zlacker

[return to "Eat Real Food"]
1. woodru+fO[view] [source] 2026-01-07 20:41:44
>>atestu+(OP)
Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more beef[2].

A demand for the average American to eat more meat would have to explain, as a baseline, why our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding positive outcomes. There are potential explanations (you could argue increased processing offsets the purported benefits, for example), but those are left unstated by the website.

[1]: https://www.agweb.com/opinion/drivers-u-s-capita-meat-consum...

[2]: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-detai...

◧◩
2. jdlsho+WO[view] [source] 2026-01-07 20:44:19
>>woodru+fO
It says 1.2-1.6 grams of protein and healthy fats per kilogram of body weight, from animal and plant sources (including milk). Is that really advocating for more meat?
◧◩◪
3. woodru+2Q[view] [source] 2026-01-07 20:49:16
>>jdlsho+WO
The implication is that the current food pyramid disproportionately weights against proteins and fats. Assuming that Americans follow the current pyramid (this is a hell of an assumption), then any change to the pyramid that asks them to change their diets in favor of more protein and fat is likely to result in them eating more meat.

In reality, I don't think anybody in the US follows the food pyramid religiously. But I do think people (try to) follow the main strokes of what the government tells them is a healthy dietary balance, and so any recommendation to increase their fat/protein intake will result in more meat consumption even if the guidelines doesn't itself proscribe that as the only source.

◧◩◪◨
4. ericd+s91[view] [source] 2026-01-07 22:00:46
>>woodru+2Q
As I see it, the point of this new pyramid is not to add more emphasis to meat specifically, but to undo some of the past vilification of fat (note the emphasis on whole milk and full fat dairy), and to move emphasis away from carbs as the basis of the diet. And honestly, I think that's pretty much correct - the low fat movement was a disaster for our collective health, because food manufacturers added more sugar to compensate for the bad effects on taste that that has, and because if you eat a good amount of full fat stuff, there's not nearly as much need to snack between meals.

If you go to Western Europe, they're not drinking lots of skim milk, and if you eat things from the bakeries, there's more butter and not as much low quality vegetable oil or sugar. When my French cousins come here, they find lots of the stuff sold here revoltingly sweet.

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. throwa+bG2[view] [source] 2026-01-08 10:45:27
>>ericd+s91
What is "low quality vegetable oil"? I never heard that term before. Are some types considered high quality?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
6. ericd+2i3[view] [source] 2026-01-08 15:07:43
>>throwa+bG2
First, a grain of salt, I'm certainly not an expert, I've just read a bit about the subject.

You know how people like cold pressed extra virgin olive oil? Or avocado oil? Those are "high quality". Industrially refined/deodorized/hexane-extracted soybean, corn, non-high-oleic sunflower/safflower oil, canola tend to be considered to be on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Deodorizing causes the oil to oxidize, as does deep frying, and that makes a variety of nasty byproducts that seem likely to cause systemic inflammation. And from here on HN the other day, "Inflammation now predicts heart disease better than cholesterol" https://www.empirical.health/blog/inflammation-and-heart-hea...

People in this thread are scoffing at RFK saying that beef tallow fries are "healthy", and while I wouldn't go that far, there seems to be good evidence that it's much healthier to deep fry in beef tallow than the soybean oil most switched to in the 90s. Beef tallow is high in saturated fat, which tends to be relatively stable under heat, and very low in polyunsaturated fats, which tend to be the fats that oxidize the worst. Soybean oil, on the other hand, is extremely high in polyunsaturated fat (60% vs 2-4% for beef tallow). And the big problem with commercial deep frying is that the oil is frequently just topped off rather than replaced, so those oxidization byproducts build up over time. More stable fat is really important there.

I also don't know how relevant this is, but soybean frying oil tends to have silicone-based anti-foaming agents mixed in (polydimethylsiloxane is the one I've seen most commonly) - you can find this in the big jugs at Costco if you want to check it out. Silicone generally doesn't seem great to be swallowing - I think it's pretty inert, but it seems likely to me to have mechanical properties that your body's not quite used to dealing with effectively. This is just me being biased about eating something that's pretty obviously not food, though, I haven't seen much on the subject.

Hydrogenated oils are now well known to be bad (trans fats). So Crisco/creamed vegetable shortening, very low quality.

So yeah, there are higher and lower quality oils, especially once they've been degraded via high heat over a long period and oxygen exposure in commercial or industrial frying processes.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
7. pconne+B84[view] [source] 2026-01-08 19:14:22
>>ericd+2i3
Actual human RCTs do not show any increased systemic inflammation when consuming seed oils like canola vs. animal fats, and saturated fat consumption from animal cooking fats can still drive cardiovascular risk, even if it is not the singular cause.

Fried foods are bad for you regardless. The idea that one could swap out a seed oil for some other fat and keep all of their bad habits otherwise in place and magically become healthy is a fantasy.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
8. ericd+1o4[view] [source] 2026-01-08 20:36:32
>>pconne+B84
Interesting, thanks. Know of where to read the random trial results? Did they clear the chemically separated/deodorized oils from suspicion? While I err on the side of avoiding them, I don’t have too strong an opinion on this, because like I said, not an expert.

Why are fried foods bad for you? It’s commonly held wisdom, but I’m curious what the mechanics are, to see if there’s a way to mitigate it. Is it something other than the oxidation products that I mentioned? And if it is those, would a more stable fat not fare better? I guess there’s the changes to the food from the high temps in both cases.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
9. pconne+ZD4[view] [source] 2026-01-08 22:00:08
>>ericd+1o4
There are a handful of studies referenced by this review that look at health impacts of vegetable oils: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11600290/

For fried food, I'd worry way more about the raw caloric density and the overeating that can be induced by hyperpalatable foods[1] than oxidation.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpalatable_food

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣▦
10. ericd+AL4[view] [source] 2026-01-08 22:43:13
>>pconne+ZD4
Thanks, I’ll take a look.

Something to note is the acknowledgements, though: “This work was supported by the Soy Nutrition Institute Global, United Soybean Board, Corn Refiners of America, National Corn Growers Association, Canola Council of Canada and USA Canola Association. These funders had no role in the design, analysis or writing of this article.”

Doesn’t mean it’s junk, but also probably not totally disinterested science, since continued funding is probably contingent on them being happy with the results.

EDIT: from what I read, it was mostly a high level summary of literature wihh th some conclusions like high polyunsaturated fat is good for reducing ldl levels, it mentioned at the end that you shouldn’t reuse deep frying oil, try to keep oil under smoke point, some other things like that. Didn’t see much about inflammation, but I didn’t read too carefully, just skimmed.

[go to top]