That study you linked was done in animals, and I have a feeling it was dug up to support the notion that keto is in any way shape or form, good for you.
Based on advice from certain experts like Rhonda Patrick and various anecdotes from others I think the combination of sugar and fat in particular exacerbates the damaging effects of both.
This study seems to focus on one variable, but there may be all sorts of bias in that those who consume a lot of saturated fat also have poor nutrition otherwise and lead unhealthier lives overall.
That might just be that together they are particularly palatable. You would have a hard job eating a bowl of sugar or a bowl of cream but mix them together and it's much easier.
I'm Over 40 and my body is showing it. I've done quite a lot of health research over the past few years. My personal metric at the moment is to lower my cholesterol and have been moderately successful without medication, so I think I'm doing something at least partially right.
I think the beneficial geeky rules of thumbs for healthy living that are simple rather than perfect, are:
1. One needs in ones diet
1.1 Protein
1.2 Fiber
1.3 Carbohydrates
1.4 Fats
1.5 Vitamins
3. Generally avoid food with:
3.1 Fast sugars
3.2 High inflammatory index
3.3 High saturated fat content
4. Don't eat more than you consume.
5. For exercise, as the bare minimum, try to walk at least 8000 steps per day or equivalent. This will statistically reduce mortality considerably.
6. Sleep enough
7. Don't stress about the above rules! Pay attention, but don't judge - yourself or others.
8. Look into other stuff that's probably good for you like stretches, breathing exercises and strength exercises.
These are not hard and fast rules. But things that one can pay attention to, and through self observation perhaps make slow adjustments.
So don't stop eating burgers, but pay attention to the number of calories you eat, and of what the calories are composed of. Eat what you like, but don't delude yourself.
For geeks metrological devices may offer motivation. I have a bracelet that measures my steps and my sleep, and I feel it as a successful facilitation tool. But don't treat the device as a life coach, or the numbers as something that you should strive to optimize.
4. will (literally) kill you because your metabolism slows down as you age and you have to choose between obesity and eating much, much less. Exercise helps but will only get you so far.
In my 20s I would eat ~1000 calorie meals with an entire pizza, salad, rich dressing, and a big slab of chocolate fudge cake. I was never slim, but I wasn't obese either.
If I tried that today I'd be breaking the scales in a few months.
Having to cut down on food a lot has been one of the hardest adjustments to make. Quite a few of my friends have never managed it and they're now dangerously beyond a reasonable weight.
There are hundreds of links on HN about fasting. You cannot lose fat without first depleting glycogen stores. You can exercise these stores away and then in the absence of further caloric input your body turns to fat stores. Or if you fast, the absence of caloric input means your body will naturally burn its glycogen stores (takes longer if you aren’t exercising, for obvious reasons).
I think most people would disagree with your definition of "quite simple".
Going from three meals a day to a 16:8 eating pattern (16 hrs fasting, 8 hrs eating window) isn't too bad. It's basically skipping breakfast. Shortening the eating window until you're eating one meal a day is tougher. Then extending the fasting period > 24 hrs is tougher still. You can't just jump into this stuff while you're carb-addicted and your body is screaming for glucose. Getting used to a keto-style diet, even if your carb intake is just low but not keto-low, helps a lot.
If you're a somewhat lazy young person like I was, falling into a one-meal daily routine could just happen due to a busy daily schedule. Unfortunately I also managed to put on weight during that time, so my meals of choice were probably non-optimal and probably too large.
I stand by that most people should be able to do it, as long as they can get over the hangry phase.
As someone who's over 35 and has dropped from obese to normal BMI, I can say it's absolutely possible to keep the metabolism running fast. However, at least for me, it's quite difficult and always has been.
Very quickly I'll go from eating a huge number of calories in a bulk phase, start cutting, and watch as over ~10-12 weeks as I need fewer calories each week to achieve a steady fat loss. After about 12 weeks of cutting fat I've gone from needing X calories to lose a pound a week, down to needing only 0.5X. At this point, I'm eating very few total calories. So I stop, and spend another 10-12 weeks slowly adding calories back in along with vigorous exercise until I'm gaining a steady half pound a week (maybe 50/50 fat/muscle). I'll rise up in weight about half of what was lost in the cutting phase, but ideally only about 1/4 of the fat lost. Once my total calories is back to a very high starting point, I'll start the cut again. This is the "secret weapon". I've lost a huge amount of body fat since starting this program, and my shoulders and legs are starting to stretch seams.
