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.

Jack Lalanne's Advice

13567…12

Replies

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    None of those items were big parts of my diet when I got fat, was fat or when I lost weight, or when I maintain at goal weight.

    This, and therefore I did not GREATLY reduce them (I did reduce some of them some, sure -- I barely bake anymore), and I saw no need to eliminate them. If someone is eating a whole lot of those kinds of foods (canned fruit? that seems dated), then sure, greatly reducing them is common sense. I think it makes MORE sense to focus on eating a balanced, nutrient-dense diet full of things like vegetables, fruit (I don't like canned fruit but don't see why that would be an issue unless sugar is added and it's higher in calories than you realize), protein, healthy sources of fat, whole food or more fibrous sources of carbs (oats, other whole grains, potatoes and sweet potatoes, beans and lentils), and so on. Then (assuming appropriate calories), there's no real need to focus on what you limit, as there's no room for lots of high cal sweets or snack foods. At least, that's what makes sense for me.

    Another more sensible way for me personally to apply this is to focus on my main meals (which generally are made up of nutrient dense foods) and limit between meal eating. Some like snacking, so this wouldn't work for them, but it is far more significant for me than eliminating foods would be.

    I was a child in the 1960's and remember any fruit that came from a can at home, school or friends/relatives was swimming in liquid that had the viscosity of motor oil.

    I remember only canned peaches and canned pears (canned peaches I mostly associate with Deadwood now). I doubt anyone really consumed enormous amounts of calories from those or jam and jelly, as janejellyroll already pointed out, but your experience may have been different (I was a child in the '70s and '80s).

    As for now, I don't think canned fruit is common at all, anymore. I see fruit salad a lot, but it has no sugar added.
    Regarding what people are eating I posted this list up-thread

    I know, but I don't think it's relevant. This is our usual disagreement. You seem to want to focus on what other people are eating and use that to make generic recommendations. My point is how is that helpful if your own diet patterns are different. I did not eat a lot of, say, canned fruit, jam or jelly, or sweets, so "greatly limiting" or eliminating those foods would not have addressed why I personally was overeating. As I said before, I did reduce to some degree those foods (I sometimes mindlessly eat sugary things at the office and I stopped that by working on mindless eating and not snacking), but there was no need to think about reducing them greatly or eliminating them. I instead looked at how I personally was overeating and adjusted my diet to deal with that issue, and that's what I recommend others do. I think understanding your own diet and habits is MUCH MORE SENSIBLE than doing something based on what you think the average American diet is.

    I also said -- and I note that you did not respond -- that if one focuses on not overeating and eating a nutritious balanced diet with enough protein, lots and lots of vegetables, adequate sources of fiber, healthy fats, and a variety of whole foods that supply nutrients, and eat mostly nutritious meals and not a lot of treat foods in lieu of meals, then you likely won't be fitting in lots of added sugar and so on anyway. No need to worry about whether you should cut out cakes, and no need to cut way down on them, since you won't be eating a whole lot anyway.

    I think that's a more sensible way to approach the issue and more likely to educate people with what nutrition involves and also to make it about positive changes -- eat your vegetables! ;-) -- and not just a bunch of avoid this, avoid that. But the result probably looks the same, since you don't seem to be saying to cut things out and I'm not saying to eat without regard to nutrition (OBVIOUSLY!).

    So I am puzzled why, instead of responding to what I actually said, you provided a list that had already been provided and is not, IMO, relevant (since I don't eat the so called SAD in a whole lot of ways, some that are positive and some that are neutral). Saying "ah-ha! everyone should cut way down on cookies, including you, since look at this list of American cookie eating habits" makes no sense if the person you are talking to hates cookies and never eats them (I don't hate cookies, but I don't eat them all that much except for a really limited period this time of year).

    I didn't respond to your comments about what you eat because I was not talking about your dietary habits (from your comments they seem fine). I noted that everyone is different, but the fact that of American's calories are coming from low nutrient sources and therefor these items are low hanging fruit for someone looking to lose weight and maintain nutritional balance. Given grain based desserts and pop, sport/energy drinks are 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet, it is very likely these are issues for many people reading these forums, even if it's not an issue for you.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I feel the need to post this, if the OP, as hinted in subsequent posts, is trying to get at the source of why people are so fatty fat fat fat. If you can't read the fine print, the source is NHANES.

