Food science in general is as corrupt as it gets, with the vast majority of research funded by and favorable to agriculture businesses. Even stuff that we take for granted as healthy, such as fruit and vegetables, often have their benefits massively overstated by the companies that stand to benefit by such proclamations of health.
The area has been an absolute miserable failure in its obstensible goals, making us healthy. The western world has been pretty diligent about following the recommendations of the food scientists, especially around eliminating saturated fat, and the results have been a complete and utter disaster. Yet we continue to listen to the exact same people hashing the exact same advice as the population continues to get fatter, sicker, and die sooner.
I don't understand. You're saying a diet based around fruits and vegetables is unhealthy and favourable to the agriculture business but saturated fats are ok?
If the food industry doesn't fund research, are we better off with none at all?
Yes, individual vegetables and products matter relatively little compared to balanced eating. But saying this guide isn't useful is factually incorrect.
Its an improvement over the previous guide. That makes it useful. It tells people to eat more veggies. That makes it useful.
Unfortunately we live in a world with imperfect information and while it's not the perfect guide for everyone, no gude ever will be.
The biggest issue with your rant is simply that you're complaining needlessly without offering a useful alternative.
You've made some obviously incorrect statements. The fact is that people are living longer, and dying of "sicknesses" they wouldn't live long enough to reach in the past. America hasnt one so well on those metrics, but the world as a whole has significantly improved.
In the Pork and apple skillet dinner[1], they recommend using canola oil, a recommendation one doesn't see all that often. With canola oil having been engineered in Canada, is it an oil of choice for Canadians?
All the vegetable oil I buy here in the UK is actually 100% canola oil. You have to look at the ingredients list to realise it since it's just labeled as vegetable oil.
I'm surprised you don't see that recommendation often. It's a very cheap, versatile cooking oil. I wouldn't say it's anyone's favourite, but it's effectively the default?
Milk is a huge deal in the US, the dairy farmers association has it engrained in every American that they need milk and only milk for calcium - never mind broccoli, almonds, figs, sardines, etc., in fact they go through great pains to not mention alternate sources of calcium. It only works because so much of the US population is lactose tolerant.
Calcium in milk is also not bio-available once it’s been homogenized, because it’s stripped out of its protective fat layer and expose to lactose which binds to it in a way that humans can’t undo on our own.
Milk is a fantastic source of calcium, when you don’t mess with it too much. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s evolved specifically to grow mammals up to full size as quickly as possible, which includes growing a lot of bone. The issue is that we’ve monkeyed with it in a way that’s convenient for producers, but bad for consumers.
Do you have anything to back that statement up?
https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-...
Food science in general is as corrupt as it gets, with the vast majority of research funded by and favorable to agriculture businesses. Even stuff that we take for granted as healthy, such as fruit and vegetables, often have their benefits massively overstated by the companies that stand to benefit by such proclamations of health.
The area has been an absolute miserable failure in its obstensible goals, making us healthy. The western world has been pretty diligent about following the recommendations of the food scientists, especially around eliminating saturated fat, and the results have been a complete and utter disaster. Yet we continue to listen to the exact same people hashing the exact same advice as the population continues to get fatter, sicker, and die sooner.
I don't understand. You're saying a diet based around fruits and vegetables is unhealthy and favourable to the agriculture business but saturated fats are ok?
What a tail spin.
2 replies →
If the food industry doesn't fund research, are we better off with none at all?
Yes, individual vegetables and products matter relatively little compared to balanced eating. But saying this guide isn't useful is factually incorrect.
Its an improvement over the previous guide. That makes it useful. It tells people to eat more veggies. That makes it useful.
Unfortunately we live in a world with imperfect information and while it's not the perfect guide for everyone, no gude ever will be.
The biggest issue with your rant is simply that you're complaining needlessly without offering a useful alternative.
You've made some obviously incorrect statements. The fact is that people are living longer, and dying of "sicknesses" they wouldn't live long enough to reach in the past. America hasnt one so well on those metrics, but the world as a whole has significantly improved.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=World+wide+life+expectancy+trend
In the Pork and apple skillet dinner[1], they recommend using canola oil, a recommendation one doesn't see all that often. With canola oil having been engineered in Canada, is it an oil of choice for Canadians?
[1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-...
I'd say canola is the default oil if you need fat that has little to no flavour itself in a recipe.
All the vegetable oil I buy here in the UK is actually 100% canola oil. You have to look at the ingredients list to realise it since it's just labeled as vegetable oil.
I'm surprised you don't see that recommendation often. It's a very cheap, versatile cooking oil. I wouldn't say it's anyone's favourite, but it's effectively the default?
No? At least where I'm from, the default is sunflower oil and if you want to upgrade its olive oil. I've never heard of canola oil
1 reply →
Because it’s awful for your health?
Such as?
Milk is a huge deal in the US, the dairy farmers association has it engrained in every American that they need milk and only milk for calcium - never mind broccoli, almonds, figs, sardines, etc., in fact they go through great pains to not mention alternate sources of calcium. It only works because so much of the US population is lactose tolerant.
One might argue we are lactose tolerant because of the ridiculous amount of lobbying they did in the 50s and 60s.
Calcium in milk is also not bio-available once it’s been homogenized, because it’s stripped out of its protective fat layer and expose to lactose which binds to it in a way that humans can’t undo on our own.
Milk is a fantastic source of calcium, when you don’t mess with it too much. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s evolved specifically to grow mammals up to full size as quickly as possible, which includes growing a lot of bone. The issue is that we’ve monkeyed with it in a way that’s convenient for producers, but bad for consumers.
2 replies →