Althouse: The healthiest diet...

October 22, 2014

The healthiest diet...

"... isn't a specific diet at all. It's the absence of a diet."

18 comments:

traditionalguy said...: Please pass the cake and cookies.; 10/22/14, 11:03 AM
Known Unknown said...: C'mon. This needs a 'no shit' tag. Really.; 10/22/14, 11:05 AM
carrie said...: So, being a little overweight beginning in middle age has no impact on life span. I always thought it was natural to gain weight in middle age and that the current weight charts are wrong when it comes to determining what is overweight as you get older and I hope they change the stupid BMI charts to reflect that--especially if they start basing health insurance premiums on your BMI.; 10/22/14, 11:13 AM
George M. Spencer said...: I'd love to see a photograph of the Sidwell Friends School lunch (where the Obama's children go) side-by-side with the abysmal school lunch photos that are making the rounds; 10/22/14, 11:16 AM
jr565 said...: But then someone will make a diet and call it the Lack of Diet Diet. And then it's a diet.; 10/22/14, 11:39 AM
Hunter said...: This story seems like it's trying a bit too hard to be contrarian. Health science, for all its past faults and mistakes, still shows pretty definitively that certain things (leafy greens, EFAs) are good for us and certain other things (sugar, trans fat) are bad for us.

I see two particular things going on here. First, they are saying that none of the named diets (paleo, vegan, South Beach etc) are the perfect diet. Most people know that. But we can certainly say some diets are better than others -- those that consist of more good things and less bad things. We have plenty of reason to believe that a paleo diet is better than a diet heavy in junk food, regardless of whether or not it is the perfect diet (or whether any such thing exists). And not only are some diets better than others, but among the "better" diets some are easier to adhere to over the long term than are others.

Second, they cite people over the age of 90 and that most reached this age without holding to "restrictive" diets. But that is a subjective term. The majority of people born in the 20s may not find simple home-cooked meals of mostly meat and vegetables, and infrequent small portions of dessert to be "restrictive" if that's what they have always been used to. For others, it takes great effort to start eating that way when all they've known before is convenience and over-indulgence.; 10/22/14, 11:45 AM
BarrySanders20 said...: The researchers found that up two drinks a day -- no matter the type -- was associated with a 10-15% reduced risk of death.

The science is settled.

Don't be a science denier.; 10/22/14, 11:51 AM
D.D. Driver said...: We have have about 5x the rate of diabetes now than in the late 50s... None of that is attributable to diet?

It's not helpful to say that any hypothetical diet could be hypothetically "just fine" for someone.; 10/22/14, 12:11 PM
Joe said...: Sugar is not bad for us. In fact, it's a required nutrient. Your brain runs on sugar and oxygen. If you don't consume sugar, your body converts it for you. The anti-sugar crusade is bullshit.

Fact is genuine health science has a lot to say, but is mostly ignored in favor of pop-health science, which is mostly bullshit.

For example, the claims that specific foods are highly beneficial almost always fall apart when studied in a valid scientific way. Unfortunately, it takes years or never for that news to get out.

One of the more surprising discoveries is that aside from correcting specific deficiencies, vitamin supplements are a waste of money and mega dose vitamins can actually do great harm.; 10/22/14, 1:29 PM
Brando said...: My suggestion is eating whatever you want, when you want, in any quantity. Then exercise constantly. I find making yourself diet is miserable and depressing. However, when you're working out a lot you automatically become more picky about what you eat, because you measure the food against the amount of work you have to do to burn it off. Do you really need french fries, if it means running for an hour?; 10/22/14, 1:57 PM
WillowViney said...: 'The anti-sugar crusade is bullshit.'

That crusade saved my life. My diabetes was totally out of control (A1C was 13). I cut sugar and carbs from my diet and everything changed. I dropped 80lbs and basically reversed my diabetes without drugs. Low-carb really does work.; 10/22/14, 2:25 PM
Hunter said...: Joe said...
Sugar is not bad for us. In fact, it's a required nutrient. Your brain runs on sugar and oxygen. If you don't consume sugar, your body converts it for you. The anti-sugar crusade is bullshit.

Glucose, yes. That's completely separate from dietary sucrose and fructose. As you said yourself the human body can synthesize glucose -- we do not need to eat sugar for that.

Pop science/real science distinctions notwithstanding, there is little disagreement that consuming sugar, especially in the large quantities that many of us do (~150 lbs per year for the average American) causes various health problems.; 10/22/14, 3:02 PM
Mark O said...: I want to know what Methuselah ate.; 10/22/14, 4:31 PM
n.n said...: Carbohydrates have a base nutritional value, and excess is in proportion to your circumstantial individual requirements. Ironically, the average human body, with an average load, is better off consuming more fat and protein than carbohydrates. And don't forget the cholesterol for a natural precursor of Vitamin D.; 10/22/14, 8:30 PM
madAsHell said...: I'm surprised that our hostess linked to an article with no substance.; 10/22/14, 9:59 PM
madAsHell said...: I want to know what Methuselah ate.

He preferred to eat at the Y.

I'll be here all week....try the veal!!; 10/22/14, 10:00 PM
Joe said...: First, saying "I have a disease and did this, therefore that proves what people should do" is so absurd, I can't believe you wrote that.

I had my gallbladder removed. It alleviated a lot of pain ergo, everyone should have their gallbladder removed.

Second, research has shown that most people consume a diet of about 55% carbs, 30% fat and 15% protein. Furthermore, they show that Americans aren't consuming a hugely lopsided amount of sugar and carbohydrates. What they are doing is simply eating more. Period. The war on sugar is bullshit and will harm people just as the war on fat did and is still doing.

Interestingly, a very well done study of diets found that the best, by a large margin, was Weight Watchers. Their point system is very simple and makes it easy to a) have a balanced diet and b) not eat too much. (Interestingly, Weight Watchers give zero points to fresh fruits, which, gasp, contain lots of carbs and sugar.)

BTW, also read up on Chris Voigt's potato only diet. It really skewers the carbs are bad nonsense.; 10/22/14, 11:30 PM
D.D. Driver said...: First, saying "I have a disease and did this, therefore that proves what people should do" is so absurd, I can't believe you wrote that.

Except that millions and millions of folks develop type 2, and obesity, and you are unlikely to find many serious nutritionists that don't believe that sugar and simple starches are bad for you (even among the pro-vegan nutjobs).

One other correction: your brain can also run on ketones if you are on a very low carb diet.; 10/23/14, 6:30 PM