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
Replies
-
I hope you don't think everyone is dumping on you. We just remember the olden days. ;-)1
-
I still don't understand how "eat less cake if you want to lose weight" is invoking demons. Sure, it's possible to get fat eating nothing but too much broccoli, but who thinks we're in the midst of an unprecedented obesity epidemic because people eat too much broccoli? There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the truth: among the overweight, far and away more people have difficulty with things like chips and iced cream than with lentil beans and carrots.
There's nothing demonic about that. You can still eat sugar, too. But you have to eat it in moderation. Because calorie-dense things aren't really helpful towards a goal of weight loss. You can fit them in, but you might have to eat less of them than you'd like to.
We evolved in a time of food shortage. We're primed to want to eat, especially sugars and fats, we can taste them because it benefited our ancestors to seek them out and eat them. And they taste really good because they're rich with energy. Now, those of us in the first world live in a time of abundant food, and we work desk jobs instead of foraging and hunting. We don't need the energy but still appreciate the taste, some of us have a strong drive to seek some of it out. It would be a lot easier to practice moderation if the stuff wasn't appealing.5 -
Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
Let me rephrase it in a different example.
Do you think financial advice aimed at someone with average income is going to be useful to someone with a Master's degree?1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
Let me rephrase it in a different example.
Do you think financial advice aimed at someone with average income is going to be useful to someone with a Master's degree?
Not your best ever argument, though usually I like your arguments.
I had (about) median income. I had a big chunk of a master's degree (MBA, didn't quite finish). I read lots of financial advice for average-income people. I followed quite a bit of it. I retired, comfortably but not luxuriously, at 51.
I understand what you're trying to say, I think. Still not your best argument.
I pay attention to USDA/WHO, too. Just not slavishly.
If packerjohn's point is that we should all read USDA/WHO recommendations as part of our personal nutritional education and analysis, I'd totally support that. I mean, it's a consensus of mainstream experts. Not unchallengeable at the margins, not tailored exactly to ever unique one of us, but great stuff.
Jack Lalanne, circa 1960 (?), with a dozen or so words on a chalk board, is not 2017 USDA/WHO. Not close.
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »stanmann571 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »Carlos_421 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
If the recommendations don’t apply to an individual’s situation, they are not helpful.
I think that’s the point you’re missing.
Lemurcat and GottaBurnEmAll aren’t saying the guidelines are useless because they have their diets dialed in...they’re saying that they’re misguided for recommending an approach which may not resolve the issue. For instance, they gained weight while following these recommendations. Thus, blindly saying “reduce sugar intake” is not necessarily good advice.
What would be helpful is advice to identify the source/cause of the calorie surplus and act accordingly to achieve a deficit.
Let the solution be tailored to the problem.
Well if you you look back 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the American diet are grain based desserts and pop/energy/sports drinks. So for many people, looking at these items with added sugars (and in the case of grain based desserts unhealthy fats) and low nutrient density is a going to be an excellent starting point.
And for many people (those who already don’t eat many grain based desserts or drink caloric drinks) its a useless waste of time.
Never mind the fact that blindly saying “to be fit and trim, cut out the desserts” also further confuses people into thinking that desserts themselves cause fat gain, opposed to the caloric surplus they may or may not cause.
If you look back at this thread or any post I've put on these boards related to the subject I say CICO is king regarding weight loss/maintenance.
IMO, the fact that grain based desserts and pop, etc are 2 of the 4 highest categories of calories in the US diet means reduction of these high calorie/low nutrition foods really is low hanging fruit for many people regarding weight loss/control.
Yes, and THOSE people would probably benefit from reducing grain-based desserts and pop. If my diet plan had considered of reducing pop (which I consumed only in diet form, and only occasionally) and grain-based desserts (which weren't a regular part of my diet), I would still be fat and perhaps be whining "it's not fair, I don't eat "bad" foods, I must be doomed to be fat). Instead, I looked at my own diet with honesty and identified what I was doing wrong -- that is what I'm recommending.
Also, I don't think Lalanne was saying REDUCE, he was saying cut out. Read his comments on sugar that I quoted above. (For NorthCascades, I think those comments about sugar being worse than smoking and causing you to do bad acts count as demonization.)
