“Eat fat to get slim. Don’t fear fat. Fat is your friend. "
May 23, 2016 8:50 AM   Subscribe

Official advice on low-fat diet and cholesterol is wrong, says health charity Dr Aseem Malhotra, consultant cardiologist and founding member of the Public Health Collaboration, a group of medics, said dietary guidelines promoting low-fat foods were “perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history, resulting in devastating consequences for public health”.
posted by Just this guy, y'know (149 comments total) 24 users marked this as a favorite
 
I think there should be some sort if special, high burden of proof and a "holding period" while the data is re-examined before studies in nutrition are released to the public. Because it feels like the modern history of the field is just everyone contradicting themselves, over and over again.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:08 AM on May 23, 2016 [68 favorites]


In other news, Sorry, There’s Nothing Magical About Breakfast.

WHAT IS REAL ANYMORE
posted by gwint at 9:09 AM on May 23, 2016 [27 favorites]




In the interests of balance:
Dr Tedstone responded to the publication by saying: "In the face of all the evidence, calling for people to eat more fat, cut out carbs and ignore calories is irresponsible."

She said thousands of scientific studies were considered as part of the official guidance adopted throughout the UK, whereas the National Obesity Forum quoted just 43 studies, some of which were comment pieces.

She added: "It's a risk to the nation's health when potentially influential voices suggest people should eat a high fat diet, especially saturated fat. Too much saturated fat in the diet increases the risk of raised cholesterol, a route to heart disease and possible death."

The Royal Society for Public Health described the report a "muddled manifesto of sweeping statements, generalisations and speculation".
From the BBC.

Not saying I actually know anything about the subject, but before anyone goes running out to buy a box of pasties, it's worth keeping in mind there's still quite some debate over this.
posted by jonrob at 9:16 AM on May 23, 2016 [20 favorites]


Personally I didn't follow anyone's particular advice. I lowered my calorie intake and started exercising everyday. I don't eat excessive sugar, don't drink soda pop, and keep beer intake to a minimum (64 calorie beer is a blessing). I went from 204 to 175 in less than six months. I'm fit, toned and happier for it. You can do it!
posted by amcevil at 9:17 AM on May 23, 2016 [13 favorites]




This info has been out there for a while. Ive been hearing soem "fringe" nutritionists talking about the high fat benefits for some recent years now. The bottom line is about eating simple unprocessed foods as much as possible. Our bodies recognize whole foods, unlike a lot of altered foods.. low fat, etc.
But exercise and nutritional variety is obviously vital , cos if you sit around and eat bacon and mayo all the time you're not going to be well.
posted by Liquidwolf at 9:18 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


said dietary guidelines promoting low-fat foods were “perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history, resulting in devastating consequences for public health”.

No. What was a mistake was low-fat and fat-free food being advertised as healthy while being chock full of sugar along with the ridiculously small "serving sizes". The modern American diet has way more calories than it needs. Whether you get those calories from greasy burgers, soda or both, you're guaranteed to gain weight.

Fruits and vegetables are great in diets because most of them are three quarters or more water, rich in fibre and protein. You can physically fill your stomach with more of it, feel fuller and take in less calories all at the same time.
posted by Talez at 9:19 AM on May 23, 2016 [30 favorites]


Not saying I actually know anything about the subject, but before anyone goes running out to buy a box of pasties, it's worth keeping in mind there's still quite some debate over this.

Please tell me 'pasties' has a different meaning in the UK? Because I'm over here envisioning a rush of people buying nipple tassels.
posted by bologna on wry at 9:24 AM on May 23, 2016 [55 favorites]


Unless we want our food to taste like cardboard, it's going to contain either fat or sugar. We've seen what 40 years of removing fat from our diets has cause; I'm willing to give the other option a try.
posted by sbutler at 9:25 AM on May 23, 2016 [25 favorites]


64 calorie beer is a blessing

You take that back right now. Unless that 64 calories is in a 4oz tasting glass.
posted by uncleozzy at 9:26 AM on May 23, 2016 [50 favorites]


before anyone goes running out to buy a box of pasties

The article does note that they are talking about healthy fats: nuts, olive oil, avocado, full fat yogurt.

Also, pasties are primarily carbs (as well as fats). That's why I love them. But they don't love me.
posted by jb at 9:27 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


A pasty is a baked pastry, a traditional variety of which is particularly associated with Cornwall, in the United Kingdom. It is made by placing an uncooked filling, typically meat and vegetables, on one half of a flat shortcrust pastry circle, folding the pastry in half to wrap the filling in a semicircle and crimping the curved edge to form a seal before baking.
posted by Just this guy, y'know at 9:28 AM on May 23, 2016 [12 favorites]


Please tell me 'pasties' has a different meaning in the UK? Because I'm over here envisioning a rush of people buying nipple tassels.

Cornish pasties.
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 9:28 AM on May 23, 2016


You can physically fill your stomach with more of it, feel fuller and take in less calories all at the same time.

As someone who's tried a million diets, no. You take in fewer calories than you need, you're going to be hungry, no matter what form they take. Yeah, maybe I'll be fuller for about a minute, but rah rah vegetables is not the answer.
posted by Melismata at 9:29 AM on May 23, 2016 [28 favorites]


The article does note that they are talking about healthy fats: nuts, olive oil, avocado, full fat yogurt.

[sound of a straw sucking at the bottom of an empty milkshake glass]

say what now
posted by prize bull octorok at 9:29 AM on May 23, 2016 [51 favorites]


Because I'm over here envisioning a rush of people buying nipple tassels.

Honestly, though, is that such a terrible vision?
posted by spacewrench at 9:29 AM on May 23, 2016 [29 favorites]


I eat when I'm hungry, stop when I'm full, try only to eat sugary things if they're super-delicious, try to avoid highly-processed food, and am no longer listening to nutrition experts, because they've lost all credibility with me.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:30 AM on May 23, 2016 [10 favorites]


"perhaps the biggest mistake in modern medical history, resulting in devastating consequences for public health."

no mistake. a calculated, deliberate big lie brought to you by big food (and big pharma - diabetes is a huge industry.)
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 9:31 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


I'm never disappointed by Metafilter's ability to take science nutrition to task for oversimplifying things and jumping to conclusions before doing proper long-game research, and then, in the same breath, distill all of nutrition, weight loss, and fitness down to one or two obvious platitudes.
posted by almostmanda at 9:33 AM on May 23, 2016 [194 favorites]


The bottom line is about eating simple unprocessed foods as much as possible.

Is that a position supported by rigorous scientific evidence, or just the way that many people 'feel' the world should work because it supports their greater assumptions about natural things being good, etc.? I don't think anything has done so much so much damage to nutritional sciences as a priori assumptions based on morality.
posted by Mitrovarr at 9:33 AM on May 23, 2016 [58 favorites]


One of my kids wasn't gaining weight as fast as he should have been as a toddler, and the doctor warned us she was worried about failure to thrive (or whatever it's called for toddlers) and that we needed to feed him more calories-dense meals (since he seemed to be eating relatively normal serving sizes and we had a physical limitation on the quantity of food that would fit in his stomach) and have him back in three months for re-weighing. Thus began what we dubbed The Summer of Full-Fat Cream Sauce, wherein every meal we made had a seriously high-fat component.

Toddler got back on weight track, but my husband and I actually lost weight -- not a huge dramatic amount, but some -- because we were SO FREAKING FULL after smallish portions and stayed full for hours and hours and hours.

We went back to a more normal diet because you can only eat so many full-fat cream sauce pasta dishes (especially in the heat of summer!) and we kinda missed lighter, veggie-focused fare. But I never bother with the "light" or "low-fat" version of anything anymore, and ultra-creamy pasta sauces are no longer banished to the "rare treat" part of my menu rotation.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 9:36 AM on May 23, 2016 [64 favorites]


The article does note that they are talking about healthy fats: nuts, olive oil, avocado, full fat yogurt.

Except that all the damn pullquotes are "EAT FAT," with no nuance or accurate guidance. NO MORE NUTRITION PRESS RELEASES OR NEWS ARTICLES UNTIL YOU CAN MAKE THEM ACCURATE.

A better headline/pull-quote/what-have-you would be "cut out processed foods, and eat more whole nuts, olive oil, avocados, and whole dairy." Instead we get a bunch of bullshit that will be interpreted by the casual skimmer and the press as advice to go nuts on bacon and donuts.
posted by Existential Dread at 9:36 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Of course, advice like the following isn't sexy, or unexpected, or clickbaity enough.
But Prof John Wass, the Royal College of Physicians’ special adviser on obesity, said there was “good evidence that saturated fat increases cholesterol”.

