4 ms·

> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston Uni

> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.” Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement. What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive? Who messed up too many times? Who needs to make smarter changes? Smarter changes than what? More carefully than what? I swear statements like that make my blood boil. Even if you replace either "we" with {"scientists", "nutritionists", "dietitians", "humanity"}, it's still a problematically sweeping generalization AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. I can imagine a low-fat diet that comes at the expense of increasing sugar intake could be bad, but that's because of the high sugar, not the low fat... It seems pretty obvious that the "more careful" approach to ultra-processed foods seems is to avoid them? So long as you're not replacing them with something even worse.

tssge 3y ago
>What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself. As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or similar. The view that it was more healthy led to higher rates of consumption. I consider fats far more healthy than sugar, main issue with fats is their high amount of energy, but from blood sugar standpoint they're a non issue in my opinion. So yeah there's nothing bad with say no sugar low fat yoghurt healthwise. I eat such yoghurt sometimes and find the taste refreshing. However most people would consider this totally unpalatable as the taste is bitter, not creamy at all and so on. >Smarter changes than what? Smarter changes than calling low-fat same as healthy I guess. Careful as in not labeling omission of some nutrient as healthy outright.
- pixl97 3y ago
  Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals, and then leave the super high calorie portions to eat making it hyper easy to consume 10k kcals a day.
  - Terr_ 3y ago
    > Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. I don't think they forget, it's just not profitable to admit it or work it into their products. That makes me think of a Pratchett quote: > In fact, like a lot of [semaphore] towers, it was often manned by kids. Everyone knew it happened. Actually, the new management probably didn't, but wouldn't have done anything about it if they'd found out, apart from carefully forgetting that they'd known. Kids didn't need to be paid. -- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett For a bit more context, the semaphore towers in the plot are analogous to the early internet and issues of monopolies. > They'd come and hang around and do odd jobs and maybe pick up the craft of semaphore just by watching. They tended to be bright, they mastered the keyboard and levers as if by magic, they usually had good eyesight and what they were doing, most of them, was running away from home without actually leaving.
  - tssge 3y ago
    >And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. I find palatability an odd thing in the sense that there's the phenomenon of acquired taste. In my experience acquired taste applies the most towards bitter foods and drinks. I hated the zero-sugar low-fat yoghurt at first. It tasted horrible. The more I got into it however, the more I liked it's rather unique refreshing taste. It freshens the palate unlike any other food and as such I got used to the bitter taste and started to like it instead. Same thing with beer, it seems everyone hates beer when they taste it the first time. The more you get used to it however, the more you find the taste refreshing I feel. Nothing more refreshing than a cold beer on a hot summer day. >We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals Fiber for me is somewhat similar. I really love fibrous, almost rock hard, full-grain rye bread. My jaw will get sore from eating that, but there's something to it to really have to chew it down. However I used to hate it and love soft bread in the past: the texture and it's chewiness is akin to an acquired taste.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. I remember one day I was walking through the grocery store, and was struck by the inanity of a package of candy-corn proudly declaring itself "Fat-Free!"
hnzix 3y ago
If you're looking for the who, Rhonda Patrick points the finger at rampant corruption in nutrition research and public policy. For example the American Heart Association being sponsored by Cheetos.
hilux 3y ago
> AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. Two things: - Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs. - When we remove fat, what is replacing it?
- Kirby64 3y ago
  The amount of dietary fat needed for humans to survive is very small. Most studies I’ve seen suggest the amount is close to 30-50g/day (depending on your weight) before there’s any meaningful long term health problems. Dietary carbs are extremely valuable for energy purposes. Sure, you can be a keto nut and go completely no carbs, but extra carbs is valuable for energy reasons. That said, ideally you should be replacing fat with more protein. Most folks get far far too little protein in their diet, and protein is necessary for maintaining and gaining muscle mass, which has a huge impact on obesity and body form. If you don’t have enough protein to maintain muscle mass but have excess calories then literally the only place for it to go is into fat stores…
  - hilux 3y ago
    I'll emphasize it again: dietary fat is essential. Dietary carbs are not. You can live forever on zero carbs. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that carbs are more "valuable" than fat. Whether "extra calories" go to fat or are burned, is determined by your level of insulin. You can google this. As a starting point, I recommend any video or blog post by Dr. Jason Fung. Eating a high protein diet is difficult to do, and also hard on the kidneys. It may work for teenagers and twenty-something males who want to unnaturally bulk up. It is not healthy for long life.
stephen_g 3y ago
‘Low-fat’ is pretty bad, not just because it turns out excess sugar is far worse (and ‘low-fat’ marketed foods often increased sugar to make them taste better), but also because there are fats that are fine (like monounsaturated fats), and ones we should probably be having more of (like omega 3). There can be inherently bad things about eating less of that, even if lowering saturated fat intake is a good thing… So I would say ‘low-fat’ as a principle was definitely bad and counter-productive advice.

tssge 3y ago

>What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself. As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or similar. The view that it was more healthy led to higher rates of consumption. I consider fats far more healthy than sugar, main issue with fats is their high amount of energy, but from blood sugar standpoint they're a non issue in my opinion. So yeah there's nothing bad with say no sugar low fat yoghurt healthwise. I eat such yoghurt sometimes and find the taste refreshing. However most people would consider this totally unpalatable as the taste is bitter, not creamy at all and so on. >Smarter changes than what? Smarter changes than calling low-fat same as healthy I guess. Careful as in not labeling omission of some nutrient as healthy outright.

pixl97 3y ago
Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals, and then leave the super high calorie portions to eat making it hyper easy to consume 10k kcals a day.
- Terr_ 3y ago
  > Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. I don't think they forget, it's just not profitable to admit it or work it into their products. That makes me think of a Pratchett quote: > In fact, like a lot of [semaphore] towers, it was often manned by kids. Everyone knew it happened. Actually, the new management probably didn't, but wouldn't have done anything about it if they'd found out, apart from carefully forgetting that they'd known. Kids didn't need to be paid. -- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett For a bit more context, the semaphore towers in the plot are analogous to the early internet and issues of monopolies. > They'd come and hang around and do odd jobs and maybe pick up the craft of semaphore just by watching. They tended to be bright, they mastered the keyboard and levers as if by magic, they usually had good eyesight and what they were doing, most of them, was running away from home without actually leaving.
- tssge 3y ago
  >And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. I find palatability an odd thing in the sense that there's the phenomenon of acquired taste. In my experience acquired taste applies the most towards bitter foods and drinks. I hated the zero-sugar low-fat yoghurt at first. It tasted horrible. The more I got into it however, the more I liked it's rather unique refreshing taste. It freshens the palate unlike any other food and as such I got used to the bitter taste and started to like it instead. Same thing with beer, it seems everyone hates beer when they taste it the first time. The more you get used to it however, the more you find the taste refreshing I feel. Nothing more refreshing than a cold beer on a hot summer day. >We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals Fiber for me is somewhat similar. I really love fibrous, almost rock hard, full-grain rye bread. My jaw will get sore from eating that, but there's something to it to really have to chew it down. However I used to hate it and love soft bread in the past: the texture and it's chewiness is akin to an acquired taste.
Terr_ 3y ago
> AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. I remember one day I was walking through the grocery store, and was struck by the inanity of a package of candy-corn proudly declaring itself "Fat-Free!"

hnzix 3y ago

If you're looking for the who, Rhonda Patrick points the finger at rampant corruption in nutrition research and public policy. For example the American Heart Association being sponsored by Cheetos.

hilux 3y ago

> AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. Two things: - Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs. - When we remove fat, what is replacing it?

Kirby64 3y ago
The amount of dietary fat needed for humans to survive is very small. Most studies I’ve seen suggest the amount is close to 30-50g/day (depending on your weight) before there’s any meaningful long term health problems. Dietary carbs are extremely valuable for energy purposes. Sure, you can be a keto nut and go completely no carbs, but extra carbs is valuable for energy reasons. That said, ideally you should be replacing fat with more protein. Most folks get far far too little protein in their diet, and protein is necessary for maintaining and gaining muscle mass, which has a huge impact on obesity and body form. If you don’t have enough protein to maintain muscle mass but have excess calories then literally the only place for it to go is into fat stores…
- hilux 3y ago
  I'll emphasize it again: dietary fat is essential. Dietary carbs are not. You can live forever on zero carbs. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that carbs are more "valuable" than fat. Whether "extra calories" go to fat or are burned, is determined by your level of insulin. You can google this. As a starting point, I recommend any video or blog post by Dr. Jason Fung. Eating a high protein diet is difficult to do, and also hard on the kidneys. It may work for teenagers and twenty-something males who want to unnaturally bulk up. It is not healthy for long life.

stephen_g 3y ago

‘Low-fat’ is pretty bad, not just because it turns out excess sugar is far worse (and ‘low-fat’ marketed foods often increased sugar to make them taste better), but also because there are fats that are fine (like monounsaturated fats), and ones we should probably be having more of (like omega 3). There can be inherently bad things about eating less of that, even if lowering saturated fat intake is a good thing… So I would say ‘low-fat’ as a principle was definitely bad and counter-productive advice.