Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Shows promoting Low Fat diets....

sapphirewindsapphirewind Posts: 55Member Member Posts: 55Member Member
I came across and old BBC TV show from 2006 - I Know What You Ate Last Summer. This show promoted Low Fat diets and lots of outdoor exercises to overweight teenagers at a camp in California. It also had a calorie cap of 1200 and a fat cap of only 12 grams! This can't be so healthy in the long run.... and it was promoting all these commercial processed packaged products just because they are labeled "low fat" while ignoring the carbs and sugars. This was really surprising to see. Do people still get fooled by these types of programs? Maybe I have been researching nutrition for too long.

Replies

  • seska422seska422 Posts: 3,181Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,181Member, Premium Member
    Low carb was just starting to be widely disseminated as a viable alternative in 2006. Anything mainstream from before that time will likely be low fat.

    Low fat has been the go-to diet for many years. The dietitian that I saw in the early 90's gave me only two parameters: 1200 calories and under 25 grams of fat. I'd guess my macros were about 75%C-10%P-15%F any time I got serious about dieting.

    Fat seems to be the preferred macro to cut for a couple reasons. If you are wanting to lose fat, shouldn't you avoid eating fat? Also, fat has more than twice as many calories per gram so you get more bang-for-your-buck to cut fat.

    I'm feeling much more satiated on MFP's default 50%C-20%P-30%F.
    edited March 2016
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    You were watching a tv show from 10 years ago.

    Low fat used to be the craze. Now low carb is the craze. Who knows what the craze will be 10 years from now.

    This. What we should learn from this foolishness is that demonizing a macronutrient is a silly, thoughtless, lazy response, and that there's a lot more to nutrition than macros (although balanced macros is not a bad thing at all, and people should figure out how they feel most satisfied).

    Sadly, that seems to not be the case.
  • seska422seska422 Posts: 3,181Member, Premium Member Posts: 3,181Member, Premium Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    seska422 wrote: »
    Low carb was just starting to be widely disseminated as a viable alternative in 2006. Anything mainstream from before that time will likely be low fat.

    Low fat has been the go-to diet for many years. The dietitian that I saw in the early 90's gave me only two parameters: 1200 calories and under 25 grams of fat. I'd guess my macros were about 75%C-10%P-15%F any time I got serious about dieting.

    Fat seems to be the preferred macro to cut for a couple reasons. If you are wanting to lose fat, shouldn't you avoid eating fat? Also, fat has more than twice as many calories per gram so you get more bang-for-your-buck to cut fat.

    Nah. If you want to lose fat you should eat at a deficit. Eating fat doesn't make you fat. Total bunk.

    Hence, the "seems" in the previous sentence and the question mark at the end of that sentence. ;)
  • yarwellyarwell Posts: 10,573Member Member Posts: 10,573Member Member
    "Shows" ? There are entire professions, charities and health services doing just that as we speak.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    shell1005 wrote: »
    You were watching a tv show from 10 years ago.

    Low fat used to be the craze. Now low carb is the craze. Who knows what the craze will be 10 years from now.

    I once tried to start a thread about getting ahead of the curve on demonizing protein. I figure mTOR pathways being influenced by the amino acid leucine and mTOR inhibition being related to prolonged life would be the woo way of getting people hating protein.
    On the other hand, I think demonizing protein would be hard because its high cost per calorie makes it a bit of a Veblen Good.
  • lemurcat12lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886Member Member Posts: 30,886Member Member
    There are some anti protein people. McDougall (and the McDougall starch solution plan) is one, I think.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    There are some anti protein people. McDougall (and the McDougall starch solution plan) is one, I think.

    Campbell's China study is slightly anti protein - I think he claims the IGF-1 levels in caseins are pro-cancer.

    Greger is another vegan who is mildly against protein. I think he's even claimed soy becomes harmful when it leads getting animal eating levels of protein.
  • kommodevarankommodevaran Posts: 17,960Member Member Posts: 17,960Member Member
    I love Supersize vs Superskinny, but the dear Dr Christian still touts low fat, it makes me annoyed and sad.

    I stopped eating low fat in 2013 and I can finally handle my weight and cravings, effortlessly.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Posts: 13,589Member Member Posts: 13,589Member Member
    I guess at the time I never really noticed how much low fat was pushed (I never have listened much to mass media re: nutrition though), but I was watching some Seinfeld reruns the other day noticed how often they mentioned it. I watched that show regularly when it was new without noticing.
  • senecarrsenecarr Posts: 5,377Member Member Posts: 5,377Member Member
    I guess at the time I never really noticed how much low fat was pushed (I never have listened much to mass media re: nutrition though), but I was watching some Seinfeld reruns the other day noticed how often they mentioned it. I watched that show regularly when it was new without noticing.

    If it was done today, there'd be at least one episode with Kramer having a panic about gluten. "The gluten Jerry, you don't know what is doing to me!"
Sign In or Register to comment.