# Last thirty years of nutritional advice is bunkum



## Smurfy (14 Feb 2015)

An interesting read. Fortunately I've already been stuffing my face with dark chocolate for years 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodandd...bacon-sandwich-what-you-can-and-cant-eat.html


----------



## Ian H (14 Feb 2015)

Unfortunately the next thirty years of nutritional advice will be no more useful.


----------



## Pro Tour Punditry (14 Feb 2015)

I have spent the last 30 years catching up on the advice given in the 1600s.


----------



## Drago (14 Feb 2015)

For the last 40 years I've eaten kebabs for breakfast and I'm a mighty hunk of muscled manliness.


----------



## Smurfy (14 Feb 2015)

Drago said:


> For the last 40 years I've eaten kebabs for breakfast and I'm a mighty hunk of muscled manliness.


Supposed to be lamb, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few bonuses have been slipped in.


----------



## Joshua Plumtree (15 Feb 2015)

No mention of rum and raisin ice cream. Guess that's me safe for another 30 years!


----------



## jefmcg (15 Feb 2015)

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJopF6WJNw


----------



## Travs (15 Feb 2015)

That article is already a little sensationalist at times. First paragraph: People who don't eat low fat are at less risk of diabetes. Isn't that because its well known that low fat usually means more sugar?
I was always under the impression that anything of 4% fat and below was considered low fat. Oh, just like full-fat mik!? Hardly the drink of satan but if its in a mag, its got to be believed...


----------



## ColinJ (15 Feb 2015)

jefmcg said:


> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFJopF6WJNw



Well remembered!

Woody Allen in the days when I thought he was funny-amusing, before I came to the conclusion that he was funny-creepy ...


----------



## Hitchington (15 Feb 2015)

YellowTim said:


> An interesting read. Fortunately I've already been stuffing my face with dark chocolate for years
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodandd...bacon-sandwich-what-you-can-and-cant-eat.html


But its newspapers like The Telegraph and Daily Mail that sensationally print all these health fads and food scares on a regular basis. e.g "Biscuits Give You Cancer" or "EU Bananas Give You the Gay"


----------



## Travs (15 Feb 2015)

Lol - I don't doubt where any articles have come from. Generally if it has't come from a medical journal, its likely to have been reworded, which, in itself, is risky.


----------



## Julia9054 (15 Feb 2015)

As I understand it, the BMJ article states that government advice regarding fat intake since the 1980s was handed out without robust evidence. That is different from saying that it was wrong.


----------



## Travs (15 Feb 2015)

Its not the definition of incorrect but a trusted source publishing what amounts to hearsay as health advice is still pretty irresponsible


----------



## MikeW-71 (15 Feb 2015)

I have never paid any attention to these things anyway.


----------



## Fab Foodie (15 Feb 2015)

Some of us have been trying to tell people this stuff for the last 25 odd years against the popular fashion advice of the day .... I feel mildly vindicated.


----------



## Racing roadkill (16 Feb 2015)

Taking generic nutritional advice as 'one size fits all' gospel, is never going to be a good idea. Nutritional advice needs to be tailored to the individual.


----------



## Drago (16 Feb 2015)

YellowTim said:


> Supposed to be lamb, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few bonuses have been slipped in.


Funny you say that. The Jehovahs were round the other day. I'd have sent them packing with a dose of birdshot, but the woman was a gorgeous bit of eye candy.

Anyway, they were telling me the reason youngsters grow so tall is because the growth hormones pumped into cattle find their way into the human food chain. Dunno if its true or not.


----------



## sidevalve (16 Feb 2015)

It's all total fantasy. If the scientists just admitted they hadn't got a clue we could all respect them a bit more. TBH I'm waiting until they decide that the ciggies are a cure for cancer.


----------



## Julia9054 (16 Feb 2015)

The problem is that it is very difficult to do randomised controlled trials on the effects of aspects of people's diet. There are too many other factors to take into account and people lie/misremember.


----------



## battered (16 Feb 2015)

The Jehovahs? So you take your nutrition advice from people who believe that the world was created and that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as mammals? Their scientific knowledge is bang up to date then, so good luck with that one. Oh, and if I ever need a blood transfusion and can't speak then the answer is "yes please doctor, O pos, whenever you think it's necessary".


