Mostly agreement but there are big divergences in responses to diets buried in the average response.
A majority of those with hypertension will improve on a salt restricted diet. 46% will have fairly significant responses, over 5mm. 5% though actually paradoxically increase their BP in response.
Likewise some with high cholesterol respond well to standard dietary recommendations and others not at all …
Yes, in general, I’d say that you should always prioritize your doctor’s advise over the general guideline.
I’m just saying that if you haven’t seen a doctor and can’t see one, you’re liable to do better by looking up the numeric recommendations for the general populace and try to hit that, than you are going to do by saying, “Well, it has to be specially formulated for me and I can’t afford to do that so…pizza dipped in mayo every night!” And likewise, if you feel like you’re not as healthy as you could be, figuring out the divergence between what you’re doing by tracking it honestly and comparing that to published guidelines from non-political groups, is far more liable to point you in the right direction than avoiding carbs, only eating carnivorous, or following some other fad diet.
Agreed. The default is to bet on being that “typical person” until and unless proven otherwise, even though of course none of us are that mythic creature.
Bread and pasta are processed foods. So are cheese, yogurt, crackers, white rice…
In general most folk mean ultraprocessed, that group 4 stuff, when they say “processed” … pointing out that kefir is processed is not really any sort of gotcha. 
I meant ultra-processed. Taking a second look, I’ll grant that those crackers look pretty white.
I’ve also checked the actual numbers now. Grains (by serving size) should probably be about 25% of your diet. The 1990s Food Pyramid is recommending about 40%. That is larger than I was thinking, adding the total of all the servings together.
Maybe for physically active people that ratio might be okay (I’d need to do more math) but, yeah, it’s probably too high by a fair bit for modern, sedentary people working desk jobs.
That said, replacing it with fats would also be a bad move. Vegetables are good for us largely because they’re largely water and fiber. It makes you feel full and satisfied without any calories. Sitting around all day, we just don’t need the calories that we used to.
Particularly villainized currently are “seed oils”, produced from such non-obviously oily things as corn kernels and cottonseed, by industrial extraction processes that are as far from “unprocessed” as anything you can buy at the grocery store gets.
Right, like avoiding “chemicals”.
As if everything isn’t composed of elements from the periodic table….
Not to steamroll the thread but, so far as I know, unfiltered, cold pressed seed oils are perfectly fine (in reasonable quantities). The two issues are, 1) as you say, the ultra-processing that strips out a lot of the good elements, and 2) these are in heavy use in prepackaged food because omega-6s stay good for a long time, where omega-3s tend to go rancid fairly quickly.
In early nutrition work, there was discussion of creating a Vitamin F, but then they decided that fats shouldn’t be counted as vitamins.
From a realistic standpoint, fats are vitamins (they’re not optional, and there’s a minimum required intake) and there’s at least two types. It’s not simply good to get your Omega-3s, these fats are used to create structures in your body like neurons, cartilage, etc. We get some through vegetables, and that’s probably just hitting the minimum for most people, but ideally we would have a few less Omega-6s and a few more Omega-3s in our average diet (either from fish or from seaweed and algae).
So seed oils are fine and should be part of your diet…but that’s not the most important thing to focus on.
Do you really not understand that what people mean is not avoiding dihydrogen oxide, but added substances that are not usually part of food?
Likewise limiting sugar … does not mean avoiding fruit with its natural sugar inside the cells, but added sugar. Sure people could spell it out each time but … seriously?
Er, of course I was joking. I was just poking fun at the rather common language sometimes used by probably rather ill-educated ‘influencers’ etc about ‘avoiding harsh chemicals’. 
It’s not a joke, those idiots do not know what a chemical is.
Does body fat contain all the essential fatty acids or is there a required intake regardless of your body mass index?
IANAD but AIUI, you still need to eat some fat as part of your regular dietary intake even if you have a good deal of stored body fat. The digestion process of lipids that you consume performs some necessary functions that are different from how your body uses stored fat in fat cells. Open to correction by the better-informed, though!
Ah, Soylent Green. The perfect food. Or ‘The Food of the Gods’ by Arthur C Clarke.
Fat is an essential nutrient, but it’s correct to not call it a vitamin, because vitamins are micronutrients, while fat is a macronutrient. Same for all of the essential amino acids.
Essential fatty acids are called that precisely because the body cannot produce them on its own and they are essential for various daily functions.
The newly recommended diet is pretty close to what i eat. But i suspect I’d do better if i ate less fat.
To me, that feels like arbitrary distinction. You need X amount of Vitamin B12 because that’s how much of that material your body needs. You need Y amount of Histidine because that’s how much of that material your body needs. The only differentiator is that your body may burn Histidine for fuel, instead of using it as a construction material. It won’t do that for B12.
Now, if the world wants to create a thing called “essential nutrients” and reporting those on nutrition labels, I’d have no complaint but most people think that the only thing they need are vitamins, and everything else is calories. Under that framework, you’re better off adding the essential oils and the essential amino acids under “Vitamin” for basic understanding.