    DQKGOqbUIAAzkYS.jpg

    People are fatty, fat, fat because they eat more calories than they burn, CICO, that simple.

    Nice charts and good source.

    The USDA and American Heart Association recommend 6 teaspoons (females) or 9 teaspoons (males) of added sugar a day or an average of 7.5 teaspoons/person. There are about 4 grams of sugar per teaspoon so the average American should be eating no more than 30g of added sugar a day. Per the charts you posted we are currently at 90g per person or 3X that amount even though we're down about 20% from the high.

    Again I firmly believe in CICO from a weight control perspective. I also believe that for those who want to lose weight or are having trouble controlling their weight, significantly reducing the intake of foods with added sugar (many of which also include high levels of non-healthy fats like cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, ice cream and granola bars). Cutting back on regular pop is a no brainer for those looking to manage their weight.

    I eat that stuff on a limited basis and have maintained my weight for all my adult life. If I start to see a bit of creep though, that is the first thing I cut back on.

    While you have a point with added pop, it's silly to emphasize the importance of the added sugar in snack foods when gram for gram, the added fat has more than twice the calories of the added sugar.

    It's just plain silly to demonize the sugar in isolation, and I think you know that. It's a convenient scapegoat, and it's a proxy for cutting out high calorie foods that often contain little nutrition, but it's not meaningful advice when you get down to the nitty gritty of doing this day in and day out.

    I think you also know that.

    Not demonizing sugar. If you noticed, my post that you responded to states that these items are also high in non healthy fats.

  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited December 2017
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    I feel the need to post this, if the OP, as hinted in subsequent posts, is trying to get at the source of why people are so fatty fat fat fat. If you can't read the fine print, the source is NHANES.

    DQKGOqbUIAAzkYS.jpg

    People are fatty, fat, fat because they eat more calories than they burn, CICO, that simple.

    Nice charts and good source.

    The USDA and American Heart Association recommend 6 teaspoons (females) or 9 teaspoons (males) of added sugar a day or an average of 7.5 teaspoons/person. There are about 4 grams of sugar per teaspoon so the average American should be eating no more than 30g of added sugar a day. Per the charts you posted we are currently at 90g per person or 3X that amount even though we're down about 20% from the high.

    Again I firmly believe in CICO from a weight control perspective. I also believe that for those who want to lose weight or are having trouble controlling their weight, significantly reducing the intake of foods with added sugar (many of which also include high levels of non-healthy fats like cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, ice cream and granola bars). Cutting back on regular pop is a no brainer for those looking to manage their weight.

    I eat that stuff on a limited basis and have maintained my weight for all my adult life. If I start to see a bit of creep though, that is the first thing I cut back on.

    While you have a point with added pop, it's silly to emphasize the importance of the added sugar in snack foods when gram for gram, the added fat has more than twice the calories of the added sugar.

    It's just plain silly to demonize the sugar in isolation, and I think you know that. It's a convenient scapegoat, and it's a proxy for cutting out high calorie foods that often contain little nutrition, but it's not meaningful advice when you get down to the nitty gritty of doing this day in and day out.

    I think you also know that.

    Not demonizing sugar. If you noticed, my post that you responded to states that these items are also high in non healthy fats.

    Why are you singling it out? It's overly simplistic to do so.

    This is my post that you are commenting on. No sure how this is oversimplifying or singling anything out.

    "Again I firmly believe in CICO from a weight control perspective. I also believe that for those who want to lose weight or are having trouble controlling their weight, significantly reducing the intake of foods with added sugar (many of which also include high levels of non-healthy fats like cakes, cookies, donuts, pies, crisps, cobblers, ice cream and granola bars). Cutting back on regular pop is a no brainer for those looking to manage their weight."

    You were posting a chart that added sugar consumption has gone down. I acknowledged this is correct, but also noted it is 3X what nutritional experts recommend.
  • VintageFeline
    VintageFeline Posts: 6,771 Member
    I'm feeling a disconnect between the time period of this advice and its intentions vs the discussion of what fat people are eating too much of (and I'd wager the answer to that is everything including a lot of nutrient dense foods, certainly was for me).

