• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

Science of healthy eating

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
I have no doubt that most folks will do their best to follow these recommendations. The American people have been rather obedient to the USDA’s guidelines since 1970.
047B5ABE-DE42-4E9E-BA6B-A780C7CB8AB5.jpeg
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
I have no doubt that most folks will do their best to follow these recommendations. The American people have been rather obedient to the USDA’s guidelines since 1970. View attachment 20491
From health.gov: https://health.gov/dietaryguideline...current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/

The typical eating patterns currently consumed by many in the United States do not align with the Dietary Guidelines.

- About three-fourths of the population has an eating pattern that is low in vegetables, fruits, dairy, and oils.
- More than half of the population is meeting or exceeding total grain and total protein foods recommendations
- Most Americans exceed the recommendations for added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
From health.gov: https://health.gov/dietaryguideline...current-eating-patterns-in-the-united-states/

The typical eating patterns currently consumed by many in the United States do not align with the Dietary Guidelines.

- About three-fourths of the population has an eating pattern that is low in vegetables, fruits, dairy, and oils.
- More than half of the population is meeting or exceeding total grain and total protein foods recommendations
- Most Americans exceed the recommendations for added sugars, saturated fats, and sodium.
Okay. So then your recommendation to these people is to just eat more bananas and low calorie whole grain low fat snacks?

My only point in posting the chart above is to show that most folks have gotten away from eating healthy animal essential proteins and fatty acids. Yet the dietary recommendations have just doubled down on recommending non-essential and harmful macro nutrients.

There no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. There’s no such thing as an essential fiber. There’s no such thing as essential fructose. It IS vitally important that humans consume essential proteins and fatty acids. And the foods that provide the best source for those nutrients are the same foods that government and quasi-government has been shaming the people for eating them.

I think everyone agrees the problem hasn’t gotten better in the last four decades. Government and quasi-government organizations, who aren’t responsible for the consequences of their recommendations, will always recommend more of the same if a problem doesn’t get better. We see this all the time. You really think the USDA is going to admit that eating a low fat/whole grain diet has been killing people in the U.S.?

Look at the financial markets. In 2008, the world banking system almost collapsed because of too much debt. Since then, the answer from government is even more debt. Will it all end well? Let’s see. I’ve got my popcorn (probably beef jerky) ready.

The latest recommendations are essentially the same or worse than the previous USDA recommendations since 1970. If we all agree that overall health isn’t getting better, wouldn’t a little self reflection be in order?
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
Here’s the breakdown in terms of macros, sugar and total calories in the US since 1970. It doesn’t look like sugar is THE problem.
0E16DAFE-C50E-4057-8A8F-D3273A78B91C.jpeg
 

RayDunzl

Major Contributor
Central Scrutinizer
Joined
Mar 9, 2016
Messages
10,137
Likes
8,710
Location
Riverview FL
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
Okay. So then your recommendation to these people is to just eat more bananas and low calorie whole grain low fat snacks?

My only point in posting the chart above is to show that most folks have gotten away from eating healthy animal essential proteins and fatty acids. Yet the dietary recommendations have just doubled down on recommending non-essential and harmful macro nutrients.

There no such thing as an essential carbohydrate. There’s no such thing as an essential fiber. There’s no such thing as essential fructose. It IS vitally important that humans consume essential proteins and fatty acids. And the foods that provide the best source for those nutrients are the same foods that government and quasi-government has been shaming the people for eating them.

I think everyone agrees the problem hasn’t gotten better in the last four decades. Government and quasi-government organizations, who aren’t responsible for the consequences of their recommendations, will always recommend more of the same if a problem doesn’t get better. We see this all the time. You really think the USDA is going to admit that eating a low fat/whole grain diet has been killing people in the U.S.?

Look at the financial markets. In 2008, the world banking system almost collapsed because of too much debt. Since then, the answer from government is even more debt. Will it all end well? Let’s see. I’ve got my popcorn (probably beef jerky) ready.

The latest recommendations are essentially the same or worse than the previous USDA recommendations since 1970. If we all agree that overall health isn’t getting better, wouldn’t a little self reflection be in order?
I made no recommendation in my post. I simply posted what health.gov reports are the current eating patterns of many in the U.S., which, contrary to the graphic in your post (which does not have a source listed), do not support the idea that most people are following the recommended Dietary Guidelines.

The health.gov report also does not support your assertion that "most folks have gotten away from eating healthy animal essential proteins and fatty acids." In fact it suggests that people are still consuming more protein and saturated fat than recommended, as well as more than recommended amounts of sugar and sodium, not to mention overall calories.

The idea that since protein is an "essential" macronutrient its intake should therefore be maximized is not supported by the science. In any case, in the U.S. people still eat plenty of meat - in fact more than ever before: https://www.globalagriculture.org/w...lagriculture.org/whats-new/news/en/32921.html

You also suggest that "eating a low fat/whole grain diet has been killing people in the U.S." What people are these? The typical American diet is high in fat and refined grains and low in fiber. Overall fat intake is about 35% (although it is true that the saturated fat component has come down somewhat), and average fiber intake is 15 grams (suggesting low amounts of whole grains, vegetables, etc.).

Any resemblance between the typical American diet and the USDA Dietary Guidelines is, as they say, purely coincidental.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
Yes it does. The data I provided is very reliable.
Sorry, I missed the tiny print at the bottom of the graphic. The source is listed as a USDA report titled "U.S. Trends in Food Availability and a Dietary Assessment of Loss-Adjusted Food Availability, 1970-2014" located here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82220/eib-166.pdf?v=0

The graphic itself, however, was separately created by pop-science author and low-carb fad diet promoter Nina Teicholz, and was clearly designed to imply that Americans were by and large following the USDA dietary recommendations. I do not consider Teicholz to be a credible or reliable source.

The actual USDA report itself concludes the following: "The findings indicate that Americans' consumption, on average, is below the dietary recommendations for fruit, vegetables, and dairy and above the recommendations for grains, protein foods, added fats and oils, and added sugars and sweeteners."
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
Sorry, I missed the tiny print at the bottom of the graphic. The source is listed as a USDA report titled "U.S. Trends in Food Availability and a Dietary Assessment of Loss-Adjusted Food Availability, 1970-2014" located here: https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82220/eib-166.pdf?v=0

The graphic itself, however, was separately created by pop-science author and low-carb fad diet promoter Nina Teicholz, and was clearly designed to imply that Americans were by and large following the USDA dietary recommendations. I do not consider Teicholz to be a credible or reliable source.

The actual USDA report itself concludes the following: "The findings indicate that Americans' consumption, on average, is below the dietary recommendations for fruit, vegetables, and dairy and above the recommendations for grains, protein foods, added fats and oils, and added sugars and sweeteners."
The method used is the most reliable because it does not rely on food frequency questionnaires from epidemiology, which have proven to be useless. You have a better statistical method for gathering the same data, right?
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
The method used is the most reliable because it does not rely on food frequency questionnaires from epidemiology, which have proven to be useless. You have a better statistical method for gathering the same data, right?
"The method used" by whom? Not sure who/what you're referring to.
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
Yet another low-carb diet advocacy article from another non-expert. Apparently the author takes issue with the fact that actual scientists who are experts in their field are interpreting data from epidemiological studies - which are of course imperfect - in ways that are inconsistent with the ideas advocated by low-carb proponents.

Therefore, such studies must be "tragically flawed" and "unscientific." Except of course in those cases when they appear (or can be creatively interpreted in such a way) to support some aspect of low-carb diet theory. Like Teicholz' chart in a previous post, which is presumably based on "useless" USDA data from food frequency questionnaires.
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
@rtos I’ve posted numerous controlled feeding trials to support my position. Walter Willet is a vegan activist who’s been working in the disgraced profession of nutritional epidemiology for many decades. There are many corporate and even religious influences on nutritional epidemiology. That’s primarily where these recommendations come from.

I’ve never attempted to impose my understanding of nutrition on anyone. You’d be well served to read some of my earlier posts in this thread so you could at least make a non-circular argument; eg. the recommendations are the recommendations because #experts. I hate to tell you, but the so called experts don’t agree with each other. Nutrition isn’t like basic physics where everyone agrees on certain fundamentals. Even the calories-in/calories-out hypothesis isn’t accepted as fundamental to nutrition.

No government should be attempting to direct people on what they should eat. That’s all I have to say. I have my opinions. I’ve got results to prove that my opinions are valid for myself and that’s all that matters to me. Some people have taken my advice and it’s changed their life in ways they could never have imagined. I don’t give anyone advice about nutrition and eating habits unless they ask me; and many people do ask me. I’m not an activist. I’m not pretending to save the world. I have no political agenda. And I make no money from nutrition or foods.

And, no, Teicholz didn’t rely on epidemiology to arrive at the data I posted above. Start reading on page 2 “Methodology” related to loss adjusted food availability.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82220/eib-166.pdf?v=42762
 
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
@rtos I’ve posted numerous controlled feeding trials to support my position. Walter Willet is a vegan activist who’s been working in the disgraced profession of nutritional epidemiology for many decades. There are many corporate and even religious influences on nutritional epidemiology. That’s primarily where these recommendations come from.

I’ve never attempted to impose my understanding of nutrition on anyone. You’d be well served to read some of my earlier posts in this thread so you could at least make a non-circular argument; eg. the recommendations are the recommendations because #experts. I hate to tell you, but the so called experts don’t agree with each other. Nutrition isn’t like basic physics where everyone agrees on certain fundamentals. Even the calories-in/calories-out hypothesis isn’t accepted as fundamental to nutrition.

No government should be attempting to direct people on what they should eat. That’s all I have to say. I have my opinions. I’ve got results to prove that my opinions are valid for myself and that’s all that matters to me. Some people have taken my advice and it’s changed their life in ways they could never have imagined. I don’t give anyone advice about nutrition and eating habits unless they ask me; and many people do ask me. I’m not an activist. I’m not pretending to save the world. I have no political agenda. And I make no money from nutrition or foods.

And, no, Teicholz didn’t rely on epidemiology to arrive at the data I posted above. Start reading on page 2 “Methodology” related to loss adjusted food availability.
https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/82220/eib-166.pdf?v=42762
Normally one looks to "experts" in a given field - especially one as complex as diet and nutrition - to attempt to arrive at the best answers. Of course experts do not necessarily all agree in lockstep - science is all about disproving theories and evolving knowledge. This unfortunately makes it easier for those looking to profit from the situation by offering simplistic answers to a general public looking for quick-and-easy solutions.

I'm glad you have found a solution that works for you. Many diet approaches can work in the short term for managing weight loss or diabetes etc., but it remains to be seen what approach(es) might be best for promoting long-term health and longevity. The answers I suspect will ultimately come from scientists and researchers (i.e., "experts") in the field. Ignoring or dismissing their conclusions because it conflicts with one's beliefs, however, is more about ideology than science.
 

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
Many diet approaches can work in the short term for managing weight loss or diabetes etc.
Left:me 9 years ago. Right: now.
I’ve eaten a high fat/high protein and low carb throughout that time. I’m thinking it’s not just a short term diet solution.
621AE0B6-F33F-4B4E-A32D-D4361D4BA60F.jpeg
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 10, 2018
Messages
9
Likes
7
Left:me 9 years ago. Right: now.
I’ve eaten a high fat/high protein and low carb throughout that time. I’m thinking it’s not just a short term diet solution. View attachment 20581
When it comes to diet/nutrition and healthspan/longevity, "long term" is measured in decades. Again, you are to be congratulated on taking control of your weight and are undoubtedly fitter and (hopefully) healthier for it.

But many dietary approaches can be used to effect weight loss etc., and testimonials extolling the beneficial effects of various diets - especially current fad diets like low carb and vegan - can be found everywhere. But they do not address which approach(es) may be best for promoting long-term health and longevity.
 
Joined
Sep 1, 2018
Messages
12
Likes
20
rtos:

"Many diet approaches can work in the short term for managing weight loss or diabetes etc., but it remains to be seen what approach(es) might be best for promoting long-term health and longevity." ... +1.

Dallasjustice :

"Don’t be afraid to eat lots of natural animal fats and protein."
- This sounds like advice. This whole thread is spilling over with mid to high protein inclussive Ketogenic Diet related promotion from a single poster; and a conflation of the benign or detrimental effects of no or low* protein ( *fasting mimicking diet ) fasting derived ketosis, and the benign or detrimental effects of mid to high protein inclussive ketosis. Additionally, supporting expert references are being tabled that actually don't support the claims.

Most current mechanism based research does not support a mid to high protein inclussive Ketogenic Diet as being beneficial to long term health span or longevity for non obese persons, in fact the opposite. An attempt at analysis can be made for obese persons re compliance of one diet vs another re. benefits on an individual basis. If someone is obese or severely obese, the benefits of successful weight loss in the shorter to long term regardless of diet type will likely make an impact on the detrimental effects of long term obesity. It does not follow that whichever particular diet used to achieve weight loss is therefore the best for health span or longevity.

re. Valter Longo

Valter Longo particularly recommends a low or very low protein diet of whatever type - before old age. His personal recommendation for a diet is a Pescatarian diet, of course low on protein. Further, he recommends you get most of any protein as plant based proteins. Humans need protein, it does not therefore follow "the more the better". Note that the distinction of low protein, is really to to reduce the amount of particular amino acids re. genetic signalling, IGF-1,etc..

Some more recent mechanistic work is oddly steering again towards higher carbs and very low protein re. health span and longevity, so there you go - it's currently all over the map. Autophagy has an increased interest, again both good and ill.

My personal direction and interest is steered towards the labs of Guido Kroemer, Valter Longo, Satchin Panda, Bruce Ames, to name a few. I would not go any further than saying this - it's not audio.
 
Last edited:

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
rtos:

"Many diet approaches can work in the short term for managing weight loss or diabetes etc., but it remains to be seen what approach(es) might be best for promoting long-term health and longevity." ... +1.

Dallasjustice :

"Don’t be afraid to eat lots of natural animal fats and protein."
- This sounds like advice. This whole thread is spilling over with mid to high protein inclussive Ketogenic Diet related promotion from a single poster; and a conflation of the benign or detrimental effects of no or low* protein ( *fasting mimicking diet ) fasting derived ketosis, and the benign or detrimental effects of mid to high protein inclussive ketosis. Additionally, supporting expert references are being tabled that actually don't support the claims.

Most current mechanism based research does not support a mid to high protein inclussive Ketogenic Diet as being beneficial to long term health span or longevity for non obese persons, in fact the opposite. An attempt at analysis can be made for obese persons re compliance of one diet vs another re. benefits on an individual basis. If someone is obese or severely obese, the benefits of successful weight loss in the shorter to long term regardless of diet type may or may not have the possibility to outweigh the detrimental effects of long term obesity. It does not follow that the whichever particular diet used to achieve weight loss is therefore the best for health span or longevity.

re. Valter Longo

Valter Longo particularly recommends a low or very low protein diet of whatever type - before old age. His personal recommendation for a diet is a Pescatarian diet, of course low on protein. Further, he recommends you get most of any protein as plant based proteins. Humans need protein, it does not therefore follow "the more the better". Note that the distinction of low protein, is really to to reduce the amount of particular amino acids re. genetic signalling, IGF-1,etc..

Some more recent mechanistic work is oddly steering again towards higher carbs and very low protein re. health span and longevity, so there you go - it's currently all over the map. Autophagy has an increased interest, again both good and ill.

My personal direction and interest is steered towards the labs of Guido Kroemer, Valter Longo, Satchin Panda, Bruce Ames, to name a few. I would not go any further than saying this - it's not audio.
There are only 3 macros:
1. Protein
2. Fat
3. Carbs (which include sugars)

If someone adopts a low carb diet but keeps caloric intake the same, then their diet will be high fat and probably fat protein. You’ve rattled off a list of experts. I’m familiar with all of them. There is no controlled feeding study that can prove eating a high fat/protein diet shortens life span. The trendy boggieman in this area is mTor. Like anything else in nutrition, there’s no simple 1:1 cause/effect relationship. Things are complicated with mTor and IGF-1. Even the “experts” don’t really understand how certain biomarkers affect longevity.

There will likely never be a long term controlled feeding study that will prove one diet is better than another. Even Longo doesn’t claim he’s proven his fasting mimicking diet is ideal in humans. (He studies rats). I don’t think there’s anything magical about Longo’s macros. Anytime someone drastically reduces calories, insulin will be reduced compared to a “normal” diet. I personally don’t think a fasting mimicking diet is practical in the long run because of the lack of satiety I’d expect from such low levels of protein and fat.

Yes, I gave a recommendation because someone asked me. And I will defend my position using the controlled feeding studies, evolutionary biology, basic essential nutrient requirements and my own personal accomplishments. I don’t control the quality of discourse on this thread. So far, there hasn’t been a compelling case (science based) made for the Lancet (essentially vegan) recommendations. The vegan case rests almost exclusively on specious epidemiology. The modern vegan movement was primarily born from the Church of 7th day Adventist’s. That’s why so many of cited vegan epidemiology comes from life span epidemiology based in Loma Linda, California. There are also many corporate influences on the bodies who make these unfounded official recommendations. The grain and sugar industry absolutely control much of dietary research. Also many scientists in this field practice veganism for ethical reasons. I have no problem with that. But I believe it is something that should be disclosed along with the recommendation. For example, I believe WHO panel that declared red meat to be a carcinogen was composed of about one-third vegans. One half of the WHO panel members were strictly epidemiologists. The panel omitted numerous controlled feeding studies and animinal studies which directly disproved their conclusion. You can listen to one of the top USDA experimental scientists discuss the WHO deliberations here:
http://peakhuman.libsyn.com/dr-davi...-vegetarian-scientists-and-balanced-nutrition

It’s truly naive to believe the “experts” are all unbiased scientists working hard to find the truth about diet. The OP originally asked the question about the benefits of adopting a vegetarian diet. So I’ve focus on that. Because there will never be any controlled feeding science which will prove that one diet is superior to another, I believe it’s much better to focus on healthspan instead of lifespan. Fortunately, it is likely that I won’t have to chose between the two.

OTOH, vegans have certainly chosen a low healthspan dietary approach. They are lacking many vital nutrients because of their dietary choices. Strict vegan veterans will almost always look like they are suffering from sarcopenia and other health problems. Here’s a photo of one the the top vegan evangelists, Dr. Michael Greger:
F79AE0EC-8CA2-4449-8D27-0540AB7E4C3C.jpeg
 
Last edited:

dallasjustice

Major Contributor
Joined
Feb 28, 2016
Messages
1,270
Likes
802
Location
Dallas, Texas
Why have hominids been so obsessed with hunting, especially proboscideans (mammoths/elephants), for the last 2.5 million years?
https://res.mdpi.com/quaternary/qua...ernary-01-00003-v2.pdf?filename=&attachment=1

Throughout hominid evolution hominids have:
1. Been primary hunters of fatty proboscideans and other fatty mega-herbivores; not scavengers
2. Have organized themselves with sophisticated hunting strategies and used advanced killing methods to kill these animals wherever they were available.
3. Highly prized their bones and meat.
4. Developed ancient rituals surrounding hunts.
5. Frequently painted hunting scenes on caves around the world.
6. Have preferred fatty mega-herbivore meat to leaner reindeer meats.
7. Used dogs to assist in hunting for hundreds of thousands of years.
9BCA9213-1F50-4447-A43C-665E1DC31CF3.jpeg
EB2F353E-D333-47ED-A3EE-F1DB6C95C3FA.png
 

Similar threads

Top Bottom