After all, Michelle Obama’s federalization of our school cafeterias has turned out so DANDY, hasn’t it? Pictures and pictures of more and more kids literally trashing their lunches and waging a #WarOnMichelle for the absolutely disgusting meals they had to buy. No competition – Progressive Michelle also went after the vending machines and bake sales traditional for raising funds “for the children”. Really, Michelle “hates the children”? Or just another Progressive ideological agenda item in federalizing the “one-size-fits-all-in-everything”? After all, doesn’t “intent” trump “results”, especially bad ones? And never having to apologize for being wrong?
So what spurred this post? From Rand Simberg at PJ Media: The Nutritional Junk Science of Our Government Nannies. Yup, pretty much:
Leaving aside the legitimate issue of whether or not such one-size-fits-none policies are actually in the purview of the federal government, the worst thing about them is that they’re based on junk science.
The calorie counts are based on the flawed theory, per basic thermodynamics, that a calorie is a calorie, in terms of weight gain or loss, regardless of whether it comes from fat, protein or carbohydrates. The reduction in sodium is mandated on the notion that salt is bad for everyone. The low-fat and reduced-cholesterol items are based on the primitive thinking that “you are what you eat.” In short, the FDA and USDA food “pyramid” (which the first lady recently replaced with a “plate”) upon which these laws and regulations are based is (like the scene from Woody Allen’s movie Sleeper) almost exactly the opposite of what we now know to be nutritionally healthy.
In fact, what kind of calories you consume is much more important than how many — protein and fat are actually beneficial in weight reduction, because they are more satiating and increase metabolism, while grains (a key part of the “plate”) and other high-glycemic carbohydrates, such as potatoes, actually promote weight gain (which is why cattle are fattened on corn, not on lard). Calorie counters have trouble keeping weight lost off because the diet is so unsatisfying and counterproductive metabolically. So the labels are actually worse than useless.
Unless one has elevated blood pressure, there is no scientific evidence that sodium is bad for most people, particularly young people. It might help to use sea salt rather than table, which provides additional elements such as magnesium and potassium, but for kids, reducing salt per se only reduces willingness to choke down the unappealing food.
I do have high blood pressure but added sodium in my diet by ME is not a problem – I generally ignore using salt except for one thing which is corn-on-the-cob. Then, it’s crazy time. If anyone would be at risk from this would be TMEW – salt is a basic food group for her and EVERYTHING gets a healthy dose more but her blood pressure is below norms. Go figure.
With regard to fat and cholesterol, you are not what you eat. All of the recommendations for reducing fat in diet are based on flawed decades-old “studies,” and the actual science (as revealed by Nina Teichholz’s recent best seller, The Big Fat Surprise) indicates that saturated fat is healthy, and that elevated bad cholesterol and triglycerides, and weight gain,come from eating grains and other bad carbohydrates, not the consumption of fat. In the case of children, they need fat to promote the growth of not just their bodies, but particularly their young brains. Giving them low-fat milk is not just distasteful to them, but dietary child abuse.
It’s bad enough that flawed nutrition advice from the government agencies has in fact promoted obesity, diabetes and premature mortality from heart disease and stroke for decades. But it’s long past time to stop forcing Americans to follow it.
Some of you may remember that thermometer from a few years ago when DCE of Weekend Pundit and I had a diet contest – first to 195 lbs wins. and we did it for quite some number of weeks. And we sorta gave up at the end. I got down to 209 in that image and ultimately 207. Then gained it pretty much right back plus a bit. Doc gave me the hairy eyeball and said “enough”. So, I ignored what the Federal Govt nutritional diet guidelines have been saying: high carbs, low protein, plenty of veggies, low fats, no snacking, and exercise. Lots of meat (TMEW has gotten a lot of use from a couple of new cookbooks changing up a lot), few veggies, less potatoes, less pasta, less rice, and less brownies et al (candy has never held a hold on me, so not a problem).
This time? I didn’t follow it: 254 to 246 for the first leg and then yesterday, 206. And to be honest, not such a big deal – it was a struggle last time and a lot of “man, am I hungry” episodes. More of a paleo diet this time, not worrying about the saturated fats and red meats – not hit with the same hunger pains and overstressing on “what’s to eat” and “WHEN am I gonna eat next?” episodes. Cut down some portions but when I wanted to eat, I did. I also cheated a lot more this time and was a lot more relaxed for doing it. And yes, I did hit the fast food places, too – but dropped the fries.
And heresy of heresies – even though I switched from regular to diet Mtn Dew a long time ago, I’ve pretty much given it up (except for during Saturday morning GrokTALK!) and subbed in just plain water and less than a can / day of any other soda type.
So, pretty much have done the opposite of what the current conventional wisdom and the Feds say I should have been doing. Your mileage may vary but this time, I felt like I’ve been hypermiling. If I can get between 200 and 195, I’ll just idle for a while. At that point, my adult sons will have NEVER seen me that light EVAH. Then it will be time to bulk up – some modified TKD and weight training to replace some flexibility, cardio, and muscle mass.
No, no contest with diet selection this time – and given leftovers from Christmas, a BIG helping of fatty (and DELICIOUS) pork roast done with a rosemany, sage, thyme, olive oil, and chicken broth. Yum!