He added: “What is needed is a balanced diet, regular physical activity and a normal healthy weight. To quote selective studies risks misleading the public.”
posted by Existential Dread at 9:38 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


In re pasties: here in the upper midwest, the wearable variety are pronounced with a long "A" as in "paste" and the turnover variety are pronounced with a sound like "past". You can get the turnover kind in both Minneapolis and Madison. I assume that the wearable kind are more widely available.
posted by Frowner at 9:40 AM on May 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


If you try hard enough, either variety are wearable.
posted by Too-Ticky at 9:42 AM on May 23, 2016 [44 favorites]


And they both reduce your tips when worn.
posted by Etrigan at 9:54 AM on May 23, 2016 [8 favorites]


I'm never disappointed by Metafilter's ability to take science nutrition to task for oversimplifying things and jumping to conclusions before doing proper long-game research, and then, in the same breath, distill all of nutrition, weight loss, and fitness down to one or two obvious platitudes.
Well,look: if there's one thing that I've learned as a woman existing in the world, it's that when it comes to food, I'm doing it wrong. I'm doing it wrong no matter what I do, and if I ever get it right, I'll be doing it wrong again in ten minutes, when all the rules change again, for about the tenth time since I started elementary school and learned there were rules. And I'm done playing that game. I'm fine: I'm healthy; I don't have diabetes; the last time I got my cholesterol tested, my doctor proclaimed it "perfect." I am going to eat what I want to eat, and science can fuck itself. I'm not exactly sure who declared that I had to consult a PhD in order to feed myself anyway.
posted by ArbitraryAndCapricious at 9:56 AM on May 23, 2016 [94 favorites]


If you try hard enough, either variety are wearable.

Also edible.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:57 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


Amen, ArbitraryAndCapricious!!

(In addition to being a woman existing in the world, having a stereotypical Jewish mother makes it that much worse...)
posted by Melismata at 9:59 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I'm paraphrasing from Ben Goldacre here, but I really wish the study of nutrition science could advance beyond being an ontological project to divide all food stuffs into things that either cause or cure cancerobesity.
posted by Mayor West at 9:59 AM on May 23, 2016 [16 favorites]


Do you know how hard it is to find full fat yogurt? And have you ever tried it? IT'S AMAZING
posted by cman at 10:00 AM on May 23, 2016 [37 favorites]


I really think the important fact here is that because your body makes fat on its own and makes cholesterol on its own, if you're overweight anyways from an already fat-avoiding diet then eliminating the remaining tiny bits of fat or cholesterol that you're eating are not going to gain you the supposed health benefits that low-fat food packaging (and articles published at the behest of its manufacturers) claim because the fat and cholesterol that are present in your body aren't coming from dietary intake.

And at that point you should not be regarding 100 calories from non-fat sources to be inherently any better for you than 100 calories from solid fat because the fat content of food is a red herring being used to fleece you.
posted by XMLicious at 10:02 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


A recent premature death in the family has forced me to prioritize improving my "numbers" so to speak. And I think there's a lot of culture to blame there, including the way that Phys Ed after Grade 5 in my system somehow stopped being about improving your healthy fun activity level and focused on sorting kids for varsity sports. But that's my baggage.

But the lack of consensus combined with lurid clickbait reporting of every controversy makes me just want to wash my hands of the whole diet issue. Ditching sugar seems like a safe bet. Cooking my own lunches to minimize stealth sugar and sodium is a no brainer. Gamifying my exercise has already helped the marginal blood pressure, and should improve the year-end bloodwork as well.

But just about everything else leads to paralysis when I'm choosing between this or that yogurt or beans vs. tofu vs. seitan. Do I snack on a carrot, an apple, or try to boost my protein? Is going black on my coffee worth doing? Is that avocato safe for me to eat? How far should I push dietary changes, and how fast?
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 10:03 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


> As someone who's tried a million diets, no. You take in fewer calories than you need, you're going to be hungry, no matter what form they take.

I'm tired of people in threads saying "you" when they mean "me." For me when I was at the lose-weight stage of things and tracking everything I ate, it was sometimes hard for me to get up to 1000 calories in a day because I just wasn't hungry after the yogurt and the nuts and the eggs and the broccoli and so on. But that's me; other peoples' mileage certainly varies.
posted by rtha at 10:05 AM on May 23, 2016 [25 favorites]


It's worth noting that the one thing that has never, ever, ever, ever changed in the hundreds of years since we started nutritional research is that a variety of a mix of fresh fruits and vegetables is the cornerstone of a healthy diet.
posted by Talez at 10:08 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Here's my oversimplified way of not trusting anything....

Take a look at Scientific American from 150 years ago, and maybe 1/2 of everything in there was wrong...
Take a look at Scientific American from 100 years ago, and maybe 1/2 of everything in there was wrong....
Take a look at Scientific American from 50 years ago, and studies could probably be found to suggest at least 1/2 of everything in there was wrong...
So, why do we conclude everything now published is better than chance at being right?
posted by MikeWarot at 10:09 AM on May 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


Well,look: if there's one thing that I've learned as a woman existing in the world, it's that when it comes to food, I'm doing it wrong.

This, a million times. I threw out my scale a few years ago, and eat whatever my body wants. I had a 24 ounce prime rib last night, which usually shocks people, because I'm a tiny girl. But my body wanted it, so I ate it. I go for bloodwork once a year, and I've never had any issues yet. Until I do, I'm going to eat what my body wants me to eat, and not worry about doing it wrong.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:11 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


having a stereotypical Jewish mother makes it that much worse

mom: are you hungry sweetie
me: you literally just watched me eat a meal
mom: that was hardly a meal
me: it was half a rotisserie chicken and the entire annual potato harvest of idaho
mom: there's some leftover meatloaf, some lasagna from that nice italian place, cheese blintzes?
me: nO
mom: *continues listing entire contents of fridge*

[not even half an hour later]

mom: you look like you've gained some weight, are you still going to that fancy gym or are you spending all that money for nothing?
me: *looks directly into the camera like on the office*
posted by poffin boffin at 10:12 AM on May 23, 2016 [157 favorites]


maybe refined sugar and white flour will be health foods in the future! we can't know anything
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:14 AM on May 23, 2016 [10 favorites]


So, why do we conclude everything now published is better than chance at being right?

The scientific literature only has to be right slightly more than 50% of the time in order to beat whatever random source of "information" people latch onto once they convince themselves that scientists don't know what they're talking about.
posted by straight at 10:14 AM on May 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm never disappointed by Metafilter's ability to take science nutrition to task for oversimplifying things and jumping to conclusions before doing proper long-game research, and then, in the same breath, distill all of nutrition, weight loss, and fitness down to one or two obvious platitudes.

The problem is that those one or two obvious platitudes are true, and we've known them for decades. Eat more vegetables and fruits, whole grains, etc. Eat less fat, sugar, and carbs. Lead a more active life. Ultimately, when people are looking for new health information they're looking for ways to lose weight that don't involve making those lifestyle choices.

And not - I suspect for most people - because they are lazy or greedy. Because those lifestyle choices require more time, more energy, and more money in a world in which those things are at a premium. It costs more to eat healthy, to get a gym membership, it takes time away from work and chores and raising your kids to actually use that gym membership or to cook healthy meals. Something I've been reminded of repeatedly while reading books like Angus Deaton's The Great Escape and the health and disease portions of The Rise and Fall of American Growth has been the degree to which significant changes in the health and welfare of the American population has been due to societal changes (regulation, public health infrastructure, etc.). It has not, generally speaking, come from individuals working harder to be healthy in a society which actively handicaps and punishes them for doing so. It's a similar situation to the "recycle and bike, turn out the lights" style of environmentalism - this isn't something that can be tackled at that level but we encourage people to do so and then wonder why it's not working for the overwhelming majority of the population.

I grew up Seventh-Day Adventist, within a subculture where there was both an ideological bent to healthy lifestyle choices and social infrastructure, so to speak (stores that carried healthier foods, potlucks, a steady stream of information from the pulpit to brochures, a community that helped each other out and encouraged common activities) that encouraged a lifestyle of eating right, exercising (usually in groups), etc. The results were one of the few things I genuinely admired about the church (wasn't enough to keep me in, as it happened, but it's still a good model).
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:20 AM on May 23, 2016 [19 favorites]


Do you know how hard it is to find full fat yogurt? And have you ever tried it? IT'S AMAZING

Noosa is the bomb, and if I see anyone buying the new limited-edition blood orange version ahead of me at Westside Market, I will cut you.

Nutritional "science" has changed so much over the course of my life that I refuse to be paranoid about any given macronutrient. Probably there is something to be said for avoiding processed carbs, not because the mere act of "processing" is evil but because, as high-carb foods are actually processed, it usually does involve stripping them of nutrients and fiber (whole wheat vs. wheat, brown rice vs. white, all delicious fried-potato products...fried-potato products are the one food I have put a day-to-day ban on). But mostly now I try to focus on getting fruits and vegetables and moderating intake of calories and sodium. It's not a diet that will make me thin, but when I weigh costs of compliance against health returns adjusted for the uncertainty of the science, it seems like the most reasonable approach.
posted by praemunire at 10:21 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


And not - I suspect for most people - because they are lazy or greedy. Because those lifestyle choices require more time, more energy, and more money in a world in which those things are at a premium.

It's not just that. It's really not.
posted by praemunire at 10:24 AM on May 23, 2016 [16 favorites]


Me: Yup. And I am still (1.5 years on) the same size, but older.
posted by hexatron at 10:25 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Two books that are chock full of references to scientific studies regarding nutrition, exercise, calories, etc:
1. The Big Fat Surprise: Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet by Nina Teicholz
2. Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes

#1 is the light read. #2 is the heavy read. Both will make you shake your head.
posted by grefo at 10:26 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


mom: [gives lecture about every single ingredient in food and how trendy healthy they are] And they're all leftovers that I put together from the fridge! Mother Melismata'slastname * is so innovative when it comes to cooking! Don't you think I'm innovative? Do you approve of me? Do you like the food?

me: [it's actually better than usual, though still a little heavy] It's pretty good.

mom: And you're eating slightly faster than usual faster than I've ever seen you eat in your entire life, you must be starving! Here! Have more! Take home a week's worth! If you don't, I'll have to eat it every day myself for a week! After I slaved over a hot stove and lugged all the groceries home from the store, without a car!

* yes, she always refers to herself that way when it comes to cooking. I so envy my sister, who moved away and doesn't have to deal with this on a weekly basis...
posted by Melismata at 10:27 AM on May 23, 2016


mom: [gives lecture about every single ingredient in food and how trendy healthy they are] And they're all leftovers that I put together from the fridge! Mother Melismata'slastname * is so innovative when it comes to cooking! Don't you think I'm innovative? Do you approve of me? Do you like the food?

Oh yeah, I get a ton of wellness lectures from my MiL. Lately it's been "cook with coconut oil, cooking with olive oil is bad for you," to which my response has been a nonplussed o_0

She did get a bit annoyed when I called her agave nectar 'hippy corn syrup,' but had to acknowledge that I was right.

fried-potato products are the one food I have put a day-to-day ban on

Yeah, I got with pumpkin seeds now (very lightly salted) which gives me the crunchy/fat/salt reward while being better for my digestion overall.
posted by Existential Dread at 10:36 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


It's not just that. It's really not.

I don't see anything in there that contradicts my basic point. There are societies on earth where obesity is remarkably low, it isn't because her statements about neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes don't apply to the human beings in those societies. It's because they are in an environment in which your growing craving for food is confronted by smaller portions of healthier stuff, and where your everyday life is more active. And those environmental realities are mostly social (maybe not in Third World countries where there are genuine issues getting food, but in France or Norway or Japan, not so much).

The article you posted is a great reason why individuals trying to diet in an environment full of high-calorie options isn't going to be able to do so. I don't disagree with that at all. As the interviewee puts it very well, "Willpower can be extremely useful in certain parts of people's lives. But when it comes to eating, it's just not the problem. It's not the fix."
posted by AdamCSnider at 10:41 AM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Re TFA - yeah and/but aaaaalso see this (NYT) on an analysis of previously unanalyzed and unpublished research.

Group 1: sat fat diet. Group 2, low sat fat; sf subbed with corn oil.

Findings: the low sat-fat diet group lowered their cholestorol to a greater degree than group 1. (by 14% vs 1%, unsure if/how this is statistically significant, kind of doubting it, but ok this is at least trending towards lower sat fat being better at reducing cholesterol).

Another unpublished study mentioned in there: people replacing sat fat with omega 6 rich alternatives also reduced cholesterol. But they died sooner than the sat fat controls. (So whaaaaat is the deal? Is the faster dying because of Omega 6s, maybe? Does cholesterol even matter? Who knows, we'll never know, never ever).

But. I do have high cholesterol, and heart issues run in my family. I would like to feel more in control, want to know what I can do to reduce my risk. That's the promise of nutrition research. I swing between caring a lot and throwing up my hands. (And then reaching for a slice of calabrese.)
posted by cotton dress sock at 10:42 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Fruits and vegetables are great in diets because most of them are three quarters or more water, rich in fibre and protein.

Are you counting beans/pulses as vegetables here? I'm struggling to think of traditional veg that I'd call rich/high in protein. Claims are made for spinach and green peas, but both seem to be way behind lean meats, soy, etc. for protein vs. calories.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:46 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have a poster from The Ladies' HOME JOURNAL:
What a wonderful way
to give them more
pure rich milk
and cream

It's sometimes pretty hard for them to be good little boys and girls and to drink all the milk mother wants them to.

How fortunate there is such a thing as ice cream! Do you know that the ice cream you buy today is made of pure rich milk and cream with not a single ingredient added which isn't good and wholesome.

And how fortunate ice cream contains all the food values of milk. The lime in it makes firm white teeth. The minerals and proteins make strong bones and muscles. The vitamins promote growth. The carbohydrates give energy.

Give your youngsters lots of ice cream every day. Get it where you see this emblem displayed.


Registered United States Patent Office

ASSOCIATE MEMBER
RESEARCH COUNCIL
ICE CREAM INDUSTRY
PROMOTING THE USE OF
PURE AND WHOLESOME

ICE CREAM
for health


©1926, Research Council, Ice Cream Industry, Harrisburg, Pa.
posted by aniola at 10:46 AM on May 23, 2016 [42 favorites]


Aniola, that is especially amazing because a HUGE number of major gastroenteritis outbreaks in the 20s and 30s were due to ice cream being a disgusting germ nightmare.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 10:50 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Take a look at Scientific American from blah blah blah

so your critique of the entire scientific establishment is based on the fact that a sensationalist news mag that publishes exaggerated accounts of far humbler research studies gets things wrong on occasion?

oh my god, what you must think about the state of human society based on the knowledge you've obtained from US Weekly
posted by runt at 10:54 AM on May 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


I don't see anything in there that contradicts my basic point.

There's actually a significant difference between "people don't lose weight because vegetables are expensive to buy and time-consuming to prepare" and "people don't lose weight because when they reduce caloric intake their brain starts yelling at them they're going to die, plus their body starts using energy more efficiently." You can address the "vegetables are expensive" problem with certain interventions, and that will help, but so far you can't fix increasing metabolic efficiency. "Vegetables are expensive" remains in the domain of personal-choice-driven analyses (all you're seeking to do is to encourage better choices by reducing the costs of "good" choices, with the assumption that this will lead everyone to make those good choices), and is therefore ultimately of limited help.

There are societies on earth where obesity is remarkably low, it isn't because her statements about neurological, hormonal, and metabolic changes don't apply to the human beings in those societies. It's because they are in an environment in which your growing craving for food is confronted by smaller portions of healthier stuff, and where your everyday life is more active.

This is a fantasy, at least as conceived worldwide. Just stop at "smaller portions." If food isn't available, people can't eat it. This is not useful for addressing problems in the U.S., which is never--in our lifetimes, at least--not going to offer lots of high-calorie options.
posted by praemunire at 10:56 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I think a lot of this has to do with the nature of studies and statistical analysis. Studies can tell me that eating X more cholesterol will leads to Y% increase in risk for a heart attack but that doesn't mean that my risk actually went up.

Nutrition is a very individual thing and not everyone's body reacts the same way the same things, so while some people's biology might be such that even a minor increase in cholesterol intake will definitely cause that person to get heart disease, in someone else, they might be able to eat all the cholesterol they want without anything ever happening to them.

So, in aggregate, the amount of change to an input and the statistical variation of the results is totally applicable to a population in aggregate, it does not necessarily tell you anything at all about how a change will affect an specific individual or at least to what degree it will affect that individual.

Until we have a much more complete understanding of the human body, it's about the only tool we have.
posted by VTX at 10:57 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


The problem with science is that it's not a conclusion. It's a methodology. Which is obviously obvious, but people tend to lose sight of that when they're looking at studies and trying to draw conclusions.

It's pretty rare for well-designed, objective studies to be actually wrong. They just get generalized too far, categorizing things as either good or bad, and trying to extrapolate beyond the scope of the conclusion. People want 'science' to give them simple, definitive, prescriptive answers, but that's pretty much the opposite of what science is or does.

And man, I know people who try to adjust their diet based on things like this all the time, and honestly, it really starts to look like an eating disorder to me.

Diet is an incredibly complex topic at the intersection of a whole lot of related complex systems. Biology, environment, culture, economics, psychology, politics, infrastructure, etc. You can't distill it down to a set of prescriptive rules. Most of what we know about it is based on long-term observation over large populations. That's how we decide what to look for in the first place, and we can't always even predict what sort of effects something might have.

So it's simplistic and a little insulting to cast the argument for whole foods and such as simple naturalistic fallacy. It's not unreasonable for individuals to make the decision to stick with a diet that is as close as possible to the sort of diet people have been eating for hundreds or thousands of years.
posted by ernielundquist at 10:58 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


They just get generalized too far, categorizing things as either good or bad, and trying to extrapolate beyond the scope of the conclusion.

Yes, sure, and it takes a certain critical mass of research to point to one direction over another. (Although studies surely can sometimes be poorly designed etc.)

And man, I know people who try to adjust their diet based on things like this all the time, and honestly, it really starts to look like an eating disorder to me.

Wanting to not have a heart attack sounds like a sign of an eating disorder? For reals? Yes, I want to know how much calabrese I can probably get away with.

(the safe and often (probably) right answer is usually - "not too much")
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:04 AM on May 23, 2016


The bottom line is about eating simple unprocessed foods as much as possible.

Is that a position supported by rigorous scientific evidence, or just the way that many people 'feel' the world should work because it supports their greater assumptions


anecdotal for sure, but it's generally worked for me. That is, the more time I spend unable to base my diet on simple unprocessed foods, the worse my inner digestive workings work.
posted by philip-random at 11:06 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


1) Minimize overly processed foods.
2) Eat a little of everything else, not focusing on one food type over all others.
3) There is no Wonder Nutrient or Miracle Supplement that fixes everything.
4) If you read a study saying "Food A will kill you, food B will cure all ailments and food C is okay in moderation," wait fifteen years and A, B and C will shuffle their order.
5) The only time to eat at Denny's is when everything else is closed, and then only if it's that or full systemic physical collapse otherwise.
posted by delfin at 11:07 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I have a poster from The Ladies' HOME JOURNAL

WHERE can I buy this poster???
posted by leesh at 11:08 AM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Okay this is actually from a public health report from 1911, but it puts the whole “let’s start an ice cream research fund” thing into perspective, because eating anything with cream in it used to be an extreme sport, so it makes sense that the industry was trying to combat that perspective:
“It is a well-known fact that gastro-intestinal diseases are not infrequently traced to the eating of ice cream. During the summer of 1910 the Women’s Municipal League of Boston, through its Committee on Ice Cream and Butter, conducted an investigation of the manufacture of ice cream. The committee worked in conjunction with the clinics at the Infants’ and Children’s Hospitals, and when cases of illness, probably caused by ice cream, were reported, the place of purchase was investigated. An inspection of the premises often showed very dirty conditions. . . .

The bacteriological examination of ice cream in the city of Boston shows that much of it contains more than 500,000 bacteria per cubic centimeter—the legal maximum. This is due partly to the large bacterial flora of the cream used, to long storage of the product, and in some cases to unsanitary methods of manufacture.

Our analysis of samples of cream indicate that even the careful manufacturer, unless he has an exceptionally good cream supply or depends upon pasteurization, cannot expect to produce ice cream with a bacterial content within the legal limit.”
(I sometimes wonder how much of the obesity crisis comes from the fact that people no longer have the expectation of becoming violently ill from foodborne toxins on a semi-regular basis.)
posted by a fiendish thingy at 11:12 AM on May 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


Personally I didn't follow anyone's particular advice. I lowered my calorie intake and started exercising everyday. I don't eat excessive sugar, don't drink soda pop, and keep beer intake to a minimum (64 calorie beer is a blessing). I went from 204 to 175 in less than six months. I'm fit, toned and happier for it. You can do it!

I'm picking on you unnecessarily here, but: for many (most?) people seeking to lose weight, this is just plain not true. I've read story after story, just on MetaFilter, about people who have cut caloric intake to borderline-starvation levels, and it's not making any difference. And I can give you another anecdote from the other direction. During a particularly rough patch in life, I developed a somewhat problematic relationship with alcohol, specifically wine. For months, an average week might see ten empty wine bottles in the recycling bin. That works out to, on average, an extra 6000 calories PER WEEK of excess, on top of already-not-great eating habits. Some back-of-the-envelope math suggests that I should have expected to gain somewhere between 40 and 60 pounds. I never gained a pound. Upon cutting that number drastically, I saw no movement in the other direction, either. I apparently have some sort of metabolic equilibrium around the weight I've been since high school. Which is why it's impossible to take the calorie evangelists all that seriously, because, hey, look, I am walking proof that it's much more complicated than energy in - energy out = delta m.
posted by Mayor West at 11:20 AM on May 23, 2016 [35 favorites]


In response to a recent AskMe about nutrition, !Jim posted a link to a handy review of a bunch of diets (or rather, approaches to eating) and what they all have in common. Which is a fair amount.

Like cotton dress sock, I would like to know if eating whole-fat yogurt, which is yummy, might contribute to eventual heart disease, stroke, and an early (and/or unpleasant) death of the sort all the women on both sides of my family have died from. I'm not overweight so I'm not worried about the calories, I'm worried about my heart. Full-fat yogurt is both yummy and full of saturated fat, so it scares me to eat it. Last week I ate it anyway. This week I'm going the no-fat route. This see-sawing drives me nuts, but I don't know what to do--and neither does anyone else. It's frustrating but it's also very much, in my particular case, a first-world problem.
posted by Bella Donna at 11:22 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


Once I saw "Sweeney Todd," I knew I'd never eat a pastie.
posted by twsf at 11:25 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I just don't know what to believe nutritionally anymore. I've settled on less processed food, less carbs (not insanely, but less...) and more activity. I recently was given a Fitbit and it's been awesome for showing me just how inactive I am at work, and knowing this is a huge help.

"I'm picking on you unnecessarily here, but: for many (most?) people seeking to lose weight, this is just plain not true."

The 50 pounds I lost via watching calories would disagree with you.
posted by azpenguin at 11:26 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not seeing a TON of it here, but a thing I have learned after losing weight myself is that I am not qualified, zero, zip, not at all to tell anyone else what they should do or what should work for them or what is "easy." I don't discuss it with almost anyone, actually. No one else's body is my business.
posted by listen, lady at 11:27 AM on May 23, 2016 [28 favorites]


I'm picking on you unnecessarily here, but: for many (most?) people seeking to lose weight, this is just plain not true. I've read story after story, just on MetaFilter, about people who have cut caloric intake to borderline-starvation levels, and it's not making any difference. And I can give you another anecdote from the other direction

right, it's fine to just not have an opinion about it.
posted by listen, lady at 11:28 AM on May 23, 2016


The field of nutrition has a pretty challenging PR problem. Everybody eats, so everybody has an opinion on the right way to do it, no matter how informed or statistically representative that way might be. What's worse, unlike the color of the proverbial bike shed, it's critically important for everyone to get right (that much, people seem to agree on). It's a really nasty combination of complex in the biological sense, yet completely comprehensible and immediately applicable to everyday life.
posted by anifinder at 11:31 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Mod note: Sort of standard disclaimer at this point: the gulf between "this was my personal experience" and "this is how diet/nutrition/weight-management works in general" is a really big one and conflating the two in one way or another is the most common point of friction and bad feelings in discussions about related topics. If everybody can make the effort to both (a) not generalize their personal experience to "and so that's what you/everybody should do" and (b) not read too much personalized intent into people talking about their own experiences, this is likely to go a lot better and allow for discussion rather than just the same old arguments.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:32 AM on May 23, 2016 [26 favorites]


I don't know what to do--and neither does anyone else.

Right. But I think it's not wackadoodle to try to apply what is kind of, thought to be known to your life. I'm already half done with mine, I haven't the whole fullness of time to wait to see how I can stretch it out.

The useful advice I've seen is usually along the lines of what delfin said. All foods, in themselves, have risks (tomatoes have toxins, apparently, not that a person could eat enough of them to hurt themselves) and usually some benefits. Varying your diet spreads the risks around and might help skim the top off some of the benefits, sound strategy. I've seen little bad said about fruits and veg, probably good to get them in. (But yes, full fat yogurt, deli meats, anything French... what to do, what to do...)
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:37 AM on May 23, 2016


Do you know how hard it is to find full fat yogurt? And have you ever tried it? IT'S AMAZING

Fage full fat greek yoghurt is definitely /amazing/.
posted by pharm at 11:38 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


This is not useful for addressing problems in the U.S., which is never--in our lifetimes, at least--not going to offer lots of high-calorie options.

As I pointed out, other large developed nations have managed this problem, I don't see why its impossible for us to do so as well. And pretty much every single major triumph - from public sanitation works to the outlawing of CFCs to present efforts to halt global warming - was decried by someone or other as a "fantasy" for decades beforehand. But I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.
posted by AdamCSnider at 11:38 AM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


The problem is that those one or two obvious platitudes are true, and we've known them for decades. Eat more vegetables and fruits, whole grains, etc. Eat less fat, sugar, and carbs. Lead a more active life.

This is a mix of accepted and contentious information, though. They seem "right" because you've been told these things often enough that you don't question it. But it's even self-contradictory: whole grains are carbs, fruit is sugar. If you follow all of it religiously enough, then if your particular body chemistry is amenable to it, you'll see results. Cutting out all calories in general means that you're eating less of everything, including the harmful foods you think are good. But then this is contradicted by the impulse to get as much exercise as possible, which often leads you to feel like you're starving. And then, exercise or not, if you're not getting enough fat then your body never feels fully satisfied with what you've put in it, and you'll eat between meals, or at least have food on the mind constantly. The deck is stacked against you when you follow the common wisdom, and for what? It's not even internally consistent.
posted by naju at 11:39 AM on May 23, 2016 [16 favorites]


I think the argument about whole grains and fruits is that fiber helps modulate how and when they're processed. (and then how leptin and ghrelin play out re hunger etc)
posted by cotton dress sock at 11:43 AM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


there is no nutrition science. there is only profit science.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 11:46 AM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm thriving on a high fat, low carb, moderate protien diet. I've looked at a lot of the medical literature on it. One thing that stands out is that very little literature looks at diets high in saturated fat that also cut carbs. (For example, the saturated fat group might be eating at McDonald's - eating burgers with the bun and fries - which isn't my diet.) But there's an article in the journal Lipids that conducted a human trial - looking at cholesterol - that concluded that saturated fats are well-metabolized in a low carb environment. In a higher carb environment, saturated fats are not so well metabolized and the implication is that they have a bad effect on cholesterol.

My low carb diet excludes a lot of fruits and vegetables - but not all. The thing with fruits, especially, is that, overtime, agribusiness has bred sweeter and larger fruits, so it's not enough to just say "well, fruits and vegetables have always been healthy!" We're not eating the same fruits my grandparents were eating even in the 1930s.

Hi fat, low carb diets are being researched for potential benefits for dementia (I can explain that mechanism in layperson's terms if anyone is interested), diabetes, PCOS (some women get their periods for the first time in years within days or weeks of switching to this diet - and get pregnant, if they're trying!), IBS, bi-polar disorder, depression, kidney disease, migraines, Hashimoto's Thyroid, etc. it's a diet that is very anti-inflammatory. My dermatologist agrees that it likely cured my chronic idiopathic urticaria.

In 4 months eating this way, I lost 35 pounds - I ate at a calorie deficit but didn't exercise. So yeah - it feels miraculous. Then I decided to eat at maintanence calories and have maintained my weight for 5 months. I'm never going back. It works for me because fat makes me feel satiated. I don't need to eat much anymore. But more importantly, carbs make me crave more carbs! I'm not fighting myself by eating this way - the deck's not stacked against me. I have consistent energy throughout the day - no sleepiness, no valleys! I walk past donuts in the staff kitchen without a pausing - just not interested. No problem.

My primary care doctor is happy too. I'm no longer prediabetic. My HA1C and triglycerides are amazing. I haven't had my cholesterol checked yet - when you drop weight quickly, your cholesterol goes up no matter which diet you're following. But I've also learned that basic cholesterol tests don't actually do a very good job of assessing heart disease risk - you have to get a test of particle size to really assess risk. High cholesterol doesn't always equal risk - if the particles are large. Low carb diets, even in the presence of high amounts of fat, increase your particle size, leading to reduced risks. (My layperson's understanding.)

I'll get those more sensitive cholesterol tests at my next physical. (There is a subset of people for whom saturated fat does seem to raise cholesterol - and there's another test - that can determine if you're that genetic type.)
posted by vitabellosi at 11:54 AM on May 23, 2016 [20 favorites]


Two years ago, at the age of 63, I lost 40 lbs. I cut back greatly on total calories, restricted carbs (no bread/ no desserts, as a rule), but did not make any effort to cut fat, except as associated with the potato chips I eschewed. Since then, I have only regained 5 lbs. while maintaining the same eating regime.

My own theory is that because fat is essential to the body's operations, it tends to conserve fat for times of scarcity, laying up stores of extra fat against the "lean times." This would have been highly adaptive for primitive humans, who might have to go a while between animal kills providing copious fat to consume. The same "Law of Conservation of Fat(s)" explains nicely why excessive calorie consumption leads inexorably to increasing fat deposits in the body of any excessive consumer.

If a modern dieter tries--for reasons of ritual purity--to eliminate all dietary fat, the body is alerted and reacts to what it reads as a life-threatening emergency by conserving any stored fats. If, in contrast, one "fools" the body by reducing overall calories but not eliminating fat consumption, the body does not enter "fat conservation alarm mode" and will utilize fat stored previously to make up the calorie deficit. This would explain how a radical "no fat" diet would fail compared to a reduced calorie diet including a fat ration.

While it may seem paradoxical that I could greatly reduce fat deposits whilst eating fat, I could and did just that. As always, YMMV.
posted by rdone at 12:11 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


Do you know how hard it is to find full fat yogurt? And have you ever tried it? IT'S AMAZING

All hail the lords of Cabot, glory be, glory be
posted by spinturtle at 12:17 PM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


I've restricted myself to plain yogurt for the last few years. Yogurt is sour milk, it's supposed to be sour. Flavored yogurts have an insane amount of added sugar.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:27 PM on May 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


if there was a little site widget that auto-installed a "this is what worked for me personally and i understand that it will not be the same for everyone BUT" preface to everyone's comments in weight loss threads that would be super rad
posted by poffin boffin at 12:27 PM on May 23, 2016 [21 favorites]


The thing with fruits, especially, is that, overtime, agribusiness has bred sweeter and larger fruits, so it's not enough to just say "well, fruits and vegetables have always been healthy!" We're not eating the same fruits my grandparents were eating even in the 1930s.

This is a really good point and kinda makes me super angry...
posted by naju at 12:27 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


if there was a little site widget that auto-installed a "this is what worked for me personally and i understand that it will not be the same for everyone BUT" preface to everyone's comments in weight loss threads that would be super rad

an anecdote indicator that's basically the Grand Galactic Inquisitor blaring IGNORE ME
posted by Existential Dread at 12:29 PM on May 23, 2016 [6 favorites]


My grandparents, great aunts and uncles ate a many a "Belfast Fry" and most lived to a ripe old age but I wouldn't say they were healthy or looked good.
posted by bonobothegreat at 12:31 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


Wanting to not have a heart attack sounds like a sign of an eating disorder? For reals?

What? No, I didn't say that, and didn't mean it. That is a really hostile read.

I'm talking about people who radically adjust their diets based on pop science articles about nutrition.

So they'll rapidly switch among low carb, low-fat, low sodium, whole grain based, and vegetable based diets, incorporating various of 'super foods' and supplements, sometimes in alarming quantities, all based on current headlines. And they're always stressed and anxious about food.

I'm not qualified to diagnose anything, but something that looks like orthorexia. And in my experience, it's really common and is caused or at least exacerbated by the constant stream of clickbait stories exaggerating scientific studies and prescribing various diets, whether for weight loss, disease prevention, or whatever.
posted by ernielundquist at 12:40 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think part of the problem with the “I did [X], and it worked for me!” is not only the implication that anyone else who tries [X] will have similar results, but the other implication that just because something works means that it is a good idea.

A lot of things “work” but are terrible. A lot of the pro-ana sites are chock full of strategies that “work” when it comes to weight loss, but are also excellent tips on how to die. Just because something results in weight loss doesn’t mean it is good for your body or your mental well-being.

I’m not even saying any of the plans trumpeted here are inherently unhealthy, but I am uncomfortable with the implication that “efficacy of weight loss” is the most important measure to be considered, especially because it is frequently paired with its uglier partner, “overweight people who prioritize elements of their health other than weight loss are Doing It Wrong”.
posted by a fiendish thingy at 12:47 PM on May 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


"...No one else's body is my business."
posted by listen, lady


Eponysterical.
posted by gauche at 12:47 PM on May 23, 2016 [7 favorites]


I'm talking about people who radically adjust their diets based on pop science articles about nutrition.

Fair enough.

I myself haven't seen a lot of the wholesale switching you're talking about (which isn't to say it doesn't happen). What I've seen is people latching onto an approach and confirmation-biasing their way through it (and through arguments about it, often long, protracted arguments...) until they find their absolutist approach is somehow interrupted or unsustainable, or contradicted by some health event in their lives.
posted by cotton dress sock at 12:59 PM on May 23, 2016


OK but why does every question about "how do I gain weight" get answered with EAT MOAR HEALTHY FATS!! How can that be the answer to both losing and gaining weight - unless it's a spurious variable?
posted by AFABulous at 1:08 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


The 50 pounds I lost via watching calories would disagree with you.

No, it wouldn't. Actually read the thing you're quoting and replying to.
posted by IAmUnaware at 1:14 PM on May 23, 2016


Because you don't have to eat a *lot* of a high calorie item to get a good amount of calories in. Nuts are like a million calories, grab a handful and there's several hundred right there. Good for picky eaters or people whose stomachs can't take a lot of volume.

For those who want to reduce their appetite (and thereby the amount they consume), the higher fat content is said to be / experienced by some as fairly satiating.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:15 PM on May 23, 2016


Maybe this:

Lose weight = eat more fat (as a percentage of total calories)
Gain weight = eat more fat (in absolute terms)
posted by paper chromatographologist at 1:15 PM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


Diet advice is like the weather; if you don't like it, don't worry, it'll change.
posted by theora55 at 1:18 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm 6'1" and 140 pounds with a thyroid gland that no one can agree on whether it I s producing too much or too little hormones. How do I gain weight?
posted by gucci mane at 1:21 PM on May 23, 2016


Anyone read the recent follow up with the Greatest Loser contestants and the theory that if you lose a lot of weight quickly, your body's metabolism will kick into a mode where you have to eat much less than another person to keep the weight off? On another note, I've been trying to lose weight for the past year and have lost about twenty pounds. It took a long time to get that far, and the hardest part for me was realizing I could t be drastic and eat nothing but salads, but I still need to kick my own metabolism back into high gear and shrink my stomach so I would be hungry less. Maybe going slow but steady is key here? I still drink beer, eat French fries and bacon and cook with butter. But I only eat a few French fries and spend a lot of time walking and hiking, and finally got my stomach to shrink enough that I'm full quickly. I agree that whole foods are what we should be eating more than anything. But there is such an overload of information about food and dieting, it gets to be so overwhelming that it becomes counterproductive to pursuing a good diet, in my opinion.
posted by branravenraven at 1:25 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


OK but why does every question about "how do I gain weight" get answered with EAT MOAR HEALTHY FATS!! How can that be the answer to both losing and gaining weight - unless it's a spurious variable?
With the way my body is working right now it totally depends on what the fats (healthy or not are combined
with). Fats while also eating sugar and lots of carbs = weight gain. Fats with lower sugar and lower carbs = steady or weight loss depending on the overall calorie count. It seems that it's fat and carbs that does me in, even if I eat lower calories. Not that I can because I'm also the most hungry with this sort of eating.

The best for me it seems is higher fat, protein and lower carbs. I feel the best and am less overall hungry. It's really not bad food wise either. Still can eat lots of yummy. My downfall though is that my absolute best and most favourite foods are high carb and high fat. And OMG there is a fry and burger truck right outside my office door that makes the best poutines ever!
posted by Jalliah at 1:29 PM on May 23, 2016


I thought carbs were the generally accepted answer when you're trying to bulk up...
posted by naju at 1:31 PM on May 23, 2016


I'm 6'1" and 140 pounds with a thyroid gland that no one can agree on whether it I s producing too much or too little hormones. How do I gain weight?

I hear full-fat yogurt is delicious.
posted by R a c h e l at 1:32 PM on May 23, 2016 [5 favorites]


Here's the thing: I've decided to try a low-carb vegan diet for a month or two to see what happens, but believe me, even if I see positive results, it's all personal. I'm not going to do the usual MeFi shit that happens in nutrition threads and barge in and go, BUT THIS WORKED FOR ME SO IT SHOULD WORK FOR EVERYONE LOL

I'll talk to my partner and my GP about what's going on, but it's still gross to come into these threads and say, "This worked for me. If you had a real desire to lose weight, you'd take a page from my book!"
posted by Kitteh at 1:34 PM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


Fats in moderation are good for your weight. Same with protein. Bad are processed sugars, processed carbs.

Where fats hurt one is in arterial sclerosis.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:45 PM on May 23, 2016


good old hippy Nancy's whole milk yogurt is my fav. Rich but also nice and sour.
posted by Mei's lost sandal at 1:47 PM on May 23, 2016


I'm 6'1" and 140 pounds with a thyroid gland that no one can agree on whether it I s producing too much or too little hormones. How do I gain weight?

Have you had a chocolate milk shake with peanut butter yet today? If yes, have another.
posted by The Tensor at 1:48 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


@naju - for bodybuilders, yeah, because most people can eat more carbs without hitting their satiety point. Bodybuilders keep protein and usually fat constant (but sometimes bring fat up as well)

For older people, kids, etc who need to bring weight up, it's usually easier for them to add a spoonful of peanut butter or whatever. Fat has 9 cals a gram, protein and carbs 4 each.
posted by cotton dress sock at 1:48 PM on May 23, 2016


I'm picking on you unnecessarily here, but: for many (most?) people seeking to lose weight, this is just plain not true. I've read story after story, just on MetaFilter, about people who have cut caloric intake to borderline-starvation levels, and it's not making any difference. And I can give you another anecdote from the other direction. During a particularly rough patch in life, I developed a somewhat problematic relationship with alcohol, specifically wine. For months, an average week might see ten empty wine bottles in the recycling bin. That works out to, on average, an extra 6000 calories PER WEEK of excess, on top of already-not-great eating habits. Some back-of-the-envelope math suggests that I should have expected to gain somewhere between 40 and 60 pounds. I never gained a pound. Upon cutting that number drastically, I saw no movement in the other direction, either. I apparently have some sort of metabolic equilibrium around the weight I've been since high school. Which is why it's impossible to take the calorie evangelists all that seriously, because, hey, look, I am walking proof that it's much more complicated than energy in - energy out = delta m.

I came here to post essentially this.

I also had an interesting experience where i was living in a crappy apartment, drinking a lot, and eating huge piles of shared food purchased with EBT. We'd just make big standard meals and cycle through eating pretty much the same thing. Simple stuff like rice + beans/cheese on tortillas, simple stir fry/yakisoba, home made pizzas, costco ravioli with greens and stuff. A mix of stuff you can prepare in huge quantities quickly, and stuff that's cheap to make if you have plenty of time but not very much money. And yea, assloads of cheap beer.

I really should have gained a bunch of weight for similar reasons, but i didn't. However, my roommate eating the exact same portions of the same food who was the same height, a year younger than me, and working out at the school gym gained a bunch of weight.

I gained at most like, a couple pounds. Seriously, less than 5. I think he gained like 30+.

This year, i got out of a long relationship that had gotten super stressful and started eating more and... lost weight. Not a ton, but it's visually noticeable.

There is most definitely a lot more than this that calories in>out, because i've not gained weight when i was laying on my ass playing video games and sucking down beer and food, and i've lost weight while barely exercising and eating more(and higher calorie) food than i previously was.

On preview, in the middle of all that i was trying to "get in shape" and working out at the gym every other day while actively eating better food. Didn't lose any weight, over months. Then i lost weight in like 7-8 weeks after the breakup.

So my anecdata is basically more calories in = no weight gain, and then later on more calories = weight loss back to some equilibrium. The only thing that modulates it much seems to be overall mental/physical health. And this hasn't really changed as i've gotten older. I've also talked to other people who seem to have a "default" weight, with only HUGE changes in diet/lifestyle or major life events effecting it.
posted by emptythought at 1:58 PM on May 23, 2016 [9 favorites]


I keep seeing articles and comments about how diets don't work and how exercise doesn't cause you to lose weight.

But on the other hand, the obesity epidemic has to have a cause, right? Something has to be making us fatter, and removing that cause should reverse or at least stop the problem.

If diets and exercise don't work long term, what are we supposed to do instead?
posted by JDHarper at 2:06 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


The only thing I've learned is that diets that are drastically different from how you currently eat are unsustainable and that they work differently for different people.

So I've decided to just keep eating the same things I'm currently eating, just less. It should be easy to do, since I don't have to learn new recipes, or change my habits. All I'm going to do is make what I normally make, and just slowly reduce the amount that I put on my plate.

I'll report back on how it goes.
posted by domo at 2:19 PM on May 23, 2016 [2 favorites]


> I'm 6'1" and 140 pounds with a thyroid gland that no one can agree on whether it I s producing too much or too little hormones. How do I gain weight?

Work from home, where there's nobody to see what you're eating. Today for lunch I had (spread out over an hour, even I have limits): ahi poke, a chocolate bar, and Ellenos lemon-curd yoghurt. My pelt is sleek and shiny.
posted by The corpse in the library at 2:20 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


I can attest to that. So far today I've had coffee, mozzarella sticks, chocolate-covered frozen banana, and a bunch of baby carrots.

But at least I made sure that my dog ate well.
posted by R a c h e l at 2:33 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


I'm not in nutrition science, but it seems really inherently difficult to me, for the following reasons:
  • Experimental interventions are short-term and don't really reflect the natural environment
  • Way too many variables (genetic variation, individual foods, food preparation methods, food processing methods, macronutrients, micronutrients, other environmental factors...), which may have small effects individually but potentially large effects in aggregate
  • Designing naturalistic studies with enough power is expensive and impractical
  • A lot of the outcomes we care most about (longevity, long health, reductions in cardiovascular disease, sustained weight loss) take literally a lifetime to measure, so people often use other measures like blood markers, but those can be super misleading because they are usually downstream of the thing you really care about (cf statins)
  • Huge popular press market with a mixture of cynical self-promoters and True Believers, both of whom tend to oversimplify, cherry-pick, and overconfidently present the studies that fit their narrative (if indeed they even care about the underlying studies)
  • Heightened level of stigma/shame/moralizing around diet (see also: sexual public health)
posted by en forme de poire at 2:38 PM on May 23, 2016 [14 favorites]


I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the human body is basically intended to work really well until you get eaten by a bear in your mid to late 30s.

Everything after that is like trying to keep a car from the 1960s running: sure, there's a Haynes manual and it's all basic stuff in principle, but it doesn't explain why you get a vapour lock every time you hit 3000 rpm in third with the drivers window open.
posted by cromagnon at 2:42 PM on May 23, 2016 [22 favorites]


Where fats hurt one is in arterial sclerosis.

But is it actually *dietary* fats which result in this in general, especially in 21st-century developed-world populations, when your body produces fat and cholesterol on its own no matter what you eat? My personal experience has been that when I ate a sustained high-fat diet for half a year without even exercising not only did I lose weight but my blood cholesterol and blood triglyceride numbers improved.

No one should take that anecdote as me thinking a high-fat diet is optimal for everyone or even myself. It's just that it was relentlessly drilled into me for my whole life that I had to avoid eating fat at all costs, such that I actually expected my blood numbers to go from slightly-off-target to much worse, and might gain weight, but at the time had decided this was temporarily acceptable to achieve other health objectives; so the experience was like sailing out into the ocean and not falling off the edge of the world.

Hence I think it's important for people to simply know this is a possible result of a high-fat diet for at least one person (or actually many people, judging from similar anecdotes in this thread and elsewhere on MeFi), something which I would never have believed could be true during most of my life and thus may have contributed to screwed-up eating habits.
posted by XMLicious at 2:46 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


The bigger problem is that humans aren't designed to be sitting down for 18 hours a day. If we were sprinting across the savannah hunting down Chicago deep dish pizzas, everybody would be fine. You tear its cheesy burbling guts out with your teeth and clothe yourself in its fine pepperoni pelts.
posted by turbid dahlia at 2:47 PM on May 23, 2016 [32 favorites]


Ok, people. We are in the age of genomics, and every Tom, Dick, and Harriet is getting their genomes sequenced.

Science is starting to see the full story of exactly how much variability there is in the human population. Hint: it's a lot.

What if we all got used to the notion that one metabolism does not fit all?

What if we get used to the notion that there is variability in the processes of metabolism?

We already understand this about the digestability of lactose. Different in different populations; can change for an individual over time (digestable in infancy but becomes intolerable later, which may be childhood or adulthood.)

We understand this about many other kinds of tolerances, allergies, deficiencies related to food and nutrition.

Let's get used to the notion that this same kind of variability is going to be at work in many other aspects of metabolism.

My money is on the story that there is a large minority of the population that dies just fine being lean and healthy in the current high carb food environment in developed nations today. Those are the people who are studied as exemplars and the rest of us try to do what they do. Except my guess (source: PhD biochemistry, work in informatics supporting genomic research) is that the rest of us just have engines that are tweaked by Ma Nature to work in slightly differnt ways.

The fundamental metabolic pathways are well understood and everybody has essentially the same kit. The regulation is a whole other story. Signal transduction is a nightmare of complexity, with redundant and interwoven systems. That's the part where teeny tweaks add up to significantly differnt outcomes.

It's not going to be clear for a long time. It will be a long time til there are diagnostics and clinically actionable outcomes. But in time we will get there. Til then, "this works for me, you might want to try it to" is a pretty damn good thing to offer.

Babies, God damn it, you've got to be kind.
posted by Sublimity at 2:47 PM on May 23, 2016 [12 favorites]


If diets and exercise don't work long term, what are we supposed to do instead?

Smash the cars, restructure our cities, ban HFCS (and other sugars) from most foods, figure out something to do about exploding calories and portions for convenience foods, fix the de facto class and racial segregation of grocery access. But it's much easier to blame epidemic obesity on individuals than industrialized food production. Since it's not as if mass-market food producers want people to buy more product, is it?

Prevention appears to be much easier than attempting to treat adult obesity. So if we took childhood nutrition and pediatric health seriously we could probably save billions of dollars treating adults 50 and 60 years down the road. But that would mean education and health care reform, along with no longer treating the poor as political scapegoats.

But that means treating the obesity pandemic similar to the way we approached cholera and urban lung disease, as systematic failures of industrialization rather than individual stigmata.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 2:49 PM on May 23, 2016 [13 favorites]


Lots of people are very resistant to even the suggestion of policy changes that might infringe on their sense of personal freedom and lifestyle. Same as it was for smoking. And you couldn't find a more direct relationship between causes and effects than that. Food is as emotional as it is political, more.
posted by cotton dress sock at 2:54 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


The healthy ice cream ad is en route to leesh. It's from the March 1927 edition of The Ladie's Home Journal. If she can confirm that it's in the public domain, she says she might scan it and put it online.
posted by aniola at 3:20 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


It's worth noting that the one thing that has never, ever, ever, ever changed in the hundreds of years since we started nutritional research is that a variety of a mix of fresh fruits and vegetables is the cornerstone of a healthy diet.

The vegetables, yeah, but at least here in Japan, the equivalent of the "food pyramid" puts fruits in the "desserts" section.
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:36 PM on May 23, 2016 [7 favorites]



Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
posted by bukvich at 9:10 AM on May 23 [9 favorites +] [!]


I admit that I expected this to be an Onion article along the lines of the Epimenides paradox.
posted by janey47 at 3:38 PM on May 23, 2016


Instead we get a bunch of bullshit that will be interpreted by the casual skimmer and the press as advice to go nuts on bacon and donuts.

Mmmm. Nuts on bacon.
posted by krinklyfig at 3:39 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


These threads do tend to be tiresome, though. Everyone eats, making everyone experts in nutrition for everyone else, much like how everyone went to school, making everyone experts in educational policy.
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:52 PM on May 23, 2016 [4 favorites]


There are promising therapies that would work by adjusting the "hungry" and "full" signals that are behaviorally so powerful. However "promising therapy" in animal trials doesn't mean that much.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 3:53 PM on May 23, 2016


This pairs nicely with the pooping thread.
posted by turbid dahlia at 4:42 PM on May 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


rdone, another factor is that when you eat get fat and protein but very little carbohydrate, you have a much gentler insulin response. Insulin is great for gaining muscle mass if you're training and eating for that purpose, but if you're trying to burn fat, I posit for that the majority of people who struggle with weight, the trick is to minimize the insulin response by controlling carb intake. I've dropped 70lbs in 10 months through all manner of methods, changing it up and embracing the occasional plateau. Besides some early success with juicing to kill cravings in a caloric deficit, most of my success has tied around controlling carbs and the cravings they reinforce.
posted by aydeejones at 4:43 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


My dietary centerpieces currently: meat of all kinds, cheese, greens, broccoli, asparagus, with lots of strategic cheating scheduled around exercise or the weekend and occasional intermittent fasting followed by a low carb lunch on days where I want to see my weight slightly drop. I take it day to day, making some days about loss and others about weight training or recovery.
posted by aydeejones at 4:45 PM on May 23, 2016


Plenty of fruit and other veggies round out my diet, but I'm very ADHD and require a short list of staples I can count on every week.
posted by aydeejones at 4:47 PM on May 23, 2016


I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the human body is basically intended to work really well until you get eaten by a bear in your mid to late 30s.

More complicated story that fits Sublimity's paean to variability: we're a successful species because *most* of us make it to 35 and *some* of us have always made it to 80. We were successful through the changes of the Ice Age Maximum and its recession, and through the wild variability we now induce, *because* we're variable. Whatever the niche is this decade, someone's going to live through it.
posted by clew at 5:59 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


My money is on the story that there is a large minority of the population that dies just fine being lean and healthy in the current high carb food environment in developed nations today. Those are the people who are studied as exemplars and the rest of us try to do what they do. Except my guess (source: PhD biochemistry, work in informatics supporting genomic research) is that the rest of us just have engines that are tweaked by Ma Nature to work in slightly differnt ways.

I would buy this. I have no trouble staying at a fine weight despite drinking craft beer, enjoying huge and greasy artisanal cheeseburgers, and otherwise not eating like I probably should. (That said, I don't eat much processed foods, nor much sugar, so I'd grade my diet as a solid C+, could be better but could be a lot worse.) But plenty of other people have radically different effects from eating the same diet; there's no way that this stuff reduces down to a simplistic "calories in, calories out."
posted by Dip Flash at 7:23 PM on May 23, 2016 [3 favorites]


I think it's also worth considering other environmental impacts beyond food -- despite having a diet mostly composed of Speculoos cookies, the only time so far in my life in which I started to notice I was unintentionally putting on weight was when I was on SSRIs. (And of course the atypical antipsychotics are notorious for causing massive weight gain and metabolic syndrome.)
posted by en forme de poire at 7:41 PM on May 23, 2016


I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that the human body is basically intended to work really well until you get eaten by a bear in your mid to late 30s.

posted by cromagnon


I'm intrigued, and would like to know where you got that great fur suit.
posted by bongo_x at 8:24 PM on May 23, 2016


I've been thinking a fair bit about this over the last month. I lost my sister a month ago. Facebook reminded me that today would have been her birthday. While we probably won't ever know everything that went into the ruling of "natural causes," her obesity and type 2 diabetes are likely factors.

There's a sort of "fitness gospel" in our culture parallel to prosperity gospel that if you put in the work and live virtuously it will show. My sister put in work for control of her weight her entire life. She joined the swim team in high school for the workouts. She bounced back from one medical scare to do a color run. She spent extra money on portion-controlled snacks and meals. She put more work into it than I ever have. She had to because she was also fighting a particularly nasty strain of fat-shaming misogyny as well that made that work more conflicted than my own. Frankly, I had come to admire her lately. On top of taking care of her health, she had become a career badass and the responsible adult child of the family.

My point is that weight management is easy for some people and hard for others. Some people just naturally get the calling to do a marathon, triathlon, or cycling century, and tell us all about it. Others fight their own demons to drop and maintain 5% in a year. That latter fight isn't as visible as throwing a 26.2 sticker on the back of your car.

