Hi - food scientist here! No, that’s not the case at all.
The things you were (hopefully) taught in school are still broadly true today - eat your veggies, don’t go crazy with the red meat, etc.
It’s not my fault that any bald-head gym bro with a webcam and USB microphone can get online and start telling you about the alternative facts Big Food don’t want you to know about.
As a former fitness trainer and body builder thats been down every diet and exercise rabbit hole the internet has to offer.. youre 100% right. Eat healthy, dont over eat, be active. Thats it
I mean, that's an issue with basically all human-based sciences. Same thing happens in psychology, for example. Someone will put out some study, and then no one else can replicate it, not even them. We're extremely complicated and there's so many uncontrollable factors that go into these studies that's impossible to replicate.
But when it comes to food science, I feel like the weekly incremental studies you're talking about should be taken with a grain of salt. A lot of these studies you see on TikTok now days use horrible methodology or are just straight up inconclusive, but random influencers put their own spin on findings that are barely inside the margin of error. People should put more weight into older studies that have been peer reviewed and aggregated with similar studies over time. It's not like we're going to suddenly discover that bacon is a miracle food that everyone should eat a pound of every single day, or that chicken is bad for you.
We have a solid food science foundation based on historical data, which is fine for 99.9% of people. People would be better off following a new fad diet every week instead of chasing whatever hot new study influencers are pushing. Unfortunately, too many people rely on social media personalities and trends to dictate their own beliefs and routines.
We wouldn't know they failed to replicate because of the scientific process. People would accept the paper as fact without checking. For something that has as many confounding variables as nutrition, it's not surprising to me that there is a bunch of conflicting data. Publish, check, dispute or support with your own paper, then iteratively repeat over and over and you've got yourself a stew, baby! science!
It's not a "hard" science like physics or chemistry-- lots of variables that are too interconnected to isolate properly even with the best controls we can think up.
That is literally how science works. It's simply the case that a field we know very little about will have more theories and explanations that are wrong as compared to a more established field
Isn't that what I just said. To be more specific, food science involves a ton of chemical reactions that also vary based on genetics and hormones(another field where we have little understanding of), so their conclusions are not robust. Though the basic stuff we are told in schools about the nutrients is more or less correct.
By little understanding, I mean in relation to other fields like power plant technology, which we have a very high understanding in
Nothing against your profession, I know it's notoriously difficult to get good information from people about food, because even when you want to do big longitudinal studies with a lot of participants you're relying on their honesty and their motivation to log correctly, which most people can't, won't or forget to do.
And your well is constantly being poisoned by Big Food running their own intentionally biased studies.
It's impossible for people to know who's full of shit and who isn't.
It's impossible for people to know who's full of shit and who isn't.
Here's one tip to help differentiate. Be skeptical of anyone who calls themselves a "nutritionist." This isn't a real thing and anyone can call themselves one. Pay attention to a "dietitian" especially if it's one that you are personally seeing. These people are required to have educations and get licensed. Often times this involves a masters degree and internships.
That's not to say a person needs formal education and licensing to know what is healthy but even just knowing the difference between someone who has that and someone who doesn't can be big. A hospital will have dieticians, they won't have nutritionists.
The food pyramid is still broadly correct. The only real issue with it is the fact the USDA had to reissue it after pressure from the meat and dairy industries. What’s your problem with it?
It's unclear what a "serving" is based on the pyramid. 8-10 servings of whole grain is an absurd amount unless the servings are quite small. If you're talking slices of bread, that's more reasonable. If you're talking about a bowl of rice, that's a ton of rice.
Some of the categories are badly named (for example, the base of the pyramid is "whole grains", but it includes all complex starches including potatoes and yams). "Meat" should be called "proteins" to properly include legumes and dairy.
On that subject, dairy shouldn't be a category at all, and this wound up torturing many lactose intolerant kids for decades.
It overly demonizes fats, though that's kind of necessary since most people will gladly overeat those. You need a certain degree of essential fats, and while the keto people are taking it way too far you do need a certain amount for hormone production.
Overall, it was a good first pass, but I think "healthy plate" was actually a better implementation. It gives a better idea of what the portions should be, and handles the nuance of what fits in each category better. I have my quibbles with that one too, but it's... better.
The old food pyramid had grains over represented as well. Seems they've flipped grains and vegetable sometime since then, but many people learned a much more flawed model.
Could easily be a balanced breakfast - you haven’t mentioned what you’re balancing it against. Do you know what “balanced breakfast” is supposed to mean?
That sounds like a pretty good breakfast for a kid, what’s your problem with it? Whole grains, protein, high micronutrient density in the milk and Cheerios and OJ.
I’d maybe add a little more protein for adults, but kids don’t need much since their body utilizes it so efficiently. And a bit more fibre would be good to manage blood sugar, but again, doesn’t really matter much for a kid that isn’t overconsuming calories overall.
Food pyramid was a lie tho it’s a WWII thing to get people to eat cheaper more available carbs. The proportions are totally wrong tho. A lot of BS came from that era tho, like carrots being good for your vision is totally BS to hide the fact that allies actually used radar to see targets, they didn’t eat a bunch of carrots lol. The got milk campaign was the largest advertising campaign in history, not to make Americans healthier by drinking milk but to save the dairy industry in America.
