The harder the experts try to save Americans, the fatter we get.
Obviously, since the dogma is "low fat", and "low fat" means more carbs, and carbs generally make us fatter, the explanation for this becomes blindingly obvious.
The difference might be that you feel full quicker with fat - but in that case carbs don't make you fat, eating more makes you fat.
I just remember those numbers from a class, but here's reference. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate
I always thought that was just the general public getting confused about "fat" (the essential part of your diet), "fat" (the vital organ of your body) and "fat" (what you are if you are heavier, larger or just a different shape than current fashion dictates). Do other languages use the same word for these three concepts?
Yes I see hundreds of things advertised, mainly to women, as "low fat" which are just filled full of sugar to make them appetising, but any medical expert, even ones on TV, seem to emphasise good fats vs bad fats and calorie consumption. They are more likely to warn against those "low fat" foods than encourage them.
2. It is based on much more than "rhetoric".
3. The group being criticised is not "informal and nebulous". I was, of course, speaking of the small, well-defined group of people who, against all evidence to the contrary and placing haste and ideology firmly above caution and even-handedness, championed and rammed through the current establishment consensus.
So that's 0 for 3.
2. If not rhetoric, then what do you base your "criticism" upon? What evidence demonstrates to the rest of us that "they" are irrational single-interest zealots? (I'm particularly curious to see what kind of evidence proves any particular human irrational or zealous)
3. Who, exactly, are "they"?