----------



## Travs (16 Feb 2015)

battered said:


> So you take your nutrition advice from people who believe that the world was created and that dinosaurs roamed the earth at the same time as mammals? Their scientific knowledge is bang up to date then".



On the flip side of that coin, there is nothing to say that just because someone has religious (or other) belief, that they can't read up on scientific research and quote that.
I have no idea whether its true or not and I'm not putting myself on a side of the fence , but if it helps whatever message they want to spread, it doesn't automatically make it rubbish.


----------



## Wafer (16 Feb 2015)

Sensationalist article about something that isn't brand new but there does seem to be more and more evidence supporting it.

It's seems the Low GI idea, which has been around for 10+years at the very least is gaining more traction/being proven to be more healthy.

A book published last year called the Big Fat Surprise http://thebigfatsurprise.com/ is meant to be very good, covering a lot of the research and what it means for the advice we've been given for a long time.

Another cookbook I picked up recently has various information in it talking about how some of the commonly recommended/popular diets can actually be worse for your health than not dieting at all. The Atkins style no/low carbs is good for short term weight loss, bad for long term health etc...


----------



## clid61 (16 Feb 2015)

Eat and drink what you want , exercise more than or equal to your intake, Bingo ! . Im no rocket scientist either , Im Joe Public


----------



## Racing roadkill (16 Feb 2015)

clid61 said:


> Eat and drink what you want , exercise more than or equal to your intake, Bingo ! . Im no rocket scientist either , Im Joe Public



Unfortunately, it's really not as simple as calories in vs calories out. One particular complication comes from the hierarchy which is placed upon the stuff going in by the body's complex biological systems. For one example; Alcohol is a poison, and is dealt with as such by the body. This means all other sources of calories are put on the 'back burner' whilst the alcohol is dealt with. Just after a ride your metabolic rate will be increased, so if you have a couple of scoops with a big meal, after a ride, the alcohol will be dealt with, whilst your M.R. is still relatively high. The rest of the intake will go on hold, until your M.R. has fallen off a bit, and bingo, you've skewed the equation. If you do what I've described often enough, although it looks (on paper) like you'll have a calorie deficit, you could well see your weight increasing (unless the deficit is a few thousand calories).


----------



## clid61 (16 Feb 2015)

Racing roadkill said:


> Unfortunately, it's really not as simple as calories in vs calories out. One particular complication comes from the hierarchy which is placed upon the stuff going in by the body's complex biological systems. For one example; Alcohol is a poison, and is dealt with as such by the body. This means all other sources of calories are put on the 'back burner' whilst the alcohol is dealt with. Just after a ride your metabolic rate will be increased, so if you have a couple of scoops with a big meal, after a ride, the alcohol will be dealt with, whilst your M.R. is still relatively high. The rest of the intake will go on hold, until your M.R. has fallen off a bit, and bingo, you've skewed the equation. If you do what I've described often enough, although it looks (on paper) like you'll have a calorie deficit, you could well see your weight increasing (unless the deficit is a few thousand calories).



Yeah youre right , but i didnt mean living off white lightening cider and greggs !


----------



## Wafer (16 Feb 2015)

clid61 said:


> Yeah youre right , but i didnt mean living off white lightening cider and greggs !


You could also live off 'low fat' foods and find yourself worse off than someone avoiding 'low fat' foods. So it's not about living off Greggs or not. Not all calories are equal. It is a bit more like rocket science considering part of it is about how quickly different things are 'burnt'.


----------



## clid61 (16 Feb 2015)

Wafer said:


> You could also live off 'low fat' foods and find yourself worse off than someone avoiding 'low fat' foods. So it's not about living off Greggs or not. Not all calories are equal. It is a bit more like rocket science considering part of it is about how quickly different things are 'burnt'.




Yeah I know , sweeping statement sorry ! please dont burn me at the stake !


----------



## tyred (17 Feb 2015)

SImple rule of healthy living - if it tastes nice, it's probably bad for you. If it's horrible, it's probably good for you.


----------



## Julia9054 (17 Feb 2015)

Eat what you want and what you think you should.
Don't eat too much of either.
Get out on your bike in the fresh air as often as you can.
Wear sunscreen.
I should write a book!


----------



## ColinJ (17 Feb 2015)

Julia9054 said:


> Eat what you want and what you think you should.
> Don't eat too much of either.
> Get out on your bike in the fresh air as often as you can.
> Wear sunscreen.
> I should write a book!


The trouble is that many people want to eat junk food and think they should. They also don't think that eating it two or three times a day is eating too much of it. And lying for 6 hours in the sun with a few blobs of factor 15 probably isn't going to save their skin either!


----------



## subaqua (17 Feb 2015)

ColinJ said:


> The trouble is that many people want to eat junk food and think they should. They also don't think that eating it two or three times a day is eating too much of it. And lying for 6 hours in the sun with a few blobs of factor 15 probably isn't going to save their skin either!



I am not going to watch the program on fat kids on channel 4 . I can't afford a new telly and it will have things thrown at it based on the soundbites from the trailers for it.

the dad blaming the supermarkets and manufacturers for making and selling the junk food almost had me put a boot through the box. No mate its you buying it for your kids and letting em gorge on it . that's the problem .

sadly people seem to have forgotten what balanced diet means. and don't realise that low fat stuff has oodles of sugar put in to give the taste back and it isn't fat that's the bad thing it is the sugar. yes there are bad fats but nobody eats lard or butter like sweets do they ( I suppose depends on how you make pies )


----------



## Hitchington (18 Feb 2015)

Just remember to breath and you can't go wrong


----------



## jefmcg (22 Feb 2015)

Julia9054 said:


> Eat what you want and what you think you should.
> Don't eat too much of either.
> Get out on your bike in the fresh air as often as you can.
> Wear sunscreen.
> I should write a book!


Someone's beaten you to it.



> *Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants*





> “If it came from a plant, eat it. If it was made in a plant, don’t.”
> “Cook. Cooking for yourself takes back control of your diet.”
> “No snacks, no seconds, no sweets – except on days that start with S.”
> “Don’t get your fuel from the same place your car does. Don’t shop for your food at a petrol station.”
> ...


----------



## Stonechat (22 Feb 2015)

Hands off my bacon sarney!


----------



## albion (22 Feb 2015)

subaqua said:


> I am not going to watch the program on fat kids on channel 4..



Channel is becoming more and more a modern day circus.


----------



## suzeworld (11 Mar 2015)

The usual sort of "all or nothing" reportage of healthy eating issues really incenses me. It encourages the fatalistic notion that "nothing is know", so we might as well ignore it all and not bother trying to be healthy Where as in fact the content of this article is much better than its headline, and does have some good facts in it

The one thing they miss out is that there is a causal link between eating lots of meat and bowel cancer. There IS. Like there is for smoking and lung cancer. Yes, some ppl "get away with it". But doing it increases your risk if you have other predisposing factors.

I don't eat much meat now. I have had bowel cancer. Do not want it again

My charity, Beating Bowel Cancer is supporting this Meat Free Week.
You might be interested:

https://uk.meatfreeweek.org/home


----------



## Travs (11 Mar 2015)

Interesting - is this both white as well as red meat?
Glad you got over it incidentally.


----------



## suzeworld (12 Mar 2015)

Travs said:


> Interesting - is this both white as well as red meat?
> Glad you got over it incidentally.


Ta! Either a miracle or a combo of amazing good luck with my very strict anti-cancer lifestyle in years since diagnosis and prognosis of being told I was incurable!! 

As to yr question ... Tbh I Dunno, think the research is mainly on red meat. Think the main problem is the sheer volume of it.

But I skip both types. Mainly when eating out and see chicken on menu I assume it is some ghastly factory farmed stuff. That puts me off, in itself. I have just got totally into the habit of cooking veggie meals at home, so do not think of meals based on any sort of meat. 

Cured meats are particularly carcinogenic generally. Btw. They have known that for years. 

Bit more about it here:
https://www.beatingbowelcancer.org/news/jan2012/processed-meat-and-cancer-latest-research


----------

