Training & Nutrition - Any food fallacies you fell for?

I talked myself into a nasty one. I was sharing a large house with 6 other people who were mostly into health food. A couple of them were a bit extreme about it. Sugar was one thing they didn't like.

I was told 'A chocolate bar picks you up and gives you more energy at first, but then it lets you back down and you have to pay for it after.' I had an occasional chocolate bar in those days, and neither of those things had ever happened to me, so that didn't seem to make a lot of sense.

Besides that, even the protein from a steak has to become glucose before the body can use it as fuel. I decided there was nothing wrong with sugar.

When the net came along, I read that exercise is the main thing. If you are getting enough of that, your body will tear the nutrients out of almost anything. That sounded good to me. Now it seems obvious that it isn't true.

A years later my supermarket had regular clearance sales on chocolate. I liked chocolate and after holidays like valentines day, the prices would be about 10 cents on the dollar. I started stocking up.

It took a couple of years of damage before I realized that too much sugar does do nasty things. Now I don't even go near it.

Sounds to me like you fell for the extemes of everything - and still are. Moderation is the truth. - TF

Nothing really. There is a use for just about every sort of food, excluding man made fats. IMHO

Moderation in everything, save moderation.

Chocolate itself is okay. It's adding the sugar to it that's a problem (as in milk chocolate). If you eat high cocoa content chocolate (like 93% or something), you can do so relatively guilt free. It tastes like unsweetened baker's chocolate (basically the same thing), but you can get used to the lack of sweetness and still indulge your chocolate cravings (which are different than sugar cravings).

For years I was a low-fat fanatic. But now I have done some reading on the subject and have seen the light. You have to eat fat to get lean. (Pass the bacon!)

Low fat usually equates to replacing fat with sugar or a sugar substitute in many products. Low fat is a terrible diet IMHO

Low fat usually equates to replacing fat with sugar or a sugar substitute in many products. Low fat is a terrible diet IMHO

Exactly right.

Low fat from the standpoint of replacing the fat with other things to make food palatable is bad. Low fat in terms of selecting lean meats, etc., is good. Lean Canadian bacon is better for you than bacon.

I eat full fat dairy products only. Fit as a fiddle.
Anyhow as for lean meats,
<--vegetarian

Whatever works :thumb:

This isn't helpful, but I kinda wish you'd posted this thread under "Falling For Food Fallacies." :D

I fell for a food fad saying sugar does do nasty things.

As everyone said, moderation. Moderation doesn't only mean not eating too much - it also means not eating too little. I got into a ridiculous habit of eating uber healthy (tons of veggies, chicken breasts, barely any oil, no sweets) and after a few months I was doing terrible. No really - I had little energy, my legs were consistently hurting during rides etc. I since stopped being a healthnut and eating normally - I'll actually fry my eggs in wee bit of butter, put cheese on my sandwiches, have the occasional muffin with coffee at a cafe, enjoy the burger, and get like a handful of chips or nuts if I'm hungry between meals. And I've actually been doing much better, with feeling fuller, having more energy, and improved biking performance. And my weight has stayed where it is too!

I fell for the low fat trap. Doing much better now that I just eat a balanced diet with fat.

I fell for the low fat trap.

Me too.. twice. I lost weight both times (I was religiously counting calories too), but I was hungry and cranky all the time. I never felt full, even right after eating.

I fell for the zero sugar diet and lost 30 lbs. in a year.

Edit: sorry, not a fallacy at all.

I fell for a food fad saying sugar does do nasty things.

As everyone said, moderation. Moderation doesn't only mean not eating too much - it also means not eating too little. I got into a ridiculous habit of eating uber healthy (tons of veggies, chicken breasts, barely any oil, no sweets) and after a few months I was doing terrible. No really - I had little energy, my legs were consistently hurting during rides etc. I since stopped being a healthnut and eating normally - I'll actually fry my eggs in wee bit of butter, put cheese on my sandwiches, have the occasional muffin with coffee at a cafe, enjoy the burger, and get like a handful of chips or nuts if I'm hungry between meals. And I've actually been doing much better, with feeling fuller, having more energy, and improved biking performance. And my weight has stayed where it is too!

Not to be churlish, but paragraph one does not match paragraph two. You say you fell for a food fad saying sugar does nasty things (suggesting sugar does not do these nasty things), but then you go on to say that your previous idea of healthy food was low fat, and then you give examples of things you eat now that are an improvement, and it is all fat. Frying your eggs in butter, cheese on sandwiches, handful of chips or nuts, muffin with coffee, enjoying the burger - we are talking about fat here. Not sugar, except maybe in the muffin. But muffins are generally more fat than sugar.

Read what almost every other post in the thread is saying. Fat is important and necessary, and it is true, a common and pernicious health misconception is that eating fat makes you fat. Not true. There are better and worse fats, but good fats are an important and necessary part of any diet, and they do a better job of making you feel full than ... well, sugars.

But to move on, "sugar does nasty things". Yes and no. I suspect that what you mean is "refined sugar does nasty things" - the white stuff that comes in a bag. All carbs will become sugar, and this becomes glycogen, which is critical to providing fuel for our muscles and brains. Muscles can use fat as an energy source, but the brain requires glycogen, and glycogen only. Fruit is chock full of sugars, but this sugar comes with fiber and a whole load of micronutrients, so it is not such a big problem. Even some sweeteners like molasses are mostly sugar, but still have some redeeming food value (ie molasses is very high in iron).

Refined sugar is a different story. In moderation it is not the end of the world, but the point that has been made in this thread is that "low-fat" diets usually mean more sugars, which is counter-productive. Refined sugar is very problematic - off the top of my head it wrecks havoc on the digestive system (in particular digestive flora) (see for example http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1379072/) and it suppresses the immune system (see http://www.askdrsears.com/topics/family-nutrition/sugar/harmful-effects-excess-sugar - okay this is not a peer- reviewed article, but it is written by a very reputable pediatrician, and it is scientifically informed - using google I am sure you can turn up a number of peer-reviewed articles supporting the point).

That said, I do have an unhealthy love of drinking coke and eating desserts. And there are some times that sugar laden foods and drinks are not so bad - like in the middle of a century, when my body is burning through fuel like crazy. But for the most part, yes, refined sugar does indeed do nasty things.

Eating healthy is not necessarily low fat. First of all eating healthy starts with not eating more calories than you need, so that you don't become fat yourself. Problem with dietary fat is that it is very calorie dense, making it very easy to overeat.
So if you are trying to loose weight and don't exercise too much, fat is something to watch out for as you should be looking for food with relatively little calories that still satisfy your hunger.
A right amount of protein is more or less fixed, depending on if you are trying to remain at the same weight, loose fat or grow muscle that can be more or less protein. The choice of diet is then actually all about what to do with the remaining calories you need, how to spread it over fat and carbs. And this is where you can actually go any way you like, the only thing is that certain people might react badly to an extreme diet with e.g. almost no carbs. That could leave them feeling tired with no energy.

I recently heard that in JAMA, fish oil capsules do very little.

Eating healthy is not necessarily low fat. First of all eating healthy starts with not eating more calories than you need, so that you don't become fat yourself. Problem with dietary fat is that it is very calorie dense, making it very easy to overeat.
So if you are trying to loose weight and don't exercise too much, fat is something to watch out for as you should be looking for food with relatively little calories that still satisfy your hunger.
A right amount of protein is more or less fixed, depending on if you are trying to remain at the same weight, loose fat or grow muscle that can be more or less protein. The choice of diet is then actually all about what to do with the remaining calories you need, how to spread it over fat and carbs. And this is where you can actually go any way you like, the only thing is that certain people might react badly to an extreme diet with e.g. almost no carbs. That could leave them feeling tired with no energy.

+1

The professor who ate a junk food diet (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diet/articles/2010/11/09/health-buzz-junk-food-diet-helped-nutrition-professor-shed-pounds-2), lost weight and improved his health proved that. The key is finding what works for your body.

I tried every diet under the sun when I was younger: cutting out carbs, cutting back on sugar, fasting with only liquids, you name it. About 15 years ago I got tired of it and decided to not deny myself anything, but pay attention to portion control. I also stopped eating when I felt about 80% full and didn't eat until I was stuffed.

It took over a year for the behavior modification to become permanent. Now I don't even think about it anymore and my weight has stayed steady for 15 years.

+1

The professor who ate a junk food diet (http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-fitness/diet/articles/2010/11/09/health-buzz-junk-food-diet-helped-nutrition-professor-shed-pounds-2), lost weight and improved his health proved that. The key is finding what works for your body.
I remember reading about a study where they compared the reaction of your body to eating junk food and regular food, while keeping the macro nutrients the same. And the result was, no difference. But junk food is designed to make you eat more, so there is a very large correlation between BMI and eating junk food regularly.

A funny story is how McD had to close their newly opened store in a small town in Italy. Local kids just prefered the freshly home cooked meals.

Low fat usually equates to replacing fat with sugar or a sugar substitute in many products. Low fat is a terrible diet IMHO

Yep ... and yet Weight Watchers fell for the whole low fat thing when it was in fashion. I read some the ingredients lists on their "low fat" foods and was horrified by the amount of sugar in the stuff.

Yep ... and yet Weight Watchers fell for the whole low fat thing when it was in fashion. I read some the ingredients lists on their "low fat" foods and was horrified by the amount of sugar in the stuff.

That's why you also should always keep your thinking cap on and reed the food label to see where the Calories are coming from. There is the "Low Fat" marketing trick you mention, but there are also many product where low fat means that you can have a tasty alternative with less Calories or a good source of protein with less Calories from fat. Canadian bacon for example or low fat (cream) cheese come to mind.

That's why you also should always keep your thinking cap on and reed the food label to see where the Calories are coming from. There is the "Low Fat" marketing trick you mention, but there are also many product where low fat means that you can have a tasty alternative with less Calories or a good source of protein with less Calories from fat. Canadian bacon for example or low fat (cream) cheese come to mind.


Low fat doesn't necessarily mean less calories. That was the thing about the Weight Watchers food of several years ago. When they packed it with sugar, the calorie content was quite high ... probably the same as it would have been if they had left some fat in, and possibly higher. Some of the Weight Watchers food choices were higher in calories than other "non-diet" products.

Low fat doesn't necessarily mean less calories. That was the thing about the Weight Watchers food of several years ago. When they packed it with sugar, the calorie content was quite high ... probably the same as it would have been if they had left some fat in, and possibly higher. Some of the Weight Watchers food choices were higher in calories than other "non-diet" products.
Well, maybe it was good advice at that time, untill the food industry caught on and started producing low fat high sugar products to please the masses.

Low fat doesn't necessarily mean less calories. That was the thing about the Weight Watchers food of several years ago. When they packed it with sugar, the calorie content was quite high ... probably the same as it would have been if they had left some fat in, and possibly higher. Some of the Weight Watchers food choices were higher in calories than other "non-diet" products.

and the kicker is, fat is more filling than sugar, so even at the same "caloric" content it was probably a worse choice!

I ate 30-40% of my diet last winter in fats, 30% protein, and the rest complex carbs. I couldn't keep weight on to save my life and dropped from 155-140 without trying. I doubt that would work for everyone and it may speak more towards my simple carb addiction than anything but at long last I know what works for me.

I ate 30-40% of my diet last winter in fats, 30% protein, and the rest complex carbs. I couldn't keep weight on to save my life and dropped from 155-140 without trying. I doubt that would work for everyone and it may speak more towards my simple carb addiction than anything but at long last I know what works for me.
That sounds like a good balanced diet. If anything, on the high side for protein, assuming a 2200 Cal diet that would give 165g of protein per day. What protein source do you use, thought you wrote somewhere else to be vegetarian?

I recently heard that in JAMA, fish oil capsules do very little.
I've been taking one capsule a day. Really don't know if it is helping any or not, but my blood pressure is down. (I attribute most of that to the cycling and weight loss, however)

That sounds like a good balanced diet. If anything, on the high side for protein, assuming a 2200 Cal diet that would give 165g of protein per day. What protein source do you use, thought you wrote somewhere else to be vegetarian?

Whey protein, nuts, rice, beans, edemame, and cottage cheese to name a few. The protein part is rather difficult.
I started strength training again and I am struggling to hit 15% without Whey and my body feels awful. Time to start taking it again.

Whey protein, nuts, rice, beans, edemame, and cottage cheese to name a few. The protein part is rather difficult.
I started strength training again and I am struggling to hit 15% without Whey and my body feels awful. Time to start taking it again.
Yea, chicken breast, tuna and lean beef sure make it easier to hit the target.
I assume you mean that from strength training the Cal requirement goes up and it becomes more difficult to hit a certain protein percentage. But it should only be the abolute protein amount in grams that you should be worried about...

I did that ultra low fat thing way back when it first became popular way back when. Thought it was great until my nails all broke off and my hair started falling out. Never again. The absolute dumbest part--I didn't need to lose weight in the first place. I was just young and stupid. Oh well, live and learn.

Yea, chicken breast, tuna and lean beef sure make it easier to hit the target.
I assume you mean that from strength training the Cal requirement goes up and it becomes more difficult to hit a certain protein percentage. But it should only be the abolute protein amount in grams that you should be worried about...

With the amount I rode during race season my calorie requirements now are static if not a tad lower with strength training in the off season. Like you said, the absolute protein amount is more important. However, in retrospect I should have maintained the protein supplement during race season.

Organic = better or even tastes better

Nutrient wise not really was the finding of the last study I read. I still prefer to get my food out of my garden and the local farmers market, but I do not think that I am doing yself any extra favors when it has an organic sticker on it.

Nutrient wise not really was the finding of the last study I read. I still prefer to get my food out of my garden and the local farmers market, but I do not think that I am doing yself any extra favors when it has an organic sticker on it.

If you read more carefully, you would have also seen that non-organic food also had measurably higher levels of toxins from pesticides.

To be clear, these levels of pesticide-derived toxins were within legal limits, but then again, thalidomide was not supposed to cause birth defects. Oh, and when my son was born a bit over 5 years ago, we were big weirdos for searching for baby bottles without bisphenol A in them - within legal limits and all that. Well, that was true, but when he was a toddler, all of a sudden, bisphenol A is banned in Canada for toxicity. Did bisphenol A suddenly become more toxic over night? Of course not, but the government reviewed the evidence as revised their guidelines. Given how frequently we are wrong on what counts as "harmless", is it not better to limit exposure to toxins as much as possible?

There is, of course, a limit to this, we still have to live in this world, but to claim that there is no health difference between organic and non-organic is not quite accurate.

If you read more carefully, you would have also seen that non-organic food also had measurably higher levels of toxins from pesticides.

To be clear, these levels of pesticide-derived toxins were within legal limits, but then again, thalidomide was not supposed to cause birth defects. Oh, and when my son was born a bit over 5 years ago, we were big weirdos for searching for baby bottles without bisphenol A in them - within legal limits and all that. Well, that was true, but when he was a toddler, all of a sudden, bisphenol A is banned in Canada for toxicity. Did bisphenol A suddenly become more toxic over night? Of course not, but the government reviewed the evidence as revised their guidelines. Given how frequently we are wrong on what counts as "harmless", is it not better to limit exposure to toxins as much as possible?

There is, of course, a limit to this, we still have to live in this world, but to claim that there is no health difference between organic and non-organic is not quite accurate.

It is, hence why I like to eat out of my garden and local farmer markets...

This isn't helpful, but I kinda wish you'd posted this thread under "Falling For Food Fallacies." :D

Topic titles are difficult for me. The original and your alternative both have 'food fallacies' in them. Close enough :)

Feel free to post anything interesting that you didn't fall for, but someone else did. We had a coffee break on a construction job when someone asked 'what was the dumbest thing you ever did on the job?' Most of the stories were about seeing someone else do something dumb, but it was the funniest coffee break we ever had.


I fell for the zero sugar diet and lost 30 lbs. in a year.

Edit: sorry, not a fallacy at all.

Nice to hear.