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?
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 -
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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.1 -
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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Hmm. The WHO... I don't place much stock in their advice. They are very middle of road, don't rock the boat sort of guidelines. IMO.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.
That may be where it came from. I just don't agree with calling nonessential foods, and frequently less healthy foods, as part of a balanced diet. Seems it would throw it out of balance. But yes, the term probaby came from the four foods groups of yester year.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Hmm. The WHO... I don't place much stock in their advice. They are very middle of road, don't rock the boat sort of guidelines. IMO.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.
That may be where it came from. I just don't agree with calling nonessential foods, and frequently less healthy foods, as part of a balanced diet. Seems it would throw it out of balance. But yes, the term probaby came from the four foods groups of yester year.
No, it wouldn't throw it out of balance and meats aren't essential foods and are linked to cancer so if you eat those is that out of balance?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Hmm. The WHO... I don't place much stock in their advice. They are very middle of road, don't rock the boat sort of guidelines. IMO.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.
That may be where it came from. I just don't agree with calling nonessential foods, and frequently less healthy foods, as part of a balanced diet. Seems it would throw it out of balance. But yes, the term probaby came from the four foods groups of yester year.
No, it wouldn't throw it out of balance and meats aren't essential foods and are linked to cancer so if you eat those is that out of balance?
That's my point. The term "balanced diet" is pretty useless. Completely subjective.
ETA Doesn't one need animal products for naturally occurring B12?0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Is this the standard that you follow?0 -
Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Hmm. The WHO... I don't place much stock in their advice. They are very middle of road, don't rock the boat sort of guidelines. IMO.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.
That may be where it came from. I just don't agree with calling nonessential foods, and frequently less healthy foods, as part of a balanced diet. Seems it would throw it out of balance. But yes, the term probaby came from the four foods groups of yester year.
No, it wouldn't throw it out of balance and meats aren't essential foods and are linked to cancer so if you eat those is that out of balance?
That's my point. The term "balanced diet" is pretty useless. Completely subjective.
ETA Doesn't one need animal products for naturally occurring B12?
I guess we can agree on it being vague at least lol. B12 is produced by bacteria found in soil actually. There are vegans that go their lives without eating meat and don't seem to have issues and there is new evidence that the bacteria that produces it may be found in the small bowel of some people. Fascinating stuff. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7354869
0 -
girlfriend petting puppies???? What?0
-
LOLWheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Hmm. The WHO... I don't place much stock in their advice. They are very middle of road, don't rock the boat sort of guidelines. IMO.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.
That may be where it came from. I just don't agree with calling nonessential foods, and frequently less healthy foods, as part of a balanced diet. Seems it would throw it out of balance. But yes, the term probaby came from the four foods groups of yester year.
No, it wouldn't throw it out of balance and meats aren't essential foods and are linked to cancer so if you eat those is that out of balance?
That's my point. The term "balanced diet" is pretty useless. Completely subjective.
ETA Doesn't one need animal products for naturally occurring B12?
I guess we can agree on it being vague at least lol. B12 is produced by bacteria found in soil actually. There are vegans that go their lives without eating meat and don't seem to have issues and there is new evidence that the bacteria that produces it may be found in the small bowel of some people. Fascinating stuff. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7354869
Agreed.
That was an interesting link. Perhaps B12 deficiencies are partially due to gut flora being wiped out from antibiotic use. maybe.0 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Is this the standard that you follow?
I don't know how to interpret this question. Do you dislike the WHO? It's a better standard to follow than random doctor number 352342 who claims everyone else was lying to you and he has the only true answers for just $49.99 (tax not included).
Or do you rather have the USDA guidelines? Also not that different from the WHO ones. Their document on DRIs is 1300 pages long with 800 of those being references and starts with a quote by Goethe, so you know it's gonna be good if you really want to read a dozen pages for every single vitamin and why the DRI for it is what it is.
Unsurprisingly all big health organizations have very similar dietary recommendations. Variety, lots of vegetables, get your essential nutrition but stay within the AMDR, limit added sugars, limit fats with trans and sat fats especially, limit sodium. Basically try not to eat too much foods that are easy to overeat and don't generally provide lots of nutrition because that makes achieving your nutrition goals harder.
And yeah, that's the kind of standard I try to follow if possible, it's not really rocket science to understand why those are good general recommendations.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Is this the standard that you follow?
I don't know how to interpret this question. Do you dislike the WHO? It's a better standard to follow than random doctor number 352342 who claims everyone else was lying to you and he has the only true answers for just $49.99 (tax not included).
Or do you rather have the USDA guidelines? Also not that different from the WHO ones. Their document on DRIs is 1300 pages long with 800 of those being references and starts with a quote by Goethe, so you know it's gonna be good if you really want to read a dozen pages for every single vitamin and why the DRI for it is what it is.
Unsurprisingly all big health organizations have very similar dietary recommendations. Variety, lots of vegetables, get your essential nutrition but stay within the AMDR, limit added sugars, limit fats with trans and sat fats especially, limit sodium. Basically try not to eat too much foods that are easy to overeat and don't generally provide lots of nutrition because that makes achieving your nutrition goals harder.
And yeah, that's the kind of standard I try to follow if possible, it's not really rocket science to understand why those are good general recommendations.
Not sure why it was a hard question but I will rephrase. If you view the WHO as a good source of information of moderation, do you align your eating to the WHO guidelines (i.e., limit added sugars to 5%)?1 -
Their guidelines are 10% with 5% having possible additional benefit. And yes, I do by some days having barely any and other days a bit higher so it evens out to about 10% or less. The amount of total snack calories I have in a day is usually barely that much. As do most people who try to calm others not to worry too much about sugar btw.
Also I do find that a weird question. Ketomom asked what is a balanced diet, I provided an organization that tries to answer that particular question, I don't even have to agree with it (though I do). I'm not going around asking every LCHF proponent who tells others about the WHO guidelines if they're keeping their sat fat below 10% as well. I wonder what the answers would be.2 -
LOLWheelhouse15 wrote: »Wheelhouse15 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »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.
The WHO for example sets ranges of balanced nutrients.
Hmm. The WHO... I don't place much stock in their advice. They are very middle of road, don't rock the boat sort of guidelines. IMO.Wheelhouse15 wrote: »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.
To my knowledge the term balanced diet started with the antiquated four food groups and meant that the diet contained all food groups. Although the term has evolved whenever I hear dietitians speak of balanced diets they do not include restrictive diets like low fat and low carb.
That may be where it came from. I just don't agree with calling nonessential foods, and frequently less healthy foods, as part of a balanced diet. Seems it would throw it out of balance. But yes, the term probaby came from the four foods groups of yester year.
No, it wouldn't throw it out of balance and meats aren't essential foods and are linked to cancer so if you eat those is that out of balance?
That's my point. The term "balanced diet" is pretty useless. Completely subjective.
ETA Doesn't one need animal products for naturally occurring B12?
I guess we can agree on it being vague at least lol. B12 is produced by bacteria found in soil actually. There are vegans that go their lives without eating meat and don't seem to have issues and there is new evidence that the bacteria that produces it may be found in the small bowel of some people. Fascinating stuff. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7354869
Agreed.
That was an interesting link. Perhaps B12 deficiencies are partially due to gut flora being wiped out from antibiotic use. maybe.
I'm not sure but initial gut flora is given to is by our mothers so this might just be a local dietary adaptation.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions