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
Options
Replies
-
Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still curious who ever recommended eating the listed foods in immoderation.
It’s the typical binary argument - you either eat nothing but those foods all the time, or you eat none of them ever. No way there could be a sensible, reasonable middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration.
So like this from My Plate right?
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
Context = Most Americans (i.e., we)
Dose = added sugars less than 10% of calories
A sweeping statement over most people of a 300+ million population is pretty much the opposite of looking at something in context.8 -
stevencloser wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still curious who ever recommended eating the listed foods in immoderation.
It’s the typical binary argument - you either eat nothing but those foods all the time, or you eat none of them ever. No way there could be a sensible, reasonable middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration.
So like this from My Plate right?
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
Context = Most Americans (i.e., we)
Dose = added sugars less than 10% of calories
A sweeping statement over most people of a 300+ million population is pretty much the opposite of looking at something in context.
If there is an issue identified with a population, by definition, that issue impacts a large part of the population.
4 -
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.5
-
Oh, and obviously, there's a ton of people on here who aren't even American to begin with.6
-
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still curious who ever recommended eating the listed foods in immoderation.
It’s the typical binary argument - you either eat nothing but those foods all the time, or you eat none of them ever. No way there could be a sensible, reasonable middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration.
So like this from My Plate right?
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
Context = Most Americans (i.e., we)
Dose = added sugars less than 10% of calories
You love, simply love, constructing the "most Americans" or "average American" strawman argument in every single thread you enter into on these forums.
It's not helpful.
None of us as individuals posting here represent an aggregate of an entire country's experience. We are each individuals and it is just plain silly of you to expect any one of us to debate you coming from the perspective of "the average American".
I'm me. I have my own eating experience, not some average experience, and I'm not going to argue some strawman arguments just to suit your narrative.
My dietary problems were always about too many calories, not too much sugar. I didn't eat sugar for many, many years. I still managed to weigh 210 pounds while I was eating a whole foods diet. Lemurcat has told you how she ate, and you brushed aside her experiences and wanted to argue about your blasted strawman. My experience is mine, not that of "the average American". The same is true of every person posting here. How on earth are we supposed to have a discussion if you keep wanting us to answer for some elusive group of people we're supposed to represent in your mind?
We. are. not. a. collective.
Please stop treating us like one.
It's wonderful how you and Lemurcat have your diet and health under control. Sincere congratulations.
Looking at "average" Americans and population recommendations from well respected health organizations on how to improve overall health is much more helpful, IMO, than random sample N=1 testimonials.
If something is an issue for a population, it is an issue for a large part of that population, which would include readers of these forums. Simple math.
I believe my comments have been very civil. However, if you don't don't want to argue or don't like the way I am treating "us" there is a feature on these forums to block individuals.
https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1029656-can-i-block-a-user-s-forum-posts-11 -
stevencloser wrote: »Oh, and obviously, there's a ton of people on here who aren't even American to begin with.
Sorry, the WHO has similar guidelines.0 -
moosmum1972 wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »Packerjohn wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »Still curious who ever recommended eating the listed foods in immoderation.
It’s the typical binary argument - you either eat nothing but those foods all the time, or you eat none of them ever. No way there could be a sensible, reasonable middle ground which takes context and dosage into consideration.
So like this from My Plate right?
According to the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, we should limit our total daily consumption of added sugars to less than 10% of calories per day. This recommendation is to help achieve a healthy eating style. After eating foods from all food groups to meet nutrient needs, there is limited room for calories from added sugars. When added sugars in foods and beverages exceed 10% of calories, it may be difficult to achieve a healthy eating style that meets personal calorie limits.
Context = Most Americans (i.e., we)
Dose = added sugars less than 10% of calories
You love, simply love, constructing the "most Americans" or "average American" strawman argument in every single thread you enter into on these forums.
It's not helpful.
None of us as individuals posting here represent an aggregate of an entire country's experience. We are each individuals and it is just plain silly of you to expect any one of us to debate you coming from the perspective of "the average American".
I'm me. I have my own eating experience, not some average experience, and I'm not going to argue some strawman arguments just to suit your narrative.
My dietary problems were always about too many calories, not too much sugar. I didn't eat sugar for many, many years. I still managed to weigh 210 pounds while I was eating a whole foods diet. Lemurcat has told you how she ate, and you brushed aside her experiences and wanted to argue about your blasted strawman. My experience is mine, not that of "the average American". The same is true of every person posting here. How on earth are we supposed to have a discussion if you keep wanting us to answer for some elusive group of people we're supposed to represent in your mind?
We. are. not. a. collective.
Please stop treating us like one.
It's wonderful how you and Lemurcat have your diet and health under control. Sincere congratulations.
Looking at "average" Americans and population recommendations from well respected health organizations on how to improve overall health is much more helpful, IMO, than random sample N=1 testimonials.
If something is an issue for a population, it is an issue for a large part of that population, which would include readers of these forums. Simple math.
I believe my comments have been very civil. However, if you don't don't want to argue or don't like the way I am treating "us" there is a feature on these forums to block individuals.
https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1029656-can-i-block-a-user-s-forum-posts-
But we aren't all American for a start.
Sorry, similar situation for others in the developed world. Refer to WHO guidelines.0 -
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 WHO2 -
It's woo. why is he demonizing white sugar. As if brown sugar, molasses, honey, agave syrup, and all the other forms of sugar are somewhat better for you? The body cares not what form of sugar it uses. And it does use sugar. It's not the evil poison a lot of people think it is. And number 2 he misspelled the word pastries. That enough leads me to not take him seriously.
Snd besides, he's dead.
I can't seem to find the downvote button.1 -
What's demonic about saying eating less cake is likely to help you lose weight?2
-
azironasun wrote: »It's woo. why is he demonizing white sugar. As if brown sugar, molasses, honey, agave syrup, and all the other forms of sugar are somewhat better for you? The body cares not what form of sugar it uses. And it does use sugar. It's not the evil poison a lot of people think it is. And number 2 he misspelled the word pastries. That enough leads me to not take him seriously.
Snd besides, he's dead.
I can't seem to find the downvote button.
Because you think brown sugar is better than white?
That’s sugar racism.13 -
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.13 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Still curious who ever recommended eating the listed foods in immoderation.
Does this post ∆ count as an example of demonizing sugar, pointing out that moderation is required and nobody is giving the (bad) advice of eating more of it? This "demonizing" argument is very confusing.2 -
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.9 -
Packerjohn wrote: »Was listening to a Strength Matters podcast and their guest mentioned a picture he had seen of a black and white TV screen with Jack Lalanne's diet advice from probably 60 years ago. Had to look up the picture. Jack suggested eliminating or greatly reducing these items from one's diet:
None of this nutrition stuff is new.
It's an interesting artifact.
Exaggerating somewhat, this is like me posting a photo of an 1870's chicken farmer next to a sign that says '12' , and saying he agrees with modern grocery distributors about how eggs should be produced and distributed.
We don't know what Jack's chalk talk at that moment was. From direct personal memory as well as background links people have posted here, it seems inaccurate to say that Jack's recommendations agreed with the USDA/WHO recommendations at any significant level of specificity.
Jack was an extremist, arguably personally orthorexic. (Yes, the term wasn't current in Jack's heyday, and it's not in DSM-5. But it's a word with a definition, and there was gravity before people had a name for it).
Some things Jack wrote on a chalk board have some very broad relationship to past, current, and presumably future nutritional/dietary guidance, and much of that mainstream guidance has been consistent over many decades, despite a bunch of us generally ignoring said guidance.
Edited: Anachronism.10 -
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.7 -
Packerjohn, I am interested in your thoughts on the following. I see the main debates here as about 2 things.
First, it the first post (cut out or -- allegedly -- way down on) white sugar, candy, cake, etc. great advice for the average person at MFP. IMO, no, not really. Why? Well, because I think people at MFP (and specifically in the Debate section) are likely to be dieting or interested in nutrition (or both) and thus are not nearly as likely as the general population to be overconsuming such foods. And also, and even more important, I think WHY people overeat is a lot broader than the identified foods, and in many cases (like my own, WHEN I was overeating, and like GottaBurnEm's, again WHEN she was overeating), did not have much to do with the foods focused on. Thus, I think a much BETTER approach is to log and look over your own diet (or otherwise be honest with yourself) and identify where the excess calories are coming from. Because I did this (and did not merely decide to cut out "bad foods"), I was able to cut calories while maintaining a very nutritious and, important, satisfying diet that did not feel restrictive to me at all. (Most of my excess calories were from occasional mindless snacking, occasional emotional eating, and then excess added fats and mindless consumption of overly large portions of starches that I don't even like that much (rice, some bread) or am satisfied with in smaller portions (pasta).)
Why on earth are you resisting the idea that it makes more sense to look at one's specific diet vs. this rather odd list of foods? (As for the average American, Americans overeat lots of things not on the list and, even more important, should eat more of other things, like vegetables, so the list is pretty lame advice on its own. My own "added fats" is a common source of excess calories, for example, as are things like overly large portions of fast food, of course, even though that is not something I consumed when I chose to reduce calories.)
Second, you now seem to have shifted from Jack Lalanne to MyPlate and the WHO. I happen to believe that the diet advice from those sources is not perfect, but is pretty good, and -- significantly -- is not limited to "don't eat this specific list of foods," but discusses how to construct a sensible diet and within that suggests limiting added sugar (which I think is a good idea, although since I did not ever consume lots of added sugar it wouldn't have done much for me for weight loss -- I think their diet advice is sensible, though).
The question here is whether Lalanne's advice is really just the same as the WHO and MyPlate. As I and others demonstrated above, no, it is not. If you want to shift the question to the advice given by MyPlate, I think it's reasonably good, but not actually relevant to this thread.
If your only argument is that the average American probably consumes more added sugar than is ideal and might find an easy way to cut calories by reducing it, sure, but hardly a topic for debate (as it's not exactly controversial or particularly unknown).5 -
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.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »What's demonic about saying eating less cake is likely to help you lose weight?
Not sure who this was directed to, but Lalanne said that people should cut out all added sugar and processed foods, not just that one should cut down on cake.
I don't find advice that one should cut down on cake for weight loss to be demonizing cake, but I do find it kind of worthless, personally, as most people (everyone, I think) knows that cake is a high cal item, a treat food, and if people eat lots of it, they are not unaware that it's not great for weight loss. I also find the idea that people eat lots and lots of cake weird, as I ate it about once a year, maybe twice, the whole time I was fat. I don't like baking cake, and prefer pie (and bake pie only for holidays and special dinners), so maybe I'm weird. My office has cake a couple times a year for special events -- for example, in 2016 we had it when the Cubs won the World Series.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 389 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions