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.
which is the best diet for overall health and weight loss
Replies
-
This has been a fun read.
0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).15 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
"You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it
"You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did
NIH
MAYO
JAP
you pic - reading is fun
When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."
So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LOL its the second to the bottom and when you throw vegetables and fruit which is the bottom - the bottom together are massive loaded with sugar
The bottom of what?
The food pyramid was replaced in 2011. While "MyPlate," the replacement" has a bottom, it isn't meant to represent what you should eat the most of. It's more like a pie chart.
It might be helpful if you took some time to make yourself familiar with current nutritional recommendations.
LOL brother its the roughly the same 75% of your diet comes from fruit vegetable and grains - all of which are sugar heavy
So you finally looked up "MyPlate." Congratulations!
It's still wrong, though. I know you know this, but:
75% of plate fruit, veg, and grains by volume does not mean 75% of calories. MyPlate assumes there will be some added fat, and the biggest visual part of the plate is veg, which are low cal (mostly).
I'm assuming by "sugar heavy" the poster in question means carb heavy (as if carbs were all the same, which is silly), but the diet recommended by MyPlate is NOT 75% carb, and the US diet is not currently (obviously) 75% carb.
By being anti veg and fruit, that poster has lost any credibility, period.
My own grumbles about MyPlate, which I think is pretty good overall:
I think vegetables and fruit should not be treated as if they were identical (they aren't totally, but I think it's important to push vegetables and not "fruits and veg" such that some think if they don't eat veg, fruit is sufficient replacement).
I think "grains" is a dumb category (there is no need to consume grains at most meals) and it should be "starches" instead. I'd take beans/lentils/pulses and tubers out of vegetables and put them in starches (corn is already in there, since it's a grain). I would keep beans, etc. in the protein group also (as they are now in vegetables and protein).
I think "dairy" is a bad category and there's no basis for promoting it as a separate category as if we needed to consume it, let alone daily. I'd put it in protein.
I disagree with the advice to consume low/no fat dairy, as I think the evidence is that it does not matter. I'd suggest that some find full fat more satisfying, some do not, and that choosing between the two should depend on overall calories and preferences and satiety.
That said, overall if more people actually followed MyPlate's advice, the American Diet would be pretty good. But people mostly do not.9 -
janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
Because it's 'bro' advice, just like about 99% of what you post.
Most reputable sources in the fitness industry who are current on their research (Helms, Aragon, Schoenfeld, McDonald, etc.) would never advocate setting your macros by straight percentages. You'd set them by grams per bodyweight or grams per pound of lean body mass. Using percentages is like using a yardstick to measure the thickness of a piece of sheet metal. Telling a 280 pound person with 35% bodyfat to get 40% of their calories from protein and 40% from fat is useless and silly advice.
You're also indulging in the typical binary fantasy that there can only be two ways to go about things - either eat "clean" or "pound pasta all day long". As if there can be no reasonable, sensible middle ground in a diet. Not to even mention the misguided "omg teh sugarzzz is teh poizonzzz" rhetoric, straight out of the dialog from crackpots like Fung and Taubes.
And lastly, I don't see anybody here talking about a low-fat diet. That seems to be a strawman of your own creation to move the goalposts.19 -
Funny how obesity levels are going up but sugar consumption is going down13
-
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
https://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/news/20100802/low-carb-diets-improve-cholesterol-long-term#2
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat
http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/1900694/effects-low-carbohydrate-low-fat-diets-randomized-trial?doi=10.7326/M14-0180
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5384055/
A WebMD article, an NPR story (where it looks like you're attempting to shift the blame to sugar companies, something you just said you weren't doing), an abstract about the impact of a low carbohydrate diet (not even what we were discussing), and some claims about low carbohydrates and exercise performance (again, not what we were discussing).
So again, you aren't backing up the claims I'm referencing with studies in reputable medical journals.
7 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »LOL its the second to the bottom and when you throw vegetables and fruit which is the bottom - the bottom together are massive loaded with sugar
The bottom of what?
The food pyramid was replaced in 2011. While "MyPlate," the replacement" has a bottom, it isn't meant to represent what you should eat the most of. It's more like a pie chart.
It might be helpful if you took some time to make yourself familiar with current nutritional recommendations.
LOL brother its the roughly the same 75% of your diet comes from fruit vegetable and grains - all of which are sugar heavy
So you finally looked up "MyPlate." Congratulations!
It's still wrong, though. I know you know this, but:
75% of plate fruit, veg, and grains by volume does not mean 75% of calories. MyPlate assumes there will be some added fat, and the biggest visual part of the plate is veg, which are low cal (mostly).
I'm assuming by "sugar heavy" the poster in question means carb heavy (as if carbs were all the same, which is silly), but the diet recommended by MyPlate is NOT 75% carb, and the US diet is not currently (obviously) 75% carb.
By being anti veg and fruit, that poster has lost any credibility, period.
My own grumbles about MyPlate, which I think is pretty good overall:
I think vegetables and fruit should not be treated as if they were identical (they aren't totally, but I think it's important to push vegetables and not "fruits and veg" such that some think if they don't eat veg, fruit is sufficient replacement).
I think "grains" is a dumb category (there is no need to consume grains at most meals) and it should be "starches" instead. I'd take beans/lentils/pulses and tubers out of vegetables and put them in starches (corn is already in there, since it's a grain). I would keep beans, etc. in the protein group also (as they are now in vegetables and protein).
I think "dairy" is a bad category and there's no basis for promoting it as a separate category as if we needed to consume it, let alone daily. I'd put it in protein.
I disagree with the advice to consume low/no fat dairy, as I think the evidence is that it does not matter. I'd suggest that some find full fat more satisfying, some do not, and that choosing between the two should depend on overall calories and preferences and satiety.
That said, overall if more people actually followed MyPlate's advice, the American Diet would be pretty good. But people mostly do not.
I agree with what you're saying here. I personally think that MyPlate is too simplistic. I completely agree that "grains" is a dumb category and I would realign the proteins as you suggested.
For someone who is starting from nothing, it could be a helpful guide. But most people, I think, would need to go beyond that to find a diet that really works for them.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »
But if people are getting their sugar from fruit, why would they be interested in buying low fat products?
The thought is they will stop eating fruit and begin buying these products? How exactly is this working?
the average person gong for health - is not investigating deeply the amount of sugar in there diets - they just here eat your fruits and vegetables and stay away from fatty foods and low fat diet is best - Vegetable yes - some fruit - low grains and good fats and protein
That's not what MyPlate says.
It says limit added sugar and sat fat, avoid transfat, and get half your diet from veg and fruit (with veg being pictorially a larger category).
But more to the point, your assumption that carbs are bad and to be avoided (including from fruit and veg and whole grains and beans) is not evidence-based. Many Blue Zones are higher carb than the US (and they eat more fruit and veg and whole food sources of starchy carbs).
Also what's the obsession with fat free sweets -- did you just wake up from a nap that started in the 90s?12 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
"You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it
"You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did
NIH
MAYO
JAP
you pic - reading is fun
When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."
So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?
Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you
So you are claiming it is the sugar companies. Glad we could clear that up and establish that my understanding of what you were claiming was correct.
You understand that "fat free" is pretty much a dead diet trend, right? It's like you're posting right from the heart of 1993 here.7 -
janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
"You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it
"You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did
NIH
MAYO
JAP
you pic - reading is fun
When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."
So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?
Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you
what products specifically?
the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...
It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...
So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...8 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
"You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it
"You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did
NIH
MAYO
JAP
you pic - reading is fun
When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."
So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?
Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you
what products specifically?
the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...
It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...
So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...
*waits for a rant about Snackwells*
LOL.7 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »what i am saying is that they are already getting the sugar from the F&V then they buy fat free stuff thinking it health only to be eating massive amount of Sugar - 20% carbs a day are more than enough 40% Fat needed for endocrine system and CNS function, 40% protein needed for muscle retention , blood production, enzyme production....
Sugar needed for ATP production but you can produce ATP with fats and not have all the ancillary issue associate with Sugar consumption
Who is doing this? Given the current trends (paleo, low carb, keto, "clean eating"), who exactly is buying this fat free stuff? Who is even making it anymore? I don't think my grocery store even sells Snackwells anymore and they were like the poster child for low fat snacks. The trendy snacks are higher fat things like coconut chips or things that are higher in fiber like roasted chickpeas.
All I posted was a 40-40-20 rule where carbs are 20 - people started blowing me up over it and i was left having to call up medical journals substantiating my opinion
That wasn't all you did. You also claimed that the food pyramid was still current, that people following it would be "pounding down pasta all day long," and that someone who was following the current food recommendations would be consuming "massive" amounts of sugar.
You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies so that they could more easily sell fat-free products to people (although how this connection is supposed to work still isn't exactly clear to me).
You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals (or any type of journal).
"You also claimed that recommendations for fruit and vegetable consumption were the work of sugar companies" - NOPE never did that - I did respond to a question about it
"You've made a lot of claims here and they aren't backed up by studies in reputable medical journals" - yes i did
NIH
MAYO
JAP
you pic - reading is fun
When asked whether sugar companies benefit from people eating fruit, you responded: "of course it does - keep them eating sugar(fruit- sugar - basically the same) keep them fat - and watch us justify a low/no fat diet and we'll be able to load the products with sugar."
So you think the sugar companies had nothing to do with the recommendation to eat fruits and vegetables, they're just benefiting passively from recommendations made for other reasons? If I misunderstood you, then I apologize.
In the scenario you're writing about, who wants to "keep them fat" and why? If it isn't the sugar companies behind it, then who is doing it?
Sugar producers and corn producers love a fat USA - they get the tout a fat free diet knowing full well they are going to be throwing massive amounts of sugar into the product to make it taste good the whole time the package will say "FAT FREE" it so healthy for you
what products specifically?
the only low fat products I buy are 1% milk and non-fat Fage...neither of those products has added sugar at all...let alone "massive amounts"...I get plenty of dietary fat elsewhere from nuts, avocados, good cooking oils, etc...
It's 2018, not 1990...I don't really see "low fat" products produced and marketed like they were in 1990...
So what products specifically are marketed as "low fat" but have massive amounts of sugar added...
Exactly.2 -
Explain the blue zones. Oh yes the crazy anti carb people tend to pretend they don't exist10
-
janejellyroll wrote: »WinoGelato wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »
But if people are getting their sugar from fruit, why would they be interested in buying low fat products?
The thought is they will stop eating fruit and begin buying these products? How exactly is this working?
the average person gong for health - is not investigating deeply the amount of sugar in there diets - they just here eat your fruits and vegetables and stay away from fatty foods and low fat diet is best - Vegetable yes - some fruit - low grains and good fats and protein
Someone who is eating their fruits and vegetables is buying fruits and vegetables. I'm not sure how this shift to low fat products that you're predicting is supposed to be happening.
Or who in this thread is advocating a low fat diet? Or any sort of governing agency that is currently recommending a low fat diet other than to deal with certain medical conditions.
This poster seems to be stuck in some sort of time warp where the food pyramid and Snackwells reign surpreme... I can just picture him in his Doc Martens rocking out to Nirvana wondering why people don't get with the program and stop eating those horrible fruits and vegetables!
This is what happens to a lot of people who get caught in internet nutrition information, I've noticed. Because so many low carb/paleo/"clean eating" people are working with outdated information about the food pyramid or recommendations for low fat diets, the people who are frequent readers of those sources tend to act like the nutritional fads of the 90s are still current.
You'll never get me to criticize Doc Martens though. I still love those things!
I really should read to the end before posting, as WinoGelato's post covers the blast from the past thing perfectly!
I think it's easier to rant about current dietary advice if you create a strawman (also if you pretend like the US diet is or was ever low fat, since it was not, even in the Susan Powter era).4
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K 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
- 388 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
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 908 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.2K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions