That isn't a fad though, that is progress.
> Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad
This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE.
> the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that
No they won't. "Healthy carbs" will be a part of moderate diets for a long time, but sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source through any reputable study. Mark my words.
There will always be fads, but let's not pretend that blaming fats decades ago was the same as blaming sugars now. Also notice that it's explicitly sugars, not carbs. Breakthroughs always lead to regular people overcompensating when swinging over, so you get things like your mentioned "meat rush", and people eating bearnaise sauce and pork belly with their bacon wrapped broccoli or whatever.
But let's not portray the underlying studies that led to this swing as merely fads. It's progress, and while it's not solved, it's a lot better than just 10 years ago.
Edit: I was reminded of this article "The Relativity of Wrong" [1] by Isaac Asimov. TL;DR: An analogy is the flat earth. We went from thinking the earth was flat into thinking it was round, which isn't correct either since it's an oblate spheroid. But we can all agree that "round" is a lot "more correct" than flat.
[1] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
White flour (in moderation, and always mixed with fat or protein) can be beneficial though as it’s low in lectins (which damage the gut lining and organs like the kidneys and the brain [1]). One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread, if you manage to keep your blood sugar level.
I don't live by it because it's delicious, but I would instead say don't eat bread, there's fiber to be had in vegetables.
A. By what metrics are you measuring 'easier on the body'.
B. What corn bread and what white bread?
I'm somewhat skeptical of this as a generic claim, though since it will very much depend on the recipe used (for both kinds of bread), it's certainly probable in many cases.
This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE.
First off, do you need a study for that? I'd hate to sound insensitive, but perhaps common sense is a new Darwinism? There's a slew of shortcuts that will cut our lives short.
And for the record I eat a huge amount of protein everyday. At least 1 to 1.2 g / kg of bodyweight. I'm not at risk of protein poisoning (per another commenter) since I consume a large amount of water, fiber as well, and the sources are lean meats rather than powders. Although I admit a weakness in the knees for Quest flavored protein chips. All that said, I'll need a lot more than that to kill me.
Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders. If people don't even have time to eat due to their jobs, I'd argue they've got a potentially worse lifestyle threat to their health.
You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I wrote, but just a comment on your last paragraph:
> Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders.
I think avoiding something "processed" is a terribly blunt tool, which will likely end up not serving you. What does processed even mean? I usually buy pre-washed potatoes because I'm lazy, those are processed. As is my cheese, as is my chili sauce, my peeled nuts, and most if not all my spices.
I don't think we're there yet with Soylent and similar meal replacements, but I don't doubt that we in the future will have meal replacements with much better macros, better taste and fun texture, as well as lab grown meats and meat substitutes that taste better.
Processed doesn't mean inherently bad, and there's nothing definitive saying that processed through photosynthesis is better than on a molecular level processed through a series of tubes in the other kind of plant. The only thing making "processed" foods bad are businesses cutting corners on cost with the only goal of delivering something palatable, not something healthy. That isn't a process problem, but a market problem.
Apologies for replying to the wrong parent, though!
The issue with processing in your example is mainly the corn syrup and coloring (if not using natural coloring like carotene etc), as well as to a lesser extent shredding of the corn or wheat which leads to a higher glycemic index.
But as we've made cheese puffs out of corn and varying degrees of terrible chemicals, we now have chips made from quinoa, beans, lentils etc, which I'm not saying are great, but better.
If I could have a snickers with 0 calories and no carcinogens, or pringles made out of broccoli, you can bet your ass I would pop that package without stopping.
So again, even with our agreed definition of processed, it might in 95% of cases right now mean "bad food", but it doesn't have to.
Fine, it doesn't have to. And if we have the technology to send someone's car into space, we can surely create something processed and perfect in terms of glycemic index, macronutrient balance, and so forth. But as a general rule, almost all that stuff has flaws. For example, even the organic quinoa chips (and puffs which I'm very guilty of inhaling a bagfull of) has a lot more sodium than you really need.
That and I'd argue, in the case of certain concentrated items like whey protein chips, it's kind of unclear what side effects we might discover one day (as we did with refined sugars and obesity and diabetes and such). That said, I'm risking it.
Lest I be accused of hypocrisy for occasionally eating the healthy processed stuff you describe, I'd argue that for the general (ignorant, at least in the US) public, 'avoid processed' is a good rule of thumb.
But there are many things involved here, for instance, if you don't eat any fat or protein, you will die, however, if you don't eat any carbohydrates, then you won't die, is this common sense to not stop eating carbohydrates or are we onto something?
Also protein poisoning happens if you don't eat fat, not if you eat too much protein.
Diet/nutrition studies are inherently difficult because they're almost by necessity self-reported, expensive, takes a lot of time to see effects, and for best effect would need continuous supervision over subjects, which is infeasible over those time spans.
It's easy to throw your hands in the air and just say it's bad science because it's not perfect (welcome to science), but it's not constructive and it was the thing I argued against in my original post.
So yes, it is better, therefor it is progress.
That would be good science.
The bad science is to look at bunch of conflicted studies on difficult complicated system and then claim "here is the culprit follow my absolute advice". Bad science is projecting confidence when you have no scientific reason to be confident, because it is good for your career and status. Bad interpretation of science is believing the most confident yapping person around, instead of believing scientists that talk in probabilities and are cautious. Which, is my understanding of what happened here.
2) Is disaccharide a relevant classifier? Water is a hydrogen calcogenide, as is hydrosulfuric acid. That doesn't mean they're comparable as a food item.
It was likely chosen as a substitute for sucrose (table sugar) for being comparatively good (less bad):
> It is particularly suitable as a non-cariogenic sucrose replacement and is favorable in products for diabetics and prediabetic dispositions. [1]
Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar.
And there's such a wide variety of fatty acids and aminos that it is quite hard to generalize. Isomaltulose is probably far better than most fatty acids. And excess protein converts to sugar, too.
That's a terrible comparison. Gas is the fuel for your car, which will at some point break down to a point where you will trash it. By no definition is the gas destroying that car in the way that gas mixed with sawdust will.
> Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar.
You will die in a week without food. Some food will keep you alive longer than others. Fats and protein will do that better than sugar and protein, on aggregate. We can discuss more narrow categories within those, but it's moving goal posts from what I responded to.
For typical genetics, this is true. However, I've yet to find any sources that show prevention and/or reversal of Type 2 that holds over 5+ years that includes a significant (>20g) of net daily carbs from fruit, grain and/or starches. I'm not alone, but in a definite minority of people who control their Type 2 through only diet and exercise, not even metformin, but all of our diets, while varied, have one characteristic in common: we restrict net carbs to various degrees, many at 20-50g net daily.
If you know how Type 2 diabetics like myself can keep our condition reversed while adding grains, starches and fruits in greater quantities, then please shoot a pointer my way. My plants intake these days is limited to very low carb green leafy vegetables like Romaine hearts.
My idea here is that perhaps some of the issue here is that people like you (and to a non-clinical extent, me) who may have had a very bad diet in the past kick our bodies into this "mode", for lack of a better word, we find we have to watch our carbs relatively closely. Or perhaps for some people, their genetics simply start them there. Meanwhile, people who never got to that point are saying "It's no big deal, I eat a lot more carbs a day and never get fat." It may still be the case that when you get down to it, the sugar and the white bread aren't doing them any favors, but they never overwhelmed their body's ability to deal with it.
I think one of the perils of medical studies is that it's really easy to run a study like "How Important Is It To Eat Beets 5 Times A Day" and get back a statistical result that it's a 3% detriment or something, without noticing that the 3% detriment is that two people had a horrible reaction and everybody else had no reaction. As an individual, the 3% isn't really interesting, because that number doesn't correspond to the result that anybody had; the question is, are you in the set of people who had an extreme reaction or not? I wish I had time to study this question concretely; how many studies are presenting their results using Gaussian-based statistics when the underlying data is fundamentally bi-modal ("it worked really well for a few people and didn't do anything to most"), thus causing potentially useful treatments to get statistically fuzzed out of existence?
For me there is a strong genetic component. Practically every member of my extended family on one side of my parents is either pre-Type 2, or is full-blown Type 2. Did not know this growing up, and dutifully ate a diet laden with starches, which came to bite me in the ass in a big way as an adult. The rest of the immediate and extended family is now aware, and knows that I'm living proof that if they catch the same subtype, it can be prevented and (if too late) reversed without resorting to medication, and hopefully I stop it dead in its tracks with my generation, and it never gets even a toehold in future generations of my family.
> As an individual, the 3% isn't really interesting,...
This is why open source and open data is so critical to scientific research moving forward. My hope is either JupyterLab or some project like it with massive collaboration and scaling becomes the standard way to present scientific findings in the future, and all raw data and software tooling used becomes accessible by anyone. Then we could definitively answer questions like yours.
Nutrition is solved if you take veggies, fish, meat, etc. Whole foods, not ultraprocessed. And make exercise. But that doesn't give them money and does not attach you to ultraprocessed foods like a drug (yes, simple sugars found in ultraprocessed foods keep you attached at them like a drug. It has been proved to affect your mood.). Nutrition is hard nowadays because we have a supermarket full of bad nutrition value. We wouldn't be that fat without ultraprocessed food or fast food chains.
Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. That's not a balanced diet and I'm sure it will take a toll on your body.
I've gone from 82kg (20% fat) to 75-76kg (17,88% fat) in 6 months, taking it easy, without doing exercise, just lowering my daily intake of calories and mostly avoiding ultraprocessed foods. I enjoy weekends by having great meals at restaurants or at home. Of course I also take a chocolate bar or another other sweet ultraprocessed food, because drugs (sugar) are hard to keep away.
Now I exercise an hour twice a week and I expect to keep loosing fat and gaining muscle, I don't want to hurry, I'm trying to create a lifestyle not something I'll keep doing intermittenly. I don't take any suplement as I want to make progress by my own effort and in a natural and healthy way as if my daily life was more physical.
It seems you're implying high protein intake is bad for you - any evidence supporting this? More protein (up to .72g protein/lb of body weight) does increase lean mass gain in individuals resistance training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222
It's a bit silly imo to say people putting in the work and eating sufficient protein want "fast and unrealistic" results.
Taking protein shakes could affect negatively other parts of your body. And nobody talks about the quality of that protein. Why do we want real food? Let's all eat Soylent.
I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else. Just stop wanting unreal bodies that are only achieved by supplementation.
What constitutes high protein intake, and at what point is it detrimental? Should our macro breakdown be 33%/33%/33%?
How does increased calorie expenditure play into this? The study I referenced says I should eat 130g protein (520 cal) for best gains. My TDEE (on days I don't run) is 2500, putting me at roughly 20% protein. If I do run I've got an extra ~500 cals, how should those calories be allotted?
It seems to be that the most important factor of all is simply total calorific input. No, not input minus output, just input. If you consume fewer calories you will live longer and be at lower risk for many diseases. Of course, that does not mean "calories bad", though.
Are two party systems really worldwide phenomenom enough to claim it is people issue? I thought it is consequence of American constitution or appears in counties with constitutions based on American one.
They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads
I'm eternally annoyed by statements like these:
Low salt diet is bad because it is replaced by things worse than salt.
Low sugar diet is bad because artificial sweeteners are worse.
Low fat diet is bad because replacing them with carbs is worse.
Gluten free diets are bad because the substitutes are full of artificial, weight gaining stuff.
Butter alternatives/margarine are bad because their replaced by unhealthy low fat spreads (e.g. full of partially hydrogenated oils until recently).
All of these statements are wrong. You can always get any of these without the harmful substitutes. People who want to eat healthy can do any of the above diets without the worse alternatives. I myself went on a low sodium diet once, and I did not buy stuff with junk in them to substitute. Not even KCl.
You can get healthy butter alternatives.
These arguments usually show a giant leap in the logical process. These are false dichotomies. Yet way too many people I know believe these arguments. My guess is: Most of them are accepting of the arguments because it is convenience - not because the claims are true. It gives them a license to continue on unhealthy diets.
I actually reduced salt by using other spices
"The zealous drive by politicians to limit our salt intake has little basis in science"
>They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt
This sounds like he/she is against salt alternatives. And then you go and say:
>I actually reduced salt by using other spices
Which is what a number of salt alternatives do. So are low salt alternatives good or bad?
I do know there are easy to find salt alternatives out there that do not have chemicals and do replace salt with other spices. (Some are low salt, and not no salt). As in, you can find them in your grocery store.
And most people who are on a low salt diet are not renal failure patients. They are people with hypertension.
So er yes a number of salt alternatives out there are just fine. And er yes a number of them are pretty bad for you. And statements like "salt alternative products are bad for you because they replace salt with chemicals" are inaccurate.
This is very true, and a fact that we have trouble digesting, pardon the pun. This jumping around between completely contradictory nutritional prescriptions is nuts. Then a moderate minded person comes in and hedges their bets with an impossibke compromise (reduce both fat and carbs).
Meanwhile disproven myths like nutricional cholesterol still affect people's eating habits.
It just does not seem possible to doctors, health nuts and everyone else that we just dont know much about nutrition. It seems like we should and that our best theories should be reasonably certain, but they just aren't.
I would argue nutrition is a solved problem but certainly I will acknowledge that is controversial.
What is not controversial though is that Type 2 diabeties, which used to be called adult onset diabetes, wasn’t diagnosed in children 30 years ago and now over 1 million have it, and 100% of those cases are preventable through diet (many cases even reversible through diet and exercise).
"Problem" can refer to something you need to think to solve or to something you also need to do something to solve. General effects of different diets in health is known because before gobalization, every country had its own.
The real problem is how to deal with food production for billions, with different cultures and with huge companies using their money to manipulate science.
The higher the amount of fat taken with protein, the less insulogenic the food is. Also, it seems Vitamin K2 exists almost exclusively in saturated fat, and Vitamin K2 is what protects you from atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, and heart attacks, too. There are many other vitamins and minerals stored in fat, too, possibly because fat is the body's "reserves" which means more just than "high-density calories".
After all, the body needs vitamins and minerals, too, to survive. And if it can't get them while not eating, then it makes sense that they should be stored somewhere (they are stored in the liver, too, but the liver is more of a short/medium term storage).
However, you also have to keep in mind that fat stores toxins, and in our high-pollution modern world, it may not be a good idea to eat too much fat, or at least you should be watch out where you're getting your food from.
It's my go-to essay on dietary science, and still holds up extremely well ten years after it first came out.
No no no no. the industry reacted to government intervention (bad intervention, as usual). the industry didnt want to change what it was selling, they said the food would taste bad if we removed the fats. but the government always gets what it wants.
and bogeyman policy is how things work. hey look, a boogeyman, fund my "research". then you can write books, hold paid talks/conferences, get hugely paid government positions, etc.
Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades. There's one piece of advice that holds for a long time, and that's to eat a diverse diet and exercise within reasonable extends. Interpretations vary, but giving up on fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it.