High protein?

snickerscharlie

Nevermind. Didn't see the second page. My question was asked and answered.

lemurcat2

MDC2957 wrote: »

lemurcat2 wrote: »

The country did not actually do low fat.

https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/28/295332576/why-we-got-fatter-during-the-fat-free-food-boom

That's your source?

Fat intake increased, it did not decrease: http://www.stephanguyenet.com/did-the-us-dietary-guidelines-cause-the-obesity-epidemic/

"Two independent lines of evidence suggest that our absolute fat intake did not decline after the publication of the Guidelines (5, 6). Proponents of the hypothesis invariably cite the fact that the percentage of fat in the US diet declined, which is true (although the change was rather small). The reason the percentage changed is not because our fat intake decreased, but because our carbohydrate intake increased, along with our total calorie intake. Does this count as a low-fat diet?

As an analogy, imagine a man named Jim who has obesity. Jim wants to lose weight, so he decides to eat a low-carbohydrate diet. Rather than reducing his intake of carbohydrate, Jim adds fat to all his meals so that the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases. Jim’s calorie intake increases from 3,000 to 4,000 Calories per day, and his absolute carbohydrate intake remains the same. Yet the percentage of carbohydrate in his diet decreases from 45% to 34%. Is Jim on a low-carbohydrate diet, and should we expect him to lose weight?

Of course not. Jim isn’t eating a low-carbohydrate diet, and neither have Americans been eating a low-fat diet."

_______

Basically, the guidelines said eat more whole grains, eat less fat, and -- especially -- eat lots of fruits and veg and less added sugar and dessert type foods, and we did not do any of those things, but instead did the opposite.

Trying to blame the dietary guidelines is absurd.

lemurcat2

patrickaa5 wrote: »

azzeazsaleh5429 wrote: »

This might be worth reading about cholesterol: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/?fbclid=IwAR25FPgWu7QcsjfuZIQGJIqiIXW1OSrKwVE2yue8fLT7F6VRcv-jozPoEos&noredirect=on&utm_term=.094f8f62635b

Interesting read. Thanks for the link. The quote below pretty much sums up what I think about all of the scientific studies (and conclusions). What are you supposed to believe?

“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”

The big common sense things are pretty much undisputed except by cranks. Ignoring the big picture to focus on smaller things like weird claims about individual foods or debates over percentage of various macros is a good way to drive yourself crazy. Don't like the perfect be the enemy of the good.

This is a good piece: https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/03/science-compared-every-diet-and-the-winner-is-real-food/284595/