Oh for goodness sake...

[Pinkmug]

What the doll's back?? My doll's detection kit has been activated

Anyway i smelled some flaming and said to myself "someone is wrong on the internet"!!



Well, on the subject at hand.

An, I agree with you in that if you eat more than you burn, you get fat. That said, I agree with Goblyn et al. If you eat low-fat dairy, you're gonna miss the satiety factor of fat. Soon you'll be eating 3 low-fat yogurts instead of a full-fat one.  So let's say 180 calories instead of 120. Add to these extra 60 calories all the extra calories you'll be getting from drinking more low fat milk than you should, low fat cream, etc etc and for eating more carbs to make up for satiety, etc. Even if it's just an extra 100 calories a day, you'll be one pound heavier by the end of a month, 12 pounds at the end of a year, and there you have the obesity plague. Sure you can say - don't eat 3 yogurt eat just one - but a-ha, there's where the hunger factor and the feeling of deprivation factor come in and screw up the diet. (Been there done that). Peace out!

[An Alchemist]

Guess I touched a nerve...

It's interesting to hear so many people claim that traditional wisdom is wrong, but it you're losing weight breaking all the rules, more power to you.

But I still don't see why everyone's up in arms that the govt issue health guidelines, that you're not FORCED to follow anyhow. Seems like a non-issue to me. Ignore at will. I'll take the other side to testify that I've never eaten 3 lowfat youghurts out of a feeling of deprivation. It's about smart choices--if you buy a brand that just doesn't cut it, try another one. The products are out there, if you're willing to look. Feel free to join me on the other side, with the evil ones....we don't bite, and we're even losing weight in our misguided ways...! 

[TalkingRat]

Love that cartoon, Pinkmug. 

I think it was a mistake to avoid butterfat and saturated plant fat all these years.  Adding it back after a couple decades feels very right.  There's something in buttermilk that I have been missing. 

When we give up an essential micronutrient, or food is not as well absorbed, appetite kicks in with 'eat' signals until we get what's missing by some other means.  Inefficiency is not good for weight loss, we end up eating more to get the essential nutrients our body craves.  It often is a craving that signals a missing need.  What we eat to make up for the lost source may not be the best way to fill the need, but that's the problem with limiting fat sources.  We stand a better chance with a variety of fat sources.  IMO, part of what's missing is in butterfat. 

I think we have a similar problem because modern diets are imbalanced with omega 6:3.  That got worse with all the 'mercury in fish' warnings.  Not all fish is contaminated, but it turned people away from fish sources. Maybe we crave fatty foods because we need omega3, but what we give our bodies is more omega6.  I was using fishoil for omega3, but when I added flaxseed, I wanted even more.  Although flax must be converted, it appears to me there's something in flax that I wasn't getting from fishoil.  It's another argument in favor of mutiple sources.  The advice to use olive oil and avoid vegetable oil didn't help the omega 6:3 balance, either.

Alchemist, it's not the government guidelines that 'everyone's up in arms' about, it's the insult that whoever disagrees with you has confused thinking.  But you knew that, right?

[nougat]

i thought of pol-doll too...
the difference is obvious to me.  some are soooo convinced that their way is THE WAY with no room  for other ideas.  some of us on the other hand are open to different ideas.  and in this group there are many doctors and scientists as well.

[shovelqueen]

You know, as an "establishment health professional" (an open-minded one,don't shoot me!) reading those guidelines, I see good things there as well as the "conventional wisdom" recommendations.  There is acknowledgment of the omega 3 fats with the recommendation to "Eat more fish".  There is nothing wrong with recommending moderation of meat portions, as the average portion size in the eyes of most North Americans (I include Canadians here, too) is about 6-10 oz, way big!!  They recommend reducing salty foods and white flour products.  Another good move.  Not overeating (eat fewer calories) and eating more plants are right in line with the thinking of Michael Pollan and others as what leads to longevity and best overall health. 

I agree that dairy fat is not an evil substance to be avoided, but it goes back to the idea of fewer calories and more plant foods.  Dairy at all in human diets is a contentious issue, especially given that probably 2/3's of the world's population is lactose intolerant past infancy.  Of course, that's why the world's cultures have developed such delicious low-lactose foods as yogurt, kefir, cheeses, sour cream, butter, etc. 

No one eating pattern is optimal for all.  There's alot of sense in the evolutionary approach to diet, in that the optimal diet depends alot on your genetic heritage, northern Caucasian vs Asian vs tropical vs indigenous(as in North American aboriginals).  Northern Caucasians, like my heritage, developed over thousands of years eating meat and drinking /eating dairy as a survival mechanism for dealing with a wintery part of the world (no local plant foods in my neck of the world in January!)  The native and Inuit populations thrive on even less plant foods, more fish and meat and fats.  Populations that developed in tropical areas (Asians and Black) where plant foods were plentiful year round adapted somewhat to that food supply over 10's of thousands of years.  And fresh dairy was simply not possible in warm climates, so the need for intestinal lactose processing was gradually lost over time, on a population-wide basis, I mean.

The important thing to remember about these guidelines is that they are "population" oriented, not individual.  They have to be mildly stated and widely applicable, so that they will apply, without harm, to the masses.  In that respect they do fairly well.  There is no mention of "fake" processed, food-like manufactured goods - no pizza pockets, no koolaid, no sodas, no Cheetos, no hotdogs.  There is mention of fish, nuts, whole grains, real fruits and vegetables.  If the American masses moved towards eating the way these recommendations suggest, there would be way less disease, obesity, unwellness. 

They're not perfect, I agree, but they are an improvement. I just wish they had addressed the issue of high-fructose corn syrup and trans fats.  Those are the real "evils", in my opinion. 

[goblyn]

SQ, you know I respect your opinion.  I did think that some of the recommendations were well thought out, the dairy thing just never ceases to amaze me.  If you're going to consume dairy at all, the guidelines should be for the full fat versions, for reasons that Pink and others pointed out, as well as the fact that most low fat dairy is processed and filled with additives (to make it more like full fat dairy).

I think the problem in the US, at least, is that we've got so many things masquerading as "diet food" such as lean cuisine meals, 100 calorie snack packs, meal replacement bars and shakes...the list just continues to grow.  And sadly so much of that is just smaller portions of the same garbage you could be eating without the diet stamp. 

When broad recommendations are made to the masses that calorie restriction is good, how are those masses going to react?  Are they going to go out to the health food store and buy organic produce and real foods?  Or are they going to go walmart and stock up on 100 calorie snack packs and frozen dinners and diet soda and god knows what other crap?  Well option 2 obviously because that's easier, and as far as they're concerned it all boils down to the same thing.

But that's just irresponsible.  As we all know eating processed foods = unhealthy. 

My problem with this study wasn't the suggestions to eat smaller portions of meat, or more veggies, but rather the idea that saturated fats are automatically bad, and that calorie restriction is automatically good.  And I think that a good portion of the population would read something like this and take nothing more out of it than "eat less fat and calories."

[August]

Well, I get upset with the government because we are paying for it, it comes up with wacky ideas, and then companies get on the bandwagon and sell us junk based on the wacky ideas.  The high fructose corn syrup is some company's answer to all the surplus corn laying around, which is laying around because the government subsidizes growing corn.  Every time I watch a food documentary I come out wondering why Pollan and others aren't anarchists, or at least libertarians, by now.  Every time I hear the word sustainable I wonder what is that next mental step- the process is unsustainable, they can see that, but why can't they see the difference in incentives between men who work to make a profit and men who can burn through other people's money chasing some silly notion that they have?  The men who work to make a profit will stop doing unsustainable things, assuming they aren't getting paid to do unsustainable things by the government.

If nothing else, businesses would run out of money and not be able to do any more damage.  In order for profit to happen the production process would have to be more than sustainable- sustainable just gets you to non-profit status, with the costs of resources roughly being equal to the price of the product.  Profit requires the cost of resources being lower than the price of the product!

