4 ms·

Now if only there was consensus what is healthy eating (it changes once a decade, cyclical fashion). Fat is currently returning with a vengeance, while sugar is

Now if only there was consensus what is healthy eating (it changes once a decade, cyclical fashion). Fat is currently returning with a vengeance, while sugar is the killer molecule. 10 years ago a spoonful of butter was considered slightly worse than cyanide. The amounts of protein per day is also debated as are total calories, and carb/fat ratios. And the number of meals per day and the optimal amounts of fasts.

DanBC 14y ago
You mention some things that are under debate. Those things are not part of "healthy" eating, they are important for "optimal" eating. Fat is not returning with a vengeance. Common sense advice has not changed particularly much over the past twenty years. There are some things - dietary cholesterol isn't seen as evil (but the foods it's in are). But other stuff - replacing fat for sugar (replacing a real salad dressing with a low fat (but high sugar) dressing) has always been seen as bad advice. Of course, if people pay attention to wing-nuts pumping out crank advice then yes, everything changes every week. Peas cause cancer one week, red cabbage causes it the next. Most people do not need "optimal", they need "good enough". Most people are not at "good enough", they're at high fat, high sugar, high salt, high poor quality foods, low exercise. Someone drinking 4 litres of cola a day and eating a jar of peanut butter on crackers doesn't need to know whether their total calories should be 2,000 kCalorie per day or 2,500 kCalorie per day. They just need to eat less than 7,000kCal per day.
- Shorel 14y ago
  You should see the weight loss and muscle gain pictures in the keto forums to really understand why (only some kinds of) fat is returning with a vengeance. With these sustainable results, it's not going back. Now traditional dietitians seem quite outdated and retrograde (because of their results) in comparison.
  - itsybitsycoder 14y ago
    Keto is the first weight-loss diet I've ever been on where I'm not constantly hungry. It's also the first diet where I've lost 15lb in the first three weeks, without actually trying that hard. (Clearly some water weight in there, but still.) Fancy coffees every morning and steak every night, if I want. I don't know that this is an issue of HCLF vs LCHF diets as much as the previous dominance of HCLF diets though. I'm not a biologist/nutritionist at all, but it seems like HCLF and balanced diets work for some people, otherwise we'd all be obese or constantly hungry. But they definitely never worked for me. We already know that people's bodies differ in how well they process different foods (allergies, Celiac, alcohol flush, etc), so I wouldn't find it too surprising if different people had different ideal macro ratios.
- jerf 14y ago
  "Common sense advice has not changed particularly much over the past twenty years. ...There are some things - dietary cholesterol isn't seen as evil (but the foods it's in are)." No, definitely false. Dietary cholesterol has definitely been considered a bad thing and for the last 30 years people were told to avoid it, by heart doctors, in the form of avoiding cholesterol in your diet, in that specific terminology. It wasn't just that cholesterol was in "bad" things, the things were bad because they had cholesterol. "But other stuff - replacing fat for sugar (replacing a real salad dressing with a low fat (but high sugar) dressing) has always been seen as bad advice." Also complete tripe. Low fat diets have been advocated for decades now without a word given to what the fat was replaced with, because the fat was considered So Obviously Bad it didn't matter, anything was better. The dietary consensus is in fact undergoing significant change (still in the early phases of penetrating the consensus but I'm pretty sure its inevitable at this point), but this is exactly how I expect the authorities to wiggle out from under the fact they were giving fatally-inaccurate advice for decades... straight-up historical revisionism. We never said cholesterol was bad for you, we never were universally against salt (just for certain at-risk people), we always said many fats were good for you, we certainly NEVER EVER EVER advocated transfats as a healthy alternative to fats how dare you even suggest that we did such a thing, and we have always been at war with Eurasia. I will not forget.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Please read my comment again. You rant about cholesterol. Cholesterol is an example I give of advice that has changed. You appear to misunderstand that very simple point I made. > Low fat diets have been advocated for decades now without a word given to what the fat was replaced with, because the fat was considered So Obviously Bad it didn't matter, anything was better. No, this is wrong. Calm dieticians have been suggesting that people cut down fats, but not replace those with weird sugar-foods. You'll be able to point to very many untrained, unscientific, 'clinical nutritionists' who give weird advice. But I've already said that cranks exist and have always given weird advice. Salt is still harmful, btw. > The dietary consensus is in fact undergoing significant change It really really isn't. "Don't eat too much. Eat less red meat; eat more fruit and vegetables. Reduce the amount of fats, sugars, and salt that you eat. Reduce the amount of processed foods (especially some processed meats). Try to eat more fresh food." That's been the consistent message for many many years now.
- ryeguy 14y ago
  Fat is "coming back" in the sense that it is no longer mistakenly being viewed as evil. It seems carbs have taken that place, but at least that is kinda true: http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-carb-diet.html http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-ca.... Granted, people overdo the 'carbs are evil' thing.
  - jff 14y ago
    The best reason to avoid carbohydrate-rich foods is exactly the reason they figure so heavily in the diets of many nations. Rice, bread, these things pack a ton of calories. This is not great for a computer programmer who sits on ass all day, converting the carbohydrate calories to weight, but goddamn if rice isn't a cheap way to power yourself when you're on a budget.

DanBC 14y ago

You mention some things that are under debate. Those things are not part of "healthy" eating, they are important for "optimal" eating. Fat is not returning with a vengeance. Common sense advice has not changed particularly much over the past twenty years. There are some things - dietary cholesterol isn't seen as evil (but the foods it's in are). But other stuff - replacing fat for sugar (replacing a real salad dressing with a low fat (but high sugar) dressing) has always been seen as bad advice. Of course, if people pay attention to wing-nuts pumping out crank advice then yes, everything changes every week. Peas cause cancer one week, red cabbage causes it the next. Most people do not need "optimal", they need "good enough". Most people are not at "good enough", they're at high fat, high sugar, high salt, high poor quality foods, low exercise. Someone drinking 4 litres of cola a day and eating a jar of peanut butter on crackers doesn't need to know whether their total calories should be 2,000 kCalorie per day or 2,500 kCalorie per day. They just need to eat less than 7,000kCal per day.

Shorel 14y ago
You should see the weight loss and muscle gain pictures in the keto forums to really understand why (only some kinds of) fat is returning with a vengeance. With these sustainable results, it's not going back. Now traditional dietitians seem quite outdated and retrograde (because of their results) in comparison.
- itsybitsycoder 14y ago
  Keto is the first weight-loss diet I've ever been on where I'm not constantly hungry. It's also the first diet where I've lost 15lb in the first three weeks, without actually trying that hard. (Clearly some water weight in there, but still.) Fancy coffees every morning and steak every night, if I want. I don't know that this is an issue of HCLF vs LCHF diets as much as the previous dominance of HCLF diets though. I'm not a biologist/nutritionist at all, but it seems like HCLF and balanced diets work for some people, otherwise we'd all be obese or constantly hungry. But they definitely never worked for me. We already know that people's bodies differ in how well they process different foods (allergies, Celiac, alcohol flush, etc), so I wouldn't find it too surprising if different people had different ideal macro ratios.
jerf 14y ago
"Common sense advice has not changed particularly much over the past twenty years. ...There are some things - dietary cholesterol isn't seen as evil (but the foods it's in are)." No, definitely false. Dietary cholesterol has definitely been considered a bad thing and for the last 30 years people were told to avoid it, by heart doctors, in the form of avoiding cholesterol in your diet, in that specific terminology. It wasn't just that cholesterol was in "bad" things, the things were bad because they had cholesterol. "But other stuff - replacing fat for sugar (replacing a real salad dressing with a low fat (but high sugar) dressing) has always been seen as bad advice." Also complete tripe. Low fat diets have been advocated for decades now without a word given to what the fat was replaced with, because the fat was considered So Obviously Bad it didn't matter, anything was better. The dietary consensus is in fact undergoing significant change (still in the early phases of penetrating the consensus but I'm pretty sure its inevitable at this point), but this is exactly how I expect the authorities to wiggle out from under the fact they were giving fatally-inaccurate advice for decades... straight-up historical revisionism. We never said cholesterol was bad for you, we never were universally against salt (just for certain at-risk people), we always said many fats were good for you, we certainly NEVER EVER EVER advocated transfats as a healthy alternative to fats how dare you even suggest that we did such a thing, and we have always been at war with Eurasia. I will not forget.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 14y ago
  Please read my comment again. You rant about cholesterol. Cholesterol is an example I give of advice that has changed. You appear to misunderstand that very simple point I made. > Low fat diets have been advocated for decades now without a word given to what the fat was replaced with, because the fat was considered So Obviously Bad it didn't matter, anything was better. No, this is wrong. Calm dieticians have been suggesting that people cut down fats, but not replace those with weird sugar-foods. You'll be able to point to very many untrained, unscientific, 'clinical nutritionists' who give weird advice. But I've already said that cranks exist and have always given weird advice. Salt is still harmful, btw. > The dietary consensus is in fact undergoing significant change It really really isn't. "Don't eat too much. Eat less red meat; eat more fruit and vegetables. Reduce the amount of fats, sugars, and salt that you eat. Reduce the amount of processed foods (especially some processed meats). Try to eat more fresh food." That's been the consistent message for many many years now.
ryeguy 14y ago
Fat is "coming back" in the sense that it is no longer mistakenly being viewed as evil. It seems carbs have taken that place, but at least that is kinda true: http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-carb-diet.html http://examine.com/faq/are-there-health-benefits-of-a-low-ca.... Granted, people overdo the 'carbs are evil' thing.
- jff 14y ago
  The best reason to avoid carbohydrate-rich foods is exactly the reason they figure so heavily in the diets of many nations. Rice, bread, these things pack a ton of calories. This is not great for a computer programmer who sits on ass all day, converting the carbohydrate calories to weight, but goddamn if rice isn't a cheap way to power yourself when you're on a budget.