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
24567…18

Replies

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    TeacupsAndToning wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Are people eating a lot more jam and jelly than me? When I have it, I'm usually have 1-2 tablespoons, so like 60-120 calories? I get that every little bit counts, but if I was looking for the big calorie hitters in my diet I probably wouldn't start there.

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

    I think he meant things like this:

    4ekh91yjs54f.jpg

    There are two entries on the list -- one for "jams," the other for "jellies." So even if one of them is for gelatin-based dishes (and I think those were often referred to as "salads" in the 50s), there's still the other one.
  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    JerSchmare wrote: »
    In the 1960’s this was new information to many Americans who had no idea. Information was not readily available as it is now. You actually had to go to a library and seek out information you wanted. Nobody did that unless you were in school or had a passion for a topic of interest. But, mostly, no one had availability to information like we have now.

    I don't think that it true at all. I grew up in the 60's and heard this kind of thing from a young child.

    Edit: Buy my mother did watch Jack Lalanne pretty regularly so maybe I heard it from him. :)
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    sijomial wrote: »
    None of those items were big parts of my diet when I got fat, was fat or when I lost weight, or when I maintain at goal weight.

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

    Another more sensible way for me personally to apply this is to focus on my main meals (which generally are made up of nutrient dense foods) and limit between meal eating. Some like snacking, so this wouldn't work for them, but it is far more significant for me than eliminating foods would be.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    I found it interesting that his stand on significantly reducing added sugars 60 years ago is the same as the experts at the WHO and USDA now. I couldn't find the actual video, but the person discussing Jack's views indicated he was recommending reducing these items not total elimination

    It's really not that surprising. Limiting treats/dessert items and added sugar was commonplace advice and part of the nutrition advice 60 years ago too. It's hardly new -- what's new is trying to come up with a specific number.

    Rather than focusing on the average person and specific foods others have issues with, doesn't it make more sense to look at one's own diet to identify sources of excess calories and figure out how to reduce them?
  • saintor1
    saintor1 Posts: 376 Member
    edited December 2017
    Options
    "Salad and cooking oils"? I think that the listing in the 6thgraph is really too short... Where is fat from Cheese and meat.
  • AnvilHead
    AnvilHead Posts: 18,344 Member
    Options
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    None of those items were big parts of my diet when I got fat, was fat or when I lost weight, or when I maintain at goal weight.

    Pros
    For some people reducing those high calorie items would reduce their calorie load significantly. In the context of a time when calorie counting wasn't easy then it would "work" for those people.

    Cons
    Hadn't realised demonisation of white foods went back that far! Colour of sugar is an irrelevance.
    I'm not a fan of elimination, doubtful it's a sustainable long term strategy for most people.

    Same here.

    While I agree that back in the day it was probably a quick fix for some people to lose weight that way, I don't think that demonizing foods is a sustainable path to weight management.

    Of course those foods by their nature should be limited or reduced as part of one's diet since they don't contain a lot of micronutrients, but completely eliminated?

    Nope. That's not a realistic path.

    You can maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle and still have those things.

    Also, it should be mentioned that Jack LaLane went full potato into endorsing juicing late in life. That puts his reliability as a source for nutrition information into question.

    I'd submit that anybody who has a diet consisting chiefly or mostly of the ten things on LaLanne's list in the OP would most certainly benefit in many ways from improving their dietary habits.

    As usual, context and dosage matter and aren't being considered in the discussion. There's nothing wrong with any of those things on that list in moderation. Should they comprise the entirety or majority of your diet? Not so much.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Options
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    None of those items were big parts of my diet when I got fat, was fat or when I lost weight, or when I maintain at goal weight.

    Pros
    For some people reducing those high calorie items would reduce their calorie load significantly. In the context of a time when calorie counting wasn't easy then it would "work" for those people.

    Cons
    Hadn't realised demonisation of white foods went back that far! Colour of sugar is an irrelevance.
    I'm not a fan of elimination, doubtful it's a sustainable long term strategy for most people.

    Same here.

    While I agree that back in the day it was probably a quick fix for some people to lose weight that way, I don't think that demonizing foods is a sustainable path to weight management.

    Of course those foods by their nature should be limited or reduced as part of one's diet since they don't contain a lot of micronutrients, but completely eliminated?

    Nope. That's not a realistic path.

    You can maintain a healthy weight and lifestyle and still have those things.

    Also, it should be mentioned that Jack LaLane went full potato into endorsing juicing late in life. That puts his reliability as a source for nutrition information into question.

    I'd submit that anybody who has a diet consisting chiefly or mostly of the ten things on LaLanne's list in the OP would most certainly benefit in many ways from improving their dietary habits.

    As usual, context and dosage matter and aren't being considered in the discussion. There's nothing wrong with any of those things on that list in moderation. Should they comprise the entirety or majority of your diet? Not so much.

    Yes, there is a *huge* difference between getting most or a big portion of your calories from the things on the list (which would make it challenging for many people to eat an appropriate amount of calories and meet their nutritional needs) and having a diet that sometimes includes those things.

  • Need2Exerc1se
    Need2Exerc1se Posts: 13,576 Member
    Options
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    AnvilHead wrote: »
    LaLanne was a very vocal "clean eating" proponent. Probably to the point of being orthorexic, although I doubt that was recognized as a thing back then.

    To be honest, don't think orthorexic is really a "thing" now. Pretty much the same status as people who compulsively eat too much sugar and say they can't reduce or stop. BTW, IMO sugar addiction is a bunch of crap. People may eat too many sugar laden foods and have bad health outcomes but no physical addiction. Similar to the situation in people with orthorexia.

    https://www.nationaleatingdisorders.org/orthorexia-nervosa

    Orthorexia nervosa is not currently recognized as a clinical diagnosis in the DSM-5, but many people struggle with symptoms associated with this term.

    Those who have an “unhealthy obsession” with otherwise healthy eating may be suffering from “orthorexia nervosa,” a term which literally means “fixation on righteous eating.”

    I have known people who limit their lives so that they can stick to their diet of choice -- they don't travel because they can't be assured of organic food the whole time or they don't socialize because they can't control the food they will encounter. I don't know if it needs a fancy name, but to the extent that it keeps them from living their best well-rounded life, I would consider it to be a problem.

    Yeah, we want to make good choices, but there is a point of diminishing returns. If you aren't going to visit your grandparents because of the food options in their town, it's a good time to access and see if your diet is driving your happiness and health or if you're just making a fetish of the whole thing.

    We had a lady that worked for our company whose job required traveling and she would not travel anywhere unless she was sure there were organic stores/restaurants in the area. While I thought that seemed a little crazy she was actually a very happy and sweet person. It wasn't a problem to her.

Categories