[Villages PL]

I'm noticing more and more that dietitians are little more than mediators between the theoretical "best" diet and the theoretical "worst" diet. There is no right and wrong anymore. And it appears as though this is what we got on the front page of yesterday's Daily Sun Lifestyle section. Headline: "Think before you drink, empty calories often lurk in popular beverages." (3-26-13)

In this article they stated that the average American consumes 22.2 teaspoons of sugar per day. (That's 355 calories.) Now, you'd think the advice would be to not consume ANY refined sugar. If sugar is bad for your health, stop eating it altogether, right? No, that would be too easy, too logical and absolute. No, we can't have that, we must 1) be open minded 2) non-judgemental and 3) keep sugar addiction alive and well. It's the new relativism of the diet world.

Therefore, we got the following advice: The average American woman should not exceed 6 teaspoons of sugar per day and the average man should not exceed 9.

Also, after reading all the recommendations, one might almost get the impression that it's okay to drink all of one's nutrients: There's low-fat milk for protein, calcium and vitamin D, 100% vegetable juice, limited amounts of fruit juice, chocolate milk, sports drinks, diet soda, coffee, tea and alcohol. Phew!

In trying to mediate between the "best" and "worst" dietary practices, they thereby seek to manage our health demise. (i.e., stave off disease and death by eating less junk.)

One good thing: At least they didn't say that milk builds strong bones. If the dairy industry can't convince the FDA of that, I don't think USF will be able to either. But USF can and does say it legally through an extension agent, whereas the dairy industry can't say it themselves.

My opinion: For part of the reason why USF dietitions recommend what they do, follow the money (i.e., possible research money from the food industry). Can USF make the claim that they don't get any money from the food industry? And, if they do, can they make dietary recommendations without being inflluenced my money?

If they do get money from the food industry, do you think we should know about it? Or do you think it's none of our business?

[Moderator]

Please address the topic and not each other. If you have no interest or opinion on the topic, simply ignore it.

[rubicon]

You and I agree that the prime motivator for much of this diet talk is money. It explains why today something is bad or good but suddenly it is not.

[2BNTV]

If one doesn't eat what is healthy for them, they should consider the need to be eucated about what foods is on the good side of eating. Nothing or no one is perfect.

Those of us with type II diabetes must curtail our input of sugar as well processed foods. Everyone who has diabetes must follow a strict regiment unless they want problems. Of course a person might indulge themselves for a special occasion.

It's always about following the money. I found out in my younger days it was more expensive to go on a diet because most good choices were invariably more expensive. Caveat is, "I don't cook".

Now, one would do well to have several small meals a day as opposed to three fairly big meals, It is called a lifestyle chandge as opppossed to a diet.

Diet is the word die with a T added to it. Most diets don't work in my opinion as most people will revert to their original eating habits. A lifestyle change will force you to look at one's eating habit and portion control. You eat just enough to make it to the next meal and gives your body a chance to burn off calories. When you eat a heavy meal, the calories add up as they won't be burned off unless you exercise vigorously

We Americans eat too much and the best exercise is a push-away from the dinner table. What is considered good one day is sometimes disputed as not being good down the road. We all make choices and hopefully, we choose the right one.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by rubicon

You and I agree that the prime motivator for much of this diet talk is money. It explains why today something is bad or good but suddenly it is not.

Yes, people often think about the coffee debate. There were reports of it being bad and then reports of it being good. I tend to believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think it has both good and bad health aspects to it and it just depends on who's doing the research. If the coffee industry is funding the research, they will be looking for the good qualities of coffee and they will find them. If it's a beverage competitor funding the research, they will look for the bad qualities and they will find them.

I think there are some studies that show people live longer if they drink about two cups per day. I think the reason is that the average coffee drinker doesn't like healthy non-starchy vegetables. They eat few healthy vegetables and therefore don't get enough antioxidants in their system. In that case coffee makes up for it by providing some antioxidants.

I believe the bad side is that coffee is thought to put an acid load on the body and that could cause calcium to be leached out. And if coffee is taking the place of vegetables, the opportunity is lost to have more fiber. And then there's the stimulant issue.

And the same could be true of other foods because many food items have both good and bad qualities. It just takes a lot of work figure out what works best when money is involved and not all research can be trusted.

[Cantwaittoarrive]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

Yes, people often think about the coffee debate. There were reports of it being bad and then reports of it being good. I tend to believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. I think it has both good and bad health aspects to it and it just depends on who's doing the research. If the coffee industry is funding the research, they will be looking for the good qualities of coffee and they will find them. If it's a beverage competitor funding the research, they will look for the bad qualities and they will find them.

I think there are some studies that show people live longer if they drink about two cups per day. I think the reason is that the average coffee drinker doesn't like healthy non-starchy vegetables. They eat few healthy vegetables and therefore don't get enough antioxidants in their system. In that case coffee makes up for it by providing some antioxidants.

I believe the bad side is that coffee is thought to put an acid load on the body and that could cause calcium to be leached out. And if coffee is taking the place of vegetables, the opportunity is lost to have more fiber. And then there's the stimulant issue.

And the same could be true of other foods because many food items have both good and bad qualities. It just takes a lot of work figure out what works best when money is involved and not all research can be trusted.

For once we agree when you say the truth is" somewhere in the middle" I also agree with follow the money statement. I think it is impossible for anyone to say that something is healthy or not healthy everyone is unique and has some differences in their gut bacteria, genetics and many other factors. I do believe that most whole unprocessed food is healthy in a general sense but there is no food that can be called "healthy" for 100% of the population without exception. The key is to know your numbers and pay attention to changes in your numbers and I'm only talking about nutrition and not taken in to account the amount of activity (exercise) someone may get or exposure to toxins in the environment

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Cantwaittoarrive

I think it is impossible for anyone to say that something is healthy or not healthy everyone is unique and has some differences in their gut bacteria, genetics and many other factors. I do believe that most whole unprocessed food is healthy in a general sense but there is no food that can be called "healthy" for 100% of the population without exception.

Basically, we are in agreement. When I say something is good for health, I never mean it for 100% of the population. I always hope that people can figure that out for themselves, using common sense. An extreme example: There's a woman in The Villages who gets all of her nutrition from a feeding tube because she has some rare condition. Obviously, she can't eat any the high fibre foods that I recommend to promote good health. However, despite the exceptions, I still think there is a generally accepted healthy diet for the average person.

As far as bad foods, I think there are many and I don't worry about the rare exceptions. Here's a rare exception: Someone is adrift in the middle of the ocean (lost at sea) and all they have is a six pack of soda. In that case, is soda good or bad? In that case soda is good because it's better than nothing. But it's not my job to figure out all the rare exceptions. I just promote a healthy diet for the average person.

In general, processed foods, as you seem to suggest, do not promote good health and there is a long list of them.