230 replies to this topic

[TheFountain]

The default American diet these days is high-GI high carb, and is usually low(-ish) fat to boot.

I have no idea where you get this false idea from. The typical american western diet is both high in high GI carbs AND bad fat. Specifically trans fatty acids. How the hell could it not be with how well the fast food industry does? And most of the foods they sell at mcdonalds is high in transfatty acids because of the way they are prepared (deep fried in bad cooking oil). Think man, think.

I don't agree. Bad fats are not in massive excess in the average American diet, while bad carbs are.

Are you fucking kidding me dude? Margarine sales have not gone down in the past 10 years, they have gone UP. And margarine consists mainly of hydrogenated vegetable oil. Many people buy it because it is cheaper than butter. Many buy it because they believe it is healthier. Either way, many buy it, thus consume it in obvious large quantities. This is also the reasons for the high fat studies showing disease correlation, which you do not like. Because of these types of fats as well as refined carbs.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 December 2009 - 08:56 AM.

[JLL]

Here's another quote from the study:

The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women.

So, not really a high or low-fat diet. I'd say ~30% is pretty average. It doesn't say what the percentage of MUFAs vs PUFAs is.

[oehaut]

It doesn't say what the percentage of MUFAs vs PUFAs is.

Yeah that's just too bad.

But yeah, it's not low-fat nor high-fat. But it certainly not that high in saturated fat (by common standard).

And the increase in calorie really comes mainly from carbs, althouth absolute fat intake remains the same or increased a little.

We have lost a fair amount of time telling people to avoid fat. We should straight from the beggining have told them to eat LESS. They really thought that because of the energy density of fat, by avoiding it people would avoid over-consuming. Well, not with all that synthetic food out there that is mainly carbs and trans-fat or soya or corn based.

[kismet]

Pizza, pasta, rice, high glycemic breads (pumperknickel and low carb, low GI breads are ok), hydrogenated fats, a ton of dairy, processed cereals and fruit juices etc.

Pasta has extremely low GI/GL - very comparable to pumpernickel and far lower than oatmeal. It's a perfectly outstanding food for ad lib folks.

"Imagine a fastfood high-fat low-carb mcdonalds (maybe of the future!), say a beef burger meat wrapped in bacon, deep fried and then covered in cheese or something to that nature..." (icantgoforthat)
Hmm, if that ain't healthy, nothing really is!

That is simply wrong. Low gi -- yes. But extremely high gl.

(Random choices, probably the worst for all 3 food groups:)
Spaghetti, white, boiled 5 min
Mean of 4 studies 38 ± 3 (standard glucose) 54 ± 4 (standard bread) GL=18

Whole-grain pumpernickel (Holtzheuser Brothers Ltd, Toronto, Canada) 46 66 ± 7 GL=5
Oat porridge made from thick (1.0 mm) dehulled oat flakes (Sweden) 55 78 ± 9 GL=15 //the stuff I just compared it to and people believe to be superior from a GI/GL POV. I think oat porridge are just oats and water? can't find just 'oats'

GL depends on the CHO amount so it's much less relevant as you will have set target levels of CHO in your diet anyway, but I shouldn't've mentioned it in the context I did~

International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002
http://www.ajcn.org/...ent/full/76/1/5

Edited by kismet, 17 December 2009 - 12:46 PM.

[PerfectSeek]

1) Vegetables oils (omega-6) +
2) PROCESSED grains/sugar
= FAT Country

When most people eat 'grains' they aren't consuming brown rice, oats, or quinoa, they are eating garbage like white pasta and bread. I find it hard to believe that whole wheat bread is health either. Couscous could possibly be an exception, but the above grains appear to be the best tolerated of the bunch.

I would imagine if most people ate their grains in the unprocessed forms, they would not have much of a problem. Processed food seems to be the killer here, not necessarily carb consumption.

[kenj]

Man, these 'carbs are bad' threads still haunt the ImmInst board, - I wonder how many years it will take to generally understand that Calories (pick your own macronutrient scapegoat here) in EXCESS are bad, and NOT carbs per se........ Carbs make you feel good, they satiate ( <- unprocessed carbs that is), and :-yes-: they will make you fat(ter) if you them more than you need (and quicker if you combine with lotta fat).. But that's for You to decide, and not the carb.....

>>> Carb-ass -- it's the new fat-ass <<<

LOL yeah, that's catchy, and I do see your point, Duke.

[DukeNukem]

Man, these 'carbs are bad' threads still haunt the ImmInst board, - I wonder how many years it will take to generally understand that Calories (pick your own macronutrient scapegoat here) in EXCESS are bad, and NOT carbs per se........ Carbs make you feel good, they satiate ( <- unprocessed carbs that is), and :-yes-: they will make you fat(ter) if you them more than you need (and quicker if you combine with lotta fat).. But that's for You to decide, and not the carb.....

>>> Carb-ass -- it's the new fat-ass <<<

LOL yeah, that's catchy, and I do see your point, Duke.

Remember, I've always tried to be clear that excess carbs are the culprit, and that certain high glycemic load carbs -- starches and grains -- are worse than others. Colorful fibrous vegetables are fine in volume! And a big reason that they're fine is that, as created by nature, these fibrous plant foods are quite low-carb -- only 5-10 percent carb mass by weight.

Proteins and fats are essential to our diet and to ongoing living. Carbs are purely optional, and non-essential. And in fact, the pro-aging nature of carbs is better understood if you expose what carb foods really are: poly-glucose chains, fiber, water, and nutrients. It's the poly-glucose chains that are the real problem, as glucose is a pro-aging molecule. I don't know of any single study that confirms this, but if you assemble the big picture of dozens of studies, this is an easy conclusion to reach. Therefore, I avoid excess carbs, and especially gluten grain carbs (because gluten itself is inflammatory to practically all humans, to one degree or another).

[TheFountain]

Man, these 'carbs are bad' threads still haunt the ImmInst board, - I wonder how many years it will take to generally understand that Calories (pick your own macronutrient scapegoat here) in EXCESS are bad, and NOT carbs per se........ Carbs make you feel good, they satiate ( <- unprocessed carbs that is), and :-yes-: they will make you fat(ter) if you them more than you need (and quicker if you combine with lotta fat).. But that's for You to decide, and not the carb.....

>>> Carb-ass -- it's the new fat-ass <<<

LOL yeah, that's catchy, and I do see your point, Duke.

Remember, I've always tried to be clear that excess carbs are the culprit, and that certain high glycemic load carbs -- starches and grains -- are worse than others. Colorful fibrous vegetables are fine in volume! And a big reason that they're fine is that, as created by nature, these fibrous plant foods are quite low-carb -- only 5-10 percent carb mass by weight.

Proteins and fats are essential to our diet and to ongoing living. Carbs are purely optional, and non-essential. And in fact, the pro-aging nature of carbs is better understood if you expose what carb foods really are: poly-glucose chains, fiber, water, and nutrients. It's the poly-glucose chains that are the real problem, as glucose is a pro-aging molecule. I don't know of any single study that confirms this, but if you assemble the big picture of dozens of studies, this is an easy conclusion to reach. Therefore, I avoid excess carbs, and especially gluten grain carbs (because gluten itself is inflammatory to practically all humans, to one degree or another).

This is a bad formulation when considering that some fairly high carb foods have flavanoids that fight glycation and blood sugar spikes. Oats are an example. And if by pro-inflammatory you mean they are an allergen, so are many many other foods, including low carb ones. As the threads that weigh the negatives of high fat consumption shows, that is not the best option either. The body must be trained to use both fat and carbs as energy source. But obviously the right kinds of both.

[oehaut]

so are many many other foods, including low carb ones.

Any protein has the potential to trigger allergen responses. Gluten really seems to be the worst one tho. It seems to be the best one at making your gut leaky (no reference here tho so this might not be true). And once you have a leaky gut, now you're in trouble. Dairy protein are gonna start causing problem. And probably other proteins as well.

What are the other food that seems to be problematic to as many people as gluten can be?

Actually i'm aware only of dairy product and gluten, which are not low-carbs food. I really don't think you miss out anything avoiding gluten. Considering how many people are sensitive to it's effect, it's probably better to leave wheat/rye/barley/tritrical out of the diet.

One can still eat rice, quinoa, buckwheat, gluten-free oats and potatos as good carbs source.

[TheFountain]

Any protein has the potential to trigger allergen responses. Gluten really seems to be the worst one tho.

I don't know i've heard of some pretty violent cases of anaphylaxis from latent allergies to nuts.

Dairy protein are gonna start causing problem.

I think, even in the absence of allergens, dairy is a dangerous thing in long term consumption. Lactose is something many people are not adapted to. And casein raises IGF-1

Actually i'm aware only of dairy product and gluten,

Then you have not been looking at charts.

which are not low-carbs food.

Most cheeses are quite low carb, Which is why they are included in Atkins diet plans. Yea, I know galactose blabla. But this does not kick people out of ketosis.

I really don't think you miss out anything avoiding gluten.

I am not in favor of consuming gluten, I am saying it is one of many allergens both high and low carb. Nuts are fairly low carb as well. Yet many have violent reactions to them. As well as soy and fish. Both low carb foods.

Considering how many people are sensitive to it's effect, it's probably better to leave wheat/rye/barley/tritrical out of the diet.

I disagree with the rye part considering organic rye should be free of gluten.

Edited by TheFountain, 17 December 2009 - 06:00 PM.

[Skötkonung]

Pizza, pasta, rice, high glycemic breads (pumperknickel and low carb, low GI breads are ok), hydrogenated fats, a ton of dairy, processed cereals and fruit juices etc.

Pasta has extremely low GI/GL - very comparable to pumpernickel and far lower than oatmeal. It's a perfectly outstanding food for ad lib folks.

"Imagine a fastfood high-fat low-carb mcdonalds (maybe of the future!), say a beef burger meat wrapped in bacon, deep fried and then covered in cheese or something to that nature..." (icantgoforthat)
Hmm, if that ain't healthy, nothing really is!

That is simply wrong. Low gi -- yes. But extremely high gl.

(Random choices, probably the worst for all 3 food groups:)
Spaghetti, white, boiled 5 min
Mean of 4 studies 38 ± 3 (standard glucose) 54 ± 4 (standard bread) GL=18

Whole-grain pumpernickel (Holtzheuser Brothers Ltd, Toronto, Canada) 46 66 ± 7 GL=5
Oat porridge made from thick (1.0 mm) dehulled oat flakes (Sweden) 55 78 ± 9 GL=15 //the stuff I just compared it to and people believe to be superior from a GI/GL POV. I think oat porridge are just oats and water? can't find just 'oats'

GL depends on the CHO amount so it's much less relevant as you will have set target levels of CHO in your diet anyway, but I shouldn't've mentioned it in the context I did~

International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002
http://www.ajcn.org/...ent/full/76/1/5

Off topic, but why would anyone want to consume pumpernickel? The reason why it is so dark brown is because of the Maillard reaction. Pumpernickel seems like a good candidate for high exogenous AGEs.

[JLL]

I thought rye contains gluten, although less than wheat and barley.

[ajnast4r]

Do we have any data regarding the fraction of Calories in the SAD coming from the various macronutrients? There are a vast number of low fat or fat free foods that are loaded with sugars.

according to oehauts data you were correct

I disagree with the rye part considering organic rye should be free of gluten.

rye contain gluten

Edited by ajnast4r, 17 December 2009 - 07:07 PM.

[niner]

The default American diet these days is high-GI high carb, and is usually low(-ish) fat to boot.

I have no idea where you get this false idea from. The typical american western diet is both high in high GI carbs AND bad fat. Specifically trans fatty acids. How the hell could it not be with how well the fast food industry does? And most of the foods they sell at mcdonalds is high in transfatty acids because of the way they are prepared (deep fried in bad cooking oil). Think man, think.

See oehaut's data in post #90.

I don't agree. Bad fats are not in massive excess in the average American diet, while bad carbs are.

Are you fucking kidding me dude? Margarine sales have not gone down in the past 10 years, they have gone UP. And margarine consists mainly of hydrogenated vegetable oil. Many people buy it because it is cheaper than butter. Many buy it because they believe it is healthier. Either way, many buy it, thus consume it in obvious large quantities. This is also the reasons for the high fat studies showing disease correlation, which you do not like. Because of these types of fats as well as refined carbs.

I didn't say bad fats were low, just not in massive excess in terms of Calories. Of course people are getting far more w6FAs than they need; that's not in question. Again, look at the data.

[TheFountain]

Pizza, pasta, rice, high glycemic breads (pumperknickel and low carb, low GI breads are ok), hydrogenated fats, a ton of dairy, processed cereals and fruit juices etc.

Pasta has extremely low GI/GL - very comparable to pumpernickel and far lower than oatmeal. It's a perfectly outstanding food for ad lib folks.

"Imagine a fastfood high-fat low-carb mcdonalds (maybe of the future!), say a beef burger meat wrapped in bacon, deep fried and then covered in cheese or something to that nature..." (icantgoforthat)
Hmm, if that ain't healthy, nothing really is!

That is simply wrong. Low gi -- yes. But extremely high gl.

(Random choices, probably the worst for all 3 food groups:)
Spaghetti, white, boiled 5 min
Mean of 4 studies 38 ± 3 (standard glucose) 54 ± 4 (standard bread) GL=18

Whole-grain pumpernickel (Holtzheuser Brothers Ltd, Toronto, Canada) 46 66 ± 7 GL=5
Oat porridge made from thick (1.0 mm) dehulled oat flakes (Sweden) 55 78 ± 9 GL=15 //the stuff I just compared it to and people believe to be superior from a GI/GL POV. I think oat porridge are just oats and water? can't find just 'oats'

GL depends on the CHO amount so it's much less relevant as you will have set target levels of CHO in your diet anyway, but I shouldn't've mentioned it in the context I did~

International table of glycemic index and glycemic load values: 2002
http://www.ajcn.org/...ent/full/76/1/5

Off topic, but why would anyone want to consume pumpernickel? The reason why it is so dark brown is because of the Maillard reaction. Pumpernickel seems like a good candidate for high exogenous AGEs.

Ask Gary Taubes. He said in an interview that he eats pumperknickle regularly. My guess is that he is not 'up' on the AGEs dilemma. Probably why he eats so much dairy as well.

[TheFountain]

The default American diet these days is high-GI high carb, and is usually low(-ish) fat to boot.

I have no idea where you get this false idea from. The typical american western diet is both high in high GI carbs AND bad fat. Specifically trans fatty acids. How the hell could it not be with how well the fast food industry does? And most of the foods they sell at mcdonalds is high in transfatty acids because of the way they are prepared (deep fried in bad cooking oil). Think man, think.

See oehaut's data in post #90.

I don't agree. Bad fats are not in massive excess in the average American diet, while bad carbs are.

Are you fucking kidding me dude? Margarine sales have not gone down in the past 10 years, they have gone UP. And margarine consists mainly of hydrogenated vegetable oil. Many people buy it because it is cheaper than butter. Many buy it because they believe it is healthier. Either way, many buy it, thus consume it in obvious large quantities. This is also the reasons for the high fat studies showing disease correlation, which you do not like. Because of these types of fats as well as refined carbs.

I didn't say bad fats were low, just not in massive excess in terms of Calories. Of course people are getting far more w6FAs than they need; that's not in question. Again, look at the data.

I did look at some data and I think people are getting at least 30-40% of calories from bad fat. I do not define that as not being in the excess, especially for hydrogenated trans fatty acids. Even if it were down to about 15% of calories from TFAs that would still be enough to cause systemic metabolic issues conducive to being a major contributor in weight gain. Thus making the refined carbs have an even worse effect. But I also think some data is bullshit too. It has to be with how freakin much people consume fast food. The typical fast food meal probably consists of a fairly even amount of refined carbs and bad fats. Especially the burger places. When looking at a sample menu of any of these places I don't know how anyone can come to the conclusion that they are more carb centric than fat centric.

[TheFountain]

Do we have any data regarding the fraction of Calories in the SAD coming from the various macronutrients? There are a vast number of low fat or fat free foods that are loaded with sugars.

according to oehauts data you were correct

I disagree with the rye part considering organic rye should be free of gluten.

rye contain gluten

Damned it, I read somewhere that organic rye, or maybe it was pumperknickle, contained no gluten.

[e Volution]

Is this new or just new in the media?

Researchers link calorie intake to cell lifespan, cancer development
Researchers from the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) have discovered that restricting consumption of glucose, the most common dietary sugar, can extend the life of healthy human-lung cells and speed the death of precancerous human-lung cells, reducing cancer's spread and growth rate.

http://www.physorg.c...s180298600.html

[senseix]

Few months back, i started on a low carb diet, high quality fat, high protein, even taking whey ect, and wow my lean muscle mass is much better, i haven't lost much weight, as i lift weights, but i lost alot of fat, i look lean all over my body and face. I'm always full, i eat all i want, and before that i was eating lots of carbs, and at that time i had to watch what i ate, and still couldn't get the results i am now, so i'm a believer thanks to my results which i started the low carb after reading one of your posts, so i want to thank you for sharing your personal story.

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

thats not true either... the obsesity epidemic is rooted mainly in 3 things: 1) extremely energy dense food. satiety is based on volume... foods with huge amounts of energy and low volume make it easy to achieve caloric excess. 2) decrease in activity / increase in sedentary jobs 3) wealth increasing portion size

1) High-fat, energy dense food -- meat -- has always been around. But, high-fat (or low-fat) meat doesn't affect insulin much.

2) Far too many people lead active lives, yet cannot keep off the body fat. My last six martial arts instructors, all under 45, are great examples. Dr. Davis is another example a few posts above (I linked to his most recent blog entry). Exercise is significantly overrated as a tactic to maintain low body fat -- unless you exercise at athletic and pro levels. I barely exercise at all -- body fat = 10%, exactly where I want it to be.

3) People cannot eat large portions of a low-carb meal. This has been shown in numerous studies. When we in the USA are served in restaurants, yes we get large portions. Note that the bulk of what we're served is cheap starches and grains.

[JLL]

I did look at some data and I think people are getting at least 30-40% of calories from bad fat.

What data did you look at? If total consumption of fat is about 30%, and about 10% of that is saturated, how can the intake of bad fats be 30-40%?

[TheFountain]

I did look at some data and I think people are getting at least 30-40% of calories from bad fat.

What data did you look at? If total consumption of fat is about 30%, and about 10% of that is saturated, how can the intake of bad fats be 30-40%?

Even if total bad fat consumption is 20% it is still enough IMO to account for much of the weight gain, in conjunction with the bad carbs. But I still think data numbers are bullshit. Because how on earth could that be when fast food joints still prepare foods with TFAs? And how is most of what fast food places serve carb-centric rather that fat-centric? Look at a menu sometimes, you will see it is pretty damned even. And many menu items lean more toward fat than carb.

[JLL]

You're making the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people's diets comes from fast food.

[TheFountain]

You're making the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people's diets comes from fast food.

No, I am making the assumption that people who eat fast food apparently do not give a shit about what they eat. Thus are more inclined to eat supermarket processed shit than people who do not eat fast food. And even if I am not assuming most of their diet comes from fast food then why does the fast food industry make so much money? Surely not from people only eating it on occasion!

Edited by TheFountain, 18 December 2009 - 12:28 PM.

[JLL]

You're making the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people's diets comes from fast food.

No, I am making the assumption that people who eat fast food apparently do not give a shit about what they eat. Thus are more inclined to eat supermarket processed shit than people who do not eat fast food. And even if I am not assuming most of their diet comes from fast food then why does the fast food industry make so much money? Surely not from people only eating it on occasion!

What I mean is that here we have actual data showing that about 30% of the average energy intake is from fat, 10% of which is saturated.

You argue that these numbers are bullshit, because fast food has more bad fat than that. Therefore, the implication of your argument is that fast food must be a very important part of the average diet. Otherwise your argument does not make any sense.

So, either

a) fast food is high in bad fats but the amount of fast food people eat is relatively low, or
b) the amount of fast food people eat is high but the fat intakes in the data are wrong, or
c) the amount of fast food people eat is high but the amount of bad fat in fast food is relatively low

Your pick appears to be b); I would say a) or c) is more likely.

[TheFountain]

You're making the assumption that the overwhelming majority of people's diets comes from fast food.

No, I am making the assumption that people who eat fast food apparently do not give a shit about what they eat. Thus are more inclined to eat supermarket processed shit than people who do not eat fast food. And even if I am not assuming most of their diet comes from fast food then why does the fast food industry make so much money? Surely not from people only eating it on occasion!

What I mean is that here we have actual data showing that about 30% of the average energy intake is from fat, 10% of which is saturated.

You argue that these numbers are bullshit, because fast food has more bad fat than that. Therefore, the implication of your argument is that fast food must be a very important part of the average diet. Otherwise your argument does not make any sense.

So, either

a) fast food is high in bad fats but the amount of fast food people eat is relatively low, or
b) the amount of fast food people eat is high but the fat intakes in the data are wrong, or
c) the amount of fast food people eat is high but the amount of bad fat in fast food is relatively low

Your pick appears to be b); I would say a) or c) is more likely.

No, my pick is none of the above. My pick would be D. That people are eating both fast food and supermarket processed foods high in both bad fats and bad carbs and that the data indicating otherwise is complete rubbish. I am not going to mindlessly trust data that indicates the complete opposite of what seems to be the case. I am going to trust my instincts here.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 December 2009 - 02:10 PM.

[DukeNukem]

Few months back, i started on a low carb diet, high quality fat, high protein, even taking whey ect, and wow my lean muscle mass is much better, i haven't lost much weight, as i lift weights, but i lost alot of fat, i look lean all over my body and face. I'm always full, i eat all i want, and before that i was eating lots of carbs, and at that time i had to watch what i ate, and still couldn't get the results i am now, so i'm a believer thanks to my results which i started the low carb after reading one of your posts, so i want to thank you for sharing your personal story.

With this part, I agree. But, for the most part, it's not fat or protein that has lead to the obesity epidemic in the States, it is carbs. And mostly, grains and fructose. Anyone following the food pyramid is doomed to be overweight.

thats not true either... the obsesity epidemic is rooted mainly in 3 things: 1) extremely energy dense food. satiety is based on volume... foods with huge amounts of energy and low volume make it easy to achieve caloric excess. 2) decrease in activity / increase in sedentary jobs 3) wealth increasing portion size

1) High-fat, energy dense food -- meat -- has always been around. But, high-fat (or low-fat) meat doesn't affect insulin much.

2) Far too many people lead active lives, yet cannot keep off the body fat. My last six martial arts instructors, all under 45, are great examples. Dr. Davis is another example a few posts above (I linked to his most recent blog entry). Exercise is significantly overrated as a tactic to maintain low body fat -- unless you exercise at athletic and pro levels. I barely exercise at all -- body fat = 10%, exactly where I want it to be.

3) People cannot eat large portions of a low-carb meal. This has been shown in numerous studies. When we in the USA are served in restaurants, yes we get large portions. Note that the bulk of what we're served is cheap starches and grains.

Nice to hear you've head success. I've heard the same results from literally dozens of people in my industry, where I'm been preaching a paleo diet for over two years. In general, people report these benefits:

o Significant reduction of body fat.
o Significant reduction in daily hunger.
o Elimination of energy lows during the day.
o Dramatically improved blood markers (I always have people test: CR-P, Lp(a), Triglycerides, HDL, and vit D)

And, like you, if people life weights, they grow muscle on this diet, and they realize that all that BS carb-loading is totally unnecessary.

The hardest part of the paleo diet is breaking the grain addiction. But, this is easier if you can mentally reposition grains in your mind, and think of them as just cheap, nutritionally vacant filler foods, used to feed the unknowing masses bulk calories. Do you really want to be a part of that herd? Of course not.

[oehaut]

No, my pick is none of the above. My pick would be D. That people are eating both fast food and supermarket processed foods high in both bad fats and bad carbs and that the data indicating otherwise is complete rubbish. I am not going to mindlessly trust data that indicates the complete opposite of what seems to be the case. I am going to trust my instincts here.

I don't think anyone inclined at being evidence-based would believe your instinct over official scientific data. Could you show us other data that point otherwise or could you tell us why these data are rubbish other than base on your instinct/observation?

I hope you realise how unscientistic your claim is. You're claiming that your observation is the actual reality, and that because your observation don't match with the data, the data are rubbish. Why couldn't it be that it would be your perception of things that is wrong since it don't match with the data?

Since the low-fat craze, most product are reduced in fat. It's not hard to see how people would be eating less fat. People are eating high-sugar-cereal at breakfast with low-fat dairy. They are eating fat free yogourt. They are eating low-fat ice-cream. Everything is low fat now. Chips are low in fat. Fruit juice is plain sugar. Pasta is plain sugar, and the sauce are low-fat. People are choosing low-fat meat.

The high process food that you are talking about are certainly low-fat to answer this worry from the population. To me it's not hard to see why the data can be trust.

Edited by oehaut, 18 December 2009 - 04:59 PM.

[frederickson]

i presented a carbohydrate-driven hypothesis of obesity at my medical school last year, and have linked a few graphs (Figures 1 and 2) summarizing NHANES data on dietary consumption.

http://www.cdc.gov/M...ml/mm5304a3.htm

regardless of anyone's anecdotal evidence to the contrary, we are consuming more carbs and less fat during this obesity epidemic than before it began. i am among those that believe excessive carbohydrate consumption is chief among the causes of the astronomical rise in obesity.

i have put many personal training clients on very low-carbohydrate, paleolithic diets and every single one has a.) become leaner and b.) just "felt better" as a result. the problem is that the nih and mainstream medicine in general want nothing to do with low-carbohydrate diets, ESPECIALLY those that suggest avoiding dairy and grain... two of the biggest industries with the strongest lobbies in the US. i don't think they'll ever support low carb paleo diets, but the more people that try them and see how great they look and feel, the more difficult it will be for the medical/research communities to disparage such intuitive eating patterns.

[TheFountain]

No, my pick is none of the above. My pick would be D. That people are eating both fast food and supermarket processed foods high in both bad fats and bad carbs and that the data indicating otherwise is complete rubbish. I am not going to mindlessly trust data that indicates the complete opposite of what seems to be the case. I am going to trust my instincts here.

I don't think anyone inclined at being evidence-based would believe your instinct over official scientific data. Could you show us other data that point otherwise or could you tell us why these data are rubbish other than base on your instinct/observation?

I hope you realise how unscientistic your claim is. You're claiming that your observation is the actual reality, and that because your observation don't match with the data, the data are rubbish. Why couldn't it be that it would be your perception of things that is wrong since it don't match with the data?

Since the low-fat craze, most product are reduced in fat. It's not hard to see how people would be eating less fat. People are eating high-sugar-cereal at breakfast with low-fat dairy. They are eating fat free yogourt. They are eating low-fat ice-cream. Everything is low fat now. Chips are low in fat. Fruit juice is plain sugar. Pasta is plain sugar, and the sauce are low-fat. People are choosing low-fat meat.

The high process food that you are talking about are certainly low-fat to answer this worry from the population. To me it's not hard to see why the data can be trust.

The 'data' is complete horse shit. Where are all those nut butters high in Omega 6s going? Margarine? Vegatable cooking oil? What, are you telling me people are buying this crap and letting it sit on their shelves and collect dust (and no, people are still buying up whole milk dairy products!)? Unlike you, I am not blaming one thing in favor of the other, I am blaming a specific form of both. Refined carbs and trans fatty acids. These two are a disgusting combo. Stop making it a 'carbs bad fats good' argument! There are good and bad forms of both.

Edited by TheFountain, 18 December 2009 - 10:11 PM.

[niner]

The 'data' is complete horse shit. Where are all those nut butters high in Omega 6s going? Margarine? Vegatable cooking oil? What, are you telling me people are buying this crap and letting it sit on their shelves and collect dust (and no, people are still buying up whole milk dairy products!)? Unlike you, I am not blaming one thing in favor of the other, I am blaming a specific form of both. Refined carbs and trans fatty acids. These two are a disgusting combo. Stop making it a 'carbs bad fats good' argument! There are good and bad forms of both.

The fundamental problem here is that this is a scientific site, and you are clearly not a scientist. You aren't even being logical here! You are trusting your gut, your own personal n=1 observations and imaginings, as being somehow more valid than a representative survey of the entire country. BTW, trans fatty acids are a minor contaminant in hydrogenated oils. They are certainly not a significant contributor of Calories. They are dangerous and unhealthy, but they don't make you fat.