Canada's New Food Guide

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I grew up on this food guide:

Compare to this Pic in the new one:


You can see Milk isn't specifically pictured, and there's only one tiny thing that is even dairy.

[KPHMPH]

Fuck this.

Keto for the win.

Meats, healthy fats and veggies.

[max_boost]

Can't keto, makes me irregular.

I really like this new guide. Makes sense from my own personal experience.

[Xtrema]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Compare to this Pic in the new one:


You can see Milk isn't specifically pictured, and there's only one tiny thing that is even dairy.

So I have been following the new guide for 2 years.

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Can't keto, makes me irregular.

I really like this new guide. Makes sense from my own personal experience.

A good fiber supplement helps, but agreed that's the worst thing about Keto. Never have a great shit anymore.

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's the thing though, you could eat Mcdonalds everyday and still be abiding by the old guide. It was just a straight break down of percentages for protein, fat, and carbs. With the fat and carbs being swung wildly out of proper macro balance. And no consideration that sugar is a carb. So if you don't eat any rice or potatoes, you could be drinking a gallon of Coke with your meal and be A-ok in the eyes of the Food Guide.

Just notice that I said "A lot" of people, not "All" people.

In any sense, it isn't the governments business to tell people what to eat, that falls to personal responsibility. But it's good to see they are making some improvements to the guide so that people who have no clue can at least not be led down such a terrible path.

But you can't have a gallon of Coke and stay under 2,000 Calories/day nor can you skew you ratios too far and stay under that. So if you were actually following the guidelines you're not going to become obese.
Obesity is not a function of a poor guide. If it was we should notice huge swaths of Canadian society about 50 pounds lighter by as early as June. Does anyone really expect that?

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

But you can't have a gallon of Coke and stay under 2,000 Calories/day nor can you skew you ratios too far and stay under that. So if you were actually following the guidelines you're not going to become obese.
Obesity is not a function of a poor guide. If it was we should notice huge swaths of Canadian society about 50 pounds lighter by as early as June. Does anyone really expect that?

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

[mazdavirgin]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

That's such a load of horseshit. Obesity is the result of over consumption full stop. You can lose weight eating twinkies.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

https://www.reddit.com/r/fatlogic/

[max_boost]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A good fiber supplement helps, but agreed that's the worst thing about Keto. Never have a great shit anymore.

Too satisfying to give up a good crap or carb lol haha

But I'm lucky enough to have okay genes, and gym just enough to stay lean

[Misterman]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

That's such a load of horseshit. Obesity is the result of over consumption full stop. You can lose weight eating twinkies.

Obesity can be the result of a number of issues. I only diet people to lose fat, but what would I know?

The only full stop was my original general comment that the old food guide was garbage. It was built more from food industry lobbyist dollars, than it was from scientific research and knowledge.

Anyway, I'm out of this convo. I can see people are already starting to take things out of context and get offended.

[jwslam]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I can people are already starting to take things out of context and get offended.

There's places on the interwebz this doesn't exist?

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Not sure where 2000 calories is coming from. But ok. The old guide was a rough outline telling you to eat a fuckload of carbs. If you're going to eat a diet that's excessive in carbs, that's going to lead to weight gain. I don't care to argue the nuances of what constitutes obesity, but the old food guide created unhealthy eating habits that were likely to lead to weight gain.

Ok bye^.
The old guide told you to read labels and most/all labels indicate that their serving sizes are based on the recommended 2000Cal/day. So while the guide contained lots of foods that would easily pull you over 2,000 they were still indirectly telling you to stay under that. It's tough to be obese at under 2000 Cal/day.
Your big point as you mentioned was the old food guide sucked.
My big point is that the obesity epidemic cannot be blamed on the food guide. Obese people have not been and will not start following it. If it helps out some folks that's great but this is not the silver bullet to eliminate obesity.

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Ok bye^.
The old guide told you to read labels and most/all labels indicate that their serving sizes are based on the recommended 2000Cal/day. So while the guide contained lots of foods that would easily pull you over 2,000 they were still indirectly telling you to stay under that. It's tough to be obese at under 2000 Cal/day.
Your big point as you mentioned was the old food guide sucked.
My big point is that the obesity epidemic cannot be blamed on the food guide. Obese people have not been and will not start following it. If it helps out some folks that's great but this is not the silver bullet to eliminate obesity.

Nobody believes in the laws of thermodynamics anymore, that requires doing things like eating less, who wants that?

[HiTempguy1]

Once I started counting calories, it was really amazing to see how what might seem like a big meal or some bad food was just so full of calories as to be ridiculous. A big problem for guys is that we do a lot of physical activity when younger, and then you get a desk job but don't change your eating. I have a buddy who is thin as a rail, but he does some sort of physical work for his whole day. Doing the math, just to maintain his weight is something like 2500-3000 calories. That's a LOT of healthy food, and it's even a lot of shit food. So he's skinny, but not healthy.

I still don't eat the best, but watching calories has me slowly losing weight and being more conscious of the decisions I make. Also helps cut down on needless snacking, which I think is one of the best things. Going to bed full sucks!

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody believes in the laws of thermodynamics anymore, that requires doing things like eating less, who wants that?

I don't think he's as crazy as you're suggesting. There are physicians promoting weight loss and nutritional plans that aren't based on counting calories.
A human is not a bomb calorimeter. How does the thermodynamic argument hold up if you eat a perfect low calorie diet and then have a couple tablespoons of gasoline?

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I don't think he's as crazy as you're suggesting. There are physicians promoting weight loss and nutritional plans that aren't based on counting calories.
A human is not a bomb calorimeter. How does the thermodynamic argument hold up if you eat a perfect low calorie diet and then have a couple tablespoons of gasoline?

Durr... Can the human body absorb calories from gasoline?

[ThePenIsMightier]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Nobody believes in the laws of thermodynamics anymore, that requires doing things like eating less, who wants that?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Durr... Can the human body absorb calories from gasoline?

It's either "as simple as thermodynamics" or it's not.
The test is a bomb calorimeter. The product (often food, and often something like N-L-α-Aspartyl-L-phenylalanine, 1-methyl ester) is simply burned and the temp. increase in the water from the heat is measured to calculate the energy that came out of the "food".
If you put gasoline in it, it will tell you there's a shit load of Calories in gasoline. That's what the test will tell you and based on the "it's nothing but Thermo" argument, tiny amounts of gasoline (not enough to poison you) should provide you with Calories.
This is obviously false because my GI tract isn't a bomb calorimeter and neither is yours.
So counting calories can certainly form an important part of diet and weight loss and it can be a big part of the story. It's just not necessarily the whole story.
Alcohol is also flammable but I'm not burning it so I doubt alcohol Calories add to your count as effectively as beef yet we're all told "alcohol is high-Cal". Aspartame is not flammable but again I'm not trying to burn it. Does it literally add zero Calories to your diet just because it won't burn?

[max_boost]

Wth are you guys talking about

[suntan]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

It's either "as simple as thermodynamics" or it's not.
The test is a bomb calorimeter. The product (often food, and often something like N-L-α-Aspartyl-L-phenylalanine, 1-methyl ester) is simply burned and the temp. increase in the water from the heat is measured to calculate the energy that came out of the "food".
If you put gasoline in it, it will tell you there's a shit load of Calories in gasoline. That's what the test will tell you and based on the "it's nothing but Thermo" argument, tiny amounts of gasoline (not enough to poison you) should provide you with Calories.
This is obviously false because my GI tract isn't a bomb calorimeter and neither is yours.
So counting calories can certainly form an important part of diet and weight loss and it can be a big part of the story. It's just not necessarily the whole story.
Alcohol is also flammable but I'm not burning it so I doubt alcohol Calories add to your count as effectively as beef yet we're all told "alcohol is high-Cal". Aspartame is not flammable but again I'm not trying to burn it. Does it literally add zero Calories to your diet just because it won't burn?

God you're fucking stupid. How fat are you?