basically all of my backups are on external hard drives.

That would be simple carbohydrates, aka sugars.

That sugar however is produced by the body itself.

Technically speaking, dietary requirement for sugar is 0. This doesn't mean it isn't useful to have some, but it definitely shouldn't be the basis of the food pyramid.

Staples, but eaten in very small quantity, at least in France. As for Italy, Italians actually have massive problems with obesity, especially in children, precisely due to their consumption of bread and pasta. Traditional Italian diet is massive on vegetables, fruit and meat (fish and pork in particular), with bread and pasta being basically side dishes. But that is not what Italians are eating now, and so they've gotten sick as well.

It is not just issue of raw calories but how much body can absorb. Fruitarians for example tend to be corpse-skinny despite fruit being full of sugar, because most of that sugar simply passes through. So effective calories are less than what sugar content would indicate.

But grains and seeds do seem to be quite obesogenic, yes.

Well, yeah, I have no problem with carbs from fruit so long as they aren't causing issues (which to me they do, but that is a me problem, not a general indication).

There is literally no proof for any of that. In fact, scientists recently seem to be walking back on the whole "saturated fat bad" stuff. Because nutritional science is less science, and more "monetary interests + blind faith".

While what you say is true, starch is still nutritionally unnecessary. And wheat in particular has a lot of unhealthy or even outright toxic substances in it, especially if you are talking about the whole wheat.

Yes.

I don't code, but I do know that not eating sugar significantly improves my focus no matter what I'm doing.

Carbohydrates do cause insulin resistance and diabetes. India has average BMI of 21,9, yet has very high incidence of diabetes - largely thanks to its carbohydrate-based diet.

No, they are not. Dietary cholesterol has little to zero impact on blood cholesterol, and saturated fat we don't have reliable data that points to it being harmful either, when accounting for other influences.

I have IBS, and what I did was literally that I kept a list of foods and symptoms they cause me.

Turns out, carbohydrate-rich foods cause me massive issues, too much protein causes me some issues. Saturated fat is the least damaging to my gut health, followed my monounsaturated fats. Polyunsaturated fats and carbohydrates are the devil I have to avoid, no questions asked.

Saturated fat isn't bad for CVD, unless you eat it together with carbohydrates.

Because they don't eat processed foods.

Also, red meat isn't a known carcinogen. Processed meat is. And plaque formation in arteries is a consequence of inflammation... which is caused by sugar, a.k.a. carbohydrates. Insulin resistance is also a consequence of increased carbohydrate consumption.

But as I said, it is a combination of fats and carbs that is the worst killed. Eliminating either one of those from the diet leads to an automatic improvement.

It is definitely not protein. I tried carnivore diet for a while (had massive issues tolerating carbs lol), and the higher my protein intake was, more hungry I felt. Reducing protein and increasing fat also increased satiety.

Turns out, it is fats that produce satiety signals, and the effect seems to be by far the strongest with saturated fats, weaker with monounsaturated fats, while polyunsaturated fats actually induce hunger as strongly or even more strongly than carbohydrates do. The idea that "protein induces satiety" is a side effect of the fact that most (though not all) protein foods tend to be quite fatty.

From what I have gathered (through research and by using myself as a guinea pig), there are two things about highly processed food that promote overeating: 1) high carbohydrate content 2) lack of nutrients

High carbohydrate content causes sugar spikes, which leads to insulin spikes, and insulin spikes both a) cause hunger and b) promote storage of energy in the form of body fat: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3894001/

Second issue is as I said lack of nutrients. Your body needs nutrients, and will force you to eat until nutritional requirements had been satisfied. Since processed foods have very few nutrients, your organism compensates by increasing dietary intake... which means increasing caloric intake.

From what I've managed to find in the newest research, it apppears that diet does not appear to have any impact on atherosclerosis itself. But, as they say, more data needed.

Thing about the keto diet is that "hungry all the time" simply... doesn't happen. In fact, bigger problem for keto dieters tends to be being satiated all the time and consequently undereating.

"Hungry all the time" is actually vegan thing, but plants have so few calories and pass through so quickly that vegans end up being skinny despite eating literally all the time.

I haven't found any paleo dieter that promotes eating solely or even primarily raw foods. That idea seems to be more common in carnivore and vegan communities.

Traditional diets however are still diets that came after the advent of agriculture.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28442474/ https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111

Matter of the fact is that the entirety of belief that saturated fat "clogs the arteries" was based on the epidemiological studies which failed to adjust for other risk factors such as trans fat intake, intake of processed foods, and many more.

We should not throw away "80+ years of scientific studies and data" because... said "80+ years of scientific studies and data" do not exist. Not a single actual study had ever been made. The best we have are epidemiological studies, and these have massive issues.

"This is an insane take and thoroughly discredits anything you have to say. Science has some basis in reality, even if it is somewhat flawed. The idea that we should throw out all science food guidelines because it's not perfect is completely crackpot.

I have no idea why nutrition brings out the crazy left field engineer types but it's a common pattern."

It is not an insane take, you are just being a dumbass. Doctors do not have any training in nutrition. When I asked my doctor - doctors, actually, plural - for dietary advice, literally all of them told me "I don't have knowledge to advise you on that, figure it out on your own".

Science has basis in reality, yes. But doctors aren't scientists.

Excess weight is unhealthy in and by itself, however.

That is incorrect, actually. I find it relatively easy to adhere to keto diet. But the moment I try to introduce more "diverse" foods, I gain weight.

Because processed food diet is IMPOSSIBLE to adhere to without gaining weight. Caloric restriction simply doesn't work - your body wants nutrients, not just calories. Which is to say, your willpower will fail sooner or later, unless you find a way of satisfying nutritional needs without excess caloric intake.

"generally people tend to think that macronutrients work independently of each other"

Well, that is obviously the wrong idea. Even basic logic speaks against it: people lose weight on keto diet, people lose weight on vegan diet... so neither protein, fat nor carbs can be causing obesity. But what do foods that we know are obesogenic have in common? 1) They are highly processed and/or 2) they combine fats and carbs into single package.

But it is true that we don't know for certain. What we do know is that this dietary experiment we have had going since 1970s at the latest has failed completely. As I tend to say: paleo diet should be the basis of any diet, and then you further adjust it based on how your body responds.

Large percentage, yes. The issue is the "not large percentage" part. Sugar, additives, preservatives, colors... all of these are toxic. And when you mix up beef steak with sausage... you won't get realistic results.

That's like asking "what's the issue if somebody salts the soup with cyanide, most of the meal will still be soup". Yeah, but the cyanide will still kill you, even if it is the small percentage.

They will however recommend sugar, just by calling it something else.

See "carbohydrates", "complex carbohydrates", "integral grain" and so on.

Quite frankly, plain sugar from fruit is less dangerous than the complex carbs from grains. But fructose is still dangerous, just less so.

Those studies however generally put beef and sausages into the same "red meat" category. So yeah... that science is, from what I've seen, basically worthless.

Sugar causes inflammation, and inflammation damages arteries. It is this damage that then leads to accumulation of fatty deposits, as damaged arteries basically lose the protective layer (think of equivalent to a non-stick coating). But that doesn't mean dietary fat is what actually caused the plaque.