Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More on Diet and Carbohydrates
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 243 (751455)
03-03-2015 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Percy
03-03-2015 11:17 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
The fast food and junk food industries were able to leverage the bad dietary advice to successfully market foods with higher contents of carbohydrates and refined carbohydrates.
That's just nonsense. Until very recently fast food has never been marketed as meeting or even aiming to meet any sort of dietary guidelines. The fast food industry has not leveraged any dietary advice. They have always had one goal: cheap food that people like to eat; and that means lots of fat and lots of salt, and that is exactly what fast food contains.
Your position is getting more and more ridiculous, Percy.
The fast food industry didn't change their menu to better conform to USDA guidelines.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 11:17 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by Coyote, posted 03-03-2015 11:56 AM Jon has not replied
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 12:28 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 243 (751504)
03-03-2015 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
03-03-2015 12:28 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
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:
Percy in Message 26:
Without the government's dietary advice we would never have witnessed the low fat revolution take over our grocery store shelves
quote:
Percy in Message 28:
... the government's dietary advice is largely responsible for the low fat revolution that took over our grocery store shelves.
...
So yes, I think the government bears a substantial amount of the blame.
quote:
Percy in Message 39:
I agree, one shouldn't blame someone else for one's problems, except when someone else *is* actually responsible for one's problems.
quote:
Percy in Message 42:
... that past government and mainstream dietary advice about fat and carbohydrates are to blame for the obesity/diabetes/heart-disease epidemic of the last half century and more.
It's made even more ridiculous by stuff like...
quote:
Percy in Message 58:
Here's a link to the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. You won't find any reference to whole grains.
... followed by...
quote:
Percy in Message 61:
The 1980 guidelines do advise eating whole-grain breads and cereals, ...
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:
Percy in Message 46:
Consuming the same number of grams of complex carbohydrates as there are refined carbohydrates in a soda carries with it none of the same health risks.
...
All low-carb diets include the advice to try to maximize the presence of fiber in any carbohydrates consumed, often referred to as complex carbohydrates.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 12:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 2:44 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 243 (751507)
03-03-2015 2:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Percy
03-03-2015 1:31 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 1:31 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 243 (751508)
03-03-2015 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Percy
03-03-2015 1:51 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 1:51 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 87 of 243 (751534)
03-03-2015 3:44 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Percy
03-03-2015 2:44 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
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:
Now, in 2014, a growing number of experts has begun to acknowledge the reality that making the low-fat diet the centerpiece of nutritional advice for six decades has very likely been a bad idea.
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 2:44 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 8:28 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 243 (751561)
03-03-2015 9:12 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Percy
03-03-2015 8:28 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
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:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
However, most people's diets fall well short of the recommended minimum three daily servings of whole grain products. The mean daily intake of foods made from whole grains was one serving in USDA's 1996 Continuing Survey of Food Intakes by Individuals. According to the survey, only 7 percent of Americans ate the recommended three or more servings of whole-grain foods a day (p. 19).
It also contains this:
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
Americans wasted or otherwise lost 20 teaspoons, resulting in an average intake of about 32 teaspoons of added sugars per person per day.
USDA recommends that the average person on a 2,000-calorie daily diet include no more than 40 grams of added sugars. That's about 10 teaspoons, or the amount of sugar in a 12-ounce soft drink (p. 20).
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!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 8:28 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 03-04-2015 6:58 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 95 of 243 (751663)
03-04-2015 5:39 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Percy
03-04-2015 6:58 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Well, first when you say "no one" followed the guidelines, even your own citation disagrees with you.
I think it is clear what I meant: the percentage of people following the guidelines has not been anywhere close to the percentage of people who are obese, diabetic, suffering from cardiovascular diseases, etc.
And it's been explained that your criteria for "following the guidelines" are absurd.
But they're not, because my one and only criterion is that the guidelines be followed. It is your criteria which are mangled; you seem to think it is fine to label as followers of the guidelines wishy-washy people who kinda get in the ballpark with some 'general spirit' (determined by you) of the guidelines.
You classify anything short of 100% compliance as not following the guidelines.
No. If most folks were following the guidelines to a significant degree, then I could agree that following the guidelines is what led to the nation's poor health. But that isn't the situation we have. Hardly anyone followed the guidelines to any appreciable degree whatsoever. In fact,
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
According to a 2000 Roper Reports survey of a nationally representative sample of 2,000 Americans 18 or older, the percentage of Americans who say they are eating "pretty much whatever they want" was at an all-time high of 70 percent in 2000, up from 58 percent in 1997 (p. 17).
And, of course, if these people weren't just eating whatever they wanted but actually following the USDA guidelines, then we wouldn't have a population that's 60% overweight, since your own link demonstrates that the USDA diet leads to weight loss, not gain:
quote:
"A Call for a Low-Carb Diet that Embraces Fat" from New York Times:
While the low-fat group did lose weight, they appeared to lose more muscle than fat.
There's obviously something else responsible for what's been going on with the health of Americans over the last several decades, and it has little, if anything, to do with the USDA's guidelines to eat 6-11 servings of grains, preferably high-fiber whole grains, a day.
By your criteria, since most people roll through stop signs when they can, no one's following the traffic laws in America.
And what is wrong with that conclusion? Are we forced to conclude that people in America follow traffic laws? If, for some reason, we wanted to conclude otherwise, must we reevaluate our position until we have convinced ourselves away from the obvious conclusion?
We don't get to change the evidence just because we don't like where it leads.
Your own source reinforces what I've been saying about America's drive to decrease fat consumption, and about the increase in low fat options in grocery stores:
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
Americans’ mid-1990s push to cut dietary fat is apparent in the recent per capita food supply data, which show a modest (8 percent) decline in the use of added fats and oils between 1993 and 1997, from 69 pounds (fat-content basis) per person to just under 64 pounds. As a result of consumer concerns about fat and mandatory nutrition labeling beginning in July 1994, food processors introduced over 5,400 lower fat versions of foods in U.S. supermarkets in 1995—97, according to New Product News, a trade magazine based in Albuquerque, NM.
Did you bother to read the whole thing, Percy?
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
Average use of added fats and oils in 2000 was 67 percent above annual average use in the 1950s (table 2-3) (p. 17).
Their conjecture on the reasons for some of these trends sounds oddly familiar to what some of us in this thread have been saying:
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
In the 1950s, the fats and oils group (composed of added fats and oils) contributed the most fat to the food supply (41 percent) followed by the meat, poultry, and fish group (32 percent). By 1999, the fats and oils group's contribution to total fat had jumped 12 percentage points to 53 percent, probably due to higher consumption of fried foods in foodservice outlets, the increase in consumption of high-fat snack foods, and the increased use of salad dressings (p. 17).
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
Many consumers’ diets now meet or exceed the Food Guide Pyramid serving recommendation for grain products. The Pyramid recommends 9 daily servings of grain products for a 2,200-calorie diet, 6 servings for a 1,600-calorie diet, and 11 servings for a 2,800-calorie diet. The food supply, adjusted for waste in the home and throughout the marketing system, provided an average of 10 daily servings of grain in 2000. This is an underestimate.
But that's not following the guidelines, which, as you've been repeatedly reminded, set specific serving limits and emphasize whole grains. Furthermore,
quote:
"Profiling Food Consumption in America" (PDF) from USDA Factbook:
The expansion in supplies reflects ample grain stocks; strong consumer demand for variety breads, other instore bakery items, and grain-based snack foods; and increasing fastfood sales of products made with buns, doughs, and tortillas (p. 19).
People are mostly getting more grains because they are eating more BigMacs, churros, and chalupas.
Such eating habits are so far from the USDA guidelines it's laughable that anyone would try to connect the two.
You can't just pull out a few facts, make up your own rules, then leap to conclusions.
Exactly. Like you can't just pull statistics out of context, make up your own version of the USDA guidelines, and then blame the government for everybody being fat.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Percy, posted 03-04-2015 6:58 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 7:47 PM Jon has replied
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 03-05-2015 10:15 AM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 97 of 243 (751689)
03-04-2015 9:28 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Faith
03-04-2015 7:47 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
But I think most of us followed the guidelines for years where it counts: in cutting back on saturated fats and choosing the lower fat versions of dairy products and the leaner meats in the markets, some totally eliminating red meat, and cutting way back on eggs and the like. I think just about everybody has at least been doing that much as a general rule, which is a definite effect of the guidelines. This is a subjective impression but it covers a lot of observations and I would expect you to have the same impression because it's been hammered into us.
I don't know anyone who did this.
I don't know why you are being such a stickler about exact following of the guidelines.
As I said, I don't think Percy needs to demonstrate exact following of the guidelines, but so far he hasn't demonstrated following of the guidelines to any reasonable degree except, preferring to mention only vague generalities.
Related to this are the following two points, which I have already brought up:
  1. According to the article linked in the OP, the USDA diet actually does lead to weight loss; and
  2. The USDA reports (in the link I've posted several times) that the average American diet is outside of the guidelines, particularly in the important areas of fat consumption, sugar consumption, and the quality of carbohydrates consumed.
Perhaps the USDA diet isn't the best diet possible, but there is little to show that actually following that diet led to the health problems for which it is being blamed in this thread.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 7:47 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:12 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 243 (751734)
03-05-2015 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Faith
03-04-2015 11:12 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Well, I'm very surprised that you haven't known people who insisted on avoiding fats because my experience has been that everybody around me was concerned to avoid fats because of the nutritional advice we've all been aware of.
Oh, I've known people who would like to eat less fat, but I've never known anyone who actually has. And the data from the USDA that I've been posting suggests that my observation is far from unusual. Americans consume more from every food group now than they did in 1950. As a nation we aren't eating less of anything.
And the other effect is the proliferation of "low fat" processed items that contain sugar. All this certainly reflects the low fat diet guidelines and should certainly contribute to blood sugar problems at least. Anyway, my experience of people being super conscious of fat and avoiding it has been so total I'm amazed you or anyone wouldn't recognize it.
Whatever the cause of low-fat, high-sugar foods there is no doubt that such things don't meet the USDA guidelines, which put sugar in the same category as fat and advise consuming both sparingly.
Replacing fats with sugars is not at all part of the USDA guidelines.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Faith, posted 03-04-2015 11:12 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Faith, posted 03-05-2015 11:17 AM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 243 (751766)
03-05-2015 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Percy
03-05-2015 10:15 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
I can see that you're examining this claim and asking yourself, "What should we see if this claim is true?" One of the answers you evidently arrived at is that if the claim is true then the percentage of people following the guidelines should be approximately the same as the number of people who are obese, diabetic and heart diseased.
The main point is that the article from the OP makes it clear that following the USDA guidelines actually does lead to weight loss. Thus, it is clear, that anyone who has gained weight has not been following the USDA guidelines It's simple logic, Percy.
... in any case you deny that there can even be a "percentage of people following the guidelines". You claim it's an all or nothing affair.
Where did you get that idea from?
Seems like a misreading of something...
I do agree with you that if Americans had followed the guidelines to the letter that the obesity/diabetes/heart-disease epidemic would have been largely avoided.
Exactly.
I understand that other parts of the guidelines reinforce what you've been saying about people not following the specific details of the guidelines, and I readily concede that point, but it was never mine or anyone's claim that they did.
But those specific details are essential to the guidelines. You declare that they are not, but you are wrong. And the evidence that they are essential is the fact that everyone who ignored those details got fat eating too many refined grains, too much fat, and too much sugar.
When you follow the guidelines with attention to those details, you lose weight. When you 'follow' the guidelines without regard to those details, you get fat.
Obviously those details are important, because without them the diet doesn't work.
The claim is that the nutrition advice community, most importantly the government, focused the public's attention on avoiding fat when the real danger was carbohydrates.
The claim is becoming more and more vague with each of your posts as you try to back your position to a level of such generality that it could be true no matter what.
The reality is that the guidelines were what they were and had people actually followed them, by your own admission, we wouldn't have all the weight-related health problems in the country that we now have.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Percy, posted 03-05-2015 10:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 03-05-2015 3:22 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 243 (751776)
03-05-2015 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Percy
03-05-2015 3:22 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
I don't think there's any point in us continuing this conversation in the circles we've been going.
You wanna blame the government? Blame the government.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 03-05-2015 3:22 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 03-05-2015 8:19 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 243 (751954)
03-06-2015 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Faith
03-06-2015 7:22 PM


Re: kind of a rambling overview
I know my name was only brought up in one paragraph, but I'm gonna respond to a little more of your post...
It starts out with an anecdote about a woman who claimed to have been following the guidelines very closely but still gaining weight and being unhealthy. Which implies that even closely following them does NOT promote good health after all.
Unfortunately anecdotes don't count for a whole lot. The study discussed in the OP's link makes it pretty clear that following the guidelines leads to weight loss. I have time this weekend, so I will try to actually read through your link and perhaps post a reply.
Some nutritionists, like diet guru Mercola, get into conspiracy thinking about the USDA, claiming the guidelines exist to promote profits rather than health. This article I've linked does say that the USDA has the task of promoting agricultural products, which can create a conflict of interest, without getting into a conspiracy theory, but that they also step on the toes of the industry in their recommendations too, such as when they recommend against major agribusiness products such as beef, dairy and eggs.
Indeed, it is difficult to see how the USDA's dietary guidelines have ever been aimed at increasing agricultural profits. To begin with, all food starts out as an agricultural something or another, so it isn't really like the USDA can promote agricultural food products over non-agricultural food products.
Also, as you mention, the USDA's guidelines promote some products and shun others. Perhaps tracing money around will show who pulls the USDA's strings, but I'd imagine that their advice given about nutrition is mostly done as an honest effort to promote good health, etc.
The more I read what's out there, though, the harder it is to understand how anyone (Jon?) could not be aware of the artificial diet standards we've all been trying to follow for years to one degree or another, the demonizing of animal and dairy fats and cholesterol in particular, the proliferation of low fat products in the markets and the continuing health problems that are clearly linked to diet.
There are many health problems linked to diet, sure. But the questions are how much is linked to the diet and to which diet are the problems mostly linked.
I think, and I believe any reasonable person will realize that the evidence makes it clear, that the problem rests largely with the McDiet,1 not the USDA diet, and that likely half the cause involves an increase in sedentarism.
Tackling this would do so much more for promoting health in this country than bashing the USDA.
__________
1 By which I mean diets high in calories from junk food, fast food, convenience food, processed food, and high in calories in general.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 7:22 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Faith, posted 03-06-2015 11:23 PM Jon has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 243 (751976)
03-07-2015 11:44 AM


Anatomy of a Low-Carb Diet
It might be helpful, for the sake of comparison, to get some links to typical or preferred low-carb diets.
Do Faith, Percy, or anyone else, have any particular low-carb diets that they would like brought into the discussion?

Love your enemies!

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-07-2015 12:02 PM Jon has replied
 Message 120 by Percy, posted 03-07-2015 12:04 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 243 (752005)
03-07-2015 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
03-07-2015 12:02 PM


Re: The pervasiveness of the low fat diet
It's OK with me to think about the low carb diets at some point if you like, but before we do would you please confirm the impression that you aren't aware of what seems to Percy and me to be the rampant insistence on avoiding animal fats and cholesterol in our diets, and the symptomatic proliferation of "low fat" offerings, from every conceivable angle of our experience, in the stores and restaurants and all over the media for decades?
I'm not sure what has given you the impression that I've lived under a rock and not noticed 'low-fat' options nor advice on avoiding fats and cholesterol.
But I have no reason to lie to you and make myself look like a fool. Sure, I've heard the endless advice against fat and cholesterol and seen the low-fat options offered everywhere. Who hasn't?
Now let's talk some specifics on the low-carb diets.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 03-07-2015 12:02 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 03-07-2015 4:28 PM Jon has replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 128 of 243 (752007)
03-07-2015 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by Faith
03-07-2015 4:28 PM


Re: The pervasiveness of the low fat diet
If you want to discuss low-carb diets, then I'm all ready to discuss low-carb diets.
If you want to go in circles over past confusions, you'll have to do that on your own.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by Faith, posted 03-07-2015 4:28 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Percy, posted 03-07-2015 6:28 PM Jon has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024