    That video was likely some time in the 60s? When obesity was scarcely a problem. Was that list more about increasing nutrient density of overall diets and improving lifestyles (he was also mad fit too right? He wasn't a think in UK so my knowledge is great) over ermagherd sugar makes you so gross and fat? I mean, I have issue with it for reasons stated but I can also see its validity within the period it was made.
  • 4legsRbetterthan2
    4legsRbetterthan2 Posts: 19,590 MFP Moderator
    Closed for moderation
  • sugaraddict4321
    sugaraddict4321 Posts: 15,890 MFP Moderator
    Thread is back open for civil discussion. Please remember to follow our community guidelines when posting. In particular:

    1. No Attacks or Insults and No Reciprocation

    a) Do not attack, mock, or otherwise insult others. You can respectfully disagree with the message or topic, but you cannot attack the messenger. This includes attacks against the user’s spelling or command of written English, or belittling a user for posting a duplicate topic.

    b) If you are attacked by another user, and you reciprocate, you will also be subject to the same consequences. Defending yourself or a friend is not an excuse! Do not take matters into your own hands – instead, use the Report Post link to report an attack and we will be happy to handle the situation for you.

    And

    17. No Profane, Vulgar, or Sexually Explicit Language

    No explicit, sexual, insulting or vulgar content including expletives, or sexual innuendo, will be permitted. This includes the use of non-alphabetical characters to approximate expletives or other objectionable language. Publicly visible text on MyFitnessPal should be work-place friendly.

  • dsboohead
    dsboohead Posts: 1,899 Member
    TeacupsAndToning wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Are people eating a lot more jam and jelly than me? When I have it, I'm usually have 1-2 tablespoons, so like 60-120 calories? I get that every little bit counts, but if I was looking for the big calorie hitters in my diet I probably wouldn't start there.

    It was the fifties so I think he didn't mean jelly as in what you'd put on toast.

    I think he meant things like this:

    4ekh91yjs54f.jpg

    I gagged a little when I saw this first thing in the morning :s:s
  • stephenearllucas
    stephenearllucas Posts: 255 Member
    vingogly wrote: »
    Note that total calorie intake was up in 2010 over 1970, but this was entirely due to added fats and flour/cereal products. It looks like somewhere around 500 cals/day increase in average input - no wonder there's an obesity epidemic in the U.S.A. Calories from sugars, veggies, fruit, dairy, and meat/eggs/nuts were flat during this period.

    The numbers don't exactly match those from the other graphs - they must have used a different methodology (or data source - they're from different governmental agencies). This graph shows calories from grains going up, the others don't.

    It would be interesting to somehow also include what the change has been over the same time period in the amount of calories BURNED each by the same population.

    I'm guessing it has decreased at least somewhat with more labor-saving devices, more video-based games and entertainment, etc., but I haven't since such information.
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    edited December 2017
    stephenearllucas wrote: »
    vingogly wrote: »
    Note that total calorie intake was up in 2010 over 1970, but this was entirely due to added fats and flour/cereal products. It looks like somewhere around 500 cals/day increase in average input - no wonder there's an obesity epidemic in the U.S.A. Calories from sugars, veggies, fruit, dairy, and meat/eggs/nuts were flat during this period.

    The numbers don't exactly match those from the other graphs - they must have used a different methodology (or data source - they're from different governmental agencies). This graph shows calories from grains going up, the others don't.

    It would be interesting to somehow also include what the change has been over the same time period in the amount of calories BURNED each by the same population.

    I'm guessing it has decreased at least somewhat with more labor-saving devices, more video-based games and entertainment, etc., but I haven't since such information.

    I'd say you are correct on activity levels. Hard thing to correct for and get a meaningful analysis though. IMO is since the average American is larger now than in 1970. Therefor, they would need more calories to support their total daily energy expenditure, even if they are moving the same amount as in 1970.

    This study says the average caloric burn related to work decreased 142 calories per day for the average man from 1960-2010. I'd guess the calories burned on activities outside the workday also decreased.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3102055/
  • Purplebunnysarah
    Purplebunnysarah Posts: 3,252 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    vingogly wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Cons
    Hadn't realised demonisation of white foods went back that far! Colour of sugar is an irrelevance.
    I'm not a fan of elimination, doubtful it's a sustainable long term strategy for most people.

    Back then "dieting" meant avoiding starches and sugars. Our family doc put my dad on a diet back in the late 50s, and it was low sugar, low flour, high protein.

