Right, and I'm just saying why expend so much energy on a Gordian knot, when there's a much more effective, reasonable way to cut right through it? The puzzle is essentially saying, "how can I do a thing that is like the thing I'm trying to avoid doing." Just do the thing! 😅
No, it is not being debunked. People are just being fooled by the constant onslaught of industry-backed disinformation. The role of high saturated fat to unsaturated fat intake on cardiovascular disease is one of the most thoroughly tested areas of nutritional health, and the consensus from real experts is that saturated fat intake absolutely progresses cvd.
"There’s a lot of conflicting information about saturated fats. Should I eat them or not?
The American Heart Association recommends limiting saturated fats to less than 6% of total calories. Saturated fats are found in butter, cheese, red meat, other animal-based foods and tropical oils. Decades science has proven that saturated fats can raise your “bad” cholesterol and put you at higher risk for heart disease.
The more important thing to remember is the overall dietary pattern. Saturated fats are just one piece of the puzzle. Eating more fruits, vegetables and whole grains is a way to achieve an overall healthy eating pattern.
When you hear about the latest “diet of the day” or a new or odd-sounding theory about food, consider the source. The American Heart Association makes dietary recommendations only after carefully considering the latest scientific evidence."
(...) "Is saturated fat bad for you? A diet rich in saturated fats can drive up total cholesterol, and tip the balance toward more harmful LDL cholesterol, which prompts blockages to form in arteries in the heart and elsewhere in the body. For that reason, most nutrition experts recommend limiting saturated fat to under 10% of calories a day."
(...) "Eating polyunsaturated fats in place of saturated fats or highly refined carbohydrates reduces harmful LDL cholesterol and improves the cholesterol profile. It also lowers triglycerides."
And I'm choosing to focus on meta-analyses here to highlight the sheer volume of studies that have, and continue to be done on this subject.
"Results: Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and seven in the meta-analysis. Our results showed an association between OO consumption and reduction in all-cause mortality (HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.80-0.91), cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.76-0.93) and cancer mortality (HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.86-0.93). Conclusions: Consumption of OO particularly reduces cardiovascular mortality (16%), followed by all-cause mortality (15%) and cancer mortality (11%) in the adult population. However, further studies are needed to clarify the underlying mechanisms."
"Fifty-four trials were included in the NMA. Safflower oil had the highest SUCRA value for LDL-C (82%) and TC (90%), followed by rapeseed oil (76% for LDL-C, 85% for TC); whereas, palm oil (74%) had the highest SUCRA value for TG, and coconut oil (88%) for HDL-C. Safflower, sunflower, rapeseed, flaxseed, corn, olive, soybean, palm, and coconut oil as well beef fat were more effective in reducing LDL-C (-0.42 to -0.23 mmol/l) as compared with butter. Despite limitations in these data, our NMA findings are in line with existing evidence on the metabolic effects of fat and support current recommendations to replace high saturated-fat food with unsaturated oils."
"This meta-analysis of randomised controlled feeding trials provides evidence that dietary macronutrients have diverse effects on glucose-insulin homeostasis. In comparison to carbohydrate, SFA, or MUFA, most consistent favourable effects were seen with PUFA, which was linked to improved glycaemia, insulin resistance, and insulin secretion capacity."
"The results of this review suggest that CO consumptionhas beneficial effects on LDL-c, TC, and LDL-c/HDL-c ratio compared to OO. Therefore, its replacement with OO can have cardioprotective impacts."
"Our findings indicate that a shift from animal-based (e.g., red and processed meat, eggs, dairy, poultry, butter) to plant-based (e.g., nuts, legumes, whole grains, olive oil) foods is beneficially associated with cardiometabolic health and all-cause mortality."
"Prospective studies supported a beneficial association of olive oil consumption with CVD, T2D and all-cause mortality, but they did not show any association with cancer risk."
"The findings of this updated review suggest that reducing saturated fat intake for at least two years causes a potentially important reduction in combined cardiovascular events. Replacing the energy from saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat or carbohydrate appear to be useful strategies, while effects of replacement with monounsaturated fat are unclear. The reduction in combined cardiovascular events resulting from reducing saturated fat did not alter by study duration, sex or baseline level of cardiovascular risk, but greater reduction in saturated fat caused greater reductions in cardiovascular events."
"Palm oil consumption results in higher LDL cholesterol than do vegetable oils low in saturated fat and higher HDL cholesterol than do trans fat-containing oils in humans. The effects of palm oil on blood lipids are as expected on the basis of its high saturated fat content, which supports the reduction in palm oil use by replacement with vegetable oils low in saturated and trans fat."
ethically speaking, lard being derived from pigs makes it automatically wrong to use, as well as being a contributor to the environmental and zoonitic disease problems that are inherent in animal agriculture.
But even purely from a health standpoint, lard is absolutely not healthy. It's extremely high in saturated fats making it one of the worst choices for anyone trying to manage their heart health.
And don't even start with that seed oil pseudoscientific fad nonsense. That garbage is thoroughly debunked.
Yeah I've debated with antinatalists who used that argument. It's definitely an absurd stance on the face of it, though some aspects are worth considering. For example if you struggle significantly with cognitive disorders, and life is hell for you, you might want to ask yourself if it's a good idea to bring someone in the world who very likely will experience a similar hell. And of course socioeconomic concerns matter too. I've only ever had entry-level jobs, and owning my own house kind of feels like a distant dream, so having children is practically infeasible. Plus the whole living in what's shaping up to be an all out fascist dictatorship thing.
Agreed. It's depressing that everyone who continues relying on animal products and exploitation have so many psychological barriers put up to even facing and contemplating the other animal atrocities openly. It becomes more heart-wrenching the more you think about it.
Some perspective is important here. From the point of view of the average person, what a vegan might call the "carnist" worldview, there's a cultural perception that being vegan is a kind of monolithic puritanical religion. As if to live a life without using animal products is comparable to the self-flagellations of the penitent Christian.
But it has to be recognized, that perception is a stereotype perpetuated from outside perspectives looking in. Inexperience vs experience.
In real life, there is constant disagreement and debate among vegans, so definitely not a monolith. With today's food options (at least in western countries), there's nothing puritanical or self-punishing about living a vegan lifestyle - to the point that "junkfood vegan" is a badge of pride from some. At the end of the day we're just regular people, like everyone else. All we've done is decided that other animals should have basic universal rights, and then we try to live in accord with that.
While cultured meat really could be a game changer (as long as it's being done in a way that doesn't exploit and harm animals in and of itself), let's not forget that plants in and of themselves are amazing, right now.
That's a good general direction. But all the more reason to push for those things now, and then.
Also, saying it's impossible under capitalism somewhat doesn't give the animal liberation movements the credit they deserve. It's worth looking into the history of veganism. While there have been plenty of people and groups in virtually every culture who were either vegan-adjacent or somewhere in the same direction, the vegan movement is quite recent in the grand scheme of things. Any snapshot of where we're at might make it seem like we're small and insignificant, but the growth of the movement has been quite rapid when looking at the big picture.
We're just still in the early stages. But even 10 years ago was way different. Far fewer plant-based options. Far less awareness of the horror of factory farms. A lot less visibility in general. Now it's getting harder for people to ignore us.
The prevalence of people telling everyone not to have kids in the context of our current culture is weird.
Alt-right: "Hey we're trying to have as many kids as possible so there's more of us, and less of you. Do us a favor and don't have kids."
Evidently a lot of people on the left: "Sounds good dude."
May I propose a reasonable alternative? If you don't want to have kids, cool, don't have kids. If you want to have kids, have the financial and social security to do so responsibly, and a partner who wants the same thing, then have kids (but also go vegan, ride a bike, and raise them to do the same).
Taste is subjective and adapts to what you eat. I didn't particularly care for tofu at first, but it only took eating it a few times to start actively liking it (part of which has to do with getting better at cooking it).
Yeah commie definitely materializes every time the subject of animal rights comes up on here, and always has the most tired, long-debunked takes on it. Maybe trying to take a page from the alt-right: repeat a lie enough and it becomes truth.
It's less macabre than that.
https://www.tastingtable.com/863664/the-unexpected-number-of-cows-a-single-burgers-meat-could-come-from/