I'm almost through listening to this rather interesting book. It is a bit hyperbolic but I think it is grounded in some decent data and biochemical analysis and worth at least considering a dietary change. It is clear that the low fat advice of the early 2000s (when I was in residency) is not working out. The USA is sicker than it has ever been and we have to ask why.

Are sugar and vegetable oil the devil? I doubt it but it isn't too hard to cut back on all the crap that is on our store shelves.

Anyone else read this or have thoughts about the validity of this book?

https://drcate.com/deep-nutrition-why-your-genes-need-traditional-food/

ETA a book report of it:
"Deep Nutrition: Why Your Genes Need Traditional Food" by Dr. Catherine Shanahan and Luke Shanahan is a comprehensive exploration of how our dietary choices impact our health, genetics, and even the health of future generations[1][2][3]. The book presents a compelling argument for returning to traditional, whole-food diets and avoiding modern processed foods, particularly vegetable oils and sugar[1][3].

## Key Concepts

### Epigenetics and Genetic Expression

The book emphasizes the role of epigenetics, explaining how our diet can influence which genes are expressed or suppressed[1][2]. This concept extends beyond individual health, suggesting that our dietary choices can affect the genetic health of our offspring and future generations[3].

### The Four Pillars of World Cuisine

Dr. Shanahan identifies four key elements present in traditional diets worldwide:

1. Meat cooked on the bone
2. Organ meats
3. Fermented or sprouted foods
4. Fresh, unprocessed plant and animal products[1][2]

These pillars are presented as the foundation for optimal nutrition and genetic expression.

### Food as Information

The book introduces the concept of food as a language that communicates with our genes[1]. Natural, whole foods are described as providing uncorrupted messages that promote better health outcomes.

### Beauty and Health Connection

Dr. Shanahan explores the link between physical attractiveness and health, suggesting that beauty standards are rooted in indicators of good health[1].

## Critique of Modern Diet

The book strongly criticizes modern dietary trends, particularly:

1. The reliance on processed foods and sugars
2. The widespread use of vegetable oils, which are described as detrimental to brain health[2][3]
3. The misconception about saturated fats and cholesterol in relation to heart disease[2]

## Practical Advice

The book offers practical strategies for implementing a healthier diet, including:

- Avoiding vegetable oils and excess sugar[3][4]
- Incorporating the four pillars of world cuisine into meal planning[2]
- Prioritizing nutrient-dense, whole foods[1]
- Considering the importance of maternal diet before and during pregnancy[3]

## Scientific Basis

Dr. Shanahan draws on research from biochemistry, molecular biology, and her own medical practice to support her arguments[2]. The book challenges some conventional dietary wisdom, such as the role of cholesterol in heart disease[2][3].

## Reception and Impact

"Deep Nutrition" has been well-received by many readers and health professionals. It is often described as eye-opening and life-changing, particularly for those interested in improving their health through diet[3][4]. The book's emphasis on traditional foods and critique of modern processed foods aligns with other influential works in the field of nutrition, such as those by Dr. Weston A. Price[3].

In conclusion, "Deep Nutrition" presents a comprehensive argument for returning to traditional dietary practices, emphasizing the far-reaching impacts of our food choices on our health and genetic expression. While some of its claims challenge conventional dietary advice, the book offers a thought-provoking perspective on nutrition and health.

Citations:
[1] https://swiftread.com/books/deep-nutrition
[2] https://lifesapearl.com/year-of-health-update-deep-nutrition-in-march/
[3] https://wellnessmama.com/reviews/deep-nutrition-review/
[4] https://fourminutebooks.com/deep-nutrition-summary/
[5] https://lifeclub.org/books/deep-nutrition-catherine-shanahan-m-d-luke-shanahan-review-summary
[6] https://www.blinkist.com/en/books/deep-nutrition-en
[7] https://instaread.co/insights/health-fitness-diet-nutrition/deep-nutrition-book/7yd5i7v23d

Yes. I've posted a rec for it in a handful of threads. Her chart showing the various oils and how she feels about them is up in our pantry.

It should be on everyone's reading list if you're even semi interested in health. Especially if you have kids.

can you post/link chart?

