Do you think in general the low fat diet advice is outdated?

[Bluegoat]

 

 

Growing up I was given chocolate milk to drink on a regular basis! Imagine all that sugar. That was back when it was believed kids needed milk ("It does a body good") to grow strong bones, and I hate the taste of white milk*. The only way my mother could get me to drink milk was if it was chocolate, and she thought it was essential that I get milk in me.

 

I found out years later as an adult that some of my cousins were jealous of me at family gatherings. I got chocolate milk and they didn't. For them it was an occasional treat and they hated that I got to have it while they didn't. 

 

*White milk even smells disgusting to me. I often have to have dh or ds smell it to tell me if it's still good. To me it always smells like it's gone bad.

 

I'm not sure it's the end of the world, chocolate things.  I've loosened up on it recently, and ave given my kids crossiants with chocolate chips melted on them, or hot chocolate on cold mornings. 

 

They call it "French breakfast".  My excuse is that the French ate that way for decades without becoming fat.  Though the real reason is trying to get anything into dd11s belly before she leaves for school.

[Bluegoat]

Maybe we need to obsess less about "healthy food" and just - eat, a wide variety of unprocessed foods, with everything in moderation. 

 

My grandmothers and great grandmother lived healthy productive lives into their nineties despite living through war, being refugees, enduring post war famine - they did not have the luxury of optimizing their diet. But they cooked almost every meal they ate in their own kitchens. 

I refuse to overthink.  There is a wide range of diets on which people can thrive. There is not one "healthy" diet.

If that weren't the case, humankind would have long since died out.

 

ETA: In your example, the apple was fine and the peanut butter was fine - and the fruit pebbles, my goodness, a little bit of unnecessary sugar. Still not a bad snack.

 

I think it's largely a food culture, and fast culture, problem.

 

I also think people get a little too worked up about things like white flour and sugar.  I saw a photo the other day of a local beach on a hot day in the 50's, and what struck me was that the people were all thin, and the kids were all thin.  It's not like people in the 50s were eating what we would consider health foods - they tended to eat a lot of white flour, potatoes, and bread, not too much meat because a lot couldn't afford it, canned veg and fruit were common, foods were largely seasonal.

 

That might not have been the healthiest, but I think other factors are important, like most of them didn't eat out a lot, and they tended to eat meals at home, not so much on the go, serving sizes were smaller, and people walked a lot more.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I guess that's where having grown up in a totalitarian regime is an advantage: it teaches you to be suspicious of absolutely everything somebody in "authority" claims.

 

But even in the US, there are people who have not joined the processed food trend.

 

Btw, government never taught that you must eat highly processed convenience food - the food pyramid just gives guidelines for food groups. It reflect the composition of traditional diets in many areas; most people never had the luxury of eating a meat based diet with little carbs, because for most people, carbs were the only affordable food source to be the basis for their nutrition.

ETA: So, I can't really fault people for designing a guideline that is oriented on traditional diets that worked reasonably well for large numbers of people.

 

Actually they basically did.  They told people to load up on carbs.  What carbs are the most readily available to people?  Processed carbs.  Stuff like breakfast cereals, shelf stable bread, etc.  Go to the noodle aisle and there is Hamburger Helper, etc.  They never said eat unprocessed carbs.  They said eat carbs.  The enemy was fat (the most offensive types being from meat of course).

[regentrude]

Actually they basically did.  They told people to load up on carbs.  What carbs are the most readily available to people?  Processed carbs.  Stuff like breakfast cereals, shelf stable bread, etc.  Go to the noodle aisle and there is Hamburger Helper, etc.  They never said eat unprocessed carbs.  They said eat carbs.  The enemy was fat (the most offensive types being from meat of course).

 

I think this is a fallacy. People have been eaten carb based diets for centuries without resorting to sweetened cereals or hamburger helper. It is not even any quicker to use those than to use rolled oats or regular pasta which are equally readily available.

No, people cannot put responsibility for their eating habits on the government.

And even the hamburger helper is not a problem if part of a varied balanced diet.

Edited November 30, 2016 by regentrude

[Greta]

 

* I really feel we should define this term, because I don't think any of us is using it literally. Clearly we all agree Froot Loops are processed foods, and clearly we all agree that raw apples aren't - but what about applesauce with a little bit of honey added? Or artisan bread and butter? Or yogurt with maple syrup? Or a ham and cheese sandwich? Quite a lot of foods we eat have at some point been processed, and somewhere along that spectrum between a raw apple and Froot Loops we drew that line, but I'm not sure where it is in this conversation.

 

 

Right, I was thinking about this as I was using the term, but I didn't go into it.  It's all going to come down to one's own comfort level about how much processing is acceptable and how much isn't, really.  Because even peeling a piece of fruit or cooking an egg is processing when you get right down to it.

 

The thing that I'm a stickler about personally is processing that increases either the relative concentration of starches or sugars, or the digestibility of starches or sugars (thus, increasing insulin response).  Turning whole grains into white flour is out.  Any form of concentrated sugars, whether that's something more natural like maple syrup or something that we're generally agreed is bad for you like high fructose corn syrup, all out.  I'm convinced that the huge amounts of refined flours and concentrated sugars in the modern diet is the main culprit in the obesity and diabetes epidemic, though I know the causes are complex and multi-faceted.  That's just a huge one for me personally because I've learned how those foods affect me.  

 

But other forms of processing are worth thinking about too.  I don't like the idea of solvent-extracted or hydrogenated oils.  That's just plain icky.  I mean, they don't even taste half as good as less processed oils, so what's the point?

 

I'm really conflicted about cured meats.  I mean, curing was discovered by using plant matter, such as celery seed, to change the meet, because plants are naturally high in nitrates.  So if nitrates are bad for you in cured meats, why aren't they bad for you in spinach?  I don't eat cured meats on a regular basis or anything.  But I really do love me a good Italian sub (on whole wheat bread of course  ;)  ) from time to time.  How bad is that?  I don't know!   :confused1:

[regentrude]

  I don't eat cured meats on a regular basis or anything.  But I really do love me a good Italian sub (on whole wheat bread of course  ;)  ) from time to time.  How bad is that?  I don't know!   :confused1:

 

In all likelihood, not bad at all if consumed occasionally and balanced by plenty of other things.

People never before had such a variety of foods to choose from and such an utter unimaginable luxury of worrying about their diet (as opposed to worrying that they'd have simply enough to eat)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think it's largely a food culture, and fast culture, problem.

 

 

Definitely.  That started when I was young.  We were trained from the get go that meals were something to be gotten through like any task that must be done (you know, like sweeping floors and stuff).  If meals were so important why did they give us 15 minute lunches in school?  And that was 15 minutes which included whatever time it took you to get your food, get your seat, etc.  Not 15 minutes to eat once you started.  So ready to go fast foods become quite appealing.

 

I remember when I first met my husband.  I thought he was the slowest eater I ever saw.  It was comical as heck.  We'd sit down to eat a meal and I'd be done in a couple of minutes and he's be still chewing half an hour later.  Unfortunately, he eats a lot faster than he used to.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I think this is a fallacy. People have been eaten carb based diets for centuries without resorting to sweetened cereals or hamburger helper. It is not even any quicker to use those than to use rolled oats or regular pasta which are equally readily available.

No, people cannot put responsibility for their eating habits on the government.

And even the hamburger helper is not a problem if part of a varied balanced diet.

 

Right so what's wrong with me?  Years of food that messed me up?  Bad genetics?  A disorder?  I cannot eat this stuff and be well.  Period.  And I'm not the only one. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Growing up Hamburger Helper was a regular meal.

[frugalmamatx]

For those of you saying the governmental push towards refined carbs does not exist - How do you explain programs such as WIC {which gives out tons of cereal aka refined carbs} and things such as commodities & farmer crop subsidies that give/promote the same? 

 

And yes, I am aware that WIC has {slightly} improved their nutritional offerings. Now they offer whole wheat bread / brown rice / oatmeal in ADDITION to the cereal :)

[Greta]

In all likelihood, not bad at all if consumed occasionally and balanced by plenty of other things.

People never before had such a variety of foods to choose from and such an utter unimaginable luxury of worrying about their diet (as opposed to worrying that they'd have simply enough to eat)

 

Thanks!

 

Yes, it's definitely a modern-day and first-world kind of problem.  And I don't want to be obsessive about my food.  But I do want to be sensible.  I hope I'm find the right balance.

[SparklyUnicorn]

Plus let's say you serve a side salad with Hamburger Helper.  If you are used to eating Hamburger Helper regularly, all the added sugar and crud kills your taste buds for real fresh food.  The salad tastes blah.  People gravitate towards the Hamburger Helper.  They stop making the salad. 

 

My mother hated vegetables.  She thought they tasted terrible.  She preferred sweets, but candy and donuts and cookies because real fruit tastes bad if you eat cookies and donuts regularly.  If we had vegetables at all we had canned carrots over boiled.  Mmmm.... I ate them, but no...they were not mmmm.  They were disgusting.

 

 

[Bluegoat]

For those of you saying the governmental push towards refined carbs does not exist - How do you explain programs such as WIC {which gives out tons of cereal aka refined carbs} and things such as commodities & farmer crop subsidies that give/promote the same? 

