Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 59 (9025 total)
91 online now:
AZPaul3, hooah212002, jar, kjsimons, PaulK (5 members, 86 visitors)
Newest Member: JustTheFacts
Post Volume: Total: 883,292 Year: 938/14,102 Month: 341/597 Week: 119/96 Day: 14/22 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   More on Diet and Carbohydrates
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 61 of 243 (751399)
03-02-2015 6:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Jon
03-02-2015 4:49 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

It's only necessary to ask the rhetorical question that if nobody was following the government dietary guidelines about reducing dietary fat, who was buying all the reduced fat options in grocery stores?

That's a good question to be asking you, since you're the one making this claim.

Think about it. Why would grocery stores be filling their shelves with increasing numbers of low-fat options if no one was buying them?

Americans have not been following the USDA's recommended proportions nor the recommended serving sizes.

I never said they did. Only dieters in the first blush of a new diet maniacally manage portion sizes. What happened is that Americans responded to the guidelines by increasing the proportion of carbohydrates in their diet. This was reflected in supermarkets by the increasing numbers of low fat food options.

Here's a link to the 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. You won't find any reference to whole grains.

The mention of whole grains is pretty hard to miss if you read the one-page section on vegetables, fruits, and grains.

I just noticed I've been posting the wrong link. Though I labeled it as the 1980 guidelines, it's actually the 1990 guidelines. I was wondering why you kept referring to the 1990 guidelines, I guess that's why. My fault, I apologize. Here's a link to the actual 1980 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.

The 1980 guidelines do advise eating whole-grain breads and cereals, but what comes before on page 13 is at the core of the misadvice about fats and carbohydrates:

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.

That advice to compensate for decreased fat intake with more carbohydrates is exactly what happened. Relative to one another, Americans decreased their consumption of fats and increased their consumption of carbohydrates. This change in dietary habits was reflected in the food choices available in supermarkets that I keep talking about. The foods available for sale in supermarkets are an excellent indicator of what people are eating.

You're correct that Americans didn't follow the advice about numbers of servings of various food types, but they never have and never will, and that certainly wasn't what I meant when I said Americans followed the guidelines. I'm sure very few people eat meals that way. But Americans did follow the advice to consume less fat and more carbohydrates. And now they appear to be following the advice to reduce carbohydrate consumption.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarification.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Jon, posted 03-02-2015 4:49 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Jon, posted 03-02-2015 10:04 PM Percy has responded
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 03-02-2015 10:31 PM Percy has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 243 (751408)
03-02-2015 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
03-02-2015 6:19 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Think about it. Why would grocery stores be filling their shelves with increasing numbers of low-fat options if no one was buying them?

Your evidence needs to amount to more than telling me to 'think about it'.

I never said they did.

But the portions and serving sizes are a key part of the guidelines. If those aren't being followed, then the guidelines aren't being followed.

You're correct that Americans didn't follow the advice about numbers of servings of various food types, but they never have and never will, and that certainly wasn't what I meant when I said Americans followed the guidelines. I'm sure very few people eat meals that way. But Americans did follow the advice to consume less fat and more carbohydrates. And now they appear to be following the advice to reduce carbohydrate consumption.

I think we've gotten where we need to be with this.

It's clear that Americans didn't follow the USDA guidelines. It's pretty pointless to keep blaming those guidelines for the declining health of Americans.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 03-02-2015 6:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 7:29 AM Jon has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5654
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 63 of 243 (751411)
03-02-2015 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Percy
03-02-2015 6:19 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Think about it. Why would grocery stores be filling their shelves with increasing numbers of low-fat options if no one was buying them?

People were buying low-fat foods long before those guidelines.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 03-02-2015 6:19 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 8:39 AM nwr has responded

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 227 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 243 (751412)
03-02-2015 11:18 PM


I don't know how the timeline goes in relation to the guidelines and published medical opinion which no doubt preceded them but the average consumer (me I guess) knew Low Fat was the Way to Go way back there somewhere. When my daughter was born in 1970 2% milk was the wisdom of the day -- they'd prefer skim but were realistic enough to pick a percentage that still tastes more or less like milk -- and the stores stocked it in abundance as the demand for full fat milk fell off to the level of a very short stretch of one shelf. Of course I wanted to follow the best advice for my baby and 2% is what she got for her entire childhood. Now she buys full fat and so do I. I even get cream for my coffee. Because the higher the fat the lower the carbs (milk is a high-carb food believe it or not, when the fat percentage is low; I had assumed it was higher protein and never guessed about the carbs) and I am more concerned about my blood sugar than fat. Besides which I love cream. And both full fat milk and cream are showing up more in the stores lately.

I knew someone in the nineties who ate carbs to avoid eating fat and kept gaining weight. Some of the boringest possible carbs too, like dry rice cakes. Don't know about following guidelines but she certainly had a clear idea that it was fat she was to avoid. I thought she was probably cheating and eating fat when nobody was looking, but maybe she really did stick to the carbs, it's enough of an explanation for the weight gain in retrospect.

The whole low-fat phenomenon took time to manifest fully but it's at its peak right now I think even while this new information about carbs is finally hitting the public consciousness. I just saw that Paula Deen is coming out with a new low-fat cookbook. Don't accuse me of anything about Paula Deen, it's possible I used a recipe of hers from time to time from my online searches but all I know about her culinary views is that she's been vilified for cooking with too much fat, that being very Southern of her. Too bad she's going the wrong way, it should be a low-carb cookbook. Or maybe just leave it alone for pete's sake.

So, what's on the store shelves is to my mind a big indicator that people are at least trying to follow the latest scientific information, which they get from whatever source, not necessarily official guidelines but advice on the internet and in women's magazines and other popular sources that are always passing on what they glean from diet and nutrition experts, and it takes time for the market to catch up with the science.


  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 65 of 243 (751422)
03-03-2015 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Jon
03-02-2015 10:04 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

Think about it. Why would grocery stores be filling their shelves with increasing numbers of low-fat options if no one was buying them?

Your evidence needs to amount to more than telling me to 'think about it'.

You're ignoring the implications of the evidence, so I'm telling you to think about it. You seem to be denying the incredibly obvious, that what's on store shelves is excellent evidence of what people are eating. Anyone who has done the grocery shopping on a regular basis over the years has witnessed the changes. The increasing prevalence of low-fat options was a reflection of people's then increasing awareness of the dietary advice against fat, and today the increasing prevalence of low-carb options is a reflection of people's now increasing awareness of the dangers of carbohydrates.

The advice against fat can still be seen in the nutrition news, where saturated fats and unsaturated fats and omega-3's and so forth are frequently the topic. Low-fat diet books don't seem to be around much anymore if Amazon is any guide, but I did find this low-fat advice book from the 1990's:

Such diet advice books used to dominate the bookshelves in the nutrition section of bookstores. There'd be the tiny corner with the Atkins-style low-carb diet books, there'd be a variety of eclectic plans, and the rest would be low-fat diet books. It seems to be your contention that all the advice from the government, from health organizations, from the diet advice industry, from grocery store shelves, from the media, America just ignored it all and it had no effect. You seem to believe that the increasing proportion of carbohydrates in the diet just happened, and that all this advice against fat at the same time was just a coincidence.

You can't deny that there was (and still is to some extent) a public consciousness about avoiding fat. Where do you think that came from? Was it mass psychosis? Was it just another expression of the unpredictable ebb and flow of public opinion? Or could it possibly originate from the decades of advice against fat from the government, from health organizations, and from the diet advice industry?

But the portions and serving sizes are a key part of the guidelines. If those aren't being followed, then the guidelines aren't being followed.

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. America did clearly hear the "fats bad, carbohydrates good" part of the message that originated with the guidelines, and in reaction America greatly increased the proportion of carbohydrates in the national diet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Jon, posted 03-02-2015 10:04 PM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Jon, posted 03-03-2015 9:45 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 66 of 243 (751424)
03-03-2015 8:39 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by nwr
03-02-2015 10:31 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
nwr writes:

Think about it. Why would grocery stores be filling their shelves with increasing numbers of low-fat options if no one was buying them?

People were buying low-fat foods long before those guidelines.

I didn't say they weren't, but the availability of low-fat and no-fat versions of food increased enormously. As dietary advice against fat began taking hold in the public perception the food industry responded by offering more and more low-fat and no-fat options. Milk that had been available only in whole and skim versions became available in 2% and 1% versions. Cream cheese and yogurt became available in low-fat and no-fat versions. Lay's introduced a fat free potato chip in the late 1990's. It goes on and on.

I'm having trouble understanding the objection to what is nothing more than a simple observation. I know this is pre-history to the youngsters among us, but many of us lived this.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by nwr, posted 03-02-2015 10:31 PM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-03-2015 9:56 AM Percy has responded
 Message 78 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2015 1:14 PM Percy has responded

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 243 (751432)
03-03-2015 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 65 by Percy
03-03-2015 7:29 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
On a 0 to 100 scale I would give America a 70 for following the government guidelines and nutritional advice.

Of course you would. You want to blame the government for everyone's bad health.

But the truth is that it really is an all or nothing.

When the government's advice is to eat so many servings of whole grains and so many servings of fat, you can't eat ten times as much of both and then blame the government's advice when you get fat.

You're just being ridiculous.

The government didn't give the best advice, but that advice is most certainly not to blame for 60% of American's being overweight. The fault for that lies with fast food, junk food, too much food, and lack of physical activity.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 7:29 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 11:17 AM Jon has responded

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5654
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 68 of 243 (751434)
03-03-2015 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Percy
03-03-2015 8:39 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Milk that had been available only in whole and skim versions became available in 2% and 1% versions.

Interesting.

I'm wondering what was in that product named "2% milk" that I was drinking 10 years earlier. And again, 10 years or more earlier, why was I able to buy "Ice milk" as an alternative to Ice cream?


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 8:39 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 11:26 AM nwr has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 69 of 243 (751452)
03-03-2015 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jon
03-03-2015 9:45 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

Of course you would. You want to blame the government for everyone's bad health.

Except that I don't. Everyone doesn't have bad health, the government wasn't the only party handing out bad advice, and the bad advice isn't responsible for all obesity, diabetes and heart disease.

But the truth is that it really is an all or nothing.

It really isn't.

When the government's advice is to eat so many servings of whole grains and so many servings of fat, you can't eat ten times as much of both and then blame the government's advice when you get fat.

I agree, but that's not what I've been saying, is it.

You're just being ridiculous.

I agree that your misstatements of what I'm saying are ridiculous.

The government didn't give the best advice, but that advice is most certainly not to blame for 60% of American's being overweight.

I didn't say the government's advice was responsible for everyone who's obese. I said the advice from a variety of sources influenced Americans to overemphasize carbohydrates in the diet and played a significant role in the ensuing obesity/diabetes/heart-disease epidemic.

The fault for that lies with fast food, junk food, too much food, and lack of physical activity.

Those are also significant factors, but not all are completely independent ones. 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.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Clarify first paragraph.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jon, posted 03-03-2015 9:45 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by Jon, posted 03-03-2015 11:36 AM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 70 of 243 (751453)
03-03-2015 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 68 by nwr
03-03-2015 9:56 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
nwr writes:

I'm wondering what was in that product named "2% milk" that I was drinking 10 years earlier. And again, 10 years or more earlier, why was I able to buy "Ice milk" as an alternative to Ice cream?

I provided no specific date, so I don't know when you're talking about. If by "10 years earlier" you mean 10 years before 1980, I provided a link to a government diet brochure from 1980 because that's the oldest I could find, but dietary advice against fat began long before that.

The point is that the dietary advice against fat caused the food industry to make available increasing quantities of low-fat options as time went by. This evolution of food choices toward more low fat options was reflected on grocery store shelves.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by nwr, posted 03-03-2015 9:56 AM nwr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by nwr, posted 03-03-2015 12:16 PM Percy has responded

  
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 responded

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

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 889 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 72 of 243 (751458)
03-03-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jon
03-03-2015 11:36 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
The fast food industry didn't change their menu to better conform to USDA guidelines.

Many of them did change their menus to conform to what they thought customers wanted.

McDonalds and others didn't just add salads to their menus on a whim!


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jon, posted 03-03-2015 11:36 AM Jon has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by NoNukes, posted 03-03-2015 1:02 PM Coyote has acknowledged this reply

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 5654
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 73 of 243 (751466)
03-03-2015 12:16 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by Percy
03-03-2015 11:26 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
The point is that the dietary advice against fat caused the food industry to make available increasing quantities of low-fat options as time went by.

The point is that you keep blaming the government.

There have been diet books and fads for as long as I can remember. And, as long as there are fads, the food industry will see that as a market.

You don't need government advice to have food fads.


Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 11:26 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 03-03-2015 12:41 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 74 of 243 (751473)
03-03-2015 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by Jon
03-03-2015 11:36 AM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
Jon writes:

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.

You're reading is getting increasingly careless. First, you originally said the fast food and junk food industries, not just the fast food industry. Second, I didn't say anything about their intent to follow dietary guidelines. What I said was that they took the public's focus on fat as an opportunity to increase carbohydrate and refined carbohydrate content.

Concerning your comments about salt, making food appealing is more than just a matter of adding salt. It's a combination of fat, sugar and salt (I'm echoing the title of Michael Moss's book, sugar actually refers to carbohydrates). Taste and mouth feel are the most important components.

The fast food industry didn't change their menu to better conform to USDA guidelines.

I didn't say they did, but the more conscious the public becomes of any dietary concerns the more the food industry (all facets, not just fast food) will attempt to respond in ways that maximize profits.

Your position is getting more and more ridiculous, Percy.

I'm having trouble figuring out why you can't see the rather large disconnect between what you claim I'm saying and what I'm actually saying.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Add clarification to 2nd para.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by Jon, posted 03-03-2015 11:36 AM Jon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Jon, posted 03-03-2015 2:10 PM Percy has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 19952
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 75 of 243 (751476)
03-03-2015 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nwr
03-03-2015 12:16 PM


Re: Recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
nwr writes:

The point is that you keep blaming the government.

Except that I don't keep blaming the government. Frequently we refer to "government advice" as a sort of shorthand in these messages we're writing, but it's actually a complex of factors involving the scientific community, government advisory boards, health organizations, the food manufacturers, and the diet advice industry.

That being said, I do assign a significant proportion of the blame to the government because they provided the anchor for the advice about fat provided by organizations like the American Heart Association and by the diet advice industry.

There have been diet books and fads for as long as I can remember. And, as long as there are fads, the food industry will see that as a market.

You don't need government advice to have food fads.

But it wasn't a fad, and it wasn't just government advice. It was also organizations llke the American Heart Association, it was news reports about studies showing the negative health impact of fats (e.g., saturated fat, partially hydrogenated trans fats), it was diet experts writing books and appearing on radio and TV programs, etc., etc.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nwr, posted 03-03-2015 12:16 PM nwr has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021