I own this book but never got very far, so thanks for the reminder! I have a child with IBD and we use dietary therapy - I enjoy researching nutrition.

I'll check out the book, but I'll go ahead and start the discussion with this- It's all great and wonderful that we want to promote this kind of whole foods diet (which would be fine by me to follow to), but it won't happen everywhere. There is too much money in tasty processed foods, and they will never go away. You can't legislate it away because money still rules politics, and companies who make those foods have a lot of lobbying money.

So- in my not so humble opinion- the solution is finding the balance of wanting to maximize someone's exposure to whole foods, but still understanding that we live in a world of tasty processed foods- and they do have a place.
It ain't seed oils, and it aint a lack of fermented foods that are the problem . Blaming those things over all others is truly the definition of losing the forest for the trees.

True Anomaly said:

---

I'll check out the book, but I'll go ahead and start the discussion with this- It's all great and wonderful that we want to promote this kind of whole foods diet (which would be fine by me to follow to), but it won't happen everywhere. There is too much money in tasty processed foods, and they will never go away. You can't legislate it away because money still rules politics, and companies who make those foods have a lot of lobbying money.

So- in my not so humble opinion- the solution is finding the balance of wanting to maximize someone's exposure to whole foods, but still understanding that we live in a world of tasty processed foods- and they do have a place.
It ain't seed oils, and it aint a lack of fermented foods that are the problem . Blaming those things over all others is truly the definition of losing the forest for the trees.

---

Her goal isn't to make processed food go away. The goal is to educate people so they make better decisions. Just because companies spend a lot of money creating, marketing, and lobbying processed foods doesn't mean people have to buy the product.

Read the book and the history of Ancel Keyes, seed oils, PUFAs, etc. and the correlation to increased cardio vascular disease, cancer, and obesity. You don't have processed foods without seed oils. It's in literally everything.

There is another thread where a NIH white paper was posted. It outlines a similar case as this book.

Edit: I'll concede that ultra processed foods are generally a cheap source of calories. They may have a place in places where high calorie dense cheap foods are scarce, and the alternative is starving and malnutrition, but I don't think many places like that exist anymore. I believe it was why they were originally created back in the 50s/60s.

Hincemm said:

---

can you post/link chart?

---

https://drcate.com/list-of-good-fats-and-oils-versus-bad/

True Anomaly said:

---

I'll check out the book, but I'll go ahead and start the discussion with this- It's all great and wonderful that we want to promote this kind of whole foods diet (which would be fine by me to follow to), but it won't happen everywhere. There is too much money in tasty processed foods, and they will never go away. You can't legislate it away because money still rules politics, and companies who make those foods have a lot of lobbying money.

So- in my not so humble opinion- the solution is finding the balance of wanting to maximize someone's exposure to whole foods, but still understanding that we live in a world of tasty processed foods- and they do have a place.
It ain't seed oils, and it aint a lack of fermented foods that are the problem . Blaming those things over all others is truly the definition of losing the forest for the trees.

---

I think she overstates the evils of seed oils but she is smarter than I am and has looked into it more so I'm willing to try and eliminate them from my diet. Being a family practice doc + biochemical masters is a lot of knowledge. I actually enjoyed the biochem review especially of the lipid cycle.

Oof. Chicken nuggets on the don't eat list. Not sure my kids will survive without them haha we aren't perfect but we try to be more strict on ingredient lists when we do get things in the don't eat list. I'm sure the best answer is to just always avoid it but takes tough discipline.

MRB10 said:

---

True Anomaly said:

---

I'll check out the book, but I'll go ahead and start the discussion with this- It's all great and wonderful that we want to promote this kind of whole foods diet (which would be fine by me to follow to), but it won't happen everywhere. There is too much money in tasty processed foods, and they will never go away. You can't legislate it away because money still rules politics, and companies who make those foods have a lot of lobbying money.

So- in my not so humble opinion- the solution is finding the balance of wanting to maximize someone's exposure to whole foods, but still understanding that we live in a world of tasty processed foods- and they do have a place.
It ain't seed oils, and it aint a lack of fermented foods that are the problem . Blaming those things over all others is truly the definition of losing the forest for the trees.

---

Her goal isn't to make processed food go away. The goal is to educate people so they make better decisions. Just because companies spend a lot of money creating, marketing, and lobbying processed foods doesn't mean people have to buy the product.

Read the book and the history of Ancel Keyes, seed oils, PUFAs, etc. and the correlation to increased cardio vascular disease, cancer, and obesity. You don't have processed foods without seed oils. It's in literally everything.

There is another thread where a NIH white paper was posted. It outlines a similar case as this book.

Edit: I'll concede that ultra processed foods are generally a cheap source of calories. They may have a place in places where high calorie dense cheap foods are scarce, and the alternative is starving and malnutrition, but I don't think many places like that exist anymore. I believe it was why they were originally created back in the 50s/60s.

---

That's cool that she doesn't want to make them go away, cuz they definitely won't. My main issue with focusing on something like seed oils is that it completely loses the plot as to why processed foods can be bad for you. Which - to me- sends a continuously confusing message to the majority of people that they have ANOTHER thing to be afraid of- rather than understanding what the actual issue with processed foods are.

It's not the type of oil, or the type of sugar in processed foods. It's combining FAT and CARBS in a very tasty way that keeps you coming back for more. That magic combination of fat and carbs delivered in a tasty vehicle hits that dopamine buzzer more consistently than most other foods. And they're incredibly cheap. And widely available, no matter where you live or your income.

What I would hate to see is that for the next few years we **** around trying to ban seed oils, and yet companies will just replace it with another fat that tastes just as good and keeps their products flying off shelves. Cuz if you try to ban seed oils, that's what will happen.

KidDoc said:

---

True Anomaly said:

---

I'll check out the book, but I'll go ahead and start the discussion with this- It's all great and wonderful that we want to promote this kind of whole foods diet (which would be fine by me to follow to), but it won't happen everywhere. There is too much money in tasty processed foods, and they will never go away. You can't legislate it away because money still rules politics, and companies who make those foods have a lot of lobbying money.

So- in my not so humble opinion- the solution is finding the balance of wanting to maximize someone's exposure to whole foods, but still understanding that we live in a world of tasty processed foods- and they do have a place.
It ain't seed oils, and it aint a lack of fermented foods that are the problem . Blaming those things over all others is truly the definition of losing the forest for the trees.

---

I think she overstates the evils of seed oils but she is smarter than I am and has looked into it more so I'm willing to try and eliminate them from my diet. Being a family practice doc + biochemical masters is a lot of knowledge. I actually enjoyed the biochem review especially of the lipid cycle.

---

You're a clinician though. While biochemical pathways and mechanisms are important to understand, what ultimately matters is the actual clinical outcome.

Did body fat decrease? Did health markers improve? Does the patient feel better? At the end of the day, aren't those the three main factors that actually matter?

And if a diet purely done on seed oils can achieve this, then why are they bad again?

We found a brand without seed oils. Kids like them OK but not as much as Dino nuggets.

Perdue simply smart organics

I don't think many people who buy into her thought process would complain if the food manufacturers replaced seed oils with something healthier. Assuming whatever it is didn't have the oxidative and inflammatory effect polyunsaturated fatty acids do.

Potato chip companies have already started putting out chip versions with avocado oil instead of seed oils and many of them are delicious.

Yeah funny enough our kids have gotten so used to the Perdue nuggets that they won't eat typical restaurant or heavily breaded/fried versions out there which I'm not complaining about.

I haven't read the book, but everything in your post makes sense. Food is fuel for the body; cells need fuel to function and replicate. Protein are the molecules necessary for just about all bodily functions, and gene expression governs protein synthesis.

I've been reading/listening a lot lately about the ways various diets affect our health, and I'm in the high protein camp. Sounds like the diet described in this book would probably be protein-focused, and my thought is that would be the main driver behind changes in gene expression (more so than any one specific food or food ingredient).

And that's where I start to get frustrated with the current focus (not just politically, but I have a lot of friends who have been hyper-focused on this for a while).

Removing dyes or seed oils or artificial sweeteners, or any other ingredient some influencer has deemed "bad" does not make the foods that contain those ingredients "healthy". For the most part, the foods that contain those ingredients are ultra-processed convenience or "junk" foods that are high in carbs (and probably fat) and offer little protein or other micro-nutrients. In short, they are high-calorie, nutrient deficient foods.

The only solution to make Americans healthy is to 1) eat less and 2) eat less highly processed foods. If you do #2, you are almost guaranteed to achieve #1 by default.

As far as saturated fat is concerned, I think we are focusing on the wrong source of saturated fat. I was listening to a podcast the other day (Dr. Gabrielle Lyon interviewed Dr. Donald Layman), and I learned that carbs can only be metabolized by the body one of two ways 1) burned as energy or 2) stored as fat. I knew both of those facts, but evidently, the excess calories from carbs can only be stored as SATURATED fat.

Dr. Layman believes that the negative effects caused by saturated fat come, not from eating too much of it directly, but from eating excessive amounts of carbs (particularly processed carbs). He implied it's more difficult to get too much saturated fat from "unprocessed" (I use quotes because basically everything we buy is processed to some degree) protein sources because it's not palatable.

I think these messages that focus on specific ingredients just confuse people, and detract from the real problem and it's accompanying solution.

Americans eat too many calories, and an excessive amount of those calories come from ultra-processed foods high in carbs (and usually higher in fat, too). Converting from high fructose corn syrup to cane sugar or using only "natural" food dyes isn't going to change that fact.

I know eating less and losing weight is not easy, as what, how, and why any one person eats is really complicated and often tied to other life issues. I honestly think that only way out for some people are the GLP-1 medications, but there is still the issue of keeping the weight of long term (and teaching these people appropriate resistance training exercises so they can build their muscle mass).

True Anomaly said:

---

KidDoc said:

---

True Anomaly said:

---

I'll check out the book, but I'll go ahead and start the discussion with this- It's all great and wonderful that we want to promote this kind of whole foods diet (which would be fine by me to follow to), but it won't happen everywhere. There is too much money in tasty processed foods, and they will never go away. You can't legislate it away because money still rules politics, and companies who make those foods have a lot of lobbying money.

So- in my not so humble opinion- the solution is finding the balance of wanting to maximize someone's exposure to whole foods, but still understanding that we live in a world of tasty processed foods- and they do have a place.
It ain't seed oils, and it aint a lack of fermented foods that are the problem . Blaming those things over all others is truly the definition of losing the forest for the trees.

---

I think she overstates the evils of seed oils but she is smarter than I am and has looked into it more so I'm willing to try and eliminate them from my diet. Being a family practice doc + biochemical masters is a lot of knowledge. I actually enjoyed the biochem review especially of the lipid cycle.

---

You're a clinician though. While biochemical pathways and mechanisms are important to understand, what ultimately matters is the actual clinical outcome.

Did body fat decrease? Did health markers improve? Does the patient feel better? At the end of the day, aren't those the three main factors that actually matter?

And if a diet purely done on seed oils can achieve this, then why are they bad again?

---

The population data is clear that since the 60s we have gotten sicker as a population. That coincides with the food pyramid and low fat movement. It is biochemically reasonable to blame that on the explosion of sugar and inflammatory fats in our food supply. It is very hard to study in a systemic way on humans, just anecdotal cases unfortunately.

MRB10 said:

---

Potato chip companies have already started putting out chip versions with avocado oil instead of seed oils and many of them are delicious.

---

And this is why exchanging one oil for another will make no difference overall to their health- because it's still a salty tasty snack that the majority of people have trouble putting down. They overeat it and other now "healthy" processed snacks, and their diabetes and hypertension and obesity still continue to be a problem.

MRB10 said:

---

True Anomaly said:

---

MRB10 said:

---

Potato chip companies have already started putting out chip versions with avocado oil instead of seed oils and many of them are delicious.

---

And this is why exchanging one oil for another will make no difference overall to their health- because it's still a salty tasty snack that the majority of people have trouble putting down. They overeat it and other now "healthy" processed snacks, and their diabetes and hypertension and obesity still continue to be a problem.