And part of that fight includes picking and choosing a dietary path, because consistently is key, knowing that someone else will get in your snoot and say, "Pffft, you're eating that? Have you heard about nano-pano?" Which is one of the microaggressions that these clickbaity debates tend to engender.
posted by CBrachyrhynchos at 9:42 PM on May 23, 2016 [20 favorites]


A relevant point regarding high-fat diets improving your bloodwork is that not all fats are equal. Eating 10 avocadoes a day is probably still healthier than eating a single deep-fried fish, even though the former option has far more fat by weight.

Talez:

Fruits and vegetables are great in diets because most of them are three quarters or more water, rich in fibre and protein

Fruits and vegetables have almost no protein.

posted by iffthen at 11:26 PM on May 23, 2016


I wish I could articulate how irrationally angry I am about all of this. For reference, I'm one of the "success stories" if you ONLY consider weight management: after gestational diabetes and post-natal depression I lost half my weight, taking me from 280 pounds to 125 and smack dab in the middle of a healthy BMI and kept it there for more than a year. I have got to a place where my body image is not so destructive and my risk of diabetes is much reduced...but every day I am fighting with the second most powerful biological imperative there is, second only to thirst.

I experienced severe neglect as a child, where there was. no. food. What this has translated to is that if bread comes in a roll or a loaf, I will eat the entire thing. There is no serving size, there is no portion in my head. I have never in my life felt sated. If *I* used intuitive eating, I would eat full cereal boxes and a pizza in one sitting (ask me how I know). But I also know that if I have to monitor food strictly, I start getting obsessive and disordered. So I look for what's worked for people and have to tiptoe through what seems disordered eating, anti-fat-people hysteria, fads and shame. On the other side of the spectrum, I wade through information that suggests I'm not a feminist because I want to stay away from diabetes, that I need to just give up and embrace the fat person I must be on the inside.

None of this helps. So I look to research. But what's right and what's biased and what will help? Seriously, what can I trust? I am so close to giving up and going on Soylent because then I can just stop devoting brain space to this entire nightmare and feel free for once.
posted by katiecat at 3:19 AM on May 24, 2016 [15 favorites]


Giving up and going on Soylent for a holiday from food stress might well be a brilliant idea. I had amazing results from a (medically prescribed) complete liquid diet a few years back and my health's been night and day better since then, especially because my intuition about how food makes me feel has got a much much better baseline.
posted by ambrosen at 4:50 AM on May 24, 2016




Eating 10 avocadoes a day is probably still healthier than eating a single deep-fried fish

But what if my fish is deep-fried in avocado oil?
posted by mayonnaises at 5:22 AM on May 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


The calories in, calories out thing really highlights what's tough about nutrition. It's not really wrong. There is physics at work here and if you can somehow output more energy than you take in, you're a perpetual motion machine.

The problem is that we use all these proxies and approximations to measure the "calories in" and we don't really know much of which matter in our food actually gets converted to energy. There is a bit in the middle that's missing about how changing what and how much you eat has poorly understood effects on your hunger and energy levels affecting your decisions about food. Then, on the "calories out" end, we don't really know how efficiently those calories are used.

So when you have people who massively increased their calorie intake without gaining weight, it's because they didn't really increase the amount of calories they absorbed or used or something else we don't yet understand.

So telling people to decrease the amount of calories in while increasing the calories out is fine advice but how to actually reduce the calories in is actually crazy complicated and highly individual.
posted by VTX at 5:49 AM on May 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


if there was a little site widget that auto-installed a "this is what worked for me personally and i understand that it will not be the same for everyone BUT" preface to everyone's comments in weight loss threads that would be super rad

I feel defensive upon reading this, because there is also a human tendency to assume that people who talk about their personal experiences (especially their experiences of success) are also implicitly implying that everyone should do the same, and judging anyone who hasn't.

So!

I will vote for this widget, if there's also a widget that gives me a gold star for 1) using "I" statements in my comment above, 2) mentioning medical research from peer-reviewed journals (identifying my understanding as that of a "layperson" - which really reflects a very appropriate amount of humility for someone who has worked in medical research for the past 15 years and who has published as first author in a peer-reviewed medical journal), and 3) not in any way suggesting that everyone (or anyone, actually) do what I have done.

Medical research, especially in nutrition but really everywhere, is a big pile of shards of glass on the floor; it is a very big task to put any kind of coherent picture together from a combination of slices and slivers and crumbs of glass. And that's as good as it gets, because of how the scientific method works.
posted by vitabellosi at 6:17 AM on May 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


As I pointed out, other large developed nations have managed this problem, I don't see why its impossible for us to do so as well. And pretty much every single major triumph - from public sanitation works to the outlawing of CFCs to present efforts to halt global warming - was decried by someone or other as a "fantasy" for decades beforehand. But I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.

There are developed nations with lower rates of obesity (in some cases very close to the US, others a fair bit lower), but I am not aware of any developed nation that has successfully transitioned from high rates to low rates of obesity. We don't know for certain what public health interventions would work and what wouldn't, though it is interesting to speculate. It would almost certainly require massive changes to our physical infrastructure, our food systems, and our culture, and I don't see any consensus demanding those changes or even willing to accept them.

So telling people to decrease the amount of calories in while increasing the calories out is fine advice but how to actually reduce the calories in is actually crazy complicated and highly individual.

Leaving aside really unusual situations (the sedentary person eating 20k calories a day, say), I think this is close to useless advice, in that the real issue is calories used versus calories expended, but there's no easy or accurate way to calculate either at home. 1000 calories of ice cream versus 1000 calories of beef stew are going to have different impacts on your body, and on your body versus my body. The raw calorie count of the two foods is probably not the most important number, but it's the only easily tracked number and so we try to use it as a proxy for all the other variables in play.

Honestly at this point I think that our understanding of food and diet are so paltry that in a lot of cases it is the equivalent of going to your local blacksmith for dentistry. I'm not sure what better most people can do other than basically experiment on themselves -- Do I feel healthier eating X or Y? Is eating this way supporting my goals or not? -- and adjust as they go along, since the one size fits all advice serves so many people so poorly.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:23 AM on May 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


All true, Dip Flash.

It would almost certainly require massive changes to our physical infrastructure, our food systems, and our culture, and I don't see any consensus demanding those changes or even willing to accept them.

Truest of true

We don't know for certain what public health interventions would work and what wouldn't, though it is interesting to speculate.

I'm certain, within a confidence interval of [very small confidence interval, invisible interval], that reducing reliance on cars, together with high density / walkability - making it possible for people to walk and bike easily as their means of commuting - would do like (estimate) 30% of the job. And here I am unafraid to use my personal experience to illustrate this; quitting driving and moving to a city like that got rid of 20 pounds with no other changes (none to diet at all) and no conscious effort.

That horse has kind of left the barn, though.
posted by cotton dress sock at 6:38 AM on May 24, 2016 [5 favorites]


(Beyond any food question, non exercise activity has taken a massive, massive hit over the past 40 years or so)
posted by cotton dress sock at 6:40 AM on May 24, 2016 [6 favorites]


Dip Flash, I think we're both arguing towards the same point. While technically true, calories in, calories out is basically useless advice.
posted by VTX at 8:17 AM on May 24, 2016 [1 favorite]


Reading this thread while eating lunch is putting me on a roller coaster of food emotions.
posted by numaner at 9:30 AM on May 24, 2016


People's gut flora and so forth are so different that it's just as much an oversimplification to say "200 calories is identical going through two people's bodies" as it is to say "spending four years at a university is identical for two different people."
posted by DoctorFedora at 3:57 PM on May 24, 2016 [4 favorites]


If you look at pictures from 50 - 100 years ago, people were thinner. They were more active, walking places instead of always driving, and there was little fast food, snack food or junk food. Ice cream used to be an occasional treat. Now, we are inundated with highly processed, sugary, salty, fatty foods that have limited vitamins and fiber. Way more people have sedentary jobs. Most Americans are way less physically active. TV is ever-present. Yes, there was obesity, but it was less frequent.

I now have a very sedentary job and the weight piled on before I really noticed. I'm trying to get active but it's been difficult.
posted by theora55 at 10:30 AM on May 26, 2016


theora55, do you like gardening? I think that might be another thing people did more 50-100 years ago. It's surprisingly active and you can totally lose track of the time in the garden. And it bears fruit!
posted by aniola at 2:42 PM on May 27, 2016


theora55, do you like gardening?

Maybe not the worst pickup line ever, but...
posted by bongo_x at 3:51 PM on May 27, 2016


... but it was worth the pun!
posted by aniola at 7:59 PM on May 27, 2016


50 to 100 years ago

Also they were shorter, lived shorter lives, and were hella smokers. Also, I don't know about your grandparents, but my Midwestern farmer grandparents ate terribly. Meat and potatoes and cream and no veggies.
posted by Existential Dread at 12:08 PM on May 28, 2016


The thing with fruits, especially, is that, overtime, agribusiness has bred sweeter and larger fruits, so it's not enough to just say "well, fruits and vegetables have always been healthy!" We're not eating the same fruits my grandparents were eating even in the 1930s.

Here's a link to what fruits and vegetables looked like before selective breeding and genetic modification.
posted by vitabellosi at 7:53 AM on June 23, 2016 [1 favorite]


« Older XXxTP   |   Draw Two. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments