Comment Re:Lost a stolen drive? (Score 1) 132
Comment Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score 1) 111
Life is short. Try and enjoy it while you can.
And ideally not trash the planet doing so.
Comment Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score 1) 111
Comment Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score 2) 111
Comment Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score 1) 111
Comment Re: The inexorable march toward +4C (Score 1) 111
Comment Re: "roughly three to five" (Score 1) 189
Comment Re: The more things change... (Score 1) 189
Comment Re:The more things change... (Score 2) 189
1966:General Recommendations: National nutrition panels assumed that a nutritionally adequate diet would consist of roughly 45% to 50% of daily calories from carbohydrates.
Current advice:
The U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend carbohydrates make up 45% to 65% of your total daily calories (e.g., 900–1,300 calories on a 2,000-calorie diet). However, official guidelines now explicitly advise sourcing these from fiber-rich whole foods while strictly limiting refined grains, added sugars, and heavily processed packaged snacks
So complex carbs, not simple carbs are expected to be the source of the cabs. Not sugar.
The overall carbohydrate recommendation has increased, but not for sugars. So if the idea behind the 1967 study was to push sugars and demonise fats, then it was a bit of a failure. Now, there has been an increase in protein recommendations in the USA recently. Was that from big protein?
If you look at the UK for, say, carbohydrates, the recommended proportion (40 to 50%) hasn't changed at all in 60 years. It hasn't seen the uptick seen in the USA, but again, the USA is not recommending people get much of their energy from sugar.
Mine is that there was a lot of bullshit in the old suggested amounts of food types in the old nutrition guides, this assigned the problems to fat, not sugar
But the research suggesting fat might be an issue was primarily from the 1950s, not the 1960s. And some fats are an issue and advice has become more nuanced, but as I demonstrated, the proportion of fat suggested has remained pretty constant.
Comment Re:The more things change... (Score 1) 189
By the late 1960s, UN agencies had identified a “protein gap,” and remarked on the nutritional differences among nations. However, in the early 1970s, nutrition experts realized that kwashiorkor patients consumed diets low in many important nutrients, and that protein deficiency was an oversimplified explanation of the causes of kwashiorkor and ill health in poor populations (Johnson, 2008). The “world protein gap” and “protein deficiency paradigm” thereby became the “great protein fiasco” (McLaren, 1974), and the emphasis on protein deficiency decreased in international discussions of nutrition (Semba, 2016: 79-88). Whereas previous studies have seen the protein debate as part of a scientific or medical discussion, in this article, the ongoing protein debate represented the transformation of developmental frameworks from a state to a market orientation, interacting with changing ecological ideas about nature, land, population, and society.5)
That's from a research paper. Here we are talking about a global issue primarily affecting poor nations, not the USA. There seems to be some conflation of research in the collective consciousness. It wasn't about limiting proteins, rather than returning to the 1950s level as the 1960s concern were global and not even accurate. It was a brief perturbation from the mean.
In 1966, the primary dietary advice to the public was the American Heart Association guidelines to restrict overall fat intake to 30% to 35% of total calories. Saturated fats were heavily targeted to make up no more than 10% of calories, with polyunsaturated fats making up an additional 10%
In 1996, major health organizations—such as the American Heart Association (AHA)—recommended that adults limit total fat intake to 30% or less of their total daily calories.
So not really much change.
The updated 2026 U.S. Dietary Guidelines recommend that total fat intake should make up 20% to 35% of your total daily calories, but advise that saturated fat must be kept below 10% of total calories (about 20 grams per day on a 2,000-calorie diet)
So still much the same over a period of 60 years.
In 1956, the U.S. National Research Council (NRC) recommended a daily dietary allowance of 70 grams of protein for a standard 70 kg (154 lb) adult male. Health authorities at the time encouraged an enthusiastic intake of protein-rich foods, heavily focusing on animal products to avoid deficiencies and support what was then believed to be an optimal diet
In 1976, the U.S. Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) for protein was defined by the National Academy of Sciences' Food and Nutrition Board as 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram of body weight per day.
The Recommended Dietary Allowance of protein for a healthy adult with minimal physical activity is currently 0.8 g protein per kg body weight (BW) per day (2016)
The 2026 US Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommend a daily protein intake of 1.2 to 1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight.
So the change has been quite recent, but the recommended amount of protein has not, as you contend, been pushed down but actually increased.
Comment Re: The more things change... (Score 1) 189
You don't need direct causation to know that if coffee was taking years off people's lives, it would have shown up in the demographics data as a statistical anomaly.
Which doesn't at all follow from your previous statement.
Comment Re:The more things change... (Score 1) 189
Nutritional needs of humans haven't changed much since we became humans.
And nutritional advice has changed very little in multiple decades.
Comment Re:The more things change... (Score 1) 189
But those nutritionists who preached moderation and a balanced diet were considered stuck in old school,
Eh? That's been the core message throughout. About the only controversy really has been about fats type. You seem to have been listening people who "teach the controversy".