I came to this program after ~10 years of trial and error, but it works wonders.
If you need a starting point, Renaissance Periodization has some very expensive templates that can help a person get started with this. Or, just buy a scale, measure and weigh everything, and start cycling cut and bulk cycles every 10 weeks or so. Always aim for a pound lost a week, continuously dropping calories to maintain that rate, then bulk for 10 weeks, aiming to gain 0.5 pound a week along with strength training, adding calories each week to achieve that goal. Also, when cutting, long slow calorie burning like rucking, hiking, cycling, or swimming is perfect to help keep the daily calorie levels high. If not for those, I'd find my total daily intake to be unpleasantly low.
Nope. Your metabolism is related to your current weight, unless you have some specific diseases.
You probably don’t remember your actual activity level from the past.
The proposals to consume a large percentage of daily intake of calories in form of fats, but avoid saturated fats, are not mutually exclusive.
There are sources with high fat content but low amount of saturated fats like like salmon or olive oil. Animal fat with high saturated fat content is not the only alternative.
For example, salmon or egg has 3% content saturated fats. Beef has 6%, and as ground beef with delicious fat added to make the burger patties more delicious, the content can go up to 10%.
Correlational studies are inherently flawed when you have something as complex as diet. It's probably quite true that in a random sample of 80,000 health care workers in America, the people with more grease in their diets drop dead faster. It doesn't happen in France, Spain etc etc. Meaning it probably has nothing to do with saturated fatty acids, and probably much to do with whatever goes along with it. Who knows what it actually is? Soybean oil, wonder bread, dunkin doughnuts, HFCS, diet coke, being disgustingly overweight, never walking anywhere, granola, fruit juice (bleh -sugar water), dietary iron, twinkies, nacho "cheese," brined ham, trail mix, marshmallows, potato chips, microwave popcorn, soy protein -any number of things the Frogs and Spaniards don't eat or do, but fat Americans do. Using linear regression, grease/saturated fat probably correlates well with all this other garbage, and with dropping dead sooner, assuming you censor out other world populations with different national diet tendencies. Of course including Spaniards in the data set, you get a different answer.
It's a nice story, but it's about as likely as brie causing fewer realized CHD deaths. There's no way you could deconvolute either from their diet; the red wine meme is probably just upper middle class people telling each other their vices are healthy.
The "French paradox" isn't the only one indicating the statistics are horse shit on saturated fat: consider the Israeli paradox.
Yeah the red wine health benefits were denied recently when the underlying study failed to take account for other variables such as social class and lifestyles. Amazing how flawed some of the old studies are. Wouldn’t be surprised if somehow the alcohol lobby was involved back then
The idea that moderate drinking is protective for the heart is the result of studies that looked at mortality in relation to wine consumption but did not control for participants who had stopped drinking because they already had an underlying condition.
In at least one study (can dig it out if wanted) the result was that it looked as if moderate drinking was associated with better cardiovascular outcomes than no drinking at all (as well as drinking too much) because the people who didn't drink at all had stopped drinking on doctors' orders, essentially.
More recent studies have excluded participants with underlying heart conditions and the effect disappeared. Again, I can dig out the links if required (but it'll take me a bit of work).
That was my first thought that wine drinkers tend to richer, so live longer. But when I looked deeper, those studies actually controlled for various factors including income and education.
Personally, I think the biggest factor is a primarily sedentary lifestyle, which could be the exacerbating factor that multiplies the negative effects of sugar and saturated fats intake.
We're spending more collective time as a society sitting on our butts than ever before, so many people drive everywhere instead of walking or riding a bike. We can get everything delivered to our homes instead of having to go to a store, walk around and pick it out ourselves. So much more happens purely online now, even something as simple as going to the corner store to rent a movie is a thing of the past.
All of these things used to add up to at least some physical exercise. Perhaps not ideal amounts, but it got people moving at least. Obviously this is not universal, a lot of people still do get their movement and fresh air, but my thinking is that it's less than ever before, combined with access to high-calorie food that is also easier than ever before.
So in that sense, physical activity, or the lack of it, is the force multiplier in regards to one's diet. I try to get at least 30 minutes of some sort of activity in every day, and preferably more. Just a walk outside or cleaning the apartment or doing a project. Most days I walk to the stores to shop, as a conscious choice to get my physical activity covered.
The "secret" is that they're not actually eating that much sauce béarnaise, rich cheeses or decadent gâteaus, nor are they binging on red wine constantly.
Sauce béarnaise is supposed to be served in rather small amounts, being an extremely rich and flavorful sauce when made in the traditional way, so a small amount provides the desired amount of taste to a dish.
It's all a matter of savoring small amounts of high-quality and extremely flavorful food, as treats rather than everyday snacks or baseline meals.
High-quality studies don't just do a linear regression. For instance, it's possible to control for confounding factors by keeping a factor constant and varying others, in a regression model. I believe this was for example done in studies that showed the correlation between smoking and lung cancer, or high blood pressure and heart disease and so on.
In any case, when faced with a large body of literature with some conflicting results the thing to do is to look at reviews or meta-analyses. From my reading there is no argument that the majority of meta-analyses show a strong correlation between high levels of saturated fats in the diet and high incidence of cardiovascular disease- and if I remember correctly, even the so-called "French paradox" is not observed in high-quality reviews and meta-analyses, but only in smaller studies.
Note also (from the linked paper):
>> The French paradox concept was formulated by French epidemiologists3 in the 1980s.
In a similar manner, you can find many studies showing benefits from the consumption of olive oil, but the majority of them are from Spanish, Greek and Italian research teams (I'm Greek. Perhaps not everyone has the same context as me but the number of times I've heard Greeks say how healthy olive oil is... And how red wine is good for the heart. Greece, of course, produces both).
Great, now let’s stop pretending that meat dairy and eggs are health foods and that low carb high fat diets are ideal for you, particularly here on the usually-scientific HN. We’ve known of a direct causal link between high saturated fat intake and heart disease for years but this study (published in 2016 by the way) should be the nail in the coffin on the idea that high saturated animal fat is healthy.
Too much saturated fat is a statistical killer in some populations, sure.
Please investigate the ratio of saturated fats in the food produce you highlighted before making quite coarse statements.
The saturated fat content typically in egg (3% saturated fats) and for example, ground beef with 30% fat content (10% saturated fats) is quite different.
Fat content of industrially produced dairy products can vary quite a lot as well.
So it's quite different thing to eat all of calories for example from butter (50% saturated fat of total weight) or lean ground beef.
In HNs defense, dietary science is a minefield of special interest groups, small sample sizes, animal models and poor controls. Not to mention the editorializing of every p < 0.05 by the media and bloggers, along with all of the n=1 anecdotes. Its so much harder to find valid reliable sources than to find sombody with a book to sell.
The other problem is that people want a silver bullet. Being told to eat a varied diet with enough macro and micro nutrients is less satisfying than being told that "the thing you want to eat is good and you should cut back on the things you enjoy less".
What's this supposed direct causal link? Total cholesterol, like we believed before? Or LDL cholesterol, like we believe now?
Or none of the above, like the the failed drugs (other than statins) that reduce LDL and improve the ratio between LDL and HDL, but have 0 effect on heart disease outcomes[0]?
Do not forget that many (most?) people here are quite young; in your 20s you can basically eat whatever and not notice it. Let's check people who kept it up for 30+ years. If they exist as I don't think many do anything with diet beyond the fad unless they have something like Crohn's.
> But it also allows lots of other things with high saturated and low unsaturated fat. Red meat (but not chicken or pork; most chickens and pigs are fed high-PUFA feed that gives them high-PUFA meat)
That the healthiness of meat depends on what the animals in turn ate. This seems an understudied thing. How are today's animals different from the ones great grandpa ate?
The US subsidises corn, so has a surfeit of corn, so they feed a lot of corn to animals. This gives US animals a different profile to say, Australian grass fed animals (although obviously Australia also sometimes finishes animals on grain, but it isn't corn much).
All in all dietary studies are a total shit show of confounding variables even when done incredibly well. Then there are the thousands a year that are not done well, but if they have the right headline get coverage.
From a statistical perspective, the effect size is very small... all hazard ratios are very close to 1.
It implies that saturated fat consumption is not strongly associated with the outcome.
If I am going to trust a random internet comment, I would prefer to trust the conclusions of the actual paper.
They say just the opposite, that saturated fats (SFAs) are associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease:
"Conclusions. Higher dietary intakes of major SFAs are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. Owing to similar associations and high correlations among individual SFAs, dietary recommendations for the prevention of coronary heart disease should continue to focus on replacing total saturated fat with more healthy sources of energy."
The comment is not referring to whether they are associated, but by how much, i.e., effect size.
These type of studies aren’t very useful anyway because nutrition is super complex and full of interacting variables. It’s much more likely that the causality is actually between a number of other underlying factors that are correlated with higher saturated fat intake.
I've tried giving up various things and giving up sugar just makes fat drop off you. Saturated fat made no difference. I'm pretty convinced sugar is the main problem in modern diets. It doesn't make sense that a type of fat that would have been available since caveperson times would be so bad for us, and we know the sugar industry tried to deflect the blame onto saturated fat (and probably that is ongoing)
But the article concerned heart disease, not weight, and saturated fat, not sugar. So there isn't much to suggest that removing sugar is not a good thing, and that removing saturated fat is not also a good thing.
And perhaps our digestive and circulatory system evolved remarkably well to keep us running decades past our reproductive years mostly regardless of meal composition.
It's a correlative study. It's not as if they did a randomized clinical trial and fed sat fats with no sugar to a group of humans for 40 years. There are so many confounding variables when it comes to nutrition, all studies should be taken with a grain of salt (not too much, you don't want to overdo your sodium intake).
When you look at the studies about nutrition you find a lot of contradictory conclusions except when it's about sugar.
Saturated fats may be bad, yes, but sugar is undoubtedly bad.
When I'm asked about nutrition tips removing sugar is the first thing I suggest. Not matter if we're talking about losing weight, gaining weight, building muscle or simply eating healthy.
48 comments
[ 0.20 ms ] story [ 182 ms ] thread"High fat or 'ketogenic' diets could prevent, reverse heart failure"
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-10-high-fat-ketogenic-di...
This study seems to focus on one variable, but there may be all sorts of bias in that those who consume a lot of saturated fat also have poor nutrition otherwise and lead unhealthier lives overall.
That might just be that together they are particularly palatable. You would have a hard job eating a bowl of sugar or a bowl of cream but mix them together and it's much easier.
I'm Over 40 and my body is showing it. I've done quite a lot of health research over the past few years. My personal metric at the moment is to lower my cholesterol and have been moderately successful without medication, so I think I'm doing something at least partially right.
I think the beneficial geeky rules of thumbs for healthy living that are simple rather than perfect, are:
1. One needs in ones diet 1.1 Protein 1.2 Fiber 1.3 Carbohydrates 1.4 Fats 1.5 Vitamins
2. Prefer foods with: 2.1 Unsaturated fats like olive oil, salmon, etc 2.2 Fibers
3. Generally avoid food with: 3.1 Fast sugars 3.2 High inflammatory index 3.3 High saturated fat content
4. Don't eat more than you consume.
5. For exercise, as the bare minimum, try to walk at least 8000 steps per day or equivalent. This will statistically reduce mortality considerably.
6. Sleep enough
7. Don't stress about the above rules! Pay attention, but don't judge - yourself or others.
8. Look into other stuff that's probably good for you like stretches, breathing exercises and strength exercises.
These are not hard and fast rules. But things that one can pay attention to, and through self observation perhaps make slow adjustments.
So don't stop eating burgers, but pay attention to the number of calories you eat, and of what the calories are composed of. Eat what you like, but don't delude yourself.
For geeks metrological devices may offer motivation. I have a bracelet that measures my steps and my sleep, and I feel it as a successful facilitation tool. But don't treat the device as a life coach, or the numbers as something that you should strive to optimize.
In my 20s I would eat ~1000 calorie meals with an entire pizza, salad, rich dressing, and a big slab of chocolate fudge cake. I was never slim, but I wasn't obese either.
If I tried that today I'd be breaking the scales in a few months.
Having to cut down on food a lot has been one of the hardest adjustments to make. Quite a few of my friends have never managed it and they're now dangerously beyond a reasonable weight.
However, it does also have an air of "this one trick will solve obesity!", which should be viewed with skepticism.
Going from three meals a day to a 16:8 eating pattern (16 hrs fasting, 8 hrs eating window) isn't too bad. It's basically skipping breakfast. Shortening the eating window until you're eating one meal a day is tougher. Then extending the fasting period > 24 hrs is tougher still. You can't just jump into this stuff while you're carb-addicted and your body is screaming for glucose. Getting used to a keto-style diet, even if your carb intake is just low but not keto-low, helps a lot.
I stand by that most people should be able to do it, as long as they can get over the hangry phase.
Check out these two things that come to mind, both cite an extensive list of studies:
- https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM
- https://youtu.be/tIuj-oMN-Fk
Very quickly I'll go from eating a huge number of calories in a bulk phase, start cutting, and watch as over ~10-12 weeks as I need fewer calories each week to achieve a steady fat loss. After about 12 weeks of cutting fat I've gone from needing X calories to lose a pound a week, down to needing only 0.5X. At this point, I'm eating very few total calories. So I stop, and spend another 10-12 weeks slowly adding calories back in along with vigorous exercise until I'm gaining a steady half pound a week (maybe 50/50 fat/muscle). I'll rise up in weight about half of what was lost in the cutting phase, but ideally only about 1/4 of the fat lost. Once my total calories is back to a very high starting point, I'll start the cut again. This is the "secret weapon". I've lost a huge amount of body fat since starting this program, and my shoulders and legs are starting to stretch seams.
I came to this program after ~10 years of trial and error, but it works wonders.
If you need a starting point, Renaissance Periodization has some very expensive templates that can help a person get started with this. Or, just buy a scale, measure and weigh everything, and start cycling cut and bulk cycles every 10 weeks or so. Always aim for a pound lost a week, continuously dropping calories to maintain that rate, then bulk for 10 weeks, aiming to gain 0.5 pound a week along with strength training, adding calories each week to achieve that goal. Also, when cutting, long slow calorie burning like rucking, hiking, cycling, or swimming is perfect to help keep the daily calorie levels high. If not for those, I'd find my total daily intake to be unpleasantly low.
https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/met.2016.0108
There are sources with high fat content but low amount of saturated fats like like salmon or olive oil. Animal fat with high saturated fat content is not the only alternative.
For example, salmon or egg has 3% content saturated fats. Beef has 6%, and as ground beef with delicious fat added to make the burger patties more delicious, the content can go up to 10%.
Butter has saturated fat content of 50%.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
Correlational studies are inherently flawed when you have something as complex as diet. It's probably quite true that in a random sample of 80,000 health care workers in America, the people with more grease in their diets drop dead faster. It doesn't happen in France, Spain etc etc. Meaning it probably has nothing to do with saturated fatty acids, and probably much to do with whatever goes along with it. Who knows what it actually is? Soybean oil, wonder bread, dunkin doughnuts, HFCS, diet coke, being disgustingly overweight, never walking anywhere, granola, fruit juice (bleh -sugar water), dietary iron, twinkies, nacho "cheese," brined ham, trail mix, marshmallows, potato chips, microwave popcorn, soy protein -any number of things the Frogs and Spaniards don't eat or do, but fat Americans do. Using linear regression, grease/saturated fat probably correlates well with all this other garbage, and with dropping dead sooner, assuming you censor out other world populations with different national diet tendencies. Of course including Spaniards in the data set, you get a different answer.
The "French paradox" isn't the only one indicating the statistics are horse shit on saturated fat: consider the Israeli paradox.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_paradox
In at least one study (can dig it out if wanted) the result was that it looked as if moderate drinking was associated with better cardiovascular outcomes than no drinking at all (as well as drinking too much) because the people who didn't drink at all had stopped drinking on doctors' orders, essentially.
More recent studies have excluded participants with underlying heart conditions and the effect disappeared. Again, I can dig out the links if required (but it'll take me a bit of work).
We're spending more collective time as a society sitting on our butts than ever before, so many people drive everywhere instead of walking or riding a bike. We can get everything delivered to our homes instead of having to go to a store, walk around and pick it out ourselves. So much more happens purely online now, even something as simple as going to the corner store to rent a movie is a thing of the past.
All of these things used to add up to at least some physical exercise. Perhaps not ideal amounts, but it got people moving at least. Obviously this is not universal, a lot of people still do get their movement and fresh air, but my thinking is that it's less than ever before, combined with access to high-calorie food that is also easier than ever before.
So in that sense, physical activity, or the lack of it, is the force multiplier in regards to one's diet. I try to get at least 30 minutes of some sort of activity in every day, and preferably more. Just a walk outside or cleaning the apartment or doing a project. Most days I walk to the stores to shop, as a conscious choice to get my physical activity covered.
Sauce béarnaise is supposed to be served in rather small amounts, being an extremely rich and flavorful sauce when made in the traditional way, so a small amount provides the desired amount of taste to a dish.
It's all a matter of savoring small amounts of high-quality and extremely flavorful food, as treats rather than everyday snacks or baseline meals.
They are not fat if anyone wonders nor are some super great exception as far as I know.
A cup of wine (assuming a literal cup, so 280ml) is probably on the higher end of what is advisable, but not horrible.
I also assume they're not snacking constantly outside of meals, which makes a huge difference.
I did not said I see any of that horrible. AFAIK, cheese is good thing to eat. I don't know why you insist on minimizing it.
Quality over quantity.
In any case, when faced with a large body of literature with some conflicting results the thing to do is to look at reviews or meta-analyses. From my reading there is no argument that the majority of meta-analyses show a strong correlation between high levels of saturated fats in the diet and high incidence of cardiovascular disease- and if I remember correctly, even the so-called "French paradox" is not observed in high-quality reviews and meta-analyses, but only in smaller studies.
Note also (from the linked paper):
>> The French paradox concept was formulated by French epidemiologists3 in the 1980s.
In a similar manner, you can find many studies showing benefits from the consumption of olive oil, but the majority of them are from Spanish, Greek and Italian research teams (I'm Greek. Perhaps not everyone has the same context as me but the number of times I've heard Greeks say how healthy olive oil is... And how red wine is good for the heart. Greece, of course, produces both).
Please investigate the ratio of saturated fats in the food produce you highlighted before making quite coarse statements.
The saturated fat content typically in egg (3% saturated fats) and for example, ground beef with 30% fat content (10% saturated fats) is quite different.
Fat content of industrially produced dairy products can vary quite a lot as well.
So it's quite different thing to eat all of calories for example from butter (50% saturated fat of total weight) or lean ground beef.
The other problem is that people want a silver bullet. Being told to eat a varied diet with enough macro and micro nutrients is less satisfying than being told that "the thing you want to eat is good and you should cut back on the things you enjoy less".
Or none of the above, like the the failed drugs (other than statins) that reduce LDL and improve the ratio between LDL and HDL, but have 0 effect on heart disease outcomes[0]?
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/13/business/eli-lilly-abando...
> But it also allows lots of other things with high saturated and low unsaturated fat. Red meat (but not chicken or pork; most chickens and pigs are fed high-PUFA feed that gives them high-PUFA meat)
That the healthiness of meat depends on what the animals in turn ate. This seems an understudied thing. How are today's animals different from the ones great grandpa ate?
The US subsidises corn, so has a surfeit of corn, so they feed a lot of corn to animals. This gives US animals a different profile to say, Australian grass fed animals (although obviously Australia also sometimes finishes animals on grain, but it isn't corn much).
All in all dietary studies are a total shit show of confounding variables even when done incredibly well. Then there are the thousands a year that are not done well, but if they have the right headline get coverage.
They say just the opposite, that saturated fats (SFAs) are associated with increased risk of coronary heart disease:
"Conclusions. Higher dietary intakes of major SFAs are associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease. Owing to similar associations and high correlations among individual SFAs, dietary recommendations for the prevention of coronary heart disease should continue to focus on replacing total saturated fat with more healthy sources of energy."
These type of studies aren’t very useful anyway because nutrition is super complex and full of interacting variables. It’s much more likely that the causality is actually between a number of other underlying factors that are correlated with higher saturated fat intake.
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
And perhaps our digestive and circulatory system evolved remarkably well to keep us running decades past our reproductive years mostly regardless of meal composition.
Saturated fats may be bad, yes, but sugar is undoubtedly bad.
When I'm asked about nutrition tips removing sugar is the first thing I suggest. Not matter if we're talking about losing weight, gaining weight, building muscle or simply eating healthy.