Full fat yogurt vs fat free yougurt

Ask and answer questions, discuss research and applications

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

Porovoz
Rookie
Rookie
Posts: 48
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 11:47 pm

Post by Porovoz » Sat Apr 18, 2009 10:57 am

@ironmaiden708

Great. Books are good. Yet, the title of a book does not, however, indicate the source of the dietary recommendation.

The figures of 430-650mg per day in the quote I provided are from various research bodies. If you don't trust the credibility of that particular website in terms of assembling this information (although one would think ω−3 retailers would want to provide the highest recommendations possible to maximize sales), you can take the time to verify them with the original source from which the recommendation stems. Alternatively, I can give you the citations (and pdf files, via email) of the very latest literature reviews on the subject with similar figures:

Lecerf, Jean-Michel. "Fatty acids and cardiovascular disease." Nutrition Reviews 67.5 (May 2009): 273-283.

Webb, Robyn, and Tracey Neithercott.. "The A-to-Z of Omega-3." Diabetes Forecast 62.2 (Feb. 2009): 45-48.

But that's beside the point. Other cultures or our primordial ancestors consuming a given amount of anything whatsoever isn't, in itself, indicative of anything. There is such a thing as too little of ω−3 (ahoy cardiovascular disease), a sufficient amount which meets one's daily requirements, and one that is in excess of what is healthy. The folks that come up with nutritional recommendations at say the Food and Drug Administration or the American Heart Association aren't idiots. They have advanced degrees in medicine, nutritional sciences, biochemistry, etc and would generally be considered experts in the field. In making a recommendation, be it for saturated fats OR ω−3, they generally have some sort of basis for it other than picking a random number. Disregarding them entirely, even if the Inuit do eat more ω−3 (or you saturated fat) than they recommend, is rather silly. Here is an example of the reasoning for not overconsuming ω−3:
Patients taking more than 3 grams of omega-3 fatty acids from capsules should do so only under a physician’s care. High intakes could cause excessive bleeding in some people.
http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... ifier=4632

:smile:


User avatar
Ironman
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 3991
Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am

Post by Ironman » Sat Apr 18, 2009 1:08 pm

People's agreement on an issue is irrelevant. People can agree to believe anything they want to. Look at the science. The results of experiments speak for themselves. Ignoring contradictory evidence as some sort of fluke or paradox and then dismissing it out of hand, because of preconceived notions based on an unproven hypothesis (as in an educated guess), is very foolish.

So what happened is someone had a guess, reported it because they thought trying it out on everyone was better than nothing. Then the media reported it, after some repetition the government got behind (thanks in part to special interests). Then people keep repeating it as infallible fact. Then it becomes conventional wisdom, truth by repetition.

It's an utterly ridiculous thing to base your decisions on.

anandsr21
Novice
Novice
Posts: 78
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 8:12 am

Post by anandsr21 » Tue Apr 21, 2009 6:54 am

Normally these studies are comparing people who take too much fat (and exceed their calorie requirement) and those who don't take much fat (and stay within their calorie requirements). Which is really a meaningless comparison.

You want to see a study comparing people with different carb and fat ratios in their diet when they are not going above their daily maintenance value.

There are such studies and they determine that eating fat is better than carbs. I am sure ironman will be able to provide the references. I don't have them handy. I had read them here. They are probably in a sticky.

Actually it does make sense that carbs would be bad for health, because humans evolved eating meat and vegetables, but not grains. Fire and Agriculture gave us access to grains, but the our metabolism may not be adequately adapted to it.

It is certainly not adapted to the refined starch and sugars. A simple test is that when you eat cakes and pastries you can eat too many calories without feeling full. You actually feel like eating more, which is a pathological case. Try that with normal foods like meats and vegetables. Grains and sugars allow you to just add in the calories. Adding refined oils to the mix makes it even worse.

I am pretty sure the current trend of hating fat foods is because of the heart diseases from the trans fatty oils from the hydrogenated oils era. These were refined and processed oils. The public opinion takes a long time to change.

If you just try to eat natural you will be healthy. Just keeps grain consumption to a minimum. Legumes are not bad if sprouted, they just don't have complete protein mix. And most important is to not go above your daily maintenance value when totaled over a week. Going above one or two days is not bad, if compensated adequately.

That is the general guideline I am trying to follow.


Post Reply