Sugar, not fat is the killer. Incredible how for decades bad research and the likes of Ancel Keys and Phil Sokolof put the health of millions at risk.
Nutrition research seems to change as often as JavaScript framework of the month. I saw one Ted talk that essentially said "everyone is different and no rules apply to everyone".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x4sRsb0a30Y
(Dr Robert Lustsig)
Nutrition “science”, like most health-related “sciences”, has approximately zero predictive power. A pretty reasonable strategy is to completely ignore whatever helpful advice the FDA or whomever is currently spouting (food pyramid!) and come up with some plausible first-principles model that matches available anecdata, like trying to match a plausible far-ancestral diet.
Demonizing fats in favor of sugar as a country has allowed one of the biggest and longest population studies of its kind, and it's pretty obvious from the health of the population that very high calorie, sugar rich diets are overall bad for you (notice the wide strokes we have to make here).
Everyone is different, and no rules apply uniformly to everyone, but general rules do apply to everyone. Fructose in a caloric surplus is more damaging than glucose, for instance, but different bodies are more or less effective at mitigating this. Most people have some inflammation response to gluten, but for the vast majority of people, it's minor. Most things are a sliding scale, on one end is no measurable result, on the other end is acute response.
NOTE: I'm not interested in arguing about what the research says here. I know the pro-gluten party will come out in force, and I've made an enemy with the bread baker's union. I'm not a researcher, I'm just a nutrition hobbyist. There are much smarter people doing much more comprehensive breakdowns and having much more meaningful debates than I can, so go listen to them. Read the research yourself with a skeptical eye. Take all dietary advice with a grain of salt, and check the opposite side of the research, nutrition and biology is WEIRD.
Also, we're still learning very basic things that have massive impacts. No one was talking about "gut health" unless you had a chronic disease roughly 10 years ago. Microbiome didn't have much place in the conversation about health and nutrition, no crossfit people knew about resistant starches, etc.
Sugar consumption has actually been in decline for years now and obesity keeps climbing. Yes sugar is bad for you but blaming modern health problems just on sugar is not accurate.
Do you have a source for this? Because it seems like unless you cook your own food, it's nearly impossible to avoid foods that have _added_ sugar these days. Maybe sugar consumption has increased, but it's less obvious now.
In addition to that, eating a bagel for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch, and having bread on the side with dinner is pumping carbohydrates for you body to break down into sugars 24/7. These things are higher in calories.
To reinforce what you're suggesting, I'd need to see trends of added sugars to food going down and the obesity rate increasing. At the end of the day, it's calories in vs calories out, but pumping things with fructose increases the calories and the palatability of food, increasing how much you eat. There are a number of negative health side affects, but sugar likely causes obesity by secondary affect.
Even worse: Many studies are done on mice, who do not eat the same things as humans
And worse still: Many are done with "food surveys" which lean too much on the poor memory and faulty assumptions of participations (eg what some Americans think of as a serving of "meat" is really a serving of fried breaded bread with condiment levels of meat mixed in. Most Americans do not know that chicken nuggets are half corn. etc )
The people with the worst data may be the scientists, unfortunately. You can draw somewhat accurate conclusions from your own personal testing and anecdotes, but you might draw mightily wrong conclusions from survey data which appears to say something that simply isn't true.
No. But some people like simple answers. Truth is: It's complicated and nutrition researchers are nowhere near any consensus on these questions.
Remember that in the era these policy positions were stood up, you were looking at big advances in medicine and concern about population and food supply.
The guys dying of heart attacks from eating fatty pork and beef at 50 got the message, unfortunately that message shifted the bad habits to bread and sugar.
That's not to say: 'only eat lion candy bars and all is fine.' (One reason is that that would be too hard to adhere to since the volume of food is so low because they're so calorically dense. Low volume, even if calories are high, causes hunger. Another would be the lack of fiber, protein and micronutrients.)
But it does show that it's not sugar that's the problem but rather consistently being in a caloric surplus such that people become severely overweight.
Unfortunately, nutrition has become such a religious topic that it's become hard to have civil, scientific discussions. Instead, we stick to our tribe, demonize those who show flaws in our reasoning, and selectively search for research that aligns with what we already believe.
1. Too much sugar has direct effects on the body, even for people at a totally healthy weight. Possibly including changing your appetite.
2. What you said: unhealthy foods very often contain sugar; therefore, foods high in sugar are more likely to be unhealthy in other ways too.
3. Sugar has calories but doesn't make you feel full. Too much sugar works against controlling your weight because people want a minimum amount of satiation.
The first point may seem wrong if you tend to think of the body as simply using sugar as fuel so that it only "pays attention" to the energy content. One thing that convinced me it's probably more complicated than that is a study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5513783/) showing that if endurance athletes merely swish a sugary beverage in their mouth and then spit it out, it still improves their athletic performance. It can't be merely sweet; artificial sweeteners didn't have the same effect.
But fat is an umbrella term. Saturated fat is (almost certainly) benign; eat as much (or as little) as you want.
Omega-6 and omega-3 polyunsaturated fats, on the other hand, are precursors to an important class of hormones called eicosanoids. If you eat too few, too much, or the wrong ratios, you will run into problems.
Our current diet is almost certainly way too high in omega-6 fats; the easy fix is just to stop eating vegetable oils.
Who are the stakeholders in "low carb"? Influencers? Sure, there are always going to be folks selling shovels, but the information on how to adhere to a low carb diet is freely available, and fat/protein macro foods readily available and fungible (I agree you'll have a slightly more difficult time to adhere to low carb if you're vegetarian or vegan, but it can be done, my partner and I tried it for fun to see if we could). You can spend an inordinate amount for your keto lifestyle, but you can also spend modestly and still arrive at the same results (whether that be weight loss, maintenance of a healthy weight, or management of a condition that is exacerbated by high blood sugar levels).
Eat properly ("abs are made in the kitchen", you can't work off excessive carbs consumption). Get enough sleep. Find time to exercise (high impact short duration cardio, weight lifting are best IMHO). These basics will contribute to a long, healthy life.
I hope this is helpful to someone, anyone! I was obese from my early teens (pizza and Mountain Dew, sigh), and only in my 30s after much research and experimentation am now in the best shape of my life (healthy BMI, low mile time, targeting a powerlifting competition this year). Everything I learned was from free online resources (r/fitness, r/keto, r/intermittentfasting wikis and discussions), and most of our food purchased at Aldi and Costco.
Sidenote: Keep in mind pricing is a signal. All of this information is free, and yet people still spend enormous amounts of money in aggregate on similar self-help materials with lesser results. Food for thought.
Arguably the meat industry, since most low carb people eat more meat. Yes, vegetarian is possible, but I don't know any vegetarian low carbers, while I know a lot of vegetarians and a lot of low carbers eating bacon for breakfast, lunch and dinner.
The meat industry probably has a similarly big lobby as the sugar industry.
I've dropped 8Kg in the last half year by going mostly vegetarian and lowering my dairy intake. I eat more carbs than before. I don't think keto is the whole truth.
Industry lobbying is deplorable, but inevitable. Consumer education (see my comment above) is paramount (with a helping hand of government regulation) in mitigating its impact on consumer behaviors.
Why eggs and not fungus and seeds (including nuts, legume pulses (beans, lentils, peas)? Hell what about gluten.
is that because everyone has fallen for an extreme of a fad diet?
It's like everyone comes up with the right observation, and the wrong conclusion. "Low carbs are good, so ill eat fat protein. Meat is fat and protein" instead of "seeds and mushrooms." Or "meat is bad" so "ill eat lots of cereals" instead of "leaves and shoots."
Seeds, shoots, and leaves with some bottom feeding ocean animals is a perfectly doable diet.
Now machine harvesting and factory-style farming has expanded to some fruits and vegetables, using things like hydroponic lettuce tracks, horizontal trunk-shakers, vertical limb-shakers, and flexible-fingered robot arms. Or even when hand-harvested, the human pickers can follow behind a processing rig that trims, washes, sorts, and packs right there while rolling over the field, and transports the product out via portable conveyor belt.
Cauliflower, muskmelons, lettuces, culinary herbs, cabbages, and tree nuts have all benefited from harvest mechanization. Farms can even, at minimum, use a fleet of golf-cart-like vehicles, so that human harvesters can gather the crop from a seated position, rather than, standing, stooped, or crouched, and allow the vehicle carry the weight of the produce, thus making each human harvester more productive, even when the harvest still requires hands, eyes, and blades.
The machines, of course, represent a hefty barrier to entry from the capital investment, and favor mega-agribusinesses. Farms that can't hire enough cheap transient laborers or buy the specialized machinery are priced out of the industry.
But it does bring cheaper lower-carbohydrate foods to the consumer in greater quantity.
What’s incredibly absurd about this is: where do you think the vast majority of the farmed grain goes? Feeding the cows, chickens, and pigs providing your “high protein” diets. If these “big ag” businesses did have any sway or disinformation campaigns, they’d absolutely be pushing the “eat more meat” narrative.
There’s no conspiracy. There aren’t any u-turns in nutritional science. The USDA guides are almost completely identical to WHO nutritional guides, and the guides for virtually every other modern country. Lots of whole grains, fruits, vegetables. Limit sugars, salt, and fats. As Michael Pollan says: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. That’s pretty much it. We complicate things so much with fear mongering and conspiracy thinking.
But you simply cannot argue that Western diets aren't causing epidemic levels of obesity and civilization disease [2], and that food producers and government aren't contributing to it.
Sidenote: Was "they don’t want you to know” a Kevin Trudeau reference? If so, I get that reference!
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/03/obese-soda-suga...
Where we differ (it seems?) is the implication that a diet rich in animal products (meat, cheese, eggs, etc) isn’t part of the Big Ag industry, but pasta, bread, cereal, etc. are. Livestock consume far more grain than the human population. So again, if big ag had any say (which, of course they do), they’d profit most by encouraging the consumption of meat, cheese, and eggs, not encouraging people to eat bread, pasta, and oatmeal. The fact that the USDA recommends eating whole grains at all is implicit proof that it’s not entirely corrupted by big ag.
So switching to a sugar rich diet may have saved millions of people from starvation, but at the cost of the health of the individual.
So it is “better” for the aggregate, but worse for the individual.