Fat Head

bcattoes

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

And, for me, a lot of what I got out of Fat Head was that a lot of the (allegedly) flawed saturated fat research and subsequent (allegedly) rushed/ill-advised governmental dietary recommendations have driven the American food system into preferring more processed foods. The relatively unprocessed (but "evil" saturated-fat laden) beef tallow, leaf lard or bacon grease that were used were replaced with vegetable shortening, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. I can, and have, rendered beef tallow in a crock pot. I can't say the same about soybean oil.

The (supposedly unjustified) vilification of saturated fat also gave us all kinds of low-fat dairy products. Of course, because fat is tasty, when it is removed it is frequently replaced with sugar (or fake sugar, these days).

One of my pet peeves is when people equate "low-fat" diet suggestions with low saturated fat diet recommendations. They are two very different things. Low fat is unhealthy, low saturated fat is not.

There is quite a bit of clinical evidence that people who eat diets high in saturated fat have greater incidence of disease (though less directly linking the two). That, plus the fact that I dislike fatty meat and whole fat milk products leave an unpleasant phlegm in my throat, is enough to keep me away from it.

Honestly, the more I read these boards the more I understand why research on nutrition is often so conflicting. Some people claim to feel healthier and have less digestive problems when eating mega portions of animal protein and fat and cutting out grains. Others, like me, claim to feel better when eating whole grains and limiting animal products.

I don't eat overly processed grains because I've been told they are bad for me, but honestly when I did eat a lot of white bread and pasta I never had problems with weight gain or bloating. I've always had a pretty healthy digestive system. The only time I've had problems is when eating too much greasy meat. A large mabled steak, bacon, sausage, baby back ribs all seem to shoot through my gut quickly with unpleasant consequences.

Maybe it all does go back to our ancestors. But it would seem to me that their diets would vary a lot by region. Surely those that lived in warm climates where edible plants were available year round would have eaten a much higher percentage of them than those that lived in cold climates where plants were only available part of the time. Why would anyone spend time chasing, killing, and butchering animals when there was food that doesn't fight back everywhere you look?

servilia

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

And, for me, a lot of what I got out of Fat Head was that a lot of the (allegedly) flawed saturated fat research and subsequent (allegedly) rushed/ill-advised governmental dietary recommendations have driven the American food system into preferring more processed foods. The relatively unprocessed (but "evil" saturated-fat laden) beef tallow, leaf lard or bacon grease that were used were replaced with vegetable shortening, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. I can, and have, rendered beef tallow in a crock pot. I can't say the same about soybean oil.

The (supposedly unjustified) vilification of saturated fat also gave us all kinds of low-fat dairy products. Of course, because fat is tasty, when it is removed it is frequently replaced with sugar (or fake sugar, these days).

This! ^^^

questionablemethods

Maybe it all does go back to our ancestors. But it would seem to me that their diets would vary a lot by region. Surely those that lived in warm climates where edible plants were available year round would have eaten a much higher percentage of them than those that lived in cold climates where plants were only available part of the time. Why would anyone spend time chasing, killing, and butchering animals when there was food that doesn't fight back everywhere you look?

There is definitely a lot more acknowledgement that there was likely no one paleolithic diet. That's why there really is no longer any monolithic "paleo" diet, but more of a paleo framework/template. The links in my signature explain far better than I really could.

TK421NotAtPost

Fat Head changed my life. I was eating 1400 calories a day of pasta and bread. I was obese and sad because I was eating the calories I should every day. Heck, I was evening running an hour 3 times a week.. I now eat 1400 calories a day and way less carbohydrates than I did and about 3 times the fat as I used to, and I lost over 30 lbs. I also ditched the cardio too. I'm now not obese, I'm in the healthy BMI weight range, planning on losing more. It's not just about eating more and moving less, it's about what you eat. I also lost a ton of wrinkles in addition to rolls when I upped the saturated fat content in my diet.

Fat Head focuses on why wheat is bad. People were eating meat long before we ate wheat. People are also bigger in frame now than they were in 1970.

You didn't know that eating 1,400 calories worth of starchy carbs was bad for you till you saw the movie Fathead? Funny, I always felt that even the outdated US food pyramid or whatever the heck the mainstream chart was at least espoused some fat and protein consumption.

Or was that comment borne more out of the tendency for low-carbers to create a false dichotomy between eatig plans that contain carbs and eating plans that are low carb?? .....essentially eliminating everything in the middle. Nevermind the fact that one could eat a sensible diet that consists of plenty of protein, healthy fats and a moderate amount of starchy carb....right?

I don't think anyone would do well on 1,400 calories worth of pasta and bread.

Allibaba

I actually found some of the information in this doc to be informative. I have read before about the lipid hypothesis (the false idea that fat is bad for you) and so it was interesting to read more about that.

TK421NotAtPost

So, I saw this documentary last night. I don't get it. A skinny comedian does a documentary where he eats nothing but McD for a month and gains weight and his health suffers (shocking!). So, fat comedian retaliates several years later with a long commercial for McD where he eats McD and other fatty foods, but makes sure to keep his calories low and loses weight (again, shocking!). And THIS is what so many people use as their food guide? Comedians? Seriously?

Considering everything else people do regarding food and dieting, are you really surprised by this?

:laugh: Good point. But I am constantly surprised at the stuff people believe about food, nutrition and health. How did something so simple as eating food become so screwed up? Aren't we (humans) supposed to be the smart species?

It's because people are always looking for simple answers as well as ways to deflect blame from themselves and transfer it to external factors. What better way than to villify the Government and carb consumption? Opportunistic people like Taubes preyed on this mentality and made a lot of money from it.

questionablemethods

Opportunistic people like Taubes preyed on this mentality and made a lot of money from it.

Oh, that's right. Let's not forget the evil, opportunistic journalist who dared to make money doing... his job? Researching, writing, and sharing information? It seems as though there woud have been a LOT easier ways for the guy to make a quick buck than spend three years researching a book.

ArizonaBMC

Problem with your argument is that modern Franken-wheat IS a processed food.

TheRealParisLove

Documentaries should not be mistaken for science or news reporting. They are entertainment, nothing more.

pluckabee

I actually enjoyed fathead. Of all the bull****ty food documentaries out there, this one seemed the least bull****tiest to me. I especially enjoyed that instead of just using population based observation studies, which base their findings on correlation, he included some studies that were actual experiments - something that most agenda based food documentaries don't do.

It did have some bad science in it, but overall it had better scientific rigor than say, food matters (which was simply awful)

It wasn't at all a Mcdonalds commercial. The only reason it focused on McDonalds so much is because he was doing a rebuttal to Supersize Me, which vilified McDonalds throughout. Just because he was defending the claims made about McDonalds in supersize me doesn't mean he was promoting them. I think he remained neutral.

ron2e

Documentaries should not be mistaken for science or news reporting. They are entertainment, nothing more.

Well said, so true!

mockchoc

Documentaries should not be mistaken for science or news reporting. They are entertainment, nothing more.

Well said, so true!

QFT! I don't think most people understand this though. sad that is.

SkepticallyFit

Aside from what has already been posted, I think another problem is that people have an "all-or-nothing" mentality. Nuance or "grey area" is thrown out for paleo this, low-fat that, which leads to some truly wacky beliefs about food.

For myself, I take the middle track. I consume plenty of carbs from fruits, vegetables, and whole grain wheat, as well as plenty of protein and fat from olive oil, nuts, dairy, eggs, and soy. I don't focus on "low-carb" or "low-fat," which has already led to much better health outcomes according to my doctor and I'm still quite a ways from my goal weight. I don't find nutrition all that complicated, so neither should anyone else.

mammamaurer

If you watch the movie closely, you will hear him explain why he did it. He pretty much proved that Spurlock cooked the books, and that's the point. Spurlock couldn't have eaten the number of calories he claimed to have eaten and stayed within his own self-imposed rules. He won't let anyone see his food diary to prove otherwise.

He's attacking the elitist mentality of Spurlock and others like him who have the idea that people are weak idiots and need to be protected from the world. His argument is that what we need to be protected from is the people claiming to be trying to protect us, because they are working on mistaken assumptions about food. He's attacking those underlying assumptions on which the entire diet industry (and the federal government) is built, and he uses compelling, scientifically sound, arguments to prove his point. We've been misled about fat and sugar both and the establishment is sticking by faulty information despite that no good studies bear it out as accurate.

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

and i love you sir:flowerforyou:

mammamaurer

I know I sound like a conspiracy theorist and I'm normally not. But I've done a lot of reading about this and I'm thoroughly convinced that sugar is the major dietary culprit, not saturated fats, as is being espoused by the mainstream diet industry and, indeed, the federal government.

The numbers don't lie, however. People are eating less sugar and more fat nowadays, and it's been trending that way for several decades. If sugar is the culprit, then shouldn't people be eating more sugar and less fat? The real culprit is the fact that people are less active then we were 30-40 years ago, and yet we are eating a lot more in general. It's got nothing to do with one particular food type.

..
sort of yes we are far less active but yes we are eating far more sugars nowaday as well, since realy all carbohydrate is is a fancy word for s* mixed with sugar

_Zardoz_

The point of Super size me seems to have gone over some peoples heads

neanderthin

The rest of world is becoming fatter as more countries become "developed" and begin eating processed foods. And that is the real problem. Processed foods in general. Processed carbs is the most consumed and so, naturally and rightfully, gets the worst wrap. But processed meats are just as bad. It's not wheat so much as a lack of natural foods. It's not as if people just started eating wheat.

I totally agree, which is why I am so confused that, for example, not only is low fat milk typically the recommendation, even for children (http://www.eatright.org/Public/content.aspx?id=6751) but, in fact whole raw milk is prohibited by more than half of the US.

I also don't understand why pasta, crackers, etc. tend to get a free pass. The link I just posted encourages parents to "Give kids whole-grain cereals for breakfast, kid-friendly “white” whole-wheat bread for sandwiches, crunchy whole-grain crackers for snacks and whole-grain pastas for dinner."

Yes, fine, they are whole-grain cereals, bread, crackers, and pasta and I get that, if you're going to be giving your kids those foods, then there are are reasons for recommending whole grain over refined grain products, but I don't believe that's how the recommendations are being interpreted (or really even how they are being communicated). I'm not saying that these foods will kill anyone, but I haven't seen a strong nutrition-based reason that I ought to feed my children crackers and bread, whole-grain or not.

I agree. I think the intent, to replace white grains with whole grains is good and important. But too much empahsis has been placed on it, making it seem more important than simply eating less of overly processed products made from flour such as pasta, crackers and bread even if they are whole grain.

And, for me, a lot of what I got out of Fat Head was that a lot of the (allegedly) flawed saturated fat research and subsequent (allegedly) rushed/ill-advised governmental dietary recommendations have driven the American food system into preferring more processed foods. The relatively unprocessed (but "evil" saturated-fat laden) beef tallow, leaf lard or bacon grease that were used were replaced with vegetable shortening, corn oil, soybean oil, etc. I can, and have, rendered beef tallow in a crock pot. I can't say the same about soybean oil.

The (supposedly unjustified) vilification of saturated fat also gave us all kinds of low-fat dairy products. Of course, because fat is tasty, when it is removed it is frequently replaced with sugar (or fake sugar, these days).

One of my pet peeves is when people equate "low-fat" diet suggestions with low saturated fat diet recommendations. They are two very different things. Low fat is unhealthy, low saturated fat is not.

There is quite a bit of clinical evidence that people who eat diets high in saturated fat have greater incidence of disease (though less directly linking the two). That, plus the fact that I dislike fatty meat and whole fat milk products leave an unpleasant phlegm in my throat, is enough to keep me away from it.

Honestly, the more I read these boards the more I understand why research on nutrition is often so conflicting. Some people claim to feel healthier and have less digestive problems when eating mega portions of animal protein and fat and cutting out grains. Others, like me, claim to feel better when eating whole grains and limiting animal products.

I don't eat overly processed grains because I've been told they are bad for me, but honestly when I did eat a lot of white bread and pasta I never had problems with weight gain or bloating. I've always had a pretty healthy digestive system. The only time I've had problems is when eating too much greasy meat. A large mabled steak, bacon, sausage, baby back ribs all seem to shoot through my gut quickly with unpleasant consequences.

Maybe it all does go back to our ancestors. But it would seem to me that their diets would vary a lot by region. Surely those that lived in warm climates where edible plants were available year round would have eaten a much higher percentage of them than those that lived in cold climates where plants were only available part of the time. Why would anyone spend time chasing, killing, and butchering animals when there was food that doesn't fight back everywhere you look?

People can talk themselves into anything and believe anything, it's how nutritional biases are formed. There will never be a consensus on pretty much anything unless we have true cause and effect, until then we continue to learn.

dsjohndrow

Like using Colbert or Stewart for the news.

pluckabee

The point of Super size me seems to have gone over some peoples heads

The point of fat head seems to have gone over some peoples heads

alisonlynn1976

How many people get their only news from the Daily show and Colbert?

Me! ...is that wrong?