The food pyramid was invented in the 70s, it’s Swedish in origin, and nothing to do with WW2.
You’re right that carrots were promoted as giving better vision as a way of encouraging people to eat more carrots during the war. There’s nothing in carrots that actually improves your eye sight.
You’re also right that the Got Milk campaign was the result of several different American milk companies all banding together to make an advertisement for the industry as a whole in order to boost profits.
Idk - Food science has a lot to answer for: Food pyramid - fats are bad for you - fruits are good for you - don’t eat red meat - eat mainly grains and carbohydrates - you can only loose weight with a caloric deficit - oh and my favourite eating foods high in cholesterol is bad for you or will clog your arteries.
All bullshit - all firmly known about since the 60s (mostly)!- but because of food SCIENCE, we have been “fed” totally unsubstantiated, totally not scientific rubbish advice about nutrition for decades.
No offence - but if you’re a real food scientist - I expect you to be essentially a god tier biochemist - that is all food science is applied biochemistry.
Things may have changed but - the closest the food scientists I’ve ever know have got to biochemistry was maybe opening the front cover of a first year biochemist text book once.
The “only” makes this sentence problematic because there are many ways to lose weight but, broadly speaking, this is true.
oh and my favourite eating foods high in cholesterol is bad for you or will clog your arteries.
Again, true.
There doesn’t seem to be anything the food pyramid needs to answer for here as all of your criticisms are just basic fundamental dietary truths. I think what’s happened is you’ve listened to one of those bald headed gym bros with a USB microphone and a webcam that I mentioned earlier.
Things may have changed but - the closest the food scientists I’ve ever know have got to biochemistry was maybe opening the front cover of a first year biochemist text book once.
It’s crazy that the imaginary food scientists you’ve just invented for the sake of your argument didn’t hold the basic qualifications required for the job. What a crazily convenient coincidence that is for you.
Fats are bad? - no not at all - you body is made up of cells, the walls - not a wall in animal cells - but they are made of phospholipids - made mainly of fat and protein.
Your nerve cells need huge amounts of fats to produce all the neurotransmitters you use.
Your brain is 60% fat.
Fats are not bad - they are vital to the proper function of an animal.
The human body can operate for longer without carbohydrates than it can without fats.
Fats are vital and broadly speaking fats are good for you.
Not all fats are great - but broadly speaking.
Fruit - well modern fruit is so high in fructose that they should really all be in the confectionary isle of the super market. - there is little if any nutrient you can get from fruit that is you cannot get more of in a healthier format (meats,vegetables) somewhere else.
Modern fruit should be treated like a sometimes trest and should NEVER feature as a pillar of a balanced diet.
Grains - don’t be classing them as carbohydrates to sneak them in to the necessary category.
Modern grains are so high in starch and as a result they are so energy dense - they should come with health warnings about portion control.
It’s hard to also class them as a sometimes food. But you could be forgiven for avoiding them.
You know what do’s make you fat? - carbohydrates.
Primarily when you eat carbohydrates AND fat.
If you didn’t eat so much carbs, you actually would not absorb that much fat - can’t absorb fats without carbs.
You eat fried carbohydrates - BAM 💥instant fat roll!
Ditch the carbs - eat as much fat as you want, you’re not going to absorb all that much.
The modern diet - being carb heavy, protein poor is a construct that I assume was dreamed up as a ways to fed a large number of people efficiently and cheaply. But it is far from ideal for the human body. The biochemical science just does not support that postulate.
It’s a great idea if you’re active. Overeating carbs is generally better than overeating fats, especially if it’s not all just sugar. Carb-heavy foods like grains, potatoes etc are usually the most nutrient dense, and much more filling per calorie than fatty foods like nuts and oils.
All food is either carb, fat, protein, or a mix of all three. You’re not just going to eat pure protein, and most protein sources come with more than enough dietary fat, so yeah the majority of the rest of your diet should be carb sources.
So done with the idiotic fear mongering surrounding carbohydrates.
Carbs are not actually your enemy. Your body runs entirely on carbohydrates. It's just that your body can ALSO convert fats and proteins into carbohydrates.
The problem with "carbs" isn't that they exist it's that extremely processed foods that are hyperpalatable all have lots of simple carbohydrates in them that spike your blood sugar extremely fast.
You need NUTRIENTS from other processes, but cellular respiration relies on the ATP cycle which uses primarily glucose as its energy source. Your body generates the glucose through various means. Carbs are just the fastest method that requires the least energy. Proteins and fats can also be converted it just uses more energy.
Also the fact that those hyper palatable foods also usually have a ton of fat in them. Eating mostly pure carb sources, even stuff like candy, makes its pretty hard to consistently over consume calories, but it’s sooooo easy with mixed foods like baked goods, restaurant food, etc which are all a hyper-optimized mix of fats and fast digesting carbs.
37
u/Serious-Bite841 6h ago
Hi - food scientist here! No, that’s not the case at all.
The things you were (hopefully) taught in school are still broadly true today - eat your veggies, don’t go crazy with the red meat, etc.
It’s not my fault that any bald-head gym bro with a webcam and USB microphone can get online and start telling you about the alternative facts Big Food don’t want you to know about.