Cut processed foods and soda and canned arnold palmers, eat more fruits (which should be basically your only source of simple sugars) and definitely more vegetables, and get more exercise. Especially if there's a family history of diabetes!
Probably not productive to throw out sound advice just because other strategies also seem to be needed.
Those are all health-positive choices that make for good advice, obesity epidemic or not. There's nothing wrong with sharing them and it doesn't hurt anyone to hear them, even if for the thousandth time. And you have no evidence that spreading such advice hasn't helped people, just that many people may still need other support as well.
> Probably not productive to throw out sound advice just because other strategies also seem to be needed.
I'm not sure how you got the idea I think we should abandon public health advice on healthy eating. My previous comment is intended to point out that telling people to eat healithy doesn't work, and therefore we need artificial sweeteners because asking people to give up their favorite foods clearly isn't working.
I searched for "dietary guideline adherence rates" and it turned up multiple studies. I looked at a few and it's not clear how they support your argument. Stop being lazy and expect the reader to do research and argumentation for your own comment. Link to the studies and explain why they support your argument.
Well now wait a second. You're making a claim about adherence because substantial adherence is critical to your claim. If you can't even find that out, then why are you making the claim?
>Well now wait a second. You're making a claim about adherence because substantial adherence is critical to your claim.
If you read my original comment more carefully, you'll see it doesn't make any claims about adherence rates. All it points out is that we've been telling people to eat healthy but people have only gotten fatter. The studies I found show adherence rates are poor and are correlated with positive health outcomes, so I'm not seeing the contradiction you're implying exists. So again, stop getting your opponent to write your arguments and do your research for you, and explicitly lay them out in your comments.
How is this related to the advice of "just say no to [insert harmful but palatable food]" not working for the past few decades? Moreover, even if you believe PUFA/seed oils are toxic, surely it's better to not consume sugar (and all the associated calories/insulin spikes) in the first place?
Because people keep failing to lose weight following it.
It's advice that doesn't generate any measure of success or effectiveness, and is likely to make you feel worse and thus regress: the difficulty of it is so common that it's a Hollywood trope to show someone over-eating or eating ice cream on a couch to say "this person is stressed".
Advice which doesn't work, or can't be adhered to, is bad advice. "You shouldn't eat X" is always coming from someone who doesn't want or like X in the first place. They have no investment in it, it's the easiest thing in the world for them to say because they don't want it to start with.
Oh, I definitely like treats, and grew up drinking soda. As well as cream and sugar in coffee, and tons of other little places sugar sneaks into. Fruit juices, even the healthy 100% orange juice, not from concentrate.
It took years and years to train myself out of eating elevated levels of sugars every day. Now that I’ve done that hard work, yes, I can’t tolerate drinking a large cup of soda. I will drink a small, like 4-8 oz amount, as a treat on extreme occasion, like some of the special sodas the local breweries make around the holidays. Even then I feel it though.
But I also just don’t buy the stuff. A lot easier to say no when it’s not staring you in the face day in and day out at home. Out of sight, out of mind.
Getting to the point where you don’t want it anymore is kind of the point.
Right but can you see the difference in what you just posted, versus the generic advice that was originally given?
Like this right here:
> But I also just don’t buy the stuff. A lot easier to say no when it’s not staring you in the face day in and day out at home. Out of sight, out of mind.
This is actionable, useful advice - or at least part of it.
It's still missing a lot of other detail though - i.e. orange juice, in fact all fruit juices, have never been "healthy" - they're pure sugar from fruit, concentrated - and don't provide any long lasting satiation. The problem isn't the juice, the problem is people will eat 500 calories, then add 130 calories of juice on top of that but think "well juice is healthy".
The biggest single problem is the sheer amount of calories you can eat without thinking about it when they're available, and that people go to extraordinary lengths to not find this out (I've had some incredible arguments of people insisting that it must be simply impossible to have an usable estimate of calories in home cooking, despite them listing out recipes with specific weights).
The average American in the 50s consumed 100g of sucrose per day. Where was the obesity then? Where was the diabetes? They consumed close to 4000 kcal daily, without going to the gym.
Most men had sedentary, office jobs. It is ridiculous to completely eliminate micro or macronutrients in your life. Your body would not have the ability to convert glucose into ATP if you weren’t supposed to consume sucrose.
Source on the average American consuming 200% of their RDV of sugar and kcal in the 50s? Because the sources I find fall in the low 2000 range for US per capita kcal consumption in the mid 20th century to the mid 2000s in the 21st century [0] and high 2000s average kcal consumption in 60’s to the mid 3000s by 2017 [1], which is an alarming amount if that’s a sedentary person.
And regardless of the validity of your claim, we know the effects of a diet like that. The human body did not evolve with such a diet available, nor with the aisles of cereals, chips, cookies, cakes and sodas like have been available in the last 50ish years in stores.
Ritz crackers ingredients by order of amount: flour, palm oil, sugar… Crackers do not need sugar, these aren’t really crackers. We’re feeding ourselves shit.
The effects of poor diet compound over generations as well. Both in terms of: someone with a poor diet is likely to teach their children poorly, who could go on to make worse decisions earlier in their life and thus over a longer amount of absolute time, and also could damage the DNA and chromosomes they’re passing along [2], and then again lead to poor embryonic and fetal development [3].
Where was the diabetes? It was walking behind us all along [4].