    Personally, I find increasing protein and fat in my diet makes me more satisfied, less likely to feel hungry, and less likely to snack.

    Regarding Jack LaLanne - Hell, the guy lived to 96 and died of pneumonia after a week long illness during which he refused suggestions he go to the doctor. He did two hour daily workouts into his 90s. He must have been doing something right.

    Well, his brother lived to 97 and I doubt he was anywhere near as into working out as Jack.

    Maybe not. His brother played varsity football for the University of California and also played rugby for the school so definitely some athleticism. And he died at 97, most likely at normal weight. Obese 97 year olds are like unicorns. Some people say they exist, but you never see one.

    I agree with you in general but I just have to comment on this. My grandfather died at age 94, 5'0", and approximately 200 lbs 5 months before he died (he went on a hunger strike towards the end). So obese people in their 90s do exist... (ironically he went from overweight to obese in the nursing home because my grandmother smuggled him extra food and he had dementia so he wouldn't remember he'd already eaten...)

    I know the above is a weird special circumstance but I just wanted to about out that I've seen a unicorn!
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Are you surprised that nutrition advice then and now recommended limiting sugary sweets in favor of vegetables? To the extent that Lalanne is recommending limiting (and not eliminating), yes, it's consistent with current recommendations and what was recommended (and merely common sense) way back then too, and certainly when I was growing up. (Although people didn't worry about cutting way back on cookies, they simply assumed that dessert should be a small portion of the diet, and did not worry about cutting way back on, say, jam, since who eats that much jam? Thus, I do tend to read Lalanne as saying something more like "avoid these foods if you can.")

    If you really read Lalanne as saying just "keep such foods at a reasonable proportion of calories and prefer more nutrient dense foods (as MyPlate does), I'm not really sure what you think is so noteworthy.

    I like the MyPlate approach better than Lalanne's (and wouldn't say they are really the same), because it focuses a lot on what to eat; it's not just a list of foods to avoid with no context.

    Saw this

    When he spoke on TV, here was the “meal plan” he typically recommended:

    “He recommended the following meal plan; Breakfast: fruit, eggs and/or meat, and whole wheat toast . Lunch: Big salad, and meat/fish. Dinner: Big salad, two vegetables, meat/fowl, and fruit.”

    http://modernhealthmonk.com/habits-of-the-jack-lalanne-diet-healthy-and-fit-over-40/

    You can quibble about any timing recommendations either real or implied, but looks much like My Plate recommendations
  • Packerjohn
    Packerjohn Posts: 4,855 Member
    sarahthes wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    vingogly wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Cons
    Hadn't realised demonisation of white foods went back that far! Colour of sugar is an irrelevance.
    I'm not a fan of elimination, doubtful it's a sustainable long term strategy for most people.

    Back then "dieting" meant avoiding starches and sugars. Our family doc put my dad on a diet back in the late 50s, and it was low sugar, low flour, high protein.

    Personally, I find increasing protein and fat in my diet makes me more satisfied, less likely to feel hungry, and less likely to snack.

    Regarding Jack LaLanne - Hell, the guy lived to 96 and died of pneumonia after a week long illness during which he refused suggestions he go to the doctor. He did two hour daily workouts into his 90s. He must have been doing something right.

    Well, his brother lived to 97 and I doubt he was anywhere near as into working out as Jack.

    Maybe not. His brother played varsity football for the University of California and also played rugby for the school so definitely some athleticism. And he died at 97, most likely at normal weight. Obese 97 year olds are like unicorns. Some people say they exist, but you never see one.

    I agree with you in general but I just have to comment on this. My grandfather died at age 94, 5'0", and approximately 200 lbs 5 months before he died (he went on a hunger strike towards the end). So obese people in their 90s do exist... (ironically he went from overweight to obese in the nursing home because my grandmother smuggled him extra food and he had dementia so he wouldn't remember he'd already eaten...)

    I know the above is a weird special circumstance but I just wanted to about out that I've seen a unicorn!

    Nice you had the opportunity to have your grandfather around a long time.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,557 Member
    In my understanding, Lalanne's personal eating had a more religiously prescriptive cast. Wikipedia claims this uses quotes from an earlier version of his website, now archived: "LaLanne said his two simple rules of nutrition are "if man made it, don't eat it" and "if it tastes good, spit it out"."

    I watched his show as a child. I remember him talking about healthy eating, but don't recall whether his exhortations to his fan-girls were about moderating foods vs. eliminating them entirely, or what tone he took overall sbout eating.

    Keep in mind that, at the time, the average person's diet was somewhat different from what's typical today.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Are you surprised that nutrition advice then and now recommended limiting sugary sweets in favor of vegetables? To the extent that Lalanne is recommending limiting (and not eliminating), yes, it's consistent with current recommendations and what was recommended (and merely common sense) way back then too, and certainly when I was growing up. (Although people didn't worry about cutting way back on cookies, they simply assumed that dessert should be a small portion of the diet, and did not worry about cutting way back on, say, jam, since who eats that much jam? Thus, I do tend to read Lalanne as saying something more like "avoid these foods if you can.")

    If you really read Lalanne as saying just "keep such foods at a reasonable proportion of calories and prefer more nutrient dense foods (as MyPlate does), I'm not really sure what you think is so noteworthy.

    I like the MyPlate approach better than Lalanne's (and wouldn't say they are really the same), because it focuses a lot on what to eat; it's not just a list of foods to avoid with no context.

    Saw this

    When he spoke on TV, here was the “meal plan” he typically recommended:

    “He recommended the following meal plan; Breakfast: fruit, eggs and/or meat, and whole wheat toast . Lunch: Big salad, and meat/fish. Dinner: Big salad, two vegetables, meat/fowl, and fruit.”

    http://modernhealthmonk.com/habits-of-the-jack-lalanne-diet-healthy-and-fit-over-40/

    You can quibble about any timing recommendations either real or implied, but looks much like My Plate recommendations

    Okay. MyPlate would be more flexible, but yes, not dissimilar and not dissimilar to my own approach (although I build in more flexibility and, for example, never have toast for breakfast or that much meat (which probably is counter to MyPlate) without sacrificing any nutrition. But that nitpick aside, that's not what you put in the first post.

    Again, I guess I'm not really sure what your point is. I think the MyPlate advice is pretty well accepted as reasonable on MFP. I think if you are reading Lalanne to be saying don't overeat sweets, well, again, that's accepted (although I'm pretty sure eating lots of cheese would get you in as much trouble calorie-wise, for one example). You seemed to think you were arguing with people/proving a point with the original list, and I think people are perhaps misunderstanding what you are saying due to that approach.
  • Unknown
    Unknown
    This content has been removed.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2017
    saintor1 wrote: »
    Is the advice legitimate?

    Well some people just can't deal that others have a different point of view. Whether they have the capacity to recognize them as 'legitimate' or not is not really a point.

    There's a distinction between saying "this is what works for me" and "this is what everyone should do to be healthy."

    Some things that work for me: eating 3 meals and not snacking, structuring all meals (including breakfast) around vegetables and protein, trying to focus on sources of protein that aren't from animals (although I include some meat and animal products in my diet currently), eating a wide variety of vegetables and making sure to include both raw and cooked vegetables.

    Most or all of those I wouldn't say are "what everyone should do to be healthy" (the last one I might), but they work for me.

    So if someone said "this is what I do that works for me" and listed off similar things, I'd say that makes sense (although it's not really advice). If someone listed the things I do and said "this is what everyone should do," I would not think that was legitimate advice (since not everyone needs to do it), even though it works for me.

    So I certainly would not say that I'm not recognizing other points of view. I'm saying that not everyone needs to do the same thing.

    Lalanne seems to have been saying that everyone should follow his advice to be healthy, so IMO that's not accurate. Curious if the poster saying it was legitimate advice based on the OP -- i.e., advice that basically is common sense, that everyone should probably follow -- would still agree based on the full scope of the advice and the understanding that it was about elimination, not moderation or limiting junk foods or whatever.

    Also curious if you are claiming that it's a defensible point of view that everyone should follow the Lalanne plan. (Not questioning that it worked for him, obviously it did.)
  • Evamutt
    Evamutt Posts: 2,794 Member
    If a person eats a lot of the list regularly, eliminating them wound be beneficial. Personally I didn't eat much of any of those & still don't. I was excited to see a post about him, as I met him when I was a little girl. One of my 3 brothers(11 yrs older than me) was a body builder & knew him. One time at the YMCA, I went on the trampoline, bounced wrong & broke my arm when he was there.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories