Foods and Food Supplements Which Are Clearly Healthy

[Colophon]

@brazil84

Well, at least everyone was thin back then

“But hardly anyone died of cancer in the palaeolithic era!”

Yes, it’s a scientific fact that few things arrest the growth of a tumour like being chewed up by a sabre-toothed tiger

[Johanna]

@brazil84

Ok, but this thread is about “foods and food supplements known with a good deal of certainty to promote healthiness and reduce the risk of heart problems, stroke, cancer, etc.”

So what? ::checks forum:: This is IMHO. You want science, go to GQ.

[Jackmannii]

@Colophon

What on earth is the attraction of going back to the diet we were eating when average life expectancy was shorter than the run of an average US sitcom?

It’s about the same attraction as eating a Third World diet that makes you less likely to die of cardiovascular diseases, while ignoring the fact that the Third World population snarfs down far less calories than you do and generally has a considerably shorter average life span.

[brazil84]

@Johanna

So what? ::checks forum:: This is IMHO. You want science, go to GQ.

Well of course you have every right to ignore the request I made in the original post.

[Michael63129]

@Norse

“In moderation” is the key expression here. Note I didn’t say “no saturated fat”. I said “low in saturated fats”.

The reason for limiting saturated fats is pretty simple:
Fat = calories.
Too many caloris = unhealthy.
Limiting fat limits calories.
Limiting calories while making room for healthy fish fats = low amounts of saturated fats.

We’ve basically known how to feed ourselves in a healthy manner the last half century, if not more. The problem isn’t the quality of dietary advice. The problem is adhering to good dietary advice, something that seems to be more and more difficult for more and more people as time goes by (sorry, no cite. Just my personal impression).

</hijack>

The most important thing to limit is the intake of added fats and sugars, which are in addition to what we consume from other foods; as I pointed out, this graph* shows that a very significant portion of our calories comes from added fats and sugars, both of which have also increased in recent decades.

Here is the breakdown of daily caloric intake as displayed by the graph (approximate, read off the graph using the most recent year, around 2008):

Added fats and sugars: 1,040 calories
Grains:                625 calories
Meat/eggs/nuts:        420 calories
Dairy:                 260 calories
Fruits and vegetables: 200 calories

Total:                 2,545 calories

So, added fats and sugars (600 calories from added fats - which is about 67 grams of fats, compared to recommendations to consume no more than 65 grams from all sources, or 80 grams for a 2,500 calorie diet), which have no real value in the diet, are contributing nearly half of all calories eaten daily! If we cut those out and reduced overall calorie intake to around 2,000 a day and replaced the missing ~500 calories with fruits and vegetables, that would more than double current intake and no doubt be a much healthier diet.

*No reference for where the data comes from (found on a blogspot blog), but this paper supports the trends shown on the graph, including the big jump in added fats in the late 1990s:

In 2000 the average daily calorie consumption was 12 percent, or approximately 300 kcal, more than that consumed in 1985 (25). Of that 300 kcal increase, grains (mostly refined) accounted for 46%; added fats, 24%; added sugars, 23%; fruits and vegetables, 8%; and meat and dairy consumption declined 1%…

…between 1997 and 2000, consumption of added fats rose dramatically, jumping 16% from 56 to 61 g per day on average, which was in addition to the fat that occurs naturally in foods…