I don't consider myself a "clean eater" in any way, shape or form - yet of LaLanne's list, the only items I consume regularly are ice cream (Halo Top, so reduced calories/fat) and soda (diet soda, so zero calories). All the rest I consume anywhere from seldom to very seldom/almost never. Even at my fattest and my sloppiest/most lax levels of food intake, those foods weren't my vices, so his supposedly wonderful advice to cut all those virtually non-existent foods out of my diet would have been of basically zero benefit to me. It's about as useful as telling a vegan that the best way to lose weight is to cut meat products out of their diet. Or telling a marathon runner that they should take up running for weight loss.
I gained weight by eating too much of foods I like - virtually none of which are on that list. I lost weight by eating those same foods, but in smaller quantities, and increasing my caloric expenditure by becoming more active.
Ditto. A big part of my weight gain was lean chicken, cheese and long grain rice.
I so wish I had that problem rather than an Oreo, chocolate, ice cream, and Reese’s peanut butter cup problem.
Same here!
I gained weight due to the usual culprits... Sweets, take away, chips, dips, cookies, chocolate, bread, desserts - generally too much junk food and fast, tasty low nutrient/high calorie foods that are easy to eat, and eat in excess.
Gaining weight eating "healthy" foods, such as lean meats, grains, fruit, vegies etc etc is a totally foreign concept to me, as those are the things that there is no threat of me overeating! Sticking to those types of foods and greatly reducing or completely omitting the foods in my first paragraph allowed me to lose weight without too much bother.
Ditto.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »I still don't understand how "eat less cake if you want to lose weight" is invoking demons.
I don't think it is. I think you are arguing against a strawman.
My objection to the original post was not demonization, but let's be clear as to what Lalanne's advice actually was (as I posted before):
From http://modernhealthmonk.com/habits-of-the-jack-lalanne-diet-healthy-and-fit-over-40/:“There’s nothing more addictive on this earth than sugar. Not heroin, booze, whatever. It’s much worse than smoking.”
When he was young, he was a massive sugarholic which he blamed many of his health conditions on, including his childhood rage (involving setting his house on fire).
“As a kid,” he flatly states, “I was a sugarholic and a junk food junkie! It made me weak and it made me mean. It made me so sick I had boils, pimples and suffered from nearsightedness. Little girls used to beat me up. My mom prayed… the Church prayed.”
So to present this as suggesting that people cut down on desserts to lose weight is, I think, not fully accurate.
Also, I would not object to "cut down on desserts to lose weight" as demonization but I wouldn't say it to someone without knowing how they ate. I think that's presumptuous (you need to lose weight? must be eating lots of sugar). I'd suggest instead (if they were asking for help) that they go through their diet and figure out where they are getting extra calories. I have never met one person, not one, who did not know that if they were eating huge amounts of sweets that that was an obvious place to cut down (more often people think they should give them up entirely -- which, for the record, I did when I started even though I didn't eat a whole lot of sweets). Thus, telling someone "you know, your diet probably shouldn't include 1000 calories of cake strikes me as not only presumptous (if you don't know their diet) but as if you are calling them stupid (they supposedly don't know cake has lots of calories and fewer micronutrients than many other foods?).
I would really love a response to this rather than the (untrue, IMO) suggestion that people are objecting to the notion that limiting sweets is generally a good idea, whether you do it naturally because it's not your particular taste (I don't eat most of the things on the list very often) or to reduce calories (like I did with a number of things not on the list, like cheese and olive oil, which I used more than I should).Sure, it's possible to get fat eating nothing but too much broccoli, but who thinks we're in the midst of an unprecedented obesity epidemic because people eat too much broccoli?
Many foods are high cal (unlike broccoli) and not on the list presented. I didn't get fat from broccoli (I ate lots of it, but it's not why I got fat). I also would not have gotten thin if my diet had consisted only of cutting out added sugar.
But again, that's not actually my objection -- I do think the average American eats too much added sugar (although why not give advice tailored to specific people actually interested and their questions?). Is the average person trying to lose weight on MFP unaware that limiting dessert foods might be a good idea (I kind of doubt jam or canned fruit is a serious issue, but who knows).
Also, in reality Lalanne had a bunch more rules, like no dairy and no coffee. I, for one, think that dairy and coffee can be quite helpful in weight loss.4 -
If packerjohn's point is that we should all read USDA/WHO recommendations as part of our personal nutritional education and analysis, I'd totally support that. I mean, it's a consensus of mainstream experts. Not unchallengeable at the margins, not tailored exactly to ever unique one of us, but great stuff.
Jack Lalanne, circa 1960 (?), with a dozen or so words on a chalk board, is not 2017 USDA/WHO. Not close.
Yes, this.2 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I still don't understand how "eat less cake if you want to lose weight" is invoking demons.
I don't think it is. I think you are arguing against a strawman.
My objection to the original post was not demonization, but let's be clear as to what Lalanne's advice actually was (as I posted before):
From http://modernhealthmonk.com/habits-of-the-jack-lalanne-diet-healthy-and-fit-over-40/:“There’s nothing more addictive on this earth than sugar. Not heroin, booze, whatever. It’s much worse than smoking.”
When he was young, he was a massive sugarholic which he blamed many of his health conditions on, including his childhood rage (involving setting his house on fire).
“As a kid,” he flatly states, “I was a sugarholic and a junk food junkie! It made me weak and it made me mean. It made me so sick I had boils, pimples and suffered from nearsightedness. Little girls used to beat me up. My mom prayed… the Church prayed.”
So to present this as suggesting that people cut down on desserts to lose weight is, I think, not fully accurate.
Also, I would not object to "cut down on desserts to lose weight" as demonization but I wouldn't say it to someone without knowing how they ate. I think that's presumptuous (you need to lose weight? must be eating lots of sugar). I'd suggest instead (if they were asking for help) that they go through their diet and figure out where they are getting extra calories. I have never met one person, not one, who did not know that if they were eating huge amounts of sweets that that was an obvious place to cut down (more often people think they should give them up entirely -- which, for the record, I did when I started even though I didn't eat a whole lot of sweets). Thus, telling someone "you know, your diet probably shouldn't include 1000 calories of cake strikes me as not only presumptous (if you don't know their diet) but as if you are calling them stupid (they supposedly don't know cake has lots of calories and fewer micronutrients than many other foods?).
I would really love a response to this rather than the (untrue, IMO) suggestion that people are objecting to the notion that limiting sweets is generally a good idea, whether you do it naturally because it's not your particular taste (I don't eat most of the things on the list very often) or to reduce calories (like I did with a number of things not on the list, like cheese and olive oil, which I used more than I should).Sure, it's possible to get fat eating nothing but too much broccoli, but who thinks we're in the midst of an unprecedented obesity epidemic because people eat too much broccoli?
Many foods are high cal (unlike broccoli) and not on the list presented. I didn't get fat from broccoli (I ate lots of it, but it's not why I got fat). I also would not have gotten thin if my diet had consisted only of cutting out added sugar.
But again, that's not actually my objection -- I do think the average American eats too much added sugar (although why not give advice tailored to specific people actually interested and their questions?). Is the average person trying to lose weight on MFP unaware that limiting dessert foods might be a good idea (I kind of doubt jam or canned fruit is a serious issue, but who knows).
Also, in reality Lalanne had a bunch more rules, like no dairy and no coffee. I, for one, think that dairy and coffee can be quite helpful in weight loss.
None of this answers my question about where the demons come into this. I guess we agree it's shrill and kind of over the top.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
Let me rephrase it in a different example.
Do you think financial advice aimed at someone with average income is going to be useful to someone with a Master's degree?
Not your best ever argument, though usually I like your arguments.
I had (about) median income. I had a big chunk of a master's degree (MBA, didn't quite finish). I read lots of financial advice for average-income people. I followed quite a bit of it. I retired, comfortably but not luxuriously, at 51.
I understand what you're trying to say, I think. Still not your best argument.
I pay attention to USDA/WHO, too. Just not slavishly.
If packerjohn's point is that we should all read USDA/WHO recommendations as part of our personal nutritional education and analysis, I'd totally support that. I mean, it's a consensus of mainstream experts. Not unchallengeable at the margins, not tailored exactly to ever unique one of us, but great stuff.
Jack Lalanne, circa 1960 (?), with a dozen or so words on a chalk board, is not 2017 USDA/WHO. Not close.
It was 3 am when I wrote it.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
Let me rephrase it in a different example.
Do you think financial advice aimed at someone with average income is going to be useful to someone with a Master's degree?
Not your best ever argument, though usually I like your arguments.
I had (about) median income. I had a big chunk of a master's degree (MBA, didn't quite finish). I read lots of financial advice for average-income people. I followed quite a bit of it. I retired, comfortably but not luxuriously, at 51.
I understand what you're trying to say, I think. Still not your best argument.
I pay attention to USDA/WHO, too. Just not slavishly.
If packerjohn's point is that we should all read USDA/WHO recommendations as part of our personal nutritional education and analysis, I'd totally support that. I mean, it's a consensus of mainstream experts. Not unchallengeable at the margins, not tailored exactly to ever unique one of us, but great stuff.
Jack Lalanne, circa 1960 (?), with a dozen or so words on a chalk board, is not 2017 USDA/WHO. Not close.
And yeah, a couple buzzwords on a chalkboard can at best be general, non-specific things that may or may not be relevant to you but are presented as "that's the reason people are fat" à la clickbait headlines "These 5 foods are keeping you fat!". What if I'm fat and already eat little to none of those things? Am I just f***ed? Nope. If I'm counting calories and can fit all of those things into my diet no problem, do I still need to religiously throw them out? Nope.
Advice like that is aimed at the population at large who do not count calories, who do not know anything about nutrition and who do not care enough to find out and just want a general pointer and who eventually, if this doesn't work, just give up and stay fat. Why? Because they keep overeating other stuff or even better, as a result of the advice, substitute that other stuff for the "bad" foods and keep calories the same unknowingly because they think it's those foods that caused it and not overeating. I dislike that.5 -
Oh, wait, I got confused about what thread this was. Silly me.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
Let me rephrase it in a different example.
Do you think financial advice aimed at someone with average income is going to be useful to someone with a Master's degree?
Not your best ever argument, though usually I like your arguments.
I had (about) median income. I had a big chunk of a master's degree (MBA, didn't quite finish). I read lots of financial advice for average-income people. I followed quite a bit of it. I retired, comfortably but not luxuriously, at 51.
I understand what you're trying to say, I think. Still not your best argument.
I pay attention to USDA/WHO, too. Just not slavishly.
If packerjohn's point is that we should all read USDA/WHO recommendations as part of our personal nutritional education and analysis, I'd totally support that. I mean, it's a consensus of mainstream experts. Not unchallengeable at the margins, not tailored exactly to ever unique one of us, but great stuff.
Jack Lalanne, circa 1960 (?), with a dozen or so words on a chalk board, is not 2017 USDA/WHO. Not close.
It was 3 am when I wrote it.
LOL. I knew I liked you. :flowerforyou:
ETA: Don't worry, I'm old enough to be your granny . . . maybe great granny. 0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »I still don't understand how "eat less cake if you want to lose weight" is invoking demons.
I don't think it is. I think you are arguing against a strawman.
My objection to the original post was not demonization, but let's be clear as to what Lalanne's advice actually was (as I posted before):
From http://modernhealthmonk.com/habits-of-the-jack-lalanne-diet-healthy-and-fit-over-40/:“There’s nothing more addictive on this earth than sugar. Not heroin, booze, whatever. It’s much worse than smoking.”
When he was young, he was a massive sugarholic which he blamed many of his health conditions on, including his childhood rage (involving setting his house on fire).
“As a kid,” he flatly states, “I was a sugarholic and a junk food junkie! It made me weak and it made me mean. It made me so sick I had boils, pimples and suffered from nearsightedness. Little girls used to beat me up. My mom prayed… the Church prayed.”
So to present this as suggesting that people cut down on desserts to lose weight is, I think, not fully accurate.
Also, I would not object to "cut down on desserts to lose weight" as demonization but I wouldn't say it to someone without knowing how they ate. I think that's presumptuous (you need to lose weight? must be eating lots of sugar). I'd suggest instead (if they were asking for help) that they go through their diet and figure out where they are getting extra calories. I have never met one person, not one, who did not know that if they were eating huge amounts of sweets that that was an obvious place to cut down (more often people think they should give them up entirely -- which, for the record, I did when I started even though I didn't eat a whole lot of sweets). Thus, telling someone "you know, your diet probably shouldn't include 1000 calories of cake strikes me as not only presumptous (if you don't know their diet) but as if you are calling them stupid (they supposedly don't know cake has lots of calories and fewer micronutrients than many other foods?).
I would really love a response to this rather than the (untrue, IMO) suggestion that people are objecting to the notion that limiting sweets is generally a good idea, whether you do it naturally because it's not your particular taste (I don't eat most of the things on the list very often) or to reduce calories (like I did with a number of things not on the list, like cheese and olive oil, which I used more than I should).Sure, it's possible to get fat eating nothing but too much broccoli, but who thinks we're in the midst of an unprecedented obesity epidemic because people eat too much broccoli?
Many foods are high cal (unlike broccoli) and not on the list presented. I didn't get fat from broccoli (I ate lots of it, but it's not why I got fat). I also would not have gotten thin if my diet had consisted only of cutting out added sugar.
But again, that's not actually my objection -- I do think the average American eats too much added sugar (although why not give advice tailored to specific people actually interested and their questions?). Is the average person trying to lose weight on MFP unaware that limiting dessert foods might be a good idea (I kind of doubt jam or canned fruit is a serious issue, but who knows).
Also, in reality Lalanne had a bunch more rules, like no dairy and no coffee. I, for one, think that dairy and coffee can be quite helpful in weight loss.
None of this answers my question about where the demons come into this. I guess we agree it's shrill and kind of over the top.
What is the point you are trying to make? I don't get the feeling that you are seriously trying to communicate, but it is sometimes hard to read people here, so I want to do what I can to improve our communication, because I do take this topic seriously.
Anyway, I did not introduce the concept of "demonization" but from one dictionary definition (which is consistent with my understanding) it does not require actual "demons" but (obviously) means something like "to portray as wicked and threatening." When added sugar is described as "nothing more addictive on this earth" and more dangerous than "heroin, booze, whatever. It’s much worse than smoking,” I think that clearly fits the definition, yes. So while I did not introduce the term myself here (I save that claim for when people post that "sugar is the devil"), if you claim he could not possibly be described as "demonizing" sugar or compare what he said to my own comment that of course people should not consume added sugar immoderately, I find that confusing and have to disagree.
And again, Lalanne did not just say sugar was threatening because more addictive than heroin and worse for health than smoking, he claimed it was responsible for "his childhood rage (involving setting his house on fire)" and that it "me weak and it made me mean. It made me so sick I had boils, pimples and suffered from nearsightedness. Little girls used to beat me up. My mom prayed… the Church prayed.” How is that not demonization.
That aside, where we are not communicating is that I'm not sure why you are fixating on the term demonization (used by one poster, I think). The much bigger argument is against the idea that the kinds of dietary restrictions recommended by Lalanne (NO added sugar, NO dairy, NO coffee, NO processed food at all, so on) are necessary for health. Some people seem to be saying that rejecting this means that you are rejecting the (IMO sensible) advice of the WHO or MyPlate, but of course that's not so. I can't currently tell what argument you are making although from past posts/my memory I would have thought you tended toward the more moderation/MyPlate/WHO kind of advice and did not claim that everyone should cut out sugar.
I also find it personally annoying that some people seem to think that everyone fat must be eating tons of sugar, or that sugar is everyone's main weakness with food, but that's another issue, sure.7 -
From Wikipedia:
The USDA's first nutrition guidelines were published in 1894 by Dr. Wilbur Olin Atwater as a farmers' bulletin.[2] In Atwater's 1904 publication titled Principles of Nutrition and Nutritive Value of Food, he advocated variety, proportionality and moderation; measuring calories; and an efficient, affordable diet that focused on nutrient-rich foods and less fat, sugar and starch.[3][4] This information preceded the discovery of individual vitamins beginning in 1910.
I'm 67. I was taught nutrition guidelines in 7th - 8th grade cooking classes. Starting in the early 70s I had numerous calorie counting books, many prefaced with nutrition guidelines and some with sample menus (a terrifying number coming out to 900 - 1000 calories a day).