---

We're taking about two different issues now. A propensity to overeat that leads to obesity is one issue with its own set of negative outcomes. The consumption of PUFAs(seed oils) is a different issue with its own set of negative outcomes(inflammation, oxidative stress, cell damage, etc.).

Switching out the oils definitely won't cure an eating addiction. However, the evidence she and a growing group of others presents absolutely suggests it helps with the second issue.

---

If you are eating a healthy diet and enjoying limited quantities of the foods that contain "questionable" ingredients, then the supposed negative outcomes from those ingredients are going to be minimized.

Let's take alcohol as an (somewhat) comparable example. If you consume minimal amounts of alcohol, your body metabolizes it properly and doesn't suffer any long-term effects. If you over-indulge - well we all know what happens.

Food - particularly ultra-processed foods - is the same.

Frankly, I think this country should take a long, hard look at alcohol consumption as part of the MAHA movement (I think alcohol is significantly contributing to obesity and chronic health problems), but that's a somewhat different discussion.

You're probably not wrong and it's near impossible to avoid the things she thinks people should remove if you have a social life/eat out. I agree about alcohol and go back and forth on permanent sobriety every time I'm paying for over indulgence.

Going back to kiddocs comment about how hard of a thing it is to study, I'm not sure we know whether there is a minimal amount of food derived inflammation/oxidative stress that the body tolerates, processes, etc. or not. Perhaps there is an amount we can handle with negligible impact to long term health outcomes, life expectancy, and risk of chronic metabolic disease but maybe there isn't. I'd like to see that data/analysis.

The evidence in the book definitely suggests any amount of these things isn't great, and less is absolutely preferable to more, so why not make food selection decisions that reduces the exposure if you can afford to?

KidDoc said:

---

TXTransplant said:

---

MRB10 said:

---

True Anomaly said:

---

MRB10 said:

---

Potato chip companies have already started putting out chip versions with avocado oil instead of seed oils and many of them are delicious.

---

And this is why exchanging one oil for another will make no difference overall to their health- because it's still a salty tasty snack that the majority of people have trouble putting down. They overeat it and other now "healthy" processed snacks, and their diabetes and hypertension and obesity still continue to be a problem.

---

We're taking about two different issues now. A propensity to overeat that leads to obesity is one issue with its own set of negative outcomes. The consumption of PUFAs(seed oils) is a different issue with its own set of negative outcomes(inflammation, oxidative stress, cell damage, etc.).

Switching out the oils definitely won't cure an eating addiction. However, the evidence she and a growing group of others presents absolutely suggests it helps with the second issue.

---

If you are eating a healthy diet and enjoying limited quantities of the foods that contain "questionable" ingredients, then the supposed negative outcomes from those ingredients are going to be minimized.

Let's take alcohol as an (somewhat) comparable example. If you consume minimal amounts of alcohol, your body metabolizes it properly and doesn't suffer any long-term effects. If you over-indulge - well we all know what happens.

Food - particularly ultra-processed foods - is the same.

Frankly, I think this country should take a long, hard look at alcohol consumption as part of the MAHA movement (I think alcohol is significantly contributing to obesity and chronic health problems), but that's a somewhat different discussion.

---

Alcohol certainly has a place in the discussion. But it is not contributing to the sky rocketing rates of childhood obesity, autoimmune disease, type 2 DM in children, and mental health crisis in kids which is what I have to deal with daily.

---

Completely agree. My comment about alcohol was specific to adults (which is why I called it out as a separate discussion).

As far as childhood obesity rates - given how many adults are overweight/obese and sedentary, it shouldn't be a surprise that their kids are too!

It's not like kids have the opportunity to entirely choose what they eat - they eat what their parents eat (and provide). Most adults have horrible diets, and they pass that on to their kids.

With that said I was an overweight child (not obese), but neither of my parents were overweight (at least not when I was growing up), nor was my sister. I definitely believe there is a genetic/metabolic component, but I grew up in the 80s and 90s - there was a lot of high calorie, processed food around, and I ate too much of it (my "full" meter doesn't register until I'm way past the point of too much).

The "heroin chic" trend of the 90s certainly didn't help me any, as extreme skinny was pushed as the goal, and the "solution" for that is to basically not eat. It's no wonder so many women my age are binge eaters. Deprivation will trigger that.

