Okay. So then your recommendation to these people is to just eat more bananas and low calorie whole grain low fat snacks?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?
Yes it does. The data I provided is very reliable.
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?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?
@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.
There are only 3 macros: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.
"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.