You just cut to the heart of the issue here
That’s my favorite. “The studies are useless!” Yet has no data to backup personal opinion.
1 Like
Never in my experience did someone change their opinion when faced with studies opposing his point of view. I sometimes stack my arguments like “will you change your opinion when I post a dozen studies backing up my point?” Of course nobody ever changed his position.
How can anybody here deny the fundamental weaknesses of the classic food models, theories and paradigms? Studies did nothing for general nutrition. Studies did arguably even more in strength training where trench knowledge did almost all the heavy lifting.
Conjecture means nothing without proof of your qualification to pontificate on the thread subject. Even then, there still exists a burden of proof.
The studies are useless!” Yet has no data to backup personal opinion.
I think I wrote a lot more than just personal stories. Versions of the food pyramid, calorie restriction, fat avoidance etc were and to a degree still are still cited. Ignoring this is asinine. My whole point is that standard premises are of little use since most theories have been shown to be bunk and key studies have been manipulated.
IMO, Everything can work; nothing works for everyone; most things don’t work forever
2 Likes
If an individual can’t ever get someone to change his opinion, maybe that individual is wrong.
Yeah. We have all kinds of interesting hidden mechanisms for energy extraction and creation, just in case of drought, ice age, mass migration- all of the stuff that we managed to live and procreate through since before we were our current form.
Who the hell is trying to push a low this or low that diet in this thread? I’m saying macros don’t matter. But if you want something more fitting to anyone who trains somewhat hard and doesn’t know where to start with their TDEE, imma go ahead and recommend what I do >> .4g/lb fat - 1g/lb protein - 2g/lb carbs
From fruits greens nuts seeds lean proteins and whatever starch you can digest
I appreciate that you’re trying to use logical thinking in the face of all the mountains of evidence supporting a balanced diet but it turns out that this logical thinking is biased as fuck and blatantly wrong on just about every argument
I do condone the part where you said empty calories have been skyrocketing and that’s the main problem in health. In the meantime I recommend you try a balanced diet for once, instead of embracing orthorexic nonsense.
2 Likes
Balanced is wildly subjective and individual. Seems too easy to just say “eat a balanced diet,” no ? I thrive on a very limited array of foods. Fattier meats, egg yolks, wild fish, etc… No loss in performance or health markers after ditching fruits / veges. Both of which I do enjoy eating, btw.
I was confused as well. Perhaps, I read what you wrote wrong but, it seems you just suggested that the best diet would have a mixture of whole/real foods keeping processed food out of your diet or at the very least to a minimum. Avoiding diets that exclude whole food groups because they are “bad” for you.
If you’re eating their kidneys, they are.
did you watch it yet @flipcollar
1 Like
Point for me, then, since I was in your shoes for the most time.
Please define “balanced diet”. It’s a fine term like “wellness” (who’d want to oppose feeling well?), but isn’t it the most basic form of marketing made mainstream?
If it means “you gotta eat from every group”, we are dangerously close to the pyramid, with all the usual questions. Which groups? Exclude fatty meat? Is there any scientific rigour associated with those groups or are we talking aesthetics again?
It’s like you willfully missed the point.
You’ve embedded a pyramid in your post, and while I won’t dispute what you were taught, if you want to debate nutritional guidelines would it not be more appropriate to give a nod towards the current material that is circulated?
Which pyramid? There are several. And also, before you rage against these models, ask yourselves on which merit they were established and in what context they are presented. The one’s I looked up now, while writing this, don’t seem exactly ideal - but they do not require too much of an effort to adhere to, and they seem financially viable for a greater degree of the population than what I myself currently eat for instance.
And their fatness and sickness cannot be attributed to anything else? Like, physical activity levels declining as a corollary of people performing less manual labour and then as a consequence of that also,
- sitting more,
- spending less time outside (less exposure to “fresh” air/sunlight),
- disturbed circadian rhythms.
I’m not saying that the low-fat fad can’t have had a negative impact on people’s health - but I wouldn’t surmise that it is the only cause as population level changes for either better or worse tends to mean that there is some multivariate causality at play.
When discussing the history of what was pushed by the government in leading to the current state of health in the country? No.
Must have missed that when reading back. I’ve been following the discussion for a while and decided to join the fray. Apologies then.
Not a problem. But I will say the my plate is still crap. It’s a better indication of which lobbies are the most powerful in Washington than how you should eat for health.
1 Like
I’m not in the US so I’m not intrinsically familiar. I googled it and can only find a very coarse plate/distribution thingamajig.
I’m not saying that the low-fat fad can’t have had a negative impact on people’s health - but I wouldn’t surmise that it is the only cause as population level changes for either better or worse tends to mean that there is some multivariate causality at play.
I am definitely assuming that low fat (at least trans fats are scrutinised against) is a major cause for many ailments, especially low Fertility, soymen syndrome and several autoimmune diseases like MS.
Which pyramid? There are several. And also, before you rage against these models, ask yourselves on which merit they were established and in what context they are presented. The one’s I looked up now, while writing this, don’t seem exactly ideal - but they do not require too much of an effort to adhere to, and they seem financially viable for a greater degree of the population than what I myself currently eat for instance.
They are all dumb.That almost nobody can use them seems reason enough to disregard them. Again, if carnivores can thrive on just steaks you better have a nice theory explaining to me why current off the shelf (permanent)diets are still somehow better.
That is not the case right now.
Once again, most of our theories are plainly outdated and many concepts like fiber consumption simply wrong.