A kind of cracker?

Macronutrient grams to calories of energy to ounces of servings to percentage of bad-stuff is a real disservice to everyone... not sure how to fix it entirely. The information is there but it's clumsy

Another thing to consider. They put such a high emphasis on eating more meat and dairy, but we Americans already eat tons of meat and dairy. Much more than the rest of the world, especially meats.


And then you got this, but this really isn't anything new, it's par for the course, I'm not even sure it's worth mentioning, but I hate how money gets in everything, so here it is...I didn't copy the whole thing, just the title and opening statement.

https://www.pcrm.org/news/news-relea...dustry-doctors

Given the amount of recreational drug use I would say a majority know what a gram is.

Here is 22 grams of saturated fat (10% of 2 000 kcal) that I shared with my gf, coming from 2 patties of beef steak mince (300 grams in total), 4 large eggs, and some cheese (ball-parking 50-60 grams). Cheese made about half of the saturated fat content (if not more), because the beef patties were quite lean (5% fat).

I could technically eat this on my own in one sitting, but it'd be too much. This is about 100 grams of protein, and I find that my limit is around 60 grams per meal.

In any case, I'd agree that the cap on unsaturated fat is unnecessary, provided that the diet solely consists of a variety of whole food items.

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/bikefor...c204e70080.jpg

Saw are article this morning describing the price of beef going way, way up. Maybe this will cause consumers to switch to more fish and chicken, thus improving the health and environment!

Or maybe we'll cancel one of our streaming services instead.

My former GP had "The Omega Diet" in all his examining rooms. My first visit (1999), he told me to buy it, read it and follow it. I did. Started shopping at a Japanese supermarket; buying dark greed leaves with strange names like mizuna and kale. Canned sardines, tuna and salmon. Using olive oil for all sorts of things. (Discovering along the way my skin loves it as much as my gut.) Big step forward in health.

That doc retired and I continued on with a nurse GP. She approved of that diet but wanted me fully off dairy. (I'd stopped consuming non-cultured milk products many years before and was down to just yogurt and cheese.) She was right. I'm not a saint. My yogurt is now cashew yogurt (finally found a good one!) but I still buy small amounts of sharp, aged cheddar. I slice it very thin but it is one of life's pleasures and not going away. Pizza with friends and Italian subs every great once in a while. Well down on wheat consumption. (I do like good bread and I know it as one who used make it).

I now factor how I am going to feel after I eat in with what is looking good to my eyes. And funny, those foods that flunk the "after" test now look a lot less inciting and my appetite wants the good ones.

What you describe as not a big part of your diet, "vegetables, nuts, seeds, whole grains, and fruit", are a majority of the foods most dietary guidelines recommend.

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy." -- Michael Pollan

Yikes! May the gods have mercy on your colon.
​​​​​​​

I can eat a meal like the one pictured above, and I'm not convinced it's bad for me. I don't have meals like that every day, for sure. I make sure to eat fruits and vegetables every day, so my colon is fine. They don't have to come in the same meal.

Yeah, whole foods (not the grocery chain) are the key, I think. I eat mostly food I make, not much restaurant or take-out food. Very little snack food. Snack food is empty calories.

I never struggled with my weight, and I'm not sure why. I think I have a subconscious calorie counter built in. If I eat too much today, I'll eat less tomorrow. Several years ago, I decided I was 10 pounds overweight. I stopped snacking altogether but I ate more at meals. I ate high calorie foods. I figured it would be OK because all of my food was nutritious. It worked, and it worked a bit too well. I lost 25 lbs. My family told me I was too thin, so I gained 15 pounds back.

So if I'm hungry between meals, I won't eat cookies or chips. I'll have some fruit or a sandwich.

But WHO is the intended audience for these guidelines? Individuals? That won't work. Dieticians? Is there some way we can get the junk food mostly off the market? No, that would impinge on liberties, but it would improve our health. And what about the fact that the food we ought to eat is too expensive or not available? Supply is too small, and there are Cheetos and chips and cookies everywhere. And marketing and advertising is everywhere too, with a huge influence on people.

What do steak, eggs, and cheese have to do with the colon, if anything at all? That is some prime Roquefort cheese in the pic, based on raw sheep's milk, excellent for gut health. Eggs are rich in essential nutrients that are beneficial for the gut lining, like choline, and meat, among many other things, also provides collagen, which further benefits the gut lining.

Here's what:

• no fiber = bad for the colon
• animal protein promotes harmful gut biome
• high saturated fat load -> high bile acids -> pro-inflammatory
• high heme iron content in red meat -> carcinogenic

People consuming diets high in animal products and low in whole plant foods consistently show higher colorectal cancer incidence than populations consuming fiber-rich diets.

There are many bad things to be said about processed meats like Deli ham and such, as well as for excess of anything that is otherwise globally good, like ω3s, and rightfully so.

However, the chances that a whole food animal-based diet would be overall beneficial to a human being are close to, if not exactly, 100%, because that is the diet humans evolved on, among other things hunting down elephants and eating their meat and fat.

Now, if you want to do plants, that is fine, many of them are inoffensive anyways, but by their own nature they cannot be a big part of the diet because they are not packing that much energy and/or they cannot be consumed in large enough amounts. I can add a whole eggplant next to my fish and it is mostly bulk. I can do some giant beans with red tomato sauce, but anything beyond a hundred grams or so and the bloating will be insufferable.

With eggs every day, fatty fish every other day, and red meat once or twice per week, and smaller portions of all of those on the regular, you are not subject to running into any problems.

Different bodies have different requirements. A one-size-fits-all diet is not a worthy goal. I had a nearly meatless diet for at least 20 years. My health improved when I resumed eating meat. I know there are people who do best with little or no meat.

Here is my new-and-improved dietary guidelines:

At the base: Stuff that grows
Next: Stuff you cook yourself
Then: Stuff somebody cooks for you, but not in a factory
Last: Stuff that is not good for you, but you like every once in a while. Like cookies, chips and booze.

Done.

Hunting Elephant's and other big animals for food makes good stories. And that's why there are so many examples in literature and folklore of such. However, plants have been the mainstay for most peoples throughout history. We don't realize that though because it's pretty hard to come up with a fascinating story about cabbage or mustard greens that will hold one's suspense in a gathering of people.

Although this is true, I wonder how different those requirements could be.

I could imagine that, like with many other things in nature, these requirements would follow a somewhat bell-shaped curve, with some people doing better with more or less meat, or respectively plants.

But, in the end, as humans we get complete proteins from fish, eggs, meat, and dairy, and incomplete ones from plants, nuts, and seeds, and natural selection would dictate that the former sources are the preferable ones in general (not to mention that they also come with much more bio-available nutrients, like, I don't know, B12, K2, zinc, iron, calcium, taurine, creatine, ...).

I don't know if it is even debatable in science, but I think that humans are omnivores, yet more animal-based. It is for sure an evolutionary advantage to be able to process plant-based foods, but they are not really essential.

Don't be silly. It's Grandpa's wife.

So you want to justify what you eat on your ideas of what the ancestral diet looked like? Okay.

The ancestral diet was quite varied, but do you want to know the one thing all those diets had in common? Fiber. Lots more fiber than the modern crappy diet.

And you know what the ancestral diet eaters didn't have? Colorectal cancer.

And a great many of them starved to death. Or died young. We try repeatedly to discern the ideal diet, and we seem unable to do this. I'm sure that no one really knows, including you.

Believing that plants provide incomplete proteins shows that you are way outdated on your nutrition information. Any that believe that should do some more reading. But not from sources that have a agenda to keep the way outdated mis-information alive.

I've heard this point raised a lot lately yet I don't know of a surefire way of separating information from agendas. Everyone has a bias, and there are no exceptions. Some nobly try to minimize their biases, but everyone has a bias.

It's not up to me to justify anything, it is what it is.

What is: Our shoulders are designed to through objects, not hang from trees, our stomachs are highly acidic, at scavenger-like levels, we have a large small intestine for absorbing macros and at the same time a very limited capacity to extract energy from fibrous plant foods due to a relatively smaller large intestine (i.e., convert them to fatty acids, and amino acids to a lesser extent, like cows do), we also have many small fat cells, a pattern that is common in carnivores and supports a metabolism where dietary fat is our biggest energy supply.

I don't know where all the fiber was available throughout the ice age, for sure it is important when consuming processed food (where the natural fiber has been stripped), refined carbs, or added sugars, because it acts somewhat as an antidote, but the idea that a juicy steak should be paired with any amount of fiber has no basis whatsoever.

No basis, except for all the science showing that low-fiber diets are hazardous to your health.

My diet includes meat, dairy and eggs but I also get more than enough daily fiber from plant foods. I am definitely not low on fiber.

I believe that omnivore diet is the most optimal diet for the human race....Carnivore, keto, paleo, pure vegetarianism are all a bunch of ideological nonsense. The human body functions and performs at its best when it is fed both animal and plant foods,