4 ms·

The surprise is genuine, and I didn't include any anecdotes in my post. The research I have seen indicates that high carbohydrate intake (particularly sugars)

The surprise is genuine, and I didn't include any anecdotes in my post. The research I have seen indicates that high carbohydrate intake (particularly sugars) is more likely to make someone obese than high fat intake. The research I have seen in no way indicates that the reason people select high sugar foods is because those foods are believed to be healthy by virtue of their low fat content. No doubt companies use "low fat" as a marketing tool. The same can be said of "low carb", "low sodium", "sugar free", "all natural" and any number of other phrases that sound healthy. I don't think this is a significant factor in the obesity epidemic. People aren't choosing Snackwells in preference to a handful of walnuts (to they extent that they are choosing Snackwells; I've never seen anyone purchase them). People are choosing Snackwells in preference to Chips Ahoy. I think this idea that the dietary advice of 20-30 years ago (low fat) is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic is the result of a desire for a dramatically satisfying narrative (Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.). Ponder this: the Atkins / Low-carb craze started over 10 years ago. All the advice I see in online fitness forums acknowledges the value of high-protien low-carb eating. "Low-carb" is becoming a ubiquitous phrase on food packaging. Yet the obesity epidemic continues unchecked. To me this indicates that the people who choose foods based on macronutrients are choosing low-carb, but that most people are not involving macronutrients in their food decisions.

jdminhbg 15y ago
"I think this idea that the dietary advice of 20-30 years ago (low fat) is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic is the result of a desire for a dramatically satisfying narrative." Again, you're arguing against a claim that isn't being made. The anti-carb claim is that the primary cause of the obesity epidemic is the vast consumption of sugars and other simple, processed carbohydrates. A contributing factor to this dietary problem is that even people who try to eat well have been led to believe that cutting out steak and replacing it with whole wheat bread would help them, which is wrong and was backed up by bad science. If you are having trouble believing that people think that the obesity problem is caused by nutritionists telling everyone to drink six Cokes a day, that is because nobody is claiming that. They are claiming that the problem which already existed was exacerbated by bad advice, and that lots of people who tried hard to do something about their own personal problems were frustrated and gave up because they were told to do counterproductive things.
- ajscherer 15y ago
  "You can complain all you want about food manufacturers making tasty/addictive foods which are bad for you, but they were responding to the public's demand for "low fat" driven by bad science." I am arguing that they were responding to the public's demand for cheap, tasty, convenient food driven by... people liking cheap, tasty, convenient things. The "bad science" didn't do much harm because the science didn't have much influence over what people ate anyway. Given what I've quoted you saying above, and the fact that you don't have to scroll down very far to hear the suggestion of lowering one's fat intake called "the greatest scientific fuck up of all time", I don't think I'm arguing against a claim that isn't being made.

jdminhbg 15y ago

"I think this idea that the dietary advice of 20-30 years ago (low fat) is the primary cause of the obesity epidemic is the result of a desire for a dramatically satisfying narrative." Again, you're arguing against a claim that isn't being made. The anti-carb claim is that the primary cause of the obesity epidemic is the vast consumption of sugars and other simple, processed carbohydrates. A contributing factor to this dietary problem is that even people who try to eat well have been led to believe that cutting out steak and replacing it with whole wheat bread would help them, which is wrong and was backed up by bad science. If you are having trouble believing that people think that the obesity problem is caused by nutritionists telling everyone to drink six Cokes a day, that is because nobody is claiming that. They are claiming that the problem which already existed was exacerbated by bad advice, and that lots of people who tried hard to do something about their own personal problems were frustrated and gave up because they were told to do counterproductive things.

ajscherer 15y ago
"You can complain all you want about food manufacturers making tasty/addictive foods which are bad for you, but they were responding to the public's demand for "low fat" driven by bad science." I am arguing that they were responding to the public's demand for cheap, tasty, convenient food driven by... people liking cheap, tasty, convenient things. The "bad science" didn't do much harm because the science didn't have much influence over what people ate anyway. Given what I've quoted you saying above, and the fact that you don't have to scroll down very far to hear the suggestion of lowering one's fat intake called "the greatest scientific fuck up of all time", I don't think I'm arguing against a claim that isn't being made.