Sorry if this information has already been provided, I did read the whole thread but I lost track of who said what a few pages ago
eta: Jack visited my Jr. High school in '63 or '64 (in support of the presidential fitness drive that was initiated by the Kennedy administration). I barely remember it, and nothing about what he said, but we were all in awe because he could lift all these weights and he was old.
5 -
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?9
-
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
I could make a list of eleven nuts or meats or grains and it would be challenging for people to eat all of them every single day and maintain a healthy weight, but that doesn't mean that nuts, meats, and grains have to be eliminated.7 -
Maybe for some people, but eliminating any food has never worked long term for me...........just saying.
For me all foods in moderation and stay within my calorie budget.2 -
my hubby would eat several of those on the list every day. He was diabetic, felt sluggish & just not good most of the time so when he stopped (80%, he still struggles with cravings) he lost 40lbs & got off insulin. Maybe Jack L was referring to someone like him? I have a few friends who also eat from that list every day4
-
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »JerSchmare wrote: »Very interesting. ^^^
So, the idea that eating less cake, instead of no cake, may not have been understood during Jacks time.
Is that possible?
We’re arguing about a concept now that wasn’t understood very well, or at all, then.
I don't think it is.
Wait what?
Calories were not known. People don’t understand what “less cake” means. How is this not relevant?
The concept of the calorie was known and I think people were able to get information on the calorie content of various foods (they used to sell handbooks where you could look up foods, I do remember seeing those in the checkout line with magazines when I was a kid). What wasn't required was labels on all foods. But it would still be known, for people who wanted to take the time to understand, that "cake" is generally a higher calorie food than, say, a carrot.
So the concept of "some cake" being okay for weight control and "huge amounts of cake" being less okay would have been completely graspable for someone like Jack Lalanne and anyone interested in health/weight control.
(I'm in my late 30s, so if someone with more relevant historical and/or real-life memories needs to correct me, please do).
Can confirm. My mother and aunt used a postage scale to weigh foods and had one of those little books and counted calories back in the dark ages.
I'm 55 and grew up well aware of what foods were "fattening" and what foods weren't.3 -
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Are you seriously asserting that people actually make those things a PRIMARY source of fuel?
Time for this graph again:
5 -
I've have the flu so took Googled a bit, found this video of Jack answering a viewer's question on a typical meal plan for a day.
It includes dairy products and coffee, pretty spot on to MyPlate and WHO guidelines. Since he was active in his profession for 60 years or so, he may have very well changed his position a bit on some things. Also, from his history of illness as a youth, he may have had some autoimmune/allergy issues that resolved by him personally changing his diet.4 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
That comment about fat people not eating all of them every single day was in response to this statement: "You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight?"
If the list is just supposed to be a list of things to not eat to excess or not to eat all in the same day, I don't see the point. I could make a list of any ten calorie-dense foods if the point is to not to eat them to excess or not to eat them all in the same day.
Someone I work with eats something like a 1/3 of a jumbo jar of peanut butter for breakfast each morning (he does this at his desk) and he's overweight. But to put peanut butter on a list like this wouldn't make much sense because it's totally possible to eat a reasonable portion of peanut butter. Portion size matters. Yeah, if you're having 3+ 20 ounce sodas a day, that's going to be hard to regularly do and maintain a healthy body weight.2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »People on here are not a random subset of the "Average American". Through the fact that they're already trying to lose weight they are a minority. If you went to the Keto group and posted this it would be even less useful. That's context.
I would sure think those in the minority who are trying to lose weight would be interested in the guidance of the researchers at the USDA and WHO
Let me rephrase it in a different example.
Do you think financial advice aimed at someone with average income is going to be useful to someone with a Master's degree?
Not sure where you are from, but in the US there is only about a 15% difference in average annual income for one with a Bachelors degree vs Masters so the same financial advice is relevant. It's not uncommon for tradespeople with an apprenticeship to make more than individuals with a Masters degree.
Also, good financial advice, like good nutrition advice is going be applicable for all. Like nutrition for the elite athlete, there may be some more specific financial advice for the ultra-rich but the generalities cover most of us.6 -
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?3 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Probably for the same reason it's so difficult to acknowledge that pop/desserts are a main issue for many. Maybe not the "experts" posting on this thread, but most likely for some that are reading.
Again I am a firm believer in CICO, but I also believe in the Pareto Principal. 2 of the top 4 sources of calories in the US diet are desserts and pop, high calorie, low nutrition foods. If the people posting on this tread aren't eating them to excess, someone is.9 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Perhaps the larger point is that myopic, wrong-headed, misdirected pop-culture demonization of certain foods really hasn't changed since 1960? Jack was a pioneer in that, perhaps. 14 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant.
From the other things he said, I do not think that's what he meant.
And as several of us have noted, we did not cut back drastically on those foods, because we did not consume a lot of them anyway.
For example:
white sugar -- I often did not have any in the house since I used it only when doing seasonal baking. I bought cookies occasionally, and I sometimes consumed junk food that happened to be in my office (stress eating or mindless eating), and sometimes, not always, that was sugary. Working on not stress eating or mindless snacking was what helped with that, not worrying about sugar.
Candy and cake -- I almost never consumed these
Ice cream -- I occasionally consumed this (as in a pint or half a pint when sad). I am sure I consumed as much or more total in the years since I lots weight than when I was gaining, just divvied up differently.
Jams and jellies -- I never consume these, never did. I doubt they are significant factors in obesity rates.
Cookies -- as noted above, I sometimes ate these, I eat them somewhat less now because, as with all foods, I am pickier about everything and more focused on whether calories are worth it. This is not sweets specific (much more relevant to savory foods which was more of what I overate).
Pies -- I ate them mostly on holidays and special occasions before, same now.
Pastries -- I rarely consume them. I consume less baked goods in general now since I realized that bread is for me often not worth the calories, but that's not what he'd talking about. I decided muffins weren't worth the calories for me many, many years ago, so they were unrelated to be being fat.
Canned fruit -- I don't consume it, never did, don't think it's a big factor in the obesity rate.
Pop -- I only consumed diet in moderation.
Am I saying I did not consume high cal foods? Of course not, but these are hardly the only such options.
It's like people who themselves either had issues with sugary foods (or weren't fat) like to assume that all fat people must be super into sugar. I don't get it.You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
Do most fat people eat them all every single day? I can't imagine that they do. I am positive that I have never eaten all, or even most, of these foods on a single day.
But again, I don't think Lalanne was just saying "cut down on these foods if you eat a whole lot of them." OBVIOUSLY that would be common sense. No one is saying it is not.
One doesn't have to eat all of them every single day. One can eat an excess of any one or a combination. Two people I work with drink 3+ 20oz regular pops a day at work, yes the are significantly overweight/borderline obese.
And one can eat an excess of many other foods, not listed.
Therefore, I really don't see why it's so important to focus on these rather than (as I keep saying) look at your actual diet and identify where you are overeating or can easily cut without losing many micronutrients or satiety. For some people this might mean pop. For others, it would be pointless to cut pop, because many fat people don't drink sugary sodas. Same with the other individual foods.
Not every person who needs to lose weight has sweet foods as their main issue. Why is it so difficult to just acknowledge this?
Perhaps the larger point is that myopic, wrong-headed, misdirected pop-culture demonization of certain foods really hasn't changed since 1960? Jack was a pioneer in that, perhaps.
3 -
I'm pretty sure everyone realizes that cutting back drastically on these things is along the lines of what he meant. A lot of people who are overweight make the foods on his list their primary source of fuel which is where the problem lies. You don't have to cut these things out altogether but do you eat all of them every single day and still maintain a healthy and happy weight? No right?
We don't know what he meant. It's just a list. There is no context in the picture to indicate what he was actually saying about the items on the list.
Given what we know he said at other times, he may have been saying "don't eat these things" or he may even have said "these things will cause brain damage."
LaLanne was very fit due to eating a nutritious diet and following a rigorous exercise regimen. However, he was clueless about nutrition (although his fitness made him appear to be an "expert") and his ridiculous claims about the evils of sugar alongside his puritanical views of "clean" eating likely did more harm than good to society by 1) misinforming the masses and 2) making fitness appear near impossible (discouraging many from even trying) due to the unsustainable nature of his methods.7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 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
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions