|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: More on Diet and Carbohydrates | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
This is from Michael Moss's book Salt, Sugar, Fat, page 329:
quote: Not mentioned here is the effect of glucose spikes on pancreas and on fat and muscle cells. They lead to metabolic and syndrome and diabetes. Fat doesn't cause glucose spikes. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
McDonalds and others didn't just add salads to their menus on a whim! That's true. But since nobody, including Percy, seems to be saying that eating salads made people fat, then that particular example does not seem germane. Tell us instead about the low fat, high carb items Mickey D's added to their menu at the request of customers. The menu at McDonalds, generally speaking, is high fat, and high carbs. It is no surprise that eating that food makes people fat. However the menu does not follow anyone's health recommendations.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
Milk that had been available only in whole and skim versions became available in 2% and 1% versions. I don't think these things became available at relevant date. However, isn't skim milk essentially 0% milk?
You're being binary in your judgment. You're demanding a yes/no answer to an issue that has a large range. On a 0 to 100 scale I would give America a 70 for following the government guidelines and nutritional advice. Demonstrate this rather than assert this, and perhaps you have an argument. I suspect that the typical diet for most people is well above the recommended caloric intake. I would give everyone whose diet met this criteria a failing score in following advice. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: McDonalds and others didn't just add salads to their menus on a whim!
That's true. But since nobody, including Percy, seems to be saying that eating salads made people fat, then that particular example does not seem germane. It might not seem germane to those who have lost the context, but what Jon said that Coyote responded to was, "The fast food industry didn't change their menu to better conform to USDA guidelines." Coyote responded that menus will change based on customer wants. Inescapably, as the public became increasingly aware of the proscriptions against fat, it because increasingly important for purveyors of food to pay attention and construct a response. Coyote's example of a response was McDonald's adding salads to the menu.
Tell us instead about the low fat, high carb items Mickey D's added to their menu at the request of customers. I don't know who Mickey D is, but the point being made isn't that they added low-fat/high-carb items to their menu in response to customer requests. What they did and do is stay aware of public perceptions and stay responsive to them. A public completely oblivious to government guidelines and the advice of health organizations and the diet advice community would not cause Mickey D or the food industry in general to respond with increasing numbers of low fat offerings. Since the food industry (again, I don't know anything about Mickey D) did respond with increasing numbers of low fat offerings, obviously they were responding to public perceptions about the dangers of fat.
The menu at McDonalds, generally speaking, is high fat, and high carbs. It is no surprise that eating that food makes people fat. However the menu does not follow anyone's health recommendations. Sure, generally speaking McDonald's is high-fat/high-carbs, but their food offerings and marketing only reinforce Coyote's point that they are responsive to public perceptions of health as evidenced by their offering of salads. It's marginal, of course, because of who they are, but McDonald's doesn't exist in a vacuum. They have to compete with Burger King and Wendy's and maybe even Mickey D whoever they are, and a perception that their food is less healthy than their competitor's could hurt sales. Hence they're responsive to customer perceptions. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
t might not seem germane to those who have lost the context, but what Jon said that Coyote responded to was, "The fast food industry didn't change their menu to better conform to USDA guidelines." Again, adding salads does not make a difference with respect to guidelines regarding low fats and high carbohydrates. Perhaps you'll note that I asked for such examples.
I don't know who Mickey D is It's a nick name for McDonald's. Just to be clear, there seems to me to be a timing problem with associating the menu changes at McDonald's with people getting fat while following gubmint advice. People were already blaming McDonald's for being unhealthy and kids were already fat at that time. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: I don't think these things became available at relevant date. I don't know what date you mean. I believe 1% and 2% fat versions of milk started to become widely available in the 1950's. Over the ensuing decades the shelves of the milk section of grocery stores were taken over by the reduced fat offerings and whole milk was given less and less shelf space. Consumption rates of whole and low-fat milk from 1970 on are shown in this graph:
Hopefully the trend away from whole milk has begun to reverse.
However, isn't skim milk essentially 0% milk? Pretty much. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Correct misstatement in first paragraph.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
NoNukes writes: Again, adding salads does not make a difference with respect to guidelines regarding low fats and high carbohydrates. Perhaps you'll note that I asked for such examples. I tried to respond to your request for examples by pointing out that no claim had been made regarding what you were requesting examples for. The specific exchange:
Percy in Message 79 writes: NoNukes writes: Tell us instead about the low fat, high carb items Mickey D's added to their menu at the request of customers. I don't know who Mickey D is, but the point being made isn't that they added low-fat/high-carb items to their menu in response to customer requests. What they did and do is stay aware of public perceptions and stay responsive to them. In other words, you evidently thought we were claiming that McDonald's had added low-fat/high-carb items to their menu in response to customer requests, and so you asked for examples. But that was not a claim that was being made, so it would make no sense to seek out examples. I do believe instances exist where companies have responded to explicit customer requests, but I don't think it's a primary avenue of change. I think the primary avenue is via marketing research, which takes a wide variety of forms, including canvasing customers. What I tried to do was describe what I think really happens, namely that members of the highly competitive food industry attempt to remain sensitive and responsive to public perceptions of dietary health lest it become a competitive issue that negatively affects them. If you want an example of this happening, I think Coyote's example of McDonald's eventually adding salads to its menus is a good example, but if what you require for evidence is internal marketing memos then clearly we cannot provide them. But obviously it was a competitive issue, because if I recall correctly, McDonald's, Burger King and Wendy's all added salads to their menus within a year or two of each other, at least in our area.
Just to be clear, there seems to me to be a timing problem with associating the menu changes at McDonald's with people getting fat while following gubmint advice. People were already blaming McDonald's for being unhealthy and kids were already fat at that time. I agree that the fast food industry was one of the last to jump on the low-fat bandwagon. Given the industry it doesn't surprise me. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks you're blaming the government.
And it probably has something to do with statements such as...
quote: quote: quote: quote: It's made even more ridiculous by stuff like...
quote: ... followed by...
quote: The emphasis on whole grains is not only an emphasis that has been lacking from American eating habits, but it's one that even you agree with...
quote: The USDA guidelines involved the same advice. Yet nobody listened to it. And still you think that "the government bears a substantial amount of the blame" even though it was "the decline in fiber consumption [that] played a significant role in the obesity and diabetes epidemic", which was never part of the government guidelines, which advised, in fact, exactly the opposite of eating refined carbohydrates and emphasized whole grains high in fiber. You're all over the place. The only thing that stays consistent is your desire to blame the government (and now also anyone who gave similar advice). And I think I and others have demonstrated with ample evidence that that blame is wholly misplaced. Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
But how much of this is related to the change in lifestyles away from people living on family farms and getting their milk straight from the source toward people getting most of their milk in supermarkets where they have those extra options, which slowly develop into a preference for lower fat milk (which, by the way, some people simply prefer for taste reasons)?
I think you are again taking a complex situation with a plethora of causes and trying to pin the whole thing on the advice of a few organizations and their echos.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I agree that the fast food industry was one of the last to jump on the low-fat bandwagon. Given the industry it doesn't surprise me. And when did they jump on that bandwagon?Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks you're blaming the government. Yes, I know, I'm well aware. You seem to think I'm being inconsistent and sending conflicting messages, so let me see if I can clarify. It only became necessary to clarify that the blame is actually distributed when you focused on my references to the government as knee-jerk "blame the government" complaining. Since you've raised that complaint I've been much more clear that the blame should be distributed, but I do believe the blame begins with the government because the guidelines they issued lent legitimacy to the science and to the advice from health organizations and the diet advice community.
It's made even more ridiculous by stuff like...
quote: ... followed by...
quote: I explained this back in Message 61. My link to the 1980 guidelines was incorrect. It turned out to be a link to the 1990 guidelines. I apologized for the error. I don't know what more you want. But the 1980 guidelines were even more damning because they contained this gem:
1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans writes: The major sources of energy in the average US. diet are carbohydrates and fats. If you limit your fat intake. you should increase your calories from carbohydrates to supply your body's energy needs. The emphasis on whole grains is not only an emphasis that has been lacking from American eating habits, but it's one that even you agree with... Yes, that's true, but the message about whole grains isn't the message that got across. The message that was much more effectively communicated was "fats bad, carbohydrates good". Remember, the advice we're talking about isn't a government brochure that most people didn't read. It's the advice from a multiplicity of sources as it was perceived by the public. What most people remember from the government is the food pyramid, it's base filled with high carbohydrate foods:
You're all over the place. The only thing that stays consistent is your desire to blame the government (and now also anyone who gave similar advice). And I think I and others have demonstrated with ample evidence that that blame is wholly misplaced. Well, who am I to stand in the way of such determination. I'll close with a quote from Nina Teicholz's introduction to her book:
quote: --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
I explained this back in Message 61. My link to the 1980 guidelines was incorrect. It turned out to be a link to the 1990 guidelines. I apologized for the error. I don't know what more you want. Yes, but that isn't why I was bringing it up. I was pointing out your inconsistency and apparent inability to read your own sources.
But the 1980 guidelines were even more damning because they contained this gem:
1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans writes: The major sources of energy in the average US. diet are carbohydrates and fats. If you limit your fat intake. you should increase your calories from carbohydrates to supply your body's energy needs. Well, sure. The government stated a fact and then advised people not to starve themselves. What of it?
Yes, that's true, but the message about whole grains isn't the message that got across. Which translates to: people didn't follow the advice that was being given.
I'll close with a quote from Nina Teicholz's introduction to her book:
quote: Which I think everyone here has agreed with, either for the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt or out of genuine agreement. The point of contention is whether that 'bad idea' was the cause of all the obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease we see today. You still haven't presented evidence that it was. Now you're chalking up McDonald's role in all this to their attempt to offer low-fat salads and not the BigMacs they sell by the millions every day. It just keeps getting crazier.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22502 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Jon writes: I explained this back in Message 61. My link to the 1980 guidelines was incorrect. It turned out to be a link to the 1990 guidelines. I apologized for the error. I don't know what more you want.
Yes, but that isn't why I was bringing it up. I was pointing out your inconsistency and apparent inability to read your own sources. You're talking about the 1990 guidelines. Yes, I missed the reference to whole grained breads.
But the 1980 guidelines were even more damning because they contained this gem:
1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans writes: The major sources of energy in the average US. diet are carbohydrates and fats. If you limit your fat intake, you should increase your calories from carbohydrates to supply your body's energy needs. Well, sure. The government stated a fact and then advised people not to starve themselves. What of it? Well, don't forget that the guidelines also advised reducing fat intake. Let me put the advice to reduce fat intake from page 9 together with the advice I quoted earlier from page 10 about increasing carbohydrate intake:
1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans writes: But for the U.S. population as a whole, reduction in our current intake of total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol is sensible...The major sources of energy in the average US. diet are carbohydrates and fats. If you limit your fat intake. you should increase your calories from carbohydrates to supply your body's energy needs. And that in a nutshell is the government advice to reduce fat intake and increase carbohydrate intake.
I'll close with a quote from Nina Teicholz's introduction to her book:
quote: Which I think everyone here has agreed with, either for the sake of giving you the benefit of the doubt or out of genuine agreement. I think if you explain how what you think Teicholz is saying differs from what I'm saying it will help me understand where you're coming from a great deal. Why do you think she calls the nutritional advice a bad idea? Don't you understand that it's because it was bad for health? Here's Teicholz's previous paragraph, again from The Big Fat Surprise:
Nina Teicholz writes: In this period, the health of America has become strikingly worse. When the low-fat, low-cholesterol diet was first officially recommended to the public by the American Heart Association (AHA) in 1961, roughly one in seven adult Americans was obese. Forty years later, that number was one in three. (It's heartbreaking to realize that the federal government's "Healthy People" goal for 2010, a project begun in the mid-1990s, for instance, was simply to return the public back to levels of obesity seen in 1960, and even that goal was unreachable.) During these decades, we've also seen rates of diabetes rise drastically less than 1 percent of the adult population to more than 11 percent, while heart disease remains the leading cause of death for both men and women. In all, it's a tragic picture for a nation that has, according to the government, faithfully been following all the official dietary guidelines for so many years. If we've been so good, we might fairly ask, why is our health report card so bad? Back to you:
The point of contention is whether that 'bad idea' was the cause of all the obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease we see today. That's not a point of contention because it's not something anyone claimed. It's just something you're making up. The actual claim is that the bad nutrition advice played a significant role in the increases in obesity, diabetes and heart disease.
Now you're chalking up McDonald's role in all this to their attempt to offer low-fat salads and not the BigMacs they sell by the millions every day. It just keeps getting crazier. Well, yes it is getting crazier as you make up more and more stuff. I still don't understand why you can't see how different what you claim I'm saying is from what I'm actually saying. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Jon Inactive Member |
The actual claim is that the bad nutrition advice played a significant role in the increases in obesity, diabetes and heart disease. And that's simply false. You've been shown repeatedly that no one really followed the guidelines. You've been shown numerous other changes in American lifestyle and eating habits that better explain the trends of obesity and general health decline. Your source is just committing the same error as you: jumping on a coincidence and calling it a cause. Teicholz is also lying to claim that the U.S. has, "according to the government, faithfully been following all the official dietary guidelines for so many years". On what government report is this based? I quoted a 2000 USDA report that said:
quote: It also contains this:
quote: No one has been following the guidelines. Your source is lying to sell books. And you just keep parroting the lie. Why? What's in it for you? Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given. Edited by Jon, : No reason given.Love your enemies!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
n other words, you evidently thought we were claiming that McDonald's had added low-fat/high-carb items to their menu in response to customer requests, and so you asked for examples. Right. I was given an example of McDonald's changing their menu based on an irrelevant public demand for lettuce, and I asked for a relevant example instead. Seriously, regardless of whether you want low fat or low carbs, substituting carrot sticks for an apple pie and a salad for a big Mac are great ideas. The issue as I understand it, is you believe people followed the government's advice on high/low fat vs carbs and became sick/obese as a result. You assert without evidence that people actually followed that advice and then Coyote brings up salads at McDonald's. Well that example is irrelevant. And now in your latest post you admit that McDonald's action lagged way behind the real trend anyway. I don't see any evidence that people with proper caloric intakes got fat or sick by following government advice on low fat diets. What's worse, you don't seem to think it is important to show that people actually followed the advice anyway.Je Suis Charlie Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024