3 ms·

Anyone who still has any shred of respect for these "public health experts", who by all appearances are little more than irrational single-interest zealots inte

Anyone who still has any shred of respect for these "public health experts", who by all appearances are little more than irrational single-interest zealots intent on pushing through their pet theory regardless of evidence, should seek out and read The Diet Delusion by Gary Taubes. It is an (IMO) authoritative excoriation of the kinds of processes and personalities behind these "recommendations" and will really open your eyes.

rg 17y ago
The same (excellent) book has a different title in the US: "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health", by Gary Taubes (Paperback - Sept. 23, 2008).
DarkShikari 17y ago
And it explains this quite well: The harder the experts try to save Americans, the fatter we get. Obviously, since the dogma is "low fat", and "low fat" means more carbs, and carbs generally make us fatter, the explanation for this becomes blindingly obvious.
- chaqke 17y ago
  Rule of thumb: Fat = 9calories/gram Carb = 4calories/gram The difference might be that you feel full quicker with fat - but in that case carbs don't make you fat, eating more makes you fat. I just remember those numbers from a class, but here's reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate
- ZeroGravitas 17y ago
  Is "low fat" the dogma? I always thought that was just the general public getting confused about "fat" (the essential part of your diet), "fat" (the vital organ of your body) and "fat" (what you are if you are heavier, larger or just a different shape than current fashion dictates). Do other languages use the same word for these three concepts? Yes I see hundreds of things advertised, mainly to women, as "low fat" which are just filled full of sugar to make them appetising, but any medical expert, even ones on TV, seem to emphasise good fats vs bad fats and calorie consumption. They are more likely to warn against those "low fat" foods than encourage them.
blueben 17y ago
I have less respect for anyone who demonizes, based on nothing more than some rhetoric, an entire informal and nebulous group of people.
- sailormoon 17y ago
  1. I am not demonising, I am criticising. There is a fundamental difference. 2. It is based on much more than "rhetoric". 3. The group being criticised is not "informal and nebulous". I was, of course, speaking of the small, well-defined group of people who, against all evidence to the contrary and placing haste and ideology firmly above caution and even-handedness, championed and rammed through the current establishment consensus. So that's 0 for 3.
  - blueben 17y ago
    1. Calling people "irrational single-interest zealots" hardly constitutes critical thought. 2. If not rhetoric, then what do you base your "criticism" upon? What evidence demonstrates to the rest of us that "they" are irrational single-interest zealots? (I'm particularly curious to see what kind of evidence proves any particular human irrational or zealous) 3. Who, exactly, are "they"?

rg 17y ago

The same (excellent) book has a different title in the US: "Good Calories, Bad Calories: Fats, Carbs, and the Controversial Science of Diet and Health", by Gary Taubes (Paperback - Sept. 23, 2008).

DarkShikari 17y ago

And it explains this quite well: The harder the experts try to save Americans, the fatter we get. Obviously, since the dogma is "low fat", and "low fat" means more carbs, and carbs generally make us fatter, the explanation for this becomes blindingly obvious.

chaqke 17y ago
Rule of thumb: Fat = 9calories/gram Carb = 4calories/gram The difference might be that you feel full quicker with fat - but in that case carbs don't make you fat, eating more makes you fat. I just remember those numbers from a class, but here's reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate
ZeroGravitas 17y ago
Is "low fat" the dogma? I always thought that was just the general public getting confused about "fat" (the essential part of your diet), "fat" (the vital organ of your body) and "fat" (what you are if you are heavier, larger or just a different shape than current fashion dictates). Do other languages use the same word for these three concepts? Yes I see hundreds of things advertised, mainly to women, as "low fat" which are just filled full of sugar to make them appetising, but any medical expert, even ones on TV, seem to emphasise good fats vs bad fats and calorie consumption. They are more likely to warn against those "low fat" foods than encourage them.

blueben 17y ago

I have less respect for anyone who demonizes, based on nothing more than some rhetoric, an entire informal and nebulous group of people.

sailormoon 17y ago
1. I am not demonising, I am criticising. There is a fundamental difference. 2. It is based on much more than "rhetoric". 3. The group being criticised is not "informal and nebulous". I was, of course, speaking of the small, well-defined group of people who, against all evidence to the contrary and placing haste and ideology firmly above caution and even-handedness, championed and rammed through the current establishment consensus. So that's 0 for 3.
- blueben 17y ago
  1. Calling people "irrational single-interest zealots" hardly constitutes critical thought. 2. If not rhetoric, then what do you base your "criticism" upon? What evidence demonstrates to the rest of us that "they" are irrational single-interest zealots? (I'm particularly curious to see what kind of evidence proves any particular human irrational or zealous) 3. Who, exactly, are "they"?