To go back to my example, this is like saying "well the Civic is even cheaper than the (tax-subsidized) Vanquish, why don't people buy that?" It's not that options aren't out there that are even cheaper per cal, it's that the subsidized option has the advantages that you listed, and isn't as expensive as it should be. My argument isn't that the Kraft Dinner only wins in the price per cal category, it's that it's only a choice because of its artificially low price per cal. Force that mom to pay the actual cost of the dinner, and she'll figure out how to cook a **** potato, and her kids will figure out how to eat it.Cliff Stamp wrote: It is about cost sure, but it isn't just cost. If you look at lowest cost items per calorie, then it is dominated (depends on area) by things like potato and beans. Locally you can buy 50 lbs of potato for as low as $5, even not on sale 10 lbs is routinely ~$2.50.
Umm...I believe I included a gif as well.Cliff Stamp wrote:That is the response to multiple peer reviewed studies?...except for the entire American population.
I know my answer was flip, but it does sum up how I feel. I'll expound:
Since we've accepted that performance enhancing drugs "dominate modern performance," lets play a little game. Refute the following statements:
Based on peer reviewed studies, there is no clear evidence that testosterone supplementation will increase the number of home runs a player can hit.
Based on peer reviewed studies, there is no clear evidence that testosterone supplementation will decrease the time it takes you to run 400m.
So why are all these athletes just wildly experimenting with protocols that aren't supported by peer reviewed studies?!
Because the mechanisms are known, the results are obvious, and the evidence all around us, peer reviewed or not. These things aren't studied for political/moral/irrational reasons, but that doesn't make them true. I would argue that the same could be said about macronutrient ratios in the diet. It was recommended that they skew towards carbohydrates. That recommendation was followed. The mechanisms are known. These are the results all around us.
Why doesn't that show up in the particular studies noted? Maybe it does, and an inappropriate conclusion was drawn. Or maybe something in the minutiae of the design prevented it from being revealed. Maybe the subjects were absolutely miserable on their self-imposed calorie restriction, and when they ate less carbs they felt less miserable on the same number of calories, but reporting that wasn't part of the study.
I don't have the time or inclination to do a thorough review of all studies available in nutrition. I don't walk around all day stroking my beard musing about the studies and the science and what I can say with 100% certainty that a study will back me up. I'll leave that to academia, God save them. I work daily with actual people who want real actionable advice that will change their health and fitness for the better. They don't necessarily live and breathe fitness. Many are in relatively high-powered jobs that take a toll on their health as it is. We see repeatedly that when macronutrients become more balanced (protein/carbs close to 1:1), satiety goes up, total calorie intake stabilizes or goes down without imposed restrictions, and markers for health improve. They do this by reducing their carb intake, often by cutting out most grains, yes even the heart-healthy whole ones. They increase protein and fat, and their arteries remain magically unclogged. Maybe I live in some nexus that makes this outlandish and unsupported recommendation work, who knows.
Obviously my trainees are exercising as well, but if you're not going to do some sort of physical activity, arguing about what your diet should contain is like arguing what octane gas this car should use:
To be totally clear:
-I'm not arguing against continued research or saying all research is worthless, however it is of limited utility for an individual (which we all are).
-I'm still of the mind that every diet is individualized, and there are many ways to skin a cat.
-I think that no ingredient can possibly carry the qualities of "healthy" or "unhealthy" but rather the part they play in the whole may be a good or a bad choice.
-As such, it follows that one can include whole grains in a diet that supports their health and fitness goals, however the same could be said about Mountain Dew, so this is a completely worthless statement to draw any general conclusions from.
-I recognize the difficulty of making a one size fits all recommendation for all Americans to follow.
-I think that the current recommendations have created a fear of fat, salt, and calories in general, which, as it happens, are all necessary for life. This has led us down a path of poor dietary decisions in the form of increased carbohydrate intake, especially in the form of grains, which are refined carbohydrates, and caused us to eschew natural foods. The reasons for this are various, but the effect is metabolic derangement.
-I think the incentive structure set up by subsidizing grains is exacerbating the issues noted, which in part explains why the poorest segments of society are getting the worst of the "first world" diseases, which would otherwise be counter-intuitive.
-I think the modification of the recommendation to include "whole" grains is, at the absolute best, a half-measure, which serves to maintain the status quo more than anything else.
-I think when looking at the recommendations, or the studies included, one needs to acknowledge the massive conflict of interest inherent in the organization tasked with making these recommendations.