I really enjoy Cheetos.
And that’s where the weak weak science part comes in.
Again, I am not an expert but I strongly suspect that a big part of the problem is foods which taste too good. That’s related to fat (and carbohydrates), but it’s an oversimplification to just look at the components. Somehow the processing can affect the ultimate result.
Perhaps, but is the science supporting the carbohydrate hypothesis any stronger?
Says the dude with the orange dingus.
I think it is getting there. It has not until recently even been studied. Its hard to get funding for…think of all the institutions and food conglomerates that would not be on board. Or, all the institutions that for years have been pushing the opposite view. How likely is it that the American Heart Association is going to say “Ooops! We were wrong. Sorry.”
You could say the same thing about fat.
Here are the American Heart Association’s diet recommendations.
It doesn’t seem that they advocate pigging out on carbohydrates.
Meh. Still demonizing saturated fat. In recent years things are better - avocados are again deemed healthy. Eggs are losing their stigma. Olive oil is now a wonder food. Even nuts have been vindicated. I am very hopeful that the tide is slowing turning and the anti-fat phobia will be behind us. And that will be a very good thing.
Probably quite a few. I’d make it my cheat meal of the week. 
Are you saying that the American Heart Association has changed its position?
And do you agree that the American Heart Association does not seem to advocate eating large quantities of carbohydrates?
They’re actually pretty low-carb except for the beanie. And watch out for the porkpie hat. Loads of fat.
The USDA has gone from “My Pyramid” to “My Plate”. So yes, “official” recommendations have changed. I do believe the hasty recommendation to decrease fat consumption in the 70s and 80s was poorly supported by science and is part of the reason for the obesity epidemic.
yes!
I was too lazy to make this joke earlier. Thanks for picking up the slack.
The USDA is a pawn of the food industry. Pretty much any guidelines they release are going to be influenced by the lobbyists in big agriculture or big dairy or whatever. They have attempted to name actual food categories to be avoided, only to be shouted down by the food trade and bullied into weakening their recommendations to avoiding certain macro nutrients (i.e. saturated fats.) I don’t trust those fools.
The truth is, healthy eating isn’t much of a mystery. If it’s a real, whole food, it’s probably safe to eat, but the bulk of our diets should probably be vegetables. When I look at all the different weight-loss diets out there, they all seem to have lots of vegetables in common. People can attribute their weight loss to low carbs or high protein or whatever - if you’re eating more vegetables, you’re eating less of that other stuff, which is higher in calories.
Since we’re having fun with anecdotal evidence, I’ll throw in my two cents. I’ve never had this dieting problem of being constantly hungry. I might have cravings for the first week or two, but restricting calories doesn’t seem to make me hungry. Generally, the more weight I lose, the smaller my appetite. However, since I’ve gone over to clean eating, I’ve seen a pretty dramatic difference in my hunger levels of grains vs. veggies or protein. I seem to do best with a lot of vegetables, a lot of dairy, a moderate amount of fruit and a little meat. I have days where all I eat for lunch is a heap of steamed peas with feta cheese - and I’m not hungry.
Yesterday morning, I tried making homemade quinoa granola and it was so delicious I couldn’t stop eating it. It ended up making me sick. I tried to have just a little for breakfast this morning, and in addition to stomach ache I’ve also been eating constantly: potato chips, dried cherries, popcorn - this is not how I typically eat. The difference, for me at least, is quite dramatic. But I wouldn’t necessarily chalk it up to low carbs because I eat fruit whenever and however I want it. There’s something about grains, for me, that seems to trigger more eating. I’m still trying to work it out. But I’m not sure demonizing carbs is the way to go - maybe identifying the kind of carbs is more important.
Big Pharma and the Rosecrucians still oversee the whole group, though.
Now you just sound paranoid.
Also physical. Just as addicts to alcohol are battling a physical addiction (in addition to a psychological one), it is equally true that people who have been fat are fighting physical appetite stimulators that the never-fat don’t have to deal with. There is also some evidence that it is a lot easier for the formerly-fat than the thin to put on weight, on the same diet and exercise regimen. (Lesson: don’t get fat in the first place; if you are moving in that direction and you have the ability to pull back, do it now.)
I’ve said it before in other threads: when you go from normal (never fat) to fat, you add a lot of fat cells. If you then lose weight, those fat cells don’t go away, they just get smaller. And those same fat cells stimulate substances in your bloodstream, like grelins, that make you feel hunger sooner and more intensely than you would if those fat cells weren’t there.
It is my opinion that failure to understand this dynamic is the single biggest factor in many people’s failure to maintain their weight loss. The other biggest factor is failure to realize that keeping off significant weight loss involves a drastic change of lifestyle, including both frequent cardio exercise and what most (Western) people would regard as an abstemious diet.
So I say good luck to everyone who has lost weight, now comes the hard part - keeping it off. I speak from the trenches - I lost 150 pounds 8 or 9 years ago; currently I have put back on 60 of those pounds, and I am working to take them off again. My health is very good, but I am under no delusions about allowing myself to stay at this weight. It will either go up or it will go down. Once you’ve been fat, there seems to be no middle ground.
Roddy
eta: I don’t want to give short shrift to the psychological factors of weight gain: if you eat for emotional comfort (as one example) you’re going to have to figure out a different way to handle that need, if you are going to maintain your weight loss. There is just no way to go back to the way you used to do things, once you have lost weight.
know·ing
Adjective
Showing or suggesting that one has knowledge
Noun
The state of being aware or informed.
do·ing
Noun
The activities in which a particular person engages.
Deeds; accomplishments.
Pretty straightforward. Do you have different definitions?
Actually, there’s two aspects to dieting for weight loss: knowing what to do, then doing it until you lose weight.
There’s two aspects to weight maintenance: knowing what to do, then doing it consistently so that you never regain.
Doing what is necessary in both instances is varying degrees of difficult for people for a variety of reasons generally unrelated to their knowledge.
. Yes, I do know what you mean: you mean that if someone gets fat after losing weight, the diet has failed. But that’s incorrect. Again.
And Olives gets two thumbs up!
That would seem to invalidate your argument that organizations like the AHA won’t change their positions.
Seems to me you are making the same mistake here – taking a position which does not have solid scientific support. Besides which, I doubt that in the 80s the USDA would have advocated regular consumption of fried noodles and fried tortilla chips. Probably you ate a lot more fat than you realized. (In a lunch consisting of Doritos and Diet Coke, nearly half the calories come from fat.)
No, I am happy to use the ones you offered. When I drew a distinction between (1) knowing what to eat; and (2) sticking to a diet, I was not distinguishing between knowing and doing. Because (2) entails knowledge as well.
Either you misunderstood me or you are just playing more semantic games.
So you deny that sticking to a diet requires knowledge?
I guess your answer is “yes,” then?
No, it’s correct. Using the words “success” and “failure” in the normal sense – not the special definitions you have chosen.