4 ms·

As far as I am aware, there isn't much of a consensus among nutritionists as to what constitutes a "healthy diet", other than that a lot of sugar really isn't i

As far as I am aware, there isn't much of a consensus among nutritionists as to what constitutes a "healthy diet", other than that a lot of sugar really isn't it. The article seems to define the term based on regional norms, which seems weird to me. No doubt a lot of people are not getting much variety in their food, yet somehow I doubt 3B people would be considered "unhealthy" in that they are so deficient in some mineral or fat that they experience functional maladies.

mfer 5y ago
There is a lot more concensus and knowledge (science based) than people think. The news isn't good at reporting it. Dr. Michael Greger does a pretty good job at explaining things. He recently did a video on the scientific consensus for a healthy diet. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-scientific-consensus-on-a-healthy-diet/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-scientific-consensus-on.... It's designed for the masses but based on the research. Explanations and access to the research are much more accessible now than 20 years ago.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
  Is there a transcript or summary available? I personally detest video as a source of information.
  - mfer 5y ago
    I'm not entirely sure if there is a summary of the video. The final gist is that a minimally processed plant based diet is the healthiest. This is the consensus and what the cohort studies repeatedly show. There are now doctors/scientists who can explain the biomechanics of it all, too.
    - krageon 5y ago
      Last time the consensus was that "blue" (vegetables, fish, rice, few red and white meats) diet countries have the best quality of life and expected lifespan. If there really has been a major shift in this insight towards "plant based, little processing" then that goes a little beyond "the news is not good at reporting it" and goes straight into "everyone needs to have missed this". That honestly doesn't seem likely.
      - mfer 5y ago
        I'm not sure what you mean by "blue" diet. Do you have a reference? The closest thing I could find was the blue zones and the diet in these locations. A summary of which is at https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/ https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/. Though, I don't think this is a consensus. Were you pointing to something else?
        krageon 5y ago
        That is what I meant
  - Johanx64 5y ago
    Michael Greger is a vegan and plant-based diet ideologue. That's the summary.
    - mfer 5y ago
      Greger does tell people to eat plant based. But, he does it by showing what the scientific research has to say. Is there someone who shows what the science has to say where the science says to eat differently? I've recently looked at some details from the US NIH, looked at some details out of the CDC, and spoken with someone on their type 2 diabetes program their doctor put them on (to get rid of it). The gist from each of these places is to eat unprocessed mostly plant based. The WHO even classifies some processed meats as carcinogens. Is someone showing the science of a healthy diet is in a different direction? I'm genuinely looking for a pointer.
      - Johanx64 5y ago
        >But, he does it by showing what the scientific research has to say He's a textbook of example of what every diet ideologue does. It's called cherry picking "research" that reaffirms his views - in a field which is barely scientific to begin with. He didn't arrive at a plant-based diet from "first principles", such as trying to derive it from estimated average requirements for all the various vitamins and minerals, (accounting for bioavailability from various sources). Because if you do that, you'd have fish, eggs and animal organs as top contenders in bioavailabilty and nutritional density (meaning you can hit most of your RDAs without eating metric ton of food) He is a not a scientist, he vegan ideologue first and foremost, he even sounds like a Christian preacher in his videos. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. I'm not interested in dietary advice from anyone who's already made up his mind and is ideologically opposed to animal products.
CodeGlitch 5y ago
Rice beans and nuts - OK not interesting food, but super healthy and cheap. Am I missing something here? Here in the UK, it's often reported that the poor cannot afford "healthy" food (it never states what healthy food is) and instead they eat unhealthy food - one can only assume they mean stuff like McDonalds?. This never made sense to me, you can buy rice, potatoes, tins of beans, pasta for far less than a burger or a curry. There are YouTube channels dedicated to cooking meals using super-cheap ingredients. Occasionally I'll just eat a bowl of porridge (with milk) when I can't be bothered cooking. Not only is this extremely cheap but also healthy. You can dried fruits and nuts if you're feeling adventurous. Peanut butter also works. This whole "poor people can't afford healthy food but can afford unhealthy" needs to stop.
- bwship 5y ago
  Agreed. Healthy food is not as expensive as everyone makes it out to be. Even if you just ate porridge everyday, and supplemented it with some veggies, fruits, and nuts you would be fine overall.
ac29 5y ago
I found it odd especially that they include meat and dairy if the national guidelines include it, both of which are going to be relatively expensive many places. For example, even the dietary guidelines in India [0] include meat despite a substantial portion of the population being vegetarian. This article thusly puts 71% of that population into the unhealthy category, even though many of them wouldn't eat meat even if they could afford to regularly. [0] http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/india/en/ http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-gu...

mfer 5y ago

There is a lot more concensus and knowledge (science based) than people think. The news isn't good at reporting it. Dr. Michael Greger does a pretty good job at explaining things. He recently did a video on the scientific consensus for a healthy diet. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-scientific-consensus-on-a-healthy-diet/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-scientific-consensus-on.... It's designed for the masses but based on the research. Explanations and access to the research are much more accessible now than 20 years ago.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 5y ago
Is there a transcript or summary available? I personally detest video as a source of information.
- mfer 5y ago
  I'm not entirely sure if there is a summary of the video. The final gist is that a minimally processed plant based diet is the healthiest. This is the consensus and what the cohort studies repeatedly show. There are now doctors/scientists who can explain the biomechanics of it all, too.
  - krageon 5y ago
    Last time the consensus was that "blue" (vegetables, fish, rice, few red and white meats) diet countries have the best quality of life and expected lifespan. If there really has been a major shift in this insight towards "plant based, little processing" then that goes a little beyond "the news is not good at reporting it" and goes straight into "everyone needs to have missed this". That honestly doesn't seem likely.
    - mfer 5y ago
      I'm not sure what you mean by "blue" diet. Do you have a reference? The closest thing I could find was the blue zones and the diet in these locations. A summary of which is at https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/ https://www.bluezones.com/recipes/food-guidelines/. Though, I don't think this is a consensus. Were you pointing to something else?
      - krageon 5y ago
        That is what I meant
- Johanx64 5y ago
  Michael Greger is a vegan and plant-based diet ideologue. That's the summary.
  - mfer 5y ago
    Greger does tell people to eat plant based. But, he does it by showing what the scientific research has to say. Is there someone who shows what the science has to say where the science says to eat differently? I've recently looked at some details from the US NIH, looked at some details out of the CDC, and spoken with someone on their type 2 diabetes program their doctor put them on (to get rid of it). The gist from each of these places is to eat unprocessed mostly plant based. The WHO even classifies some processed meats as carcinogens. Is someone showing the science of a healthy diet is in a different direction? I'm genuinely looking for a pointer.
    - Johanx64 5y ago
      >But, he does it by showing what the scientific research has to say He's a textbook of example of what every diet ideologue does. It's called cherry picking "research" that reaffirms his views - in a field which is barely scientific to begin with. He didn't arrive at a plant-based diet from "first principles", such as trying to derive it from estimated average requirements for all the various vitamins and minerals, (accounting for bioavailability from various sources). Because if you do that, you'd have fish, eggs and animal organs as top contenders in bioavailabilty and nutritional density (meaning you can hit most of your RDAs without eating metric ton of food) He is a not a scientist, he vegan ideologue first and foremost, he even sounds like a Christian preacher in his videos. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck. I'm not interested in dietary advice from anyone who's already made up his mind and is ideologically opposed to animal products.

CodeGlitch 5y ago

Rice beans and nuts - OK not interesting food, but super healthy and cheap. Am I missing something here? Here in the UK, it's often reported that the poor cannot afford "healthy" food (it never states what healthy food is) and instead they eat unhealthy food - one can only assume they mean stuff like McDonalds?. This never made sense to me, you can buy rice, potatoes, tins of beans, pasta for far less than a burger or a curry. There are YouTube channels dedicated to cooking meals using super-cheap ingredients. Occasionally I'll just eat a bowl of porridge (with milk) when I can't be bothered cooking. Not only is this extremely cheap but also healthy. You can dried fruits and nuts if you're feeling adventurous. Peanut butter also works. This whole "poor people can't afford healthy food but can afford unhealthy" needs to stop.

bwship 5y ago
Agreed. Healthy food is not as expensive as everyone makes it out to be. Even if you just ate porridge everyday, and supplemented it with some veggies, fruits, and nuts you would be fine overall.

ac29 5y ago

I found it odd especially that they include meat and dairy if the national guidelines include it, both of which are going to be relatively expensive many places. For example, even the dietary guidelines in India [0] include meat despite a substantial portion of the population being vegetarian. This article thusly puts 71% of that population into the unhealthy category, even though many of them wouldn't eat meat even if they could afford to regularly. [0] http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/india/en/ http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-gu...