Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
How the Sugar Industry Shaped Heart Disease Research
Replies
-
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.
cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?2 -
-
Layne Norton talked about this 2 days ago.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApKsdvGCGJw 2 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
The WHO is one of the groups who determine what is balanced by science. It's a fairly wide range too. Not too much added sugar, not too much fat either though, because both reduce the amount of micros you can potentially get as they're mostly gotten from foods that are per calorie high in carbs. Hard to get too much protein but there's a range for those too.1 -
Wetcoaster wrote: »Layne Norton talked about this 2 days ago.....https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ApKsdvGCGJw
A balanced, non-boogey man discussion with a bunch of facts and studies cited? You expect me to pay attention and follow all of that?! Where's the one Amazon fruit that I have to eat to blast belly fat?! Or the article pointing out which evil conglomeration is the reason I'm overweight and why it isn't from my own choices so I can feel self affirmed?8 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.0 -
I love a good conspiracy theory. Oh, the big smoking gun was that they what? Paid someone to research the role of fat in cardiovascular disease, am I missing something here? Where is the meat? Where are the dead or missing scientist that "proved" that it was sugar rather than fat? I want a better drama than this boring stuff of someone paid for research on fat to promote low fat high carb diets.
Man, this is a lame conspiracy! *pouts*4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Right, but it's the exact opposite of my point. Which is expected since you do LCHF.
But, my point is so many people bemoan the low fat era and rant and rave about the damage done to the "name" of fat and I can agree. But then they go on to do the same thing to sugar and/or carbs.
My point being, in 20 years, we may be making the same moaning noises about low carb.
So why bother low anything and eat in balance?
And you're perfectly welcome to disagree, but that was how I was defining the term.1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
I guess you could define "balanced" that way, but that's not the accepted use and that's not a knock because I have nothing against Keto as a viable diet choice for some. I just don't think we should be redefining words because it leads to a breakdown in communication.
I would say you can have an unbalanced but sufficiently nutritious diet.
1 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Right, but it's the exact opposite of my point. Which is expected since you do LCHF.
But, my point is so many people bemoan the low fat era and rant and rave about the damage done to the "name" of fat and I can agree. But then they go on to do the same thing to sugar and/or carbs.
My point being, in 20 years, we may be making the same moaning noises about low carb.
So why bother low anything and eat in balance?
And you're perfectly welcome to disagree, but that was how I was defining the term.
What's really out of balance IMO is how we eat. We eat in the car, at our desks, work thru lunch while we eat, on the couch etc. There are times and places to eat and times and places not to eat, we are running out of the latter...2 -
It's great to see info like this in the New York Times! I've heard Dr. Henry Lustig say, "sugar is the new tobacco." He wasn't off base. Sugar is far more detrimental to our health than the benign "empty calories" that industry would like you to believe it is.
http://time.com/4485710/sugar-industry-heart-disease-research/?xid=tcoshare
The JAMA article it references: http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=2548255
In 1954, the Sugar Research Foundation "identified a strategic opportunity for the sugar industry: increase sugar’s market share by getting Americans to eat a lower-fat diet." That worked out much better for Big Sugar than for the rest of us.
Time is not the same publication as the New York Times. I've never heard of a Dr. Henry Lustig commenting on sugar, but I've heard plenty from Dr. Robert Lustig.
Is this debate about the importance of being accurate with your facts?7 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Right, but it's the exact opposite of my point. Which is expected since you do LCHF.
But, my point is so many people bemoan the low fat era and rant and rave about the damage done to the "name" of fat and I can agree. But then they go on to do the same thing to sugar and/or carbs.
My point being, in 20 years, we may be making the same moaning noises about low carb.
So why bother low anything and eat in balance?
And you're perfectly welcome to disagree, but that was how I was defining the term.
What's really out of balance IMO is how we eat. We eat in the car, at our desks, work thru lunch while we eat, on the couch etc. There are times and places to eat and times and places not to eat, we are running out of the latter...
To some extent I agree. Mindless eating definitely contributed to how I got so large. But, to be fair, I work through my lunch these days, but only so I can spend my actual lunch break out walking...
0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Even too much of a good thing is too much. Essential nutrients are not exempt from that.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Even too much of a good thing is too much. Essential nutrients are not exempt from that.
To add, let's also not take out of context that the required amounts of essential nutrients is so little that it can be done under any diet, even the 80/10/10 raw diet.
1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Even too much of a good thing is too much. Essential nutrients are not exempt from that.
To add, let's also not take out of context that the required amounts of essential nutrients is so little that it can be done under any diet, even the 80/10/10 raw diet.
Well, certain nutrients such as protein, iron and B12 have been known to be issues on those diets and often need to be supplemented just as some nutrients commonly seem to need supplementation under Keto.1 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
Considering the context in which I used the term, we can essentially rule out "low fat", "low carb", or "low protein". By definition, they aren't balanced.
I like to think of balanced in terms on essential nutrients. Make sure you get enough of those. The rest is not required for balance. IMO.
Even too much of a good thing is too much. Essential nutrients are not exempt from that.
To add, let's also not take out of context that the required amounts of essential nutrients is so little that it can be done under any diet, even the 80/10/10 raw diet.
Well, certain nutrients such as protein, iron and B12 have been known to be issues on those diets and often need to be supplemented just as some nutrients commonly seem to need supplementation under Keto.
Solid point.0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I think many people are sick of the 20 page sugar *kitten* fights, where neither side will back down and ultimately doesn't get anyone anywhere..
Yep.cwolfman13 wrote: »I have read similar articles and couldn't agree more. Just ignore all the abuse you will receive posting this (learnt my lesson posting about sugar myself!)
There has been no abuse in this thread, and it was posted in the debate forum.
And I'd actually disagree that no one picked up the low fat = healthy claim. The FDA has recently issued cease and desist letters to companies who include the word "healthy" on their label because the products were too high in fat (Kind bars specifically come to mind). The current FDA definition of healthy has fat restrictions on the use of the term. The restrictions of the term relate to fat, saturated fat, sodium, cholesterol, vitamins, and fortification. There was discussion that they were reconsidering the definition of the term.
That said, I feel like there is an opposite claim now. People are eschewing sugar and carbs and heavily promoting the increase of fats.
The author of the linked paper was interviewed on NPR yesterday, and she mentioned at the time that there was research showing fat was linked to heart disease, research showing sugar was linked to heart disease, and research that both are linked to heart disease. She then made her conclusion that the sugar industry influenced how those results were interpreted.
I'm more inclined to believe that both sugar and fat are linked, and a moderate and balanced overall diet will increase health.
But you know industries, they're going to push to sell their products, so um, long live high fat diets?
Yes...I don't, and never will understand the black and white thinking that leads to these kinds of pendulum swings. It's like people have never heard of balance...
I think the debate comes in with the definition of balance. Who decided what is balanced? Why are certain diets considered balanced? What is it based on?
I think it's pretty common sense really...
Your keto is just a fad now...it will swing some other direction soon enough and there will be all kinds of, "oh...we did not forsee that bad *kitten* happening"...just like what happened with low fat, etc.
Common sense...I know this is very difficult for some people....essentially eliminating entire macros isn't balanced...again...common sense...pretty friggin' easy to understand I think...I unless of course you're all wrapped up in the evangelism of your WOE.7 -
I don't think the sugar industry shaped crap...people eat like *kitten* and are lazy sh!ts...ergo heart disease. Eat well and exercise regularly...you substantially mitigate the risk.7
-
Balanced Diet
noun
1. a diet consisting of the proper quantities and proportions of foods needed to maintain health or growth.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/balanced-diet
I don't think there is a clear definition of balanced. Who sets the "proper quantities and proportions" of foods? See what I mean? According to this I have a balanced diet. When I was gaining weight after developing insulin resistance, I ate a wider variety of foods but perhaps it was not balanced since I was not maintaining my health - it was going downhill.
A "balanced diet" is one of those health terms that I think should be used much less frequently.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 910 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions