8 Things Nutrition Experts Wish You Would Stop Saying About Food
- Thread starter GotGarlic
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that enjoys cooking.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
I agree with all 8.
+1, 110%
Sir_Loin_of_Beef
Chef Extraordinaire
I agree with all except number 7. Breakfast IS the most important meal of the day because it is the food that gets your metabolism started after your longest fasting period, unless of course you are in the habit of getting up in the middle of the night for a snack and a beverage on a regular basis. It also gives you direction for what you will be eating the rest of the day. Doughnuts for breakfast usually results in high sugar, high carb meals and snacks the rest of the day, while oatmeal or eggs normally results in balanced meals for lunch and supper and healthy snacks in between.
I enthusiastically agree with number 1 ,and every time someone tells me they can't eat something I prepared at work because they are 'cleansing' I make sure to tell them that the only thing getting cleaned out is their wallet, and I do not care whom I piss off when I tell them this. I've told this to the owners of the company where I consult as well as several of the employees, and I've told them more than once because my knowledge and expertise in matters of health, exercise and nutrition is one of the things they pay me for.
I enthusiastically agree with number 1 ,and every time someone tells me they can't eat something I prepared at work because they are 'cleansing' I make sure to tell them that the only thing getting cleaned out is their wallet, and I do not care whom I piss off when I tell them this. I've told this to the owners of the company where I consult as well as several of the employees, and I've told them more than once because my knowledge and expertise in matters of health, exercise and nutrition is one of the things they pay me for.
De-tox, as explained in the article, should be totally eliminated from dietary/health suggestions. It does belong in hospitals where it can save someone's life.
" Detoxification treatments are medical procedures that are not casually selected from a menu of alternative health treatments, or pulled off the shelf in the pharmacy. Real detoxification is provided in hospitals when there are life-threatening circumstances."
The Detox Scam: How to spot it, and how to avoid it « Science-Based Medicine
Depending on what is being 'de-toxed' the procedure is sometimes fraught with problems and certainly needs the over-sight of a doctor or medical person.
Although not mentioned the Huff. article 'supporting the Immune System' is another scam unless the person does have something as severe as AIDS.
"Be skeptical
Many products on store shelves claim to boost or support immunity. But the concept of boosting immunity actually makes little sense scientifically. In fact, boosting the number of cells in your body — immune cells or others — is not necessarily a good thing. For example, athletes who engage in “blood doping” — pumping blood into their systems to boost their number of blood cells and enhance their performance — run the risk of strokes.
Attempting to boost the cells of the immune system is especially complicated because there are so many different kinds of cells in the immune system that respond to so many different microbes in so many ways. Which cells should you boost, and to what number? So far, scientists do not know the answer. "
How to boost your immune system : Harvard Health Publications - Harvard Health Publications
OP
OP
GotGarlic
Chef Extraordinaire
Yes, clearly this article isn't talking about actual, serious disease. My poor brother's wife put him through a five-day detox cleanse of drinking ridiculously overpriced bottles of some sort of vitamin water (which is another scam; it's cheaper to buy a bottle of multivitamins and drink tap water).
Boosting immunity is also a stupid idea if the person's problem is an autoimmune disease, caused by an overactive immune system. But the writer just chose the top eight. How those were selected I don't know and I don't think it really matters to the point.
Boosting immunity is also a stupid idea if the person's problem is an autoimmune disease, caused by an overactive immune system. But the writer just chose the top eight. How those were selected I don't know and I don't think it really matters to the point.
Last edited:
Somebunny
Executive Chef
I just shared this on Facebook, because I'm so tired of people making others feel bad for eating something that they consider "bad". Just bullying IMO.
I had to tell the cardiology PA to stop being a bully about the food I eat. 95% of the time I eat correctly for my multiple maladies, but some days, I just have to have fried chicken with the skin and potatoes! May not be good for my heart, but it is good for ME!
Andy M.
Certified Pretend Chef
To be perfectly honest, I have stopped paying any attention to the constant barrage of "good for you/bad for you" claims. I do find them interesting in an amusing way.
Remember Newton's Third Law of Motion - For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I apply a paraphrase of that to "good for you/bad for you" claims. If some self important guy in a white lab coat announces that Food X is bad for you, there will soon be another guy claiming he was wrong and that Food X is good for you.
Remember Newton's Third Law of Motion - For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I apply a paraphrase of that to "good for you/bad for you" claims. If some self important guy in a white lab coat announces that Food X is bad for you, there will soon be another guy claiming he was wrong and that Food X is good for you.
GLC
Head Chef
A pretty astute nutritionist points out that people coerced into a task do poorly on the task. And that people who harp on others to eat this, eat that, do this, do that, to eat less of that, eat more of that, are trying to coerce behavior in which the rantor appears to have no stake. She also points out that (1) the eating behavior they are trying to coerce is not a particularly fun way to eat, and (2) even if it were, the coercion renders it not fun. Naturally people do poorly, quickly abandoning the behavior or negating it by cheating.
Of course, the rantors do have an interest, but it's not a healthy interest. It becomes moral territory, and moral territory is more vigorously defended than any other kind - and with fewer scruples. It is indeed bullying, justified by the rantor as being beneficial. There's no bigger bully than someone trying to force their morality on others, unless it's one who is trying to force their morality on you to do you good, and the more they fail, the wilder-eyed their rants become.
Bully Bloomberg's attempt to limit soft drink serving sizes was doomed, even had the law not been knocked down as simply having not sufficient valid governmental interest. It bolstered his marking of his moral territory but like most such efforts, ultimately fails. People may not have good bulls**t detectors, but they have hair trigger sensitivity to perceived attacks on freedoms, and they resent others trying to mark them as being within some moral fold by p**sing on them. And they will simply drink two, instead of one serving. (No doubt supported by offers of "two for one" or free refills by the food service folks who have a better grasp of human behavior than does Bloomberg.)
Our nutritionist asserts that the only valid advice is, "Eat what you like and as much as you like." But wait. Won't people say, "Well, I like MoonPies, lots and lots of MoonPies." Sure. Some will. No doubt about it. But, you know. That guy who habitually ate lots of MoonPies before you coerced him into salads and baked chicken with the skin off will, before long, be back on the MoonPie Express. So, what's up?
If I say, "Eat things you like, and eat as much of that stuff as you like. Go ahead. It's fine with me. In fact, it's none of my business. You get to eat exactly the way you want." If you say, "By golly, I will! It IS my business, not yours, and I will indeed do as I please." What of that?
But you may well pause and ask, "Hold on. You're the nutritionist. Won't all that eating what I like and lots of it make me fat?" My answer is, "Very likely, but I'm just saying that you get to say, with no coercion from me." Will you not likely ask next, "Well, I do like this stuff? How much can I eat of it without getting real fat?" Okay. Now were off. You've taken responsibility for your own behavior and have asked from reliable information on keeping it from hurting you. Irresponsibility and dumba** are costly and about equally incurable. Always was. Always will be.
Now, this is not the advice you give children. They don't have the experience. They're by definition not responsible adults. And very young children can't even tell reality from fantasy. You have to show them that you can eat what you like AND that you can do it in such a way that it doesn't hurt you. And yes, you have to coerce them from time to time when thry try to climb on the MoonPie Express.
But adults who will eat themselves silly will, if coerced into tiny portions of uninspiring, low-fat, low carb, low salt, low taste food, also return to eating themselves silly after a while. But those who are prepared to take responsibility won't be repelled by the bullying of those who stick their big nutritionist (or pretend nutritionist) noses where they weren't invited.
Are 44-ounce Big Gasp drinks bad? Of course. We could definitely do well without them. Are triple-meat HungerLusters bad? Yeah, pretty much no one needs the things. But are the here? Is the plate going to stay 12 inches across? Sure. It's never going back to the 1950's 10 inches. So there's a challenge and a responsibility to take up, each for himself, 'cause you can't get the megaburgers, giant sodas, and supersize plates off the street. But you can't negate their effect by carping coercion. Doesn't work.
Of course, the rantors do have an interest, but it's not a healthy interest. It becomes moral territory, and moral territory is more vigorously defended than any other kind - and with fewer scruples. It is indeed bullying, justified by the rantor as being beneficial. There's no bigger bully than someone trying to force their morality on others, unless it's one who is trying to force their morality on you to do you good, and the more they fail, the wilder-eyed their rants become.
Bully Bloomberg's attempt to limit soft drink serving sizes was doomed, even had the law not been knocked down as simply having not sufficient valid governmental interest. It bolstered his marking of his moral territory but like most such efforts, ultimately fails. People may not have good bulls**t detectors, but they have hair trigger sensitivity to perceived attacks on freedoms, and they resent others trying to mark them as being within some moral fold by p**sing on them. And they will simply drink two, instead of one serving. (No doubt supported by offers of "two for one" or free refills by the food service folks who have a better grasp of human behavior than does Bloomberg.)
Our nutritionist asserts that the only valid advice is, "Eat what you like and as much as you like." But wait. Won't people say, "Well, I like MoonPies, lots and lots of MoonPies." Sure. Some will. No doubt about it. But, you know. That guy who habitually ate lots of MoonPies before you coerced him into salads and baked chicken with the skin off will, before long, be back on the MoonPie Express. So, what's up?
If I say, "Eat things you like, and eat as much of that stuff as you like. Go ahead. It's fine with me. In fact, it's none of my business. You get to eat exactly the way you want." If you say, "By golly, I will! It IS my business, not yours, and I will indeed do as I please." What of that?
But you may well pause and ask, "Hold on. You're the nutritionist. Won't all that eating what I like and lots of it make me fat?" My answer is, "Very likely, but I'm just saying that you get to say, with no coercion from me." Will you not likely ask next, "Well, I do like this stuff? How much can I eat of it without getting real fat?" Okay. Now were off. You've taken responsibility for your own behavior and have asked from reliable information on keeping it from hurting you. Irresponsibility and dumba** are costly and about equally incurable. Always was. Always will be.
Now, this is not the advice you give children. They don't have the experience. They're by definition not responsible adults. And very young children can't even tell reality from fantasy. You have to show them that you can eat what you like AND that you can do it in such a way that it doesn't hurt you. And yes, you have to coerce them from time to time when thry try to climb on the MoonPie Express.
But adults who will eat themselves silly will, if coerced into tiny portions of uninspiring, low-fat, low carb, low salt, low taste food, also return to eating themselves silly after a while. But those who are prepared to take responsibility won't be repelled by the bullying of those who stick their big nutritionist (or pretend nutritionist) noses where they weren't invited.
Are 44-ounce Big Gasp drinks bad? Of course. We could definitely do well without them. Are triple-meat HungerLusters bad? Yeah, pretty much no one needs the things. But are the here? Is the plate going to stay 12 inches across? Sure. It's never going back to the 1950's 10 inches. So there's a challenge and a responsibility to take up, each for himself, 'cause you can't get the megaburgers, giant sodas, and supersize plates off the street. But you can't negate their effect by carping coercion. Doesn't work.
bakechef
Executive Chef
I agree with every one.
I'm so tired of people telling me that X is bad for me, based on something they heard or read on facebook, or based on a current fad. I'm going to make up my own mind based on my own research, thank you very much. I have many opinions like, I feel that there is growing evidence that artificial sweeteners are bad news, but I'm certainly not going to lecture someone on the "evils" of artificial sweeteners, I'm not a qualified expert, and if I were, I doubt that I'd do it.
Marketing drives me nuts. Packaging and commercials exist to mislead consumers in most cases. Look at how many products like potato chips have switched to packaging that looks like craft paper, matte finish with muted colors like moss green to look more "natural". How many products contain the word "artisan" which is supposed to mean hand made in small batches, not mass produced crackers.
All common sense has been taken out of food choices and replaced with pure confusion.
I'm so tired of people telling me that X is bad for me, based on something they heard or read on facebook, or based on a current fad. I'm going to make up my own mind based on my own research, thank you very much. I have many opinions like, I feel that there is growing evidence that artificial sweeteners are bad news, but I'm certainly not going to lecture someone on the "evils" of artificial sweeteners, I'm not a qualified expert, and if I were, I doubt that I'd do it.
Marketing drives me nuts. Packaging and commercials exist to mislead consumers in most cases. Look at how many products like potato chips have switched to packaging that looks like craft paper, matte finish with muted colors like moss green to look more "natural". How many products contain the word "artisan" which is supposed to mean hand made in small batches, not mass produced crackers.
All common sense has been taken out of food choices and replaced with pure confusion.
