Fitness and diet myths that just won't go away

SuzySunshine99 wrote: »

COGypsy wrote: »

I’m passable in 3 languages and studied tons of Greek and Latin in school. I can pronounce a LOT of things. That means I can eat whatever I want, right?

Haha! I have seen a variation of this “rule” as “If your grandmother wouldn’t recognize the ingredients, don’t eat it.”

My grandmother was a chemist, so I’d bet she’d recognize more ingredients that I would.

I think what Mr. Pollan suggested was to generally avoid things that your grandmother (or great grandmother) wouldn't recognize AS FOOD. One set of my grandparents ran a new and used auto parts shop. My grandmother could recognize a brake shoe, but she wouldn't have considered it food. The other set of grandparents ran restaurants. They would recognize floor wash soap, but they wouldn't have considered it food.

I really don't think it's a bad generality.

What we most remember that Mr. Pollan said was, "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." That's three things. The suggestion was that "food" is something your great grandmother would have recognized as food. The other two suggestions are pretty straightforward. All seem reasonable guidance to me.

One set of grandparents used to have a regular subscription to a company that delivered potato chips. Yep. That used to be a thing. The company still makes chips, but they don't deliver. You'd leave the metal tins out, and the delivery driver would collect them and leave a fresh tin. Oh the memories. So, my grandmother would recognize potato chips as food, and it's made from plants. That's where "not too much" comes into play.

As such, I actually do not wish this myth would go away. I wish more people would see it in context and opt for choosing healthy foods most of the time.

springlering62 wrote: »

If apple cider vinegar is that good for you, imagine what wine can do!


My latest peeve is everyone being on “detox” again. It must be an end-of-year thing.

Post-holiday ritual expiation of food sins . . . US Thanksgiving now, Christmas/New Years later?

paperpudding wrote: »

I think what Mr. Pollan suggested was to generally avoid things that your grandmother (or great grandmother) wouldn't recognize AS FOOD. One set of my grandparents ran a new and used auto parts shop. My grandmother could recognize a brake shoe, but she wouldn't have considered it food. The other set of grandparents ran restaurants. They would recognize floor wash soap, but they wouldn't have considered it food.

I really don't think it's a bad generality.

well, no - nobody ever considers floor wash soap or brake shoes as food and I dont think anybody intended the motto to mean don't eat anythings your grandmother didnt recognise - that would be even sillier than the intended meaning of don't eat ingredients or food she wouldnt recognise.

Which is also very silly.,

I think it is a really silly generality

My grandmother was actually a very good cook - but she lived in rural Australia and cooked and recognised conservative western staples. And died nearly 30 years ago

To extrapolate from that to not eat for example, stir-fries, bok choy, tofu,sushi, chick peas - makes of course no sense whatsoever.

Maybe I'm mistaken, but it seems like you are trying to set up straw-man propositions. Earlier you suggested that someone with a lisp couldn't eat anything because they might not be able to pronounce it.

That proposition would also extend to someone who was not a native speaker of a language and had an accent. I don't think anyone would make that inference nor the inference that a person with a lisp shouldn't eat spinach.

If your grandmother were alive and someone showed her a bok choy, perhaps she WOULD recognize that it is in fact a vegetable. Certainly if she had traveled to Asia and saw someone cooking it, she likely wouldn't think that it wasn't food.

There was a time when I wouldn't eat sushi. I currently am a bit squeamish about the prospect of eating insects. Both should be considered food, although neither is a plant. I would love to be able to get over my issue with insects because in reality they would be a great food resource for humans and were for many cultures throughout the world over the ages. Even in the story of Exodus, one of the plagues was locusts. When that plague was over, the locusts were blown out into the red sea. Had they just died on shore, they would have been a grand repast.

Our ideas of foods surely change over time. Several hundred years ago, Jonathan Swift suggested it "must have been a bold man who first ate an oyster." They were nearly extirpated on parts of the west coast of the USA when gold miners discovered how delicious they were and when trains could deliver them.

Nutrition science is still a very young science. We keep discovering how we were wrong when we thought we knew something. Maybe having some sideboards to help us make good choices aren't silly. Maybe there's a better way to describe the idea that people can figure out what's good to eat and what's not. Cheetos are tasty, but they're probably not "good to eat." Eating a few likely won't cause long-term harm, but avoiding them completely will certainly cause no harm unless that's the only food accessible to you for the next two weeks.

I'm rambling. I'll stop now. I'm going to go eat some plants. Not too much though.

Don't eat after 7.. eat more for breakfast, then medium for lunch and light light dinner..

Donnagemmy wrote: »

...eat more for breakfast, then medium for lunch and light light dinner..

I usually eat the exact reverse of this: My biggest meal of the day is almost invariably the evening meal, and IF I have breakfast at all it's something super small, like a small yogurt, more of a snack than a meal.

Donnagemmy wrote: »

...eat more for breakfast, then medium for lunch and light light dinner..

Don't you think this was probably true for the person who originally said this? Like some of us say the opposite is true for us, some say count calories for a day, others say count for a week. Some say exercise doesn't matter, others think it's extremely important.
I don't really think it's a myth, just certainly not "one size fits all."

Corina1143 wrote: »

Donnagemmy wrote: »

...eat more for breakfast, then medium for lunch and light light dinner..

Don't you think this was probably true for the person who originally said this? Like some of us say the opposite is true for us, some say count calories for a day, others say count for a week. Some say exercise doesn't matter, others think it's extremely important.
I don't really think it's a myth, just certainly not "one size fits all."

But that is the same caveat as usual - nobody objects to breakfast is my biggest meal, I find weekly calorie counting better etc

The problem is when such things are presented as universal absolute musts rather than individual preferences.

Somebody posted
"If apple cider vinegar is that good for you, imagine what wine can do!"

That got me thinking about wine...and "rules"

"Never drink wine from a bottle that is bigger than your head"
That seemed reasonable enough in the context of "jug wines".
but then I experienced a remarkable older California Cabernet from Robert Mondavi that was bottled in a Jeroboam. It was magnificent.

So much for rules