Hacker News Reader

Comment by OldSchoolJohnny | Hacker News Reader

Yeah, posted too quickly, that is of course known and proven. The bits that he got wrong were the avoid fatty red meat and eat whole wheat (full of antinutrients as are all seeds meant for birds and not mammals) and the old calorie hypothesis which has since been soundly disproven but is probably the most common fallacy out there today.

View on HN

I wasn't aware caloric restriction was disproven. See, for example: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor

Care to provide citations for the claims that fatty red meat is at all healthy (last I checked, saturated and trans fat cause cardiovascular disease, diabetes, obesity, atherosclerosis - just to name a few problems), or that whole wheats contain antinutrients, or are somehow unhealthy?

Again, your basic scientific knowledge is lacking. There is no meaningful transfat in red meat, fatty or otherwise.

> There are two broad types of trans fats found in foods: naturally-occurring and artificial trans fats. Naturally-occurring trans fats are produced in the gut of some animals and foods made from these animals (e.g., milk and meat products) may contain small quantities of these fats.

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/NutritionCenter...

> Because trans fats are unavoidable on ordinary, non-vegan diets, getting down to zero percent trans fats would require significant changes in patterns of dietary intake.

http://www.worldcat.org/title/dietary-reference-intakes-for-...

> Processed foods and oils provide approximately 80 percent of trans fats in the diet, compared to 20 percent that occur naturally in food from animal sources.

http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/document/html/ch...

20 percent is not meaningful? Next, are you going to try and convince me that trans fat is good for you?

I can't reply in-context to noondip's reply here yet, but note that he now says meat has "small amounts" of transfats where he previously wrote "laden with".

I haven't downvoted you, man (it isn't possible to downvote direct child comments, as far as I can tell). Why are you being so hostile? You're also quoting me out of context; I wrote, "laden with cholesterol, saturated and trans fats" which isn't an exaggeration.

By the way, you can reply directly by clicking on the timestamp (e.g. n minutes ago).

  which isn't an exaggeration

Suppose, then, that you quote for the class the specific average quantity of transfats in, say, a 6 ounce steak serving... and how that qualifies as "laden with".

Well, the only "safe" intake of trans fat is exactly zero, so again I assert what I've said wasn't exaggerated.

What's the old calorie hypothesis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com