But when you've got a fair chance to make a lot of money just by appearing to be too big to fail, well the temptation is to play games with money rather than actually make a product we might want.  Think of all the hoops a small farmer has to go through to sell grass-fed beef.  Then think of Goldman Sachs.
The government has tilted the market.  It's easier for financiers to outright break the law and get away with it; meanwhile a farmer can't slaughter any of his own animals on his own land.  How is that fair, or free, or sustainable?  If you make a real product, you have something government can target to tax, regulate, confiscate.  If you deal with imaginary stuff, there isn't much for the government to grab hold of, and they often collaborate with you, because they like creating classes of imaginary property- thereby creating sources of revenue that are only available to people with a strong government hanging around to enforce it.  

[An Alchemist]

Yea, I agree there are a lot of good points in it, including the whole grains that you mention.

I doubt people will misconstrue the recommendations to fill up on pre-packaged junk foods, since they straight out mention the need to reduce processed food consumption, especially refined flour and sugar, which eliminates all the 100-cal snack packs and the like. If anyone really did goes for the 'packaged diet cookies' it would just be willful ignorance. We can't stop that (there will always be people who will try to make the recommendations what they like, won't there?), and they're responsible for their own actions. It would be irresponsible to NOT provide recommendations simply because someone might decide to eat junk food instead. That makes as much sense as the 'if we teach teens about birth control, we're causing them to have sex and babies out of wedlock' argument. Education is power, people.

[Pinkmug]

A different voice!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/healthy-eating_b_629422.html

[fbnops]

I'm down with Goblyn and August on this subject. The American guidelines for a healthy diet have been influenced more by industry and economics than science.

And people WILL take this to mean they can live longer and healthier on prepackaged foods because we have the Propaganda Ministry, er the advertising industry, reinforcing that. Now we have Cocoa Puffs, Frosted Mini Wheats and Froot Loops touted as healthfull breakfast choices. Whole grain, low fat & now with fiber say the commercials, with the insinuation that kids will grow up leaner and healther by consuming breakfast cereals -- because these cereals are in line with the diet recommendations.

[An Alchemist]

Maybe somebody should pass me some of that Kool-aid, cause from here it's looking more like extreme paranoia than actual wisdom.

Yeah, the public are a bit naive, but its difficult to see how the hell anyone would think the guidelines are saying to eat processed. Find me any adult who thinks sugar-coated cereals are healthy (and any parent who would buy them for their kids except to stop the mommy i want that! call). They're obviously processed, and obviously contain added sugar, which means they OBVIOUSLY are not in line with the recommendations.

A little (mistaken...(?) ) prudence is better than foolishly following the shephard off a cliff, I think. Back to the original topic, we know low-fat is not harmful, based on hundreds of studies and meta-analyses. And apparently only one meta-analysis (which followed people for as little as 5(!!) years and at most 25...meaning many of these people wouldn't have had time to develop the serious health problems yet!) only suggests saturated fat isn't harmful. You can call me timid or cautious if you like. At least I'm not reckless.

[karky]

when my daughter was weaned it was said to me by the pediatrician to make sure she doesn not drink any skim milk, whole milk only because eating low fat is harmful to the brain development.

[fbnops]

The same recommendation for whole milk recently came from my new grandson's pediatrician.

[shovelqueen]

Every cell membrane in the trillions of cells in your body is made from fats.  That's why a high fat diet is sooo important during the rapid growth of babies, and all our other growth phases as well.  And getting the right fats, not processed, trans fats, is so important.  Those trans fats, with their warped shape, get incorporated into cell membranes, then don't act appropriately, affecting cell membrane function. 

[anacara]

It's interesting to hear so many people claim that traditional wisdom is wrong, but it you're losing weight breaking all the rules, more power to you.

But I still don't see why everyone's up in arms that the govt issue health guidelines, that you're not FORCED to follow anyhow.

Oh for heaven'e sake! WHAT traditional wisdom says low fat is good???? The "traditional wisodm" of the last 30 years or so?

And no, people are not FORCED to follow government guidelines but many many people trust governments to know what's best, so they DO follow guidelines. And lo! After a couple of decades of government recommendations to cut fats and eat copious cereals etc., we having booming rates of diabetes, obesity, cadiovascular disease and metabolic syndrome in general. Is that reason enough to be up in arms??