 

And yes, I am aware that WIC has {slightly} improved their nutritional offerings. Now they offer whole wheat bread / brown rice / oatmeal in ADDITION to the cereal :)

 

I don't think farm subsidies consider nutrition at all.  They affect what people eat, for sure, but it isn't their intent and I doubt anyone thought about it much.

[hornblower]

Actually they basically did.  They told people to load up on carbs.  What carbs are the most readily available to people?  Processed carbs.  Stuff like breakfast cereals, shelf stable bread, etc.  Go to the noodle aisle and there is Hamburger Helper, etc.  They never said eat unprocessed carbs.  They said eat carbs.  The enemy was fat (the most offensive types being from meat of course).

? 

 

but that's not what they said. The 1985 US guidelines said to limit fats & cholesterol, eat adequate starch & fiber & suggested " whole grain breads, cereals, fruits & vegetables"  & pointed out that processed white flour products have calories but low nutritional value.  They also said to avoid too much sugar & salt. 

 

 

The 1990 is very similar but expands on the whole grains/complex carbs: eat a variety of foods; maintain healthy weight; choose foods low in fat, saturated fat & cholesterol; choose a diet with plenty of vegetables and fruits and grain products; use sugar in moderation; use salt in moderation. WRT grains, the brochure specifically mentions whole grains as being preferred.

 https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/1990_DGA_Brochure.pdf

 

you can see all the prev guidelines btw https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines-previous-guidelines

 

 

The current guidelines are just more detailed, with actual percentage etc  guidelines. (less than 10% of daily calories from added sugar; less than 10% of daily calories from saturated fats, precise targets for sodium etc) 

Edited November 30, 2016 by hornblower

[Greta]

Plus let's say you serve a side salad with Hamburger Helper.  If you are used to eating Hamburger Helper regularly, all the added sugar and crud kills your taste buds for real fresh food.  The salad tastes blah.  People gravitate towards the Hamburger Helper.  They stop making the salad. 

 

My mother hated vegetables.  She thought they tasted terrible.  She preferred sweets, but candy and donuts and cookies because real fruit tastes bad if you eat cookies and donuts regularly.  If we had vegetables at all we had canned carrots over boiled.  Mmmm.... I ate them, but no...they were not mmmm.  They were disgusting.

 

 

I agree wholeheartedly, I think that the highly-processed, excessively-sugared, MSG-laden foods that are so common in our culture have warped people's sense of taste.  I know they certainly did that to me.  I did not like fruit, back in the days when I was eating Little Debbie oatmeal pies and such.  I don't eat any sweetened foods now, and now fruit tastes like candy to me!  I wasn't crazy about veggies back in those days either, but I love vegetables now.  

[SparklyUnicorn]

For those of you saying the governmental push towards refined carbs does not exist - How do you explain programs such as WIC {which gives out tons of cereal aka refined carbs} and things such as commodities & farmer crop subsidies that give/promote the same? 

 

And yes, I am aware that WIC has {slightly} improved their nutritional offerings. Now they offer whole wheat bread / brown rice / oatmeal in ADDITION to the cereal :)

 

I assume economics.  The govt. steps in to help and tries to do so as cheaply as possible and not so much with the thought they want people to be healthy.  Although as an approach to improving people's lot and having them not be such a burden to the system they might reconsider that strategy because healthcare is so expensive.

 

My sister is disabled and gets disability.  At one point she got some food stamps.  It was a very very small amount.  There is no consideration for her health conditions that are clearly effected by lousy food.  When she went to food pantries for extra food to supplement, there again was no consideration for the fact she has diabetes.  They once gave her a large bag of white rice and 4 bags of stuffing cubes.  Super great for a diabetic.

[Guest]

? 

 

but that's not what they said. The 1985 US guidelines said to limit fats & cholesterol, eat adequate starch & fiber & suggested " whole grain breads, cereals, fruits & vegetables"  & pointed out that processed white flour products have calories but low nutritional value.  They also said to avoid too much sugar & salt. 

 

 

The 1990 is very similar but expands on the whole grains/complex carbs: eat a variety of foods; maintain healthy weight; choose foods low in fat, saturated fat & cholesterol; choose a diet with plenty of vegetables and fruits and grain products; use sugar in moderation; use salt in moderation. WRT grains, the brochure specifically mentions whole grains as being preferred.

 https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/dietary_guidelines_for_americans/1990_DGA_Brochure.pdf

 

you can see all the prev guidelines btw https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietary-guidelines-previous-guidelines

 

 

The current guidelines are just more detailed, with actual percentage etc  guidelines. (less than 10% of daily calories from added sugar; less than 10% of daily calories from saturated fats, precise targets for sodium etc) 

 

It's funny that you find all of that on websites now, but you did not find it in the 1980's or 1990's in the US public school cafeterias, health classes or public service announcements or most of what people who actually live in the US saw on a day to day basis then. The advertising conglomerates spent far more than the government telling us all that a huge breakfast spread of cereals, white flour concoctions and sugar filled juices were part of "your complete breakfast" among other things. Anyone else remember those commercials? :)

[SparklyUnicorn]

I agree wholeheartedly, I think that the highly-processed, excessively-sugared, MSG-laden foods that are so common in our culture have warped people's sense of taste.  I know they certainly did that to me.  I did not like fruit, back in the days when I was eating Little Debbie oatmeal pies and such.  I don't eat any sweetened foods now, and now fruit tastes like candy to me!  I wasn't crazy about veggies back in those days either, but I love vegetables now.  

 

Oh yeah I liked Hamburger Helper as a kid.  Why wouldn't I?  Carby sweet salty junky goodness.  I never made it as an adult up until one of my kids saw it and asked to try it.  So I bought a box and made it.  It was the most vile tasting thing EVER.  Years ago I would have chosen it over many other things though.

[SparklyUnicorn]

It's funny that you find all of that on websites now, but you did not find it in the 1980's or 1990's in the US public school cafeterias, health classes or public service announcements or most of what people who actually live in the US saw on a day to day basis then. The advertising conglomerates spent far more than the government telling us all that a huge breakfast spread of cereals, white flour concoctions and sugar filled juices were part of "your complete breakfast" among other things. Anyone else remember those commercials? :)

 

I didn't have a computer then.  I got my information from school. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Oh the complete breakfast of sugar cereal, glass of juice, another glass of milk, 2 slices of white bread with margarine, and a piece of fruit? 

 

 

[frugalmamatx]

I assume economics.  The govt. steps in to help and tries to do so as cheaply as possible and not so much with the thought they want people to be healthy.  Although as an approach to improving people's lot and having them not be such a burden to the system they might reconsider that strategy because healthcare is so expensive.

 

My sister is disabled and gets disability.  At one point she got some food stamps.  It was a very very small amount.  There is no consideration for her health conditions that are clearly effected by lousy food.  When she went to food pantries for extra food to supplement, there again was no consideration for the fact she has diabetes.  They once gave her a large bag of white rice and 4 bags of stuffing cubes.  Super great for a diabetic.

 

Totally understand & agree with the food pantry bit. I've dealt with pantries where every single item we were given either dd or I was allergic to - and that was BEFORE I cut wheat out due to problems. Gotta love multiple food allergies :) 

 

If your sister is ever in need again - tell her to call the food BANK {not pantry} and ask which locations are "client choice" or partial client choice. They may be able to direct her towards locations that will let her pick from options where she can at least hopefully get something she can use. Also mention that she is diabetic - I know our local food bank has a program for diabetics where if you attend classes for X many weeks, every class you get a box of diabetic friendly foods & produce. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

classic example:

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

We were too pov for the complete breakfast though.  We just got the sugar cereal with milk.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

We were too pov for the complete breakfast though.  We just got the sugar cereal with milk.

 

LOL. My parents rarely let us have cereal. We had hot breakfast most days. I won't pretend we had healthy hot breakfasts - lots of pancakes! - but we had hot breakfast. They figured cereal was overpriced junk food.

 

Whenever they saw those commercials they'd snark at them. "Part of a complete breakfast? You mean adjacent to one!" If bacon, toast, eggs, fruit, and a glass of milk isn't a complete breakfast without the cereal, I don't know what is :)

[Guest]

Oh the complete breakfast of sugar cereal, glass of juice, another glass of milk, 2 slices of white bread with margarine, and a piece of fruit? 

 

 

My Mom worked when I was a kid, and we had to be out the door at the crack of dawn. I always thought back then that I was the only kid in America who didn't have some huge breakfast laid out before school like in the commercials. I figured it was the downside of being from a broken home. Little did I know....... ;) 

[ktgrok]

No, it is not outdated. Bottom line, one cannot beat the laws of physics. Calories in greater than calories out will make the body store the calories within fat cells. The other important thing to remember is that the liver turns most everything to glucose rapidly. The liver could care less whether it is fat, carbs, or protein.

 

Americans eat too much, period. Until we learn to manage the amount going into our mouths, what one eats is almost irrelevant. But, if someone is willing to buy books on the latest and greatest way to lose weight, so be it.

 

Yeah, sorry, but no, it's not that simple. It's not just about calories. It's also about fat soluble vitamins, about insulin, about all sorts of gut hormones, and we are now finding out, about gut bacteria. 

 

There is good reason to believe that certain foods trigger fat storage even when energy deficient, making people FEEL less energetic, thus burning fewer calories. 

 

And appetite itself is regulated by a whole host of different things, all of which are effected by what foods you eat. 

 

But thanks for taking what has been a lifelong struggle with obesity and making it seem like I'm just too dumb to eat less. Or weak. Or whatever. 

 

Nice. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

A typical food day growing up was cereal (sugary) for breakfast.  Lunch might be peanut butter and jelly on white bread with a side of potato chips.  Dinner might be Hamburger Helper.  A special treat might be a Little Debbie snack cake.

 

But see here, none of the junk was in excess.  We only had a small bowl of cereal.  There was only one small sandwich with a light smearing of peanut butter and jelly.  Only a few chips.  One helping of Hamburger Helper and healthier because mom used margarine and skim milk because that is healthier.  And it was only one oatmeal pie snack cake. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

LOL. My parents rarely let us have cereal. We had hot breakfast most days. I won't pretend we had healthy hot breakfasts - lots of pancakes! - but we had hot breakfast. They figured cereal was overpriced junk food.

 

Whenever they saw those commercials they'd snark at them. "Part of a complete breakfast? You mean adjacent to one!" If bacon, toast, eggs, fruit, and a glass of milk isn't a complete breakfast without the cereal, I don't know what is :)

 

I flunk in the food department I think, but this is one thing I'm glad I can do for my kids.  Make them a real breakfast.

I saw a photo the other day of a local beach on a hot day in the 50's, and what struck me was that the people were all thin, and the kids were all thin.  It's not like people in the 50s were eating what we would consider health foods - 

 

I've noticed this again and again, when you look at photos of everyday Americans from the 1950s, how skinny almost all of them looked.

 

I think portion control is a much bigger culprit than whether we are eating "good" foods or "bad" foods.

 

Looking at the menu from 1950s McDonalds, they only sold 7 ounce sodas (of course, with no refills), a single-patty hamburger, or if you wanted to splurge, a single-patty cheeseburger, and a single size of fries smaller than today's "small" size.

 

I'm not blaming McDonalds here, they just make it easy to compare across  decades.  I bet these portions where similar to what people were eating at home, and today's larger fast food portions are the new normal, and correspond to home-cooked portions.

[SparklyUnicorn]

I've noticed this again and again, when you look at photos of everyday Americans from the 1950s, how skinny almost all of them looked.

 

I think portion control is a much bigger culprit than whether we are eating "good" foods or "bad" foods.

 

Looking at the menu from 1950s McDonalds, they only sold 7 ounce sodas (of course, with no refills), a single-patty hamburger, or if you wanted to splurge, a single-patty cheeseburger, and a single size of fries smaller than today's "small" size.

 

I'm not blaming McDonalds here, they just make it easy to compare across  decades.  I bet these portions where similar to what people were eating at home, and today's larger fast food portions are the new normal, and correspond to home-cooked portions.

 

But again, they must have done something to the food on top of that.  Why do people want to eat so much?  Why are they so hungry? 

 

Back in the day tough, to be fair, there wasn't this heavy emphasis on fat free either.  I have some old cookbooks and there are no low fat and fat free garbage recipes.  They didn't have all the fat off meat to 1/8th of an inch.  I bet boneless skinless chicken breast was either not available or quite expensive to request. 

[hornblower]

It's funny that you find all of that on websites now, but you did not find it in the 1980's or 1990's in the US public school cafeterias, health classes or public service announcements or most of what people who actually live in the US saw on a day to day basis then. The advertising conglomerates spent far more than the government telling us all that a huge breakfast spread of cereals, white flour concoctions and sugar filled juices were part of "your complete breakfast" among other things. Anyone else remember those commercials? :)

 

 

 

I didn't have a computer then.  I got my information from school. 

 

But that's not an argument then that "they" (presumably tptb) weren't giving good advice. That's an argument that big agri business & broadcasters need to be reigned in, gov't needs to re-think its farm subsidies, advertising standards need to be stricter and the government should be involved more in education wrt to health & nutrition promotion.

 

In Canada in the school I had nutrition as part of the Home Ec Cooking rotation, in PE and also in biology. 

 

I'm just reacting to this idea that "they" keep changing what they tell us.  The majority of nutrition science has been pretty clear for decades. Every new gimmicky story out there is just a push by  someone to sell a new book or a new product. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/knowing-what-to-eat-refus_b_5552467.html

 

 

"Almost any magical promise about losing weight or finding health has us reaching for our credit cards.

This is genuinely tragic, because we have known for literal decades that a short list of behavioral factors, diet salient among them, could cut prevailing overall rates of chronic disease and premature death by an astounding 80 percent. We know this from a vast, diverse, global, impressively unbiased and remarkably consistent literature.

 

Our problem is not want of knowledge about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens. Our problem is a stunning and tragically costly cultural reluctance — to swallow it."

 

 

(& no, this is not a plant based eating guy) 

Back in the day tough, to be fair, there wasn't this heavy emphasis on fat free either.  I have some old cookbooks and there are no low fat and fat free garbage recipes.  They didn't have all the fat off meat to 1/8th of an inch.  I bet boneless skinless chicken breast was either not available or quite expensive to request. 

 

Do these recipes show a yield?  I wonder how many people a whole chicken was expected to feed then?

[SparklyUnicorn]

 

 

 

But that's not an argument then that "they" (presumably tptb) weren't giving good advice. That's an argument that big agri business & broadcasters need to be reigned in, gov't needs to re-think its farm subsidies, advertising standards need to be stricter and the government should be involved more in education wrt to health & nutrition promotion.

 

In Canada in the school I had nutrition as part of the Home Ec Cooking rotation, in PE and also in biology. 

 

I'm just reacting to this idea that "they" keep changing what they tell us.  The majority of nutrition science has been pretty clear for decades. Every new gimmicky story out there is just a push by  someone to sell a new book or a new product. 

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/knowing-what-to-eat-refus_b_5552467.html

 

 

"Almost any magical promise about losing weight or finding health has us reaching for our credit cards.

This is genuinely tragic, because we have known for literal decades that a short list of behavioral factors, diet salient among them, could cut prevailing overall rates of chronic disease and premature death by an astounding 80 percent. We know this from a vast, diverse, global, impressively unbiased and remarkably consistent literature.

 

Our problem is not want of knowledge about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens. Our problem is a stunning and tragically costly cultural reluctance — to swallow it."

 

 

(& no, this is not a plant based eating guy) 

 

Yeah we'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

We weren't given good information.  And yes the information I was given came from the government (school).  You know what we did in home ec?  We made microwave chocolate pudding, microwave bread pudding, and a cherry pie with canned cherry filling. 

 

Schools served processed food at lunch.  That has gotten even worse as time has gone on.  We didn't have breakfast when I went, but now that they do they serve sugary cereals.  This is the GOVERNMENT. 

 

Ketchup was a vegetable.  So were potato chips.  Cereal is a good breakfast because it's a vitamin pill.  Pay no attention to the sugar content because it's low in fat and it has vitamins.

 

 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Do these recipes show a yield?  I wonder how many people a whole chicken was expected to feed then?

 

I'll look. 

 

I don't think serving sizes have gotten bigger in recipes.  I think people have gotten hungrier because the food is less satisfying.

Sure anyone can and will indulge.  That's a human thing that'll never change, but is it really normal to load up constantly just cuz?  There must be a reason.

[ktgrok]

And no, the low fat diet push didn't cause the obesity. What caused the obesity is that people kept consuming increasingly more calories. 

 

"Americans on average eat nearly 2,600 calories a day, almost 500 more than they did 30 years ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture."   Eating way too much of everything is the problem. 

 

 

 

Yes, but WHY did they start eating more calories? Many of us blame sugar, and well as changes in gut bacteria. 

[Guest]

 

 

 

 

 

But that's not an argument then that "they" (presumably tptb) weren't giving good advice. That's an argument that big agri business & broadcasters need to be reigned in, gov't needs to re-think its farm subsidies, advertising standards need to be stricter and the government should be involved more in education wrt to health & nutrition promotion.

 

In Canada in the school I had nutrition as part of the Home Ec Cooking rotation, in PE and also in biology.

 

I'm just reacting to this idea that "they" keep changing what they tell us. The majority of nutrition science has been pretty clear for decades. Every new gimmicky story out there is just a push by someone to sell a new book or a new product.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-katz-md/knowing-what-to-eat-refus_b_5552467.html

 

 

"Almost any magical promise about losing weight or finding health has us reaching for our credit cards.

 

This is genuinely tragic, because we have known for literal decades that a short list of behavioral factors, diet salient among them, could cut prevailing overall rates of chronic disease and premature death by an astounding 80 percent. We know this from a vast, diverse, global, impressively unbiased and remarkably consistent literature.

 

Our problem is not want of knowledge about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens. Our problem is a stunning and tragically costly cultural reluctance — to swallow it."

 

 

(& no, this is not a plant based eating guy)

But if the people, being we the people who actually LIVED here then, weren't receiving the advice then who exactly were they giving it to and really how successful was that foray? And "they" do keep changing it. Go look at any US hospital and compare what their dietitians were recommending in the 1990's versus what they're recommending now. Go look at what the US Government was feeding its military staff in the 90's versus now. Go look at what the school feeding guidelines were and tell me that's not politically motivated. Remember when ketchup was considered a vegetable for school lunch? I do.

 

You can cite all of the current web articles you want but looking at the internet versus living and working here and seeing the changes yourself in the medical and research industries are two totally different things. I'm not denying it's a cash cow to promote diets but telling me the government has been 100% consistent in their recommendations (or correct in them) and that the recommendations aren't subject to political sway is completely false.

 

I totally don't understand where you question the US govt and the message we poor, uninformed Americans get in half the other threads but on this suddenly they're 100% above board with the information that was publicized and we just all somehow misunderstood?

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yes, but WHY did they start eating more calories? Many of us blame sugar, and well as changes in gut bacteria. 

 

Because ktgrok we are all in denial.  We are self indulgent immoral and weak idiotic air heads (who also lie about our own upbringing).  We aren't really hungry.  We just pretend because we are weak.

 

And denial.  Don't forget about our denial.

[Guest]

Do these recipes show a yield? I wonder how many people a whole chicken was expected to feed then?

For what it's worth chickens then were significantly smaller. Factory farming wasn't in its heyday yet and the yields for pork and chicken were much lower per animal. As it's progressed chicken weight per bird has gone much higher and pork fat ratios have plummeted. Lots of changes in breeds and feeding techniques, not even to mention antibiotic feeds that were huge for quite some time (and still are with certain animals).

[SparklyUnicorn]

Yeah I give up on citing anything in this realm because the truth is I can find something that supports ANY claim I make. 

 

I'm only telling you my personal experience. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

For what it's worth chickens then were significantly smaller. Factory farming wasn't in its heyday yet and the yields for pork and chicken were much lower per animal. As it's progressed chicken weight per bird has gone much higher and pork fat ratios have plummeted. Lots of changes in breeds and feeding techniques, not even to mention antibiotic feeds that were huge for quite some time (and still are with certain animals).

 

We ate a lot more beef growing up than seems to be typical now.  My mother switched over to turkey because of course healthier (lower in fat).  Also cheaper. 

 

I remember us fighting over the strip of fat on steaks.  LOL  Now you can't buy a steak with a real strip of fat on it. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by SparklyUnicorn

[ktgrok]

I think it's largely a food culture, and fast culture, problem.

 

I also think people get a little too worked up about things like white flour and sugar.  I saw a photo the other day of a local beach on a hot day in the 50's, and what struck me was that the people were all thin, and the kids were all thin.  It's not like people in the 50s were eating what we would consider health foods - they tended to eat a lot of white flour, potatoes, and bread, not too much meat because a lot couldn't afford it, canned veg and fruit were common, foods were largely seasonal.

 

That might not have been the healthiest, but I think other factors are important, like most of them didn't eat out a lot, and they tended to eat meals at home, not so much on the go, serving sizes were smaller, and people walked a lot more.

 

They also ate a TON less sugar. SO much less. And even people that aren't buying junk food and are trying to be healthy are getting large doses of sugar. Low fat yogurt is supposed to be healthy, but it has tons of sugar. Heck, I bought canned tomatoes the other day, and they had sugar in them! (and were gross!)

 

I was at Trader Joes and the granola had more sugar than the ice cream! But many people would think it was healthy. 

[SparklyUnicorn]

Back in the day they used coconut oil, palm oil, and lard in baked goods.  That's now horrid for your health supposedly.  French fries at McDs were fried in part beef fat.  Also a no no that is going to kill us.

 

 

[MiMi 4under3]

I think that yes it is outdated and the low fat recommendations is still used as the official norm for all people, despite us fat enthusiasts in less official places.

 

Pick up any mainstream women's magazine and you'll see low fat snack/ meal suggestions. You may see some avocado and almond suggestions with the warning to not over do it.

 

Yeah people eat too much but I believe carbs are basically an appetite stimulant.

 

That said, I don't think people are lying if they say low fat has been beneficial for them. Just goes to show we're not all the same.

 

 

 

If I remember correctly, carbs suppress Leptin - a hormone that tells you you're full.

 

That's why you can eat a giant bowl of pasta with a side of bread and still crave more food.

[MiMi 4under3]

dp

Edited November 30, 2016 by MiMi 4under3

[ktgrok]

Because ktgrok we are all in denial.  We are self indulgent immoral and weak idiotic air heads (who also lie about our own upbringing).  We aren't really hungry.  We just pretend because we are weak.

 

And denial.  Don't forget about our denial.

 

I think you left out the psychological problems we are trying to fix with food. My current favorite. Especially when I see it applied to children that are obese at say, age 4. Like a freaking four year old just needs therapy. FFS we have obese 1 year olds. Do they really just eat out of boredom and because of emotional problems and a lack of will power? Does anyone REALLY believe there isn't a biological component?

[hornblower]

 

You can cite all of the current web articles you want bu

Just want to point out the things I linked were FROM the US gov't & the historical eating guidelines. Obviously some of you report they failed to disseminate this information but they had it & they published it. 

[hornblower]

I think you left out the psychological problems we are trying to fix with food. My current favorite. Especially when I see it applied to children that are obese at say, age 4. Like a freaking four year old just needs therapy. FFS we have obese 1 year olds. Do they really just eat out of boredom and because of emotional problems and a lack of will power? Does anyone REALLY believe there isn't a biological component?

 

I don't. I really haven't seen compelling evidence. 

 

The obese infants I've seen are being over fed.

 

In addition to being given much too large and frequent portions, many were being fed coke or milkshakes in a bottle, french fries, fish sticks, chocolate cookies. They are given a bottle or a snack every time they wanted 'something'.  I do think they're eating out of boredom and emotional problems because none of their emotional needs were being met but instead high volumes of calorie dense foods were supplied.  

 

I think all humans, infants included are pretty heavily programmed to eat food when it's avail. 

 

Infant and child overweight is also correlated with maternal overweight & obesity, and lack of or short duration of breastfeeding. 

 

 

[hornblower]

They also ate a TON less sugar. SO much less. And even people that aren't buying junk food and are trying to be healthy are getting large doses of sugar. Low fat yogurt is supposed to be healthy, but it has tons of sugar. Heck, I bought canned tomatoes the other day, and they had sugar in them! (and were gross!)

 

I was at Trader Joes and the granola had more sugar than the ice cream! But many people would think it was healthy. 

 

yeah, that one is a biggie. 

 

Sugar consumption is definitely part of it. Like you say, it's so hard to find stuff with no added sugars. It's in everything. The WHO recommends <25g/day.  That's really hard to do if you eat convenience or prepared foods....

 

Cheese consumption is also really huge. I think it's quadrupled since the 50's iirc. 

[ktgrok]

I don't. I really haven't seen compelling evidence. 

 

The obese infants I've seen are being over fed.

 

In addition to being given much too large and frequent portions, many were being fed coke or milkshakes in a bottle, french fries, fish sticks, chocolate cookies. They are given a bottle or a snack every time they wanted 'something'.  I do think they're eating out of boredom and emotional problems because none of their emotional needs were being met but instead high volumes of calorie dense foods were supplied.  

 

I think all humans, infants included are pretty heavily programmed to eat food when it's avail. 

 

Infant and child overweight is also correlated with maternal overweight & obesity, and lack of or short duration of breastfeeding. 

 

 

 

Seriously? No biological component? And yet then you say that maternal overweight/obesity and breastfeeding effect it. You don't think those are biological factors? It has been shown that children that are conceived in famine are more likely to grow up obese, due to factors that happened in the womb. I have friends that had weight loss surgery, became health nuts, and yet have some obese children (not all their children) or oeverweight. There are obvious genetic or epigenetic issues at play, or perhaps gut bacteria, we don't know. 

But they aren't feeding their kids milkshakes and such. And how many parents talk about how they can't get their kids to eat, etc etc? Tons. So no, I don't think kids are programmed to overeat just because the food is there. Some do, but many don't. Biology, not psychological issues, are at play. 

 

Honestly, this conversation is so upsetting to me I can't even. Read the book "Origins" for some interesting insight into how biology shapes us, and it starts before we are born. 

 

Or keep thinking that everyone you meet that is overweight is either dumber or weaker or more psychologically damaged than the thin people. 

Edited November 30, 2016 by ktgrok

Yes, but WHY did they start eating more calories? Many of us blame sugar, and well as changes in gut bacteria. 

 

I don't know why.  I sure don't think there was a collective loss of willpower or morality between the 1950s and now surrounding food.  And I don't think there's one smoking gun reason.  I think there's a lot of interlocking factors.

 

One explanation is in this book: https://www.amazon.com/End-Overeating-Insatiable-American-Appetite/dp/1605294578  which explains that as big agribusiness got more efficient at producing food, it needed to figure out how to sell more to each person.  Food scientists have gotten much better at mixing sugar, fat and salt in addictive combinations that trigger and change our brain chemistry to eat more.  The amount of sugar in yogurt, like you mentioned, is a perfect example of this.