I eventually grew out of it as a late teen/early adult. Now that I'm in my mid-40s, though, I do have to watch what I eat and exercise in order to make sure I maintain a healthy weight. The two most important levers are 1) prioritizing protein and 2) portion control (with ALL foods, even "healthy" ones).

MRB10 said:

---

You're probably not wrong and it's near impossible to avoid the things she thinks people should remove if you have a social life/eat out. I agree about alcohol and go back and forth on permanent sobriety every time I'm paying for over indulgence.

Going back to kiddocs comment about how hard of a thing it is to study, I'm not sure we know whether there is a minimal amount of food derived inflammation/oxidative stress that the body tolerates, processes, etc. or not. Perhaps there is an amount we can handle with negligible impact to long term health outcomes, life expectancy, and risk of chronic metabolic disease but maybe there isn't. I'd like to see that data/analysis.

The evidence in the book definitely suggests any amount of these things isn't great, and less is absolutely preferable to more, so why not make food selection decisions that reduces the exposure if you can afford to?

---

If you want to reduce exposure, just don't eat the foods with the questionable ingredients. In this day and age, it's not difficult to do.

Personally, I'm skeptical when people throw around the term "inflammation". Inflammation is a normal process that occurs in the human body. The idea that you can eliminate it completely is fallacy (and would actually be harmful). It's like the use of the word "toxic" (or "toxins") - all real meaning has been lost because people use it inappropriately.

There are things that are good for our bodies that cause inflammation (ie, exercise).

Layne Norton has some great posts/videos on the topic. I think it's another one of those terms that is distracting people from the real issue - obesity causes numerous health issues, including inflammation.

I was a fat little kid with an awful diet. Pop tarts, coke, soda, a loving Cajun mom who was an incredible chef. Got lean with high school football then Aggie Lacrosse and put the lbs back on in medical school. At 52 I'm still too heavy but down a good 50 lbs from my peak in late 20's and in far better cardiovascular and muscular shape and all my labs are great.

I did have some issues in the last few years with sinusitis and reactive airways. Was on inhaler for a bit (off a year now) and just stopped Montelukast this week. Also had a history of exercise induced urticaria with negative allergy testing. I'm hoping that getting all the crude out of my daily diet will stop or help all the inflammatory problems.

If it helps trim down a bit that would be nifty too.

I'm also going to stop the atorvastatin I've been on for a while. My LDL was getting up to 170s several years ago and it is now sub 100. I thought I wasn't having side effects but the more I lift with Tonal it seems like it takes at least 24 hours longer than it should for me to recover and be ready to go again. That may just be age but I'm pretty sure it is atorvastatin. My HDL is always 80-100 so, per this book's theories, my LDL being 130-170 shouldn't really be a problem.

The more I listen to Gabrielle Lyon, Vonda Wright, and others, the more I believe that it's the combo of maintaining a healthy weight AND maintaining a healthy amount of lean muscle mass that is the key.

It's not about being "skinny" or even getting to a certain number on the scale. Eat to fuel your body, but build your muscles so that the calories you are consuming are going to maintain and build muscle and not the spare tire around your abdomen.

"Skinny" people can be unhealthy, too. I see this among women in my age group. Skin literally hanging off of bone because they have zero muscle. That's my concern with GLP-1s, if people aren't counseled properly.

Making the connection between what I eat, how I work out, and my body composition (not weight) has literally been life changing.

I have read the book and am following it (after finding out, at 49, that I have a 90% blocked LAD and 4 other > 50% coronary artery blockages). I would like to stress one point that is made in the book in regards to heart health. The new thinking is that small particle LDL is what causes arterial lesions. Her hypothesis is that oxidative stress from PUFAs ruins the protein layer on LDL and that is what causes the small particle LDL. She says the protein layer is part of what encodes information on the LDL of where it is supposed to go in terms of delivering fats and nutrients to cells. When that layer is damaged, the LDL particle sort of "gets lost" in the bloodstream (i.e. liver fails to reload them and they can't find the cells they were supposed to supply), so they shrink and lodge in the arterial walls.

One other thing to note is that while processed/seed oils are not great, they become oxidized and get much more unhealthy when heated and reheated. Hence, foods fried in these oils are much worse.

Bonfire97 said:

---

I have read the book and am following it (after finding out, at 49, that I have a 90% blocked LAD and 4 other > 50% coronary artery blockages). I would like to stress one point that is made in the book in regards to heart health. The new thinking is that small particle LDL is what causes arterial lesions. Her hypothesis is that oxidative stress from PUFAs ruins the protein layer on LDL and that is what causes the small particle LDL. She says the protein layer is part of what encodes information on the LDL of where it is supposed to go in terms of delivering fats and nutrients to cells. When that layer is damaged, the LDL particle sort of "gets lost" in the bloodstream (i.e. liver fails to reload them and they can't find the cells they were supposed to supply), so they shrink and lodge in the arterial walls.

One other thing to note is that while processed/seed oils are not great, they become oxidized and get much more unhealthy when heated and reheated. Hence, foods fried in these oils are much worse.

---

This makes A LOT of sense from a chemistry perspective.

Sorry for not clarifying, my comment about not being able to avoid seed oils when eating out was referring to places cooking with vegetable oil.

MRB10 said:

---

Sorry for not clarifying, my comment about not being able to avoid seed oils when eating out was referring to places cooking with vegetable oil.

---

Yeah, unfortunately, eating out a lot doesn't really fit with a healthy lifestyle in this country.

Restaurants cook with WAY more fat (even foods that aren't fried) than they need to, which makes restaurant meals way more caloric than they need to be. Factor in portion size, and you can easily exceed your daily caloric needs with one meal.

I've gotten to where's when I do eat out, I pretty much only get a salad with grilled protein (dressing on the side, and I use a very minimal amount) or some sort of grilled/baked/steamed seafood with veggies.

Fried dishes are out. I rarely eat pasta at all anymore. But I would not order a pasta dish at any US restaurant. Too heavy on the carbs and light on the protein.

I can't remember the last time I ate fast food. And whenever it was, I'm pretty sure it was Chik-Fil-A grilled nuggets.

For anyone serious about trying to lose weight and recomp their body, eating out has to be off the table (pun intended) until they get things under control. And then only in moderation.

I lump the vast majority of restaurant food in with ultra-processed snack ("junk") food and sugary desserts - allowable, but only in moderation.

Quote:

---

I lump the vast majority of restaurant food in with ultra-processed snack ("junk") food and sugary desserts - allowable, but only in moderation.

---

Yeah, same here. I guess I am dealing OK with the diet change, it's really the social aspect that sucks. I try and still go out to lunch with friends at work, but just limit it to once a week and end up getting a salad or something. There are a few things that aren't too bad - like the chicken bowl at Chipotle and a few other things. That's probably still not very healthy for you, but probably better than most.

TXTransplant said:

---

The more I listen to Gabrielle Lyon, Vonda Wright, and others, the more I believe that it's the combo of maintaining a healthy weight AND maintaining a healthy amount of lean muscle mass that is the key.

It's not about being "skinny" or even getting to a certain number on the scale. Eat to fuel your body, but build your muscles so that the calories you are consuming are going to maintain and build muscle and not the spare tire around your abdomen.

"Skinny" people can be unhealthy, too. I see this among women in my age group. Skin literally hanging off of bone because they have zero muscle. That's my concern with GLP-1s, if people aren't counseled properly.

Making the connection between what I eat, how I work out, and my body composition (not weight) has literally been life changing.

---

Agreed. Healthy body fat percentage along with a good amount of muscle mass is just about the best magic formula there is to help prevent or reduce incidence of chronic disease and all-cause mortality. Everything else is details that may or may not make a large difference depending on the individual person

Offered without comment.

LOL…this is how “heart healthy” canola oil is made

Toxic sludge

Bon appetit! pic.twitter.com/yT8k0FA5EG

— Carnivore Aurelius ©🥩 ☀️🦙 (@AlpacaAurelius) December 3, 2024

So, the company behind that post sells dietary supplements with, among other things, beef collagen and beef liver.

Funny they don't post videos of slaughterhouses or how their products are made.