Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re: The more things change... (Score 1) 189

No, you said that life expectancy increased with the rise of coffee drinking (presumably you mean in Western nations). But that is also associated with increased wealth and latterly with improved sanitation. Thus it is correlation not causation. You then followed with "You don't need direct causation" but given the confounding variables, yes you do. Maybe I was wrong, your second statement does follow as it confuses correlation and causation both times. What we have in TFS is a reference to a study which takes into account the confounding variables and while still correlation, it at least is a much narrower correlation and would then allow for research to find the causal factors.

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

I'm not aware of mainstream nutritional advice being significantly different.

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

In the UK, the nutritional advice in WW2 was much the same as now. Not exactly, but very similar. There was very little obesity. Obesity is much more linked to lifestyle than nutritional advice. Sure, companies push sugary snacks to make money, but the nutritional advice for 80 years or more has been not to eat them.

Slashdot Top Deals

The world is not octal despite DEC.

Working...