Is it true that fat is bad for you...

>Fat, especially animal fat, is high in saturated fat
Eat meat from a cow that has never seen corn.

Nigga it's still saturated, is it solid at room temp then it's saturated

everything is bad for you user,

Animal fat is far better for you than hydrogenated oils.

What general consensus?

Most grass fed cows finish on corn, it doesn't make that much of a difference anyways.

It makes a lot of difference in flavor. Grass fed beef is far better even if it is corn finished to fatten them up.

Quote from King Corn (documentary):

>If you look at a T-bone steak from a grain-fed cow, it may have as much as 9 grams of saturated fat. Whereas a comparable steak from a grass-fed animal would have 1.3 grams of saturated fat.

Fat is good for you, the sugar in everything is what is killing the public and controlling their minds. Sugar was never part of our diets in the past, we ate meat and hunted and didn't eat sugar which was for the animals. Sugar is worse and more addictive than cocaine for humans and should never be ingested.

That probably has way more to do with how much the cattle eat than what they are eating.

>What is fruit

Sugar filled garbage we're not supposed to eat? If you want diabetes and fat then be my guest

No. It's all caused by corn.

westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/fatty-acid-analysis-of-grass-fed-and-grain-fed-beef-tallow/

Subjective, but in most cases, not really a difference

k

As with everything, moderation is the best option. In general, staying away from sugar will do you more good than staying away from fats.

I'll take the bait

Fat not containing any micronutrients is a simple fact.

You can starve on rabbit because the average person cannot metabolize enough protein to yield enough calories to sustain their own metabolism. You can only do tops 400 grams in optimal conditions, which is 1600 calories, not enough for an adult man.

>animal fat
>obesity
Maybe if you consume more calories than you need in animal fat. It won't inherently make you obese.

If the Jews are smart enough to know for sure, why don't you just eat their diet and quit worrying?

So there's basically only 3 things you need to know about fat.
1. It's calorie dense, containing twice as much energy as protein or carbs
2. It's necessary to absorb some vitamins such as A, D, E, and K.
3. Fats are differentiated by how many hydrogen bonds they have and if they are naturally occurring - more hydrogen saturation means more calories and easier stacking which in turn means more clogged arteries.

The good news is that saturated fat only stacks a bit better than unsaturated so a steak every now and then won't kill you, but trans fat stacks like fuck so margerine just might.

>TL;DR
Eat some fat. Unsaturated > Saturated >>>>>>>>> Trans

So does anyone here cook purely with liquids instead of oil? Anyone use MSG instead of salt? Anyone use fruits instead of sugar?

the key to understanding your question is to understand that there are different kinds of fat

>oil is not a liquid

liquids that are not oil*

fat is fine as long as you're not also eating a billion carbs

>healthy fats oils
>veg, fruit, legumes, fish are a completely different category
Does Harvard explain that choice? Surely you get enough fat from all those for the day.

There are plenty of articles that debunks this so I don't advice anyone to take it too seriously

It's also only a correlation

Can I be fat on the inside without looking fat? My diet is pretty good except that I consume a lot of fat and I'm thinking about my health.

>Is it true that fat is bad for you
No, not really. The evidence anyone will post is based on studies from the 90's that have been refuted today

It can also be based on an unfair correlation meaning you're part of the same group as the obese person who doesn't excersise and happen to eat animal fats. Therefor saturated fats = bad in their minds

>correlation and causation are distinct
Even assuming that's true. Why would you not go with the best correlations for something as complex as nutrition??

Because just like you said it's complex, a mindlessly simple correlation like that doesn't prove anything.

The world's oldest woman had bacon and eggs for over a century

Who said anything about proof? Why would the correlation statistics be any simpler than observing that "The world's oldest woman had bacon and eggs for over a century"? Why would simplicity even be bad if complexity means it's the best course you can hope for?

If it's complex then you would go with the simplest probability rather than any specific theory which claims to explain it rationally. Statistics might be dumb, but they are brutally strong usually. Reality over rationalism.

There's really no way I can explain it even simpler than I already did. The argument that saturated fats are unhealthy is based on a correlation rather than causation, it doesn't prove anything about whether or not saturated fats are actually bad for you, noone has been able to prove that. Just looking at how many people there are with a healthy lifestyle who regularly eats saturated fats it becomes even more obvious

It's why most people don't buy into anymore. Although with a bias strong enough it's possible for the most stubborn to persist

>The argument that saturated fats are unhealthy is based on a correlation rather than causation, it doesn't prove anything about whether or not saturated fats are actually bad for you, noone has been able to prove that.
Why would proving it be necessary if the processes are so complex that any 'proof' might be temporary?
>Just looking at how many people there are with a healthy lifestyle who regularly eats saturated fats it becomes even more obvious
But is this not just a weaker form of correlation observation? "people can do this" isn't as strong as "the majority of people can do this".

>It's why most people don't buy into anymore
Most people? Do you know much about world populations?
>Although with a bias strong enough it's possible for the most stubborn to persist
Huh? Projection?

>what is moderation?

They are distinct unless you control for the other variables

It's as simple as eating REAL, MINIMALLY PROCESSED foods. Eat no (as in zero) sugar, refined grains, and vegetable oils, eat shittones of different vegetables, some fruit/grains/tubers, lots of fish, some nuts/olives/avocadoes/coconuts and you'll likely be healthy. Eggs, red meat, fruit, cheese etc in moderation as part of a good diet will do you no harm.

There are a lot of different fats. A lot.
health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/the-truth-about-fats-bad-and-good

>vegetable oils
Never mind those *essential* fats.

Thanks for the advice Shlomo.

Red Meat I get as that's carcogenic but what the fuck is wrong with cheese, fruits and eggs?

Anecdotal evidence means nothing

Its based on both. There are literally biological mechanisms at play with numerous controlled intervention trials to prove this

Eating a lot of fat is bad for you.

But it's pretty hard to eat a ton of fat unless it's coming in a very salty package, or you're a compulsive eater.

Fat is pretty much top dog at the satiety game.

Cheese and eggs are heart clogging and both can cause carcinogenic activity

By what metric? Back up your claims or something. What about eggs or cheese is "heart clogging"?

And what about fruit?

Saturated fat and cholesterol content. The acids and proteins in animal proteins in general are not efficiently digested by the human body

>and what about fruit

Whole fruit is basically harmless

I read this shit all the time, but compare our diabetic fat culture to, say, the Inuits who ate %100 meat. Look at what happened to Aborigines in Australia after they were exposed to Western diets.

Humans moving from hunter-gatherer lifestyles to agriculture based shrank six inches.

Diabetes, cancer, and obesity, are occurring more prominently NOW, when there's a large flux of vegan/vegetarian bullshit, when everything is full of corn and sugar, as opposed to when people ate nothing but beefsteaks and potatoes.

100% this

fruit at least has fiber that helps your GI system process the sugars.

>t. FDA damage control

>the Inuits who ate 100% meat

Were and still are very unhealthy, ridden with heart disease despite experiencing genetic mutation to allow them to more efficiently extract nutritional value and digest meat

>when there's a large flux of vegan/vegetarian bullshit

What, like 5% of the world?

>as opposed to when people ate nothing but beefsteaks and potatoes

Completely unverfiable in not only that ridiculous claim but that you could even fathom the heart disease rates that occurred before modern medicine

What a crock of gigantic shit you just shat out. Christ

>t. egg industry temp worker

It's hilarious that payleotards still regurgitate the same old shit ad nauseam, with no attention paid to the fact that we have incontrovertible evidence of grain, legume and tuber consumption from over 100,000 years ago (which is in the PALEOlithic era). If you actually believe hunter-gatherers derived most of their calories from animals that they had to hunt down, you are just plain fucking retarded. Actually, the premise even includes that these people were eating all the fat too, which is even more absurd. Lean game doesn't even provide adequate energy to sustain an active adult male, so they had to come up with this mythology of people subsiding on fucking lard which happens to be entirely devoid of micronutrients.

That's fine you picked out all my unfounded facts and called them bullshit, they largely are.

But how do you quantify overwhelming and devastating obesity and heart disease rates in the wake of FDA and government influenced diets that promote LESS natural fats?

Meat and its fat content are what made modern humans. It's simply the most efficient way to consume nutrient dense food.

I don't get you. Sure, O6 is essential, but it should be in proportion with O3, not 30:1

Red meat is carcinogenic when overcooked, cooked properly it's good in moderation

Fruit too is good in moderation. Really the worst thing about fruit is the sweetness, most westerners are addicted to that taste and could go without

if you want the evidence all you have to do is google.

Google will even quote the relevant information in a snippet so you don't have to sort through all the articles for yourself.

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS619US619&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=red meat saturated fat cancer

snippet:
A: When eating red meat (beef, pork or lamb), choosing lean cuts is important in order to limit saturated fat and avoid excess calories. But eating too much of any red meat – more than 18 ounces cooked, weekly – increases risk for colorectal cancer.Apr 6, 2015

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS619US619&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=red meat saturated fat cholesterol

Snippet:

In general, red meats (beef, pork and lamb) have more cholesterol and saturated (bad) fat than chicken, fish and vegetable proteins such as beans. Cholesterol and saturated fat can raise your blood cholesterol and make heart disease worse. Chicken and fish have less saturated fat than most red meat.Dec 2, 2014

google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1AVNE_enUS619US619&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=saturated fatty acids red meat

Snippet:
The American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats – which are found in butter, cheese, red meat and other animal-based foods. Decades of sound science has proven it can raise your “bad” cholesterol and put you at higher risk for heart disease.Feb 12, 2016

Before you say "who cares about google snippets" they are programatically extracted knowledge of a source that is widely linked and accepted by truth as many other websites and news reports on the internet.

if you won't listen to peer reviewed studies, and meta analysis of hundreds of studies.. maybe you will listen to what googles says is the truth on the web from trusted sources?

probably not...

>but how do you quantify overwhelming and devastating obesity heart disease rates in the wake of FDA and goverment influenced diest that promote less natural fats

What overwhelming evidence? It's not like the FDA is some overwhelmingly reliable source anyways.

>meat and its fat content are what made modern humans

That is not the slightest bit conclusive, surmised well here >its simply the most efficient way to consume nutrient dense food

Cooking vegetables and starches actually would be, especially since they don't have as much of a drawback of heart disease and cancer.

Cooking, learning language, walking, not a single factor determined this, and sure as hell not a single thing like meat. Meat was definitely a part of the cooking thing, but probably not even a necessity

Pretty simple: people have not reduced their consumption of fats and animal products like they were advised, and they developed heart disease and obesity like they were warned about. Furthermore, the dietary guidelines have always included a recommendation to reduce sugar intake, a fact sometimes conveniently omitted by anti-carb clowns. The entire anti-carb dogmatism is based on outrageous lives that are easily disproved by looking at the facts. It also helps to take a quick look at China, Thailand, Japan and elsewhere, where the introduction of aspects of the Western diet (which is a HIGH FAT diet) directly correlates with increases in diabetes and obesity, but only in those sub-populations actually incorporating these aspects (more cheese and more meat replacing carbs)

You don't have to look back to paleo times to see the effects of high fat diets on cultures, just look at Native Americans. Game was plentiful, more than plentiful until white settlement.

It's downright demeaning towards your ancestors to assume that they, who spent all of their time hunting, were not able to catch enough to eat.

You should watch Fed Up. It surmises pretty conclusively the rise of obesity and the reasons for it in America.

If that were true the obesity rates would have remained the same, instead they've doubled in the last 35 years. The reason for this is not not eating meat, it's sugar intake.

Sugar intake has sharply decreased since the 1970s

...

Good argument

>It also helps to take a quick look at China, Thailand, Japan and elsewhere, where the introduction of aspects of the Western diet (which is a HIGH FAT diet) directly correlates with increases in diabetes and obesity, but only in those sub-populations actually incorporating these aspects (more cheese and more meat replacing carbs)

This has been the most damning evidence backed up by hundreds of studies and meta analysis.

I am so happy the FDA will finally be rolling out a percentage daily sugar intake on labels in the next couple years. If you need proof that the sugar lobby is HELLAFUCKINPOWERFUL you need look no further than the fact that every other nutrient on the label had a percent daily intake but sugar was left off - even though there have been daily guidelines on sugar intake for decades.. and even longer in the UK and the rest of the world.

Here is a fun pdf that lists every european union country and that country's health department's stance on saturated fat:

euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/150083/E79832.pdf

Almost all suggest

it's both good and bad. too much you get cardiovascular issues, too little and you wither away from lack of protein and growth factors

>you wither away from lack of protein and growth factors

t. Bachelor of BroScience

Well I won't, because I'm not going to waste my time with yet another bullshit fest about the "evils of sugar" which are not substantiated by any sound science. I've actually had enough just looking at the poster and seeing two M&M's, which is a chocolate candy with equal amounts of calories from fat and sugar, in other words a HIGH FAT food.

Americans are actually too retarded to do basic math and distinguish a HIGH FAT food (donuts, chocolate, ice cream, most candy, pies, burgers, pastry, cookies, butter bagels, cakes, pizza, Mars bars, French fries, ad infinitum) from a HIGH SUGAR food (gummy bears, dried fruit, lollypops, soda, only the latter of which is actually consumed in any relevant quantities)

The only way to associate sugar with obesity is through fucking soda, which is liquid calories. All liquid calories are associated with obesity, so it's yet more bullshit.

Fuck you

You don't even know what the fuck you're talking about. People had a high-fat diet in the 60s and 70s due to greater availability of animal products and oils, they were told they were all going to get fat and die unless they change this, they didn't, and they got fat and died. People have NOT adopted a low-fat diet of centuries past as they were told, they have kept their fat intake HIGH and got FAT and sick as was predicted.

The heart is fed by a network of tiny blood vessels. If these tiny blood vessel become clogged, then parts of the heart will be starved of oxygen, and die, and you'll have a heart attack, and die (probably).

Therefore, you must stop thinking holistically when it comes to fat. Fat is not good for you, especially if you are a well fed
person. Stick to a high carb, high fiber, lean protein, very low fat diet.

This is an inherent problem with putting all your faith in established "science" but not using science to look at the actual effects of foods on the body.

youtube.com/watch?v=PZvytHG_Bmc

Mate, you are not giving me anything I don't know about. I know everything about Taubes, including why he is so fantastically wrong all the time on everything. Taubes is a habitual liar, probably a pathological narcissist and an all around shitty person. What he said in that video is not only demonstrably wrong, but there is actually a good possibility that he knows it to be wrong but lies about it anyway in order to get more attention, TV time and money.

>If these tiny blood vessel become clogged

Sure. But the problem lies in identifying what exactly is responsible for those clogs. And guess what? It's not fat. It's not cholesterol either. We don't know exactly what causes the blockage, but the best current research is that the arterial plaque is an attempt by the body to reduce inflammation in the arteries caused by something else--sort of like how scabs form on cuts.

And I do suspect his unique ability to lie straight-faced is a result of his Jewishness and Jewish education

what do you mean it's not cholesterol, it absolutely is cholesterol.

After a fatty meal, the blood is full of fat. You can put blood in a centrifuge and separate it all out, it's disgusting, and deadly.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. The plaque itself contains cholesterol. But that cholesterol is manufactured by the liver. It does not come from DIETARY cholesterol.

That's absoloute bullshit.

Fat from a meal never enters the bloodstream directly. It is broken down in the intestines, and its components are absorbed into the body.

Centrifuging blood before or after a meal looks exactly the same.

Your intestine can't digest the larger fat molecules so it enters your blood and afterwards it's processed in the liver.
This is normal, and normally not a big deal, unless you eat buckets of lard in which the amount of unprocessed fat in the blood causes problems

My sister used to work in a blood draw center, and if the donor ate something fatty beforehand, for example a cheeseburger, the blood drawn would have white fatty stuff in it.

What you describe is literally impossible, which indicates that your understanding of biology is poor.

My guess is that this is either a complete fabrication, or it's a case of misunderstanding (e.g. the telephone game / Chinese whispers)

You are a faggot for believing everything you read on Facebook.

You are a disease.

hhhnnnggg, enjoy your heart disease, fatty.

you're retarded
its a video. fact check it. there is plenty of grass fed bovines available in the americas. get some and compare them yourself.

this has to be bullshit, that would mean I'd be able to eat as much meat as I liked as long as it was lean enough and it literally would make me lose weight.

this is basically true but not really. natives still ate grains/starches like corn and potato precurses. they had fruit and vegetables to eat along side their plentiful bison and salmon. they also had a fairly low ass life expectancy.

go die in a shit hole you /pol/ock
everything you said about that guy is probably right, but you are too conceited and stupid to understand humans lie all the fucking time, and it's not a hard skill to learn or master. it just takes effort like any other skill.