Nutrition is like, the <i>worst</i> field of medical research, and that's saying something. All of the hallmarks of typical medical research (studies sponsored by interested parties, non-repeatable results, tiny sample sizes, contradictory health recommendations, lack of properly controlled experimentation, etc.) are present in nutrition, but turned up to eleven. Future generations will lump the nutrition advice with which we struggle to survive, in with bloodletting and snake oil.<p>No, I don't see a way around any of this. Lots of money is spent on food, and will be for the foreseeable future.
Also, don't forget that the food pyramid is defined by the Department of Agriculture (whose job it is to sell food and maintain food surplus) and not the Department of Health and Human Services (whose job it is to pay for all the trillions in health issues resulting from the billions in subsidies).<p>The calorie is a calorie argument is old and dumb. It ignores insulin which is a <i>BIG</i> deal. It also ignores that high blood sugar can cause a temporary endorphin rush. Ever hear anyone talk about a "protein high" or "fat high"?
I wish they'd quit misusing the word "nutritionist". The word has no value whatsoever. If you want to call yourself a nutritionist, go ahead. Nobody will stop you.<p>The protected professional designation is "dietitian". When the NYT calls out "nutritionists", I have no idea who they're talking about.
Completely anecdotal - I've decided to give up refined sugar for 2017, especially coke (I was drinking a can every two days or so in late 2016).<p>So I lasted until today, Jan 18th, when I had a small bottle of Sprite. (In my defense, I was at a restaurant using the wi-fi and had to order <i>something</i>).<p>Within five minutes my heart rate was through the roof, I had the shakes and felt really, really lightheaded. It lasted at least three hours.<p>Wow. Three weeks without sugar and then ONE drink did that to me. Now I'm ten times more motivated to never have one again.
Look at the mirror. Big Sugar' best ally is not the nutritionist but the average American consumer.<p>Between a fruit or a chocolate bar at identical prices, the vast majority of Americans will choose the chocolate bar. Most people will scoff at eating only veggies, whole grains, legumes, fruits (aka Mediterranean style diet). They will cheat and get their sweets, sugar and refined bakery products, even knowing the evidence.<p>Sugar (or bad food) is an addiction. It's not about nutritionists or scientific evidence, it's about having enough mental strength to stay away from bad foods.
Give this game a try :-)
<a href="http://howmuchsugar.in" rel="nofollow">http://howmuchsugar.in</a><p>Also if you want to increase transparency for nutrition, consider contributing to Open Food Facts (we need Perl, Android, iOS volunteers and barcode scanners to help)
<a href="https://world.openfoodfacts.org" rel="nofollow">https://world.openfoodfacts.org</a>
<a href="https://github.com/openfoodfacts" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/openfoodfacts</a>
It's bizarre to me that he goes out of his way to say it's just okay for the sugar magnates to promote sugar with junk science but it was really nefarious for some researchers to promote a nuanced view, especially when they were often relying on published studies promoted or financed by the sugar industry. This is a weird form of muckraking, exonerating the sartorial and lambasting the professional.<p>Are we really to think that the American diet is so unhealthy because of the opinions of unknown dietitians and researchers? Was Fred Stare ever a household name? (Maybe Fred Astaire). Or is it more likely that the manipulation of the diet to use more salt, more sugar, more oils and thus more food, is really the problem. Authorities have been saying for plenty of time to avoid sugar, overeating, processed foods and sedentary lifestyles.[1] This isn't a new thing. Taubes and similar authors act like they discovered a conspiracy among scientists and thought leaders to make Americans sick, but it just doesn't add up. The obvious culprit has been food processors' desire for growth the whole time, and that was visible at least 40 years ago.<p>1. <i>Healthy People: The Surgeon General’s Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention</i>, 1979. <a href="https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBGK.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/NNBBGK.pdf</a>
It is totally strange that anybody can think cal. is a cal. We proved otherwise so many times.<p>People can eat the same amount of cals that are diffrently processed for various reasons:<p>- Insulin resistence<p>- Specific cancers<p>- Thyroid disfunction<p>- Level of amylaze expression (how good we absorb complex carbs)<p>- Microbiota status<p>- Even viruses (<a href="https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mysterious-virus-cause-obesity/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/2016/12/mysterious-virus-cause-obesity...</a>)<p>In all casses people/animals did eat the same amount of food and got different amounts of fat.<p>Since anybody is in a differerent biochemical spot here the default should actually be that cal. is NOT a cal, depending on your (meta/epi)genetics.<p>Any proffessional claiming otherwise should find another job IMO. I use this claim as a marker for incompetence.
One often overlooked factor of obesity is how fast you eat. The feeling of having eaten enough comes with a delay. So the faster you eat (in calories per second), the more likely you are overeating. And calories per second are typically much higher with sugary food than with say vegetables.
No surprises here. Sad truth is that science isn't driven by the search for objective truth. Rather, research funding determines which way the scientific literature will sway.
Big Sugar's biggest allies in the US were, historically, the United States senators from Hawaii. To buy them off, Congress long ago applied nasty import duties on the substance, tripling the price of sugar in the US and giving rise to the substitute we all know and love to hate, high fructose corn syrup. (Not that sugar is actually healthier for you at all, mind you.)<p>It looks like they might actually be getting out of the business, though. Good luck on replacing the corn syrup now that the Midwestern corn states are their own lobby...
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionist#Regulation_of_the_title_.22nutritionist.22" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutritionist#Regulation_of_the...</a><p>A demonstration of the ease in which it is possible to become an accredited nutritionist can be seen in Dr Ben Goldacre's successful application to have his dead cat Hettie accredited as a certified professional member of the American Association of Nutritional Consultants.
Yep. Most all of the "low fat" and "reduced fat" foods pushed by nutritionists contain more added sugar than their fat-laden counterparts.
>Another way to say this is that what we eat doesn’t matter; it’s only how much<p>The big, glaring, obvious problem with this is "how much you eat is the only thing that determines weight gain/loss" doesn't imply that what you eat doesn't matter. What you eat can easily change how much you eat; it's much easier to consume a giant pile of calories if it's a cake than if it's spinach.
Does it really matter that much if one calorie is not exactly equal to one calorie? What seems immediately obvious is that sugar is less filling per calorie than almost anything else, and thus if you eat sugary foods you'll end up eating more calories.<p>The only way to prevent this is to count precisely with an app or something, which is obviously a big challenge for most people.
It's a food industry problem, not just a sugar problem. I'm supposed to believe a company like ConAgra is being manipulated by the sugar lobby?