Do you have any actual scientific evidence for this belief of yours? Any studies?
1 Like
Not at all. I don’t have to think that the current ‘mainstream consensus’ (my term) is the perfect for all time understanding of fat intake as part of the human diet.
Based on the learnings of the last 50 years in this area, I think that the following generalizations will remain largely true for decades to come:
- transfats are very bad, should likely be completely avoided
- saturated fats are bad in larger quantities, should be kept low (for some definition of low).
- poly-unsaturated fats are generally good, and do not need to be limited/avoided like the other fats listed above, but should likely not provide the significant majority of calories in your diet.
I suspect there will be refinement of the above - maybe we will find that certain particular types of saturated fats aren’t all that bad after all, but I would be shocked if we find out that all the evidence that high saturated fat diets cause heart disease and/or arteriosclerosis was wrong and saturated fats are in fact unrelated to these health problems.
Trans-fats were promoted to reduce saturated fat intake, so there has been consensus that saturated fat (in large-ish quantities) is bad for a long time.
While you are not promoting eating sticks of butter, much of your argumentation goes right along with the people who film themselves eating sticks of butter on instagram and have similar things to say regarding the body of evidence that shows high saturated fat intake is bad for human health.
6 Likes
@toyman I really appreciate your thoughtfulness, and thoroughness. Thanks for keeping the disc rolling in a friendly, open manor.
I have an Hons. BSc in biochemistry. That is not to say I “know it all” , or am more intelligent than anyone else, or anything like that. (Barf!) It is only to say that the things I know and understand, I did not get off instaspam.
We all say that “saturated fats (SFs) are bad”.
Why? Why do we think that?
Every gram of info I have been able to find that “SFs are bad” comes back to the same thing; arterial plaque is comprised mostly of cholesterol, and fats, and other related compounds, so therefore, cholesterol and SFs are bad.
There has never been a connection between SF consumption and heart disease / arterial plaque, nor has there been (Could there be? Properly?) a study that controlled for sugar ( “carb” 
) consumption, but studied fats only.
Again. If you cut your knee and get a scab, nobody says the scab is because you have too much iron in your diet.
That is exactly what they did. Dead serious. They dissected bodies, scraped the arterial plaque out, analyzed it, “this is made of cholesterol and fats and stuff” , = cholesterol & fats are bad. That is literally all the info we have that links SFs to heart disease.
Nobody ever asked
“….wait…why did this happen…”
Cholesterol ( both ‘of them’ ) is all through our cell membranes, and all sortsa stuff in us. It is all throughout our bodies. It’s essential. We also eliminate excesses of it extremely easily through our urine and / or BMs. Our bodies do this. Naturally.
The total amount of glucose circulating in your blood volume is approx 5 g = 1 tsp. Can of coke(aine) has 39 g. Eight times the amount your entire blood volume holds.
There is no digestion, no “absorbing”. It goes right across the cellular membranes, directly into your bloodstream. Pure glucose.
If your blood sugar goes too high, you can go into a coma, and even die. So when we eat sugar, INSULIN is DUMPED into the blood, to get the sugar OUT, ASAP, and into the cells.
ASAP means aaaaasap. Or you die.
So. What would you do, if you had to do something “asap” ? Your dying. What would you do to stay alive?
Our bodies protect us. They STOP us from going hyperglycaemic, and they RIP the glucose across those membranes to get it OUT of the blood, and pack it away.
We…are NOT used to this. Our bodies never went through this trauma before.
That ripping across the membranes slices them apart.
Our veins and arteries are shredded, on the molecular scale, by this.
We scrape our knees.
Cholesterol repairs it.
There’s not a datapoint on this planet that SFs cause any problems.
All they have is “Well. Scraped ya knee, lotsa iron there, no more iron for you.”
Go eat your jar sauce and love your lives! 
I’ve got an engineering degree, never took biology in HS or college. However I’ve learned enough to be dangerous.
Some of what you wrote is setting off my bullshit radar. Which makes me call everything you wrote into question. Your posts have now achieved a zero credibility score in my mind, a vote of no confidence in what you are saying. Thats not an attack, just helping you understand what I and others are watching happen.
If this is all a rant, mission accomplished 
I truly hope everything is ok in your life. I’m signing off. Best.
19 Likes
The pros are all doing it wrong apparently. All they do is train and fuel their races at 120+ grams an hour.
2 Likes
Really? How about this 2020 metanalysis: Association between dietary fat intake and mortality from all-causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies - PubMed
" Conclusions: Diets high in saturated fat were associated with higher mortality from all-causes, CVD, and cancer, whereas diets high in polyunsaturated fat were associated with lower mortality from all-causes, CVD, and cancer. Diets high in trans-fat were associated with higher mortality from all-causes and CVD. Diets high in monounsaturated fat were associated with lower all-cause mortality."
5 Likes
@WindWarrior I’m genuinely broken hearted to hear that. Of all the ppl on here, you’re one I have interacted w lots, and respect your opinion, and input.
“Your posts have now achieved a zero credibility score in my mind.”
Ok. 
Nothing to say to that, other than I wish you well.
Didn’t control for sugar consumption; irrelevant.
It is the sugar ( “carbs” ) that cause the problem.
Where is your study that shows this?
Dude, please end the train wreck. Consider other points of view. We clearly have a problem in this country, but those people have poor metabolic health and aren’t pedaling like mofos or doing other healthy endurance training to get fit.
11 Likes
Not sure what under 2hrs on bike (and 18mph) is supposed to tell us about hflc, many of us can go out and do that without much extra fuel. 3-3.5hr on just water is easy enough too, but things unravel quickly after that.
You’re being just as dogmatic as the “take all the carbs” crowd, you’ve managed to convince no one that this approach is a good one
2 Likes
@WindWarrior yep, agreed, I’m done.
Can’t do it anymore. I knew this was gonna happen, for the record. That’s why I never said anything until I had done an Olympic.
Whatever, people. I will exist at 2.5 w/kg, 6 ft and super trim, literally never have cravings or even hunger [ that is not a joke. when you go HFLC, you never feel hungry ]
and you can all bicker about what you think it might or might not do.
I’m more interested in being out here, seeing what it actually does. 
Overall I find your arguments that “all fats are fine, sugar is the real evil” unconvincing.
Also, you are not merely arguing that our understanding of fats as a dietary risk is incomplete, but that it is completely wrong, and fats are not a dietary risk at all, it’s been sugar all along. This is an extremely strong statement that is hard to take seriously. I am open to, and would not be surprised if in a few decades we know more about the negative aspects of high sugar consumption - particularly high sugar consumption in a calorie surplus.
Some aspects of this are:
- referring to prior misunderstandings or mistakes in our ‘scientific’ understanding of diet relations to health as a reason to disregard this particular point of general consensus. This argument can be made to disregard anything, and I don’t find it convincing. I expect in 40 years will will have a better understanding of diet as it relates to disease, and guidelines will change. That’s progress, and this same thing has been happening for many decades already. I need specific, good evidence that shows that sugar is the causitive agent for heart disease rather than (saturated) fat.
- Talking about the sizes of various molecules is irrelevant to this conversation. The relative sizes of fats vs sugar vs protein mean nothing without evidence that this size is crucial to the area of discussion that we are having - ie fat consumption as a health risk.
- The composition of my brain is unrelated to what a healthy diet should be. An aspect of the brain that is much more related to diet is what your brain uses as an energy source, and that is glucose.
- Sugar may well have made you feel terrible, for a variety of reasons. This is not good evidence that fat consumption is unrelated to cardiovascular health.
The ‘Sigma Nutrition’ group has put together some good (imho) information on this topic, and I do find that fairly convincing. They address many of the criticisms of early work in this area (much by Ancel Keys), and I think provide good arguments as to why much of it is still relevant and much of the criticism doesn’t hold up.
The cover this in podcast form (#481: Why Saturated Fat Really Does Impact Heart Disease Risk | Sigma Nutrition) as well as long form written work: Cholesterol, Lipoproteins & Lipids: Understanding CVD Risk | Sigma Nutrition
Near the end of the second part of this series (The Impact of Diet on Blood Lipids | Sigma Nutrition) there is a section on carbohydrates, so the topic of sugar is not being ignored, and is considered in the research.
Part of what makes me listen carefully to them is that they don’t make bold or extreme claims, they are not afraid to say “we don’t know”, and back up their claims with evidence. That evidence is usually a ‘body of evidence’, and not “this one study shows that…” I have learned a lot about nutrition science and research from listening to this podcast, and have an increased understanding of how hard it is to do robust research in this area. They often tackle controversial takes in diet, and can often show how these rely on either bad faith or a poor understanding or cherry-picking of the evidence.
4 Likes
Ok, let’s be clear……you didn’t do an Olympic. You did an AquaBike race, of which there were few competitors. You came 4th. You swam ~2:00/100m and averaged ~30kph on the bike and did not do a run.
The hard reality is that, despite your claims, this is not fast. I’m sorry to be so blunt, but it is the truth.
So using this performance as some evidence of high performance as a result of a HGLC diet is simply not based in fact. Your HR was likely pegged because of the heat and the lack of carbs, not because you were performing well.
You came here looking for an argument…well done.
10 Likes
@Power13 I didn’t “come here looking for an argument.” As I have said many times: I just suffered for years for no reason, alone, and wanted to try to make sure nobody else ever has to walk this path alone again.
This has been, sadly, so predictable. All people want is things that agree with what they already “know”.
Nobody in the 50s wanted to listen to the weirdo saying that cigarettes might not be great for your health. And everyone hated that person. Because cigarettes feel good.
Sugar’s effect on the brain has been rated as more addictive than cocaine; roughly near the dependency level of caffeine, nicotine or heroin.
I am done with this thread. All I will get is hate, negativity, and anger.
I thought, maybe, we could do better.
(For anyone wondering; all it takes is one month on HFLC….to try. Instead of wondering, or making up ideas about things you know nothing about. It will change your life.)
I wish you all well.
The issue is you only consider agreeing with you “better” and don’t give any space to the fact you could be wrong
8 Likes
We have no doubt you suffered alone, but you’re telling a group of people, the majority of which live in direct conflict with what you are saying is the only right way to live, that they are doing it wrong. They aren’t don’t feel they are suffering, and so many are telling you that they are thriving because of their carb consumption.
Look, I tried HFLC living for several years. I can tell you that, at your almost 200w ftp and 3.5 hrs/wk, and doing 2.5 hr races, you’re right in the range of being abled to do HFLC without too much issue. You’re getting pretty close to the wattage and duration (at higher intensities) that will cause you to suffer with your low carb intake. I was there. Hit that steep, sandy hill 2 hours in and wonder what has happened to your legs. Eat a gel, and 15 minutes later you climb another steep, sandy hill and the reaction is “Holy crap, what a difference!” You’ll get to that point if you keep training, so be open to at least some targeted glucose consumption during your higher intensity workouts and rides…it will help you progress.
Do I think someone doing <10 hours of training a week needs 500-900g of carbs per day, every day? Not for most, with the exception being high ftp guys on their higher intensity days (only), maybe. eta: and yes. overconsumption of sugars can be a problem, and a big part of that problem is it’s inflammatory effects. But the human body was also designed to use carbs effectively, when needed and available, and when the body is healthy.
10 Likes
I don’t know if you think this is a badge of honor or something, but I’m your height, 5 years older than you, trim and in great shape by all measures, and that doesn’t crack my low-Z2 all day easy endurance pace. If I go that slow I don’t need to fuel either.
Why? Because I’m burning mostly fat at that pace. Not because I’m HFLC (I’m not) because it doesn’t work that way. I’m burning mostly fat at that pace because I’ve gotten fit and in shape, on the back of using carbs when needed and not being a sugar fear monger with the credibilty of a flat earther or climate change denier.
You did not come here for an honest discussion, you came here with an agenda and a whole lot of “data” and claims that are basically outright false. And your lack of understanding of the concepts behind them doesn’t change that.
You can do better, by entirely re-evaluating the way you approached this thread.
9 Likes
The prosecution rests, Your Honor.
You came into this thread with questionable “data” that contradicted all of the established science and knowledge we have around physical performance. When people attempted to engage in discussion, you then doubled-down with illogical arguments and an argumentative stance.
Again, you found something that you think works for you. Great…have at it and be happy with 2.5 w/kg and 19 mph. But if you want people to take you seriously, you need to present evidence and not anecdotes and do it in a manner that is conducive to discussion.
3 Likes
Honestly, once you’ve said that, it’s time to just close the thread.
4 Likes