Live data from Hacker News

Canada's New Food Guide

food-guide.canada.ca

61–70 of 146 posts

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#61
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wrong. Quality fats are not only essential but also good for you for example: olive oils, Avocado oils. Avoid (cheap) vegetable oils such as sunflower and rapeseed oils and the derived products with hydrogenated oils, such as margarines.

He's saying to prefer the whole food (the "source") over the raw oil. Doesn't seem that wrong. Also, this health guide lists sunflower and "cheap" canola as examples of good unsaturated fats.

I wonder now if this Guide is also sponsored by the Agriculture and Health Industry. Processed food and sugar are the real things people should avoid.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#62
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

Milk is a huge deal in the US, the dairy farmers association has it engrained in every American that they need milk and only milk for calcium - never mind broccoli, almonds, figs, sardines, etc., in fact they go through great pains to not mention alternate sources of calcium. It only works because so much of the US population is lactose tolerant.

One might argue we are lactose tolerant because of the ridiculous amount of lobbying they did in the 50s and 60s.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#63
From what I read, and someone please correct me on this, they put a bunch of scientists in a room to do their work without any influences from industry and lobby groups.

I love this. Great job Canada!

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#64
post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the Pork and apple skillet dinner[1], they recommend using canola oil, a recommendation one doesn't see all that often. With canola oil having been engineered in Canada, is it an oil of choice for Canadians? [1] https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-...

I'm surprised you don't see that recommendation often. It's a very cheap, versatile cooking oil. I wouldn't say it's anyone's favourite, but it's effectively the default?

Because it’s awful for your health?

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#65
post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Such as?

Milk is a huge deal in the US, the dairy farmers association has it engrained in every American that they need milk and only milk for calcium - never mind broccoli, almonds, figs, sardines, etc., in fact they go through great pains to not mention alternate sources of calcium. It only works because so much of the US population is lactose tolerant.

Calcium in milk is also not bio-available once it’s been homogenized, because it’s stripped out of its protective fat layer and expose to lactose which binds to it in a way that humans can’t undo on our own.

Milk is a fantastic source of calcium, when you don’t mess with it too much. Why wouldn’t it be? It’s evolved specifically to grow mammals up to full size as quickly as possible, which includes growing a lot of bone. The issue is that we’ve monkeyed with it in a way that’s convenient for producers, but bad for consumers.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#66
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, it’s still catering to some industries, they’re just far less blatant about it than in America.

Do you have anything to back that statement up? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/canada-food-...

Food science in general is as corrupt as it gets, with the vast majority of research funded by and favorable to agriculture businesses. Even stuff that we take for granted as healthy, such as fruit and vegetables, often have their benefits massively overstated by the companies that stand to benefit by such proclamations of health.

The area has been an absolute miserable failure in its obstensible goals, making us healthy. The western world has been pretty diligent about following the recommendations of the food scientists, especially around eliminating saturated fat, and the results have been a complete and utter disaster. Yet we continue to listen to the exact same people hashing the exact same advice as the population continues to get fatter, sicker, and die sooner.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#67
For comparison: Harvard Healthy Eating Plate https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-...

At least among the Harvard faculty, there appears to be a consensus that healthy fats are important, which the Canadian guide doesn't seem to stress that much.

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...

===

Comments on the Harvard Healthy Eating Plate (https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/intervie...):

INTERVIEWER: Some nutritionists have criticized your pyramid as "floating on a lake of olive oil."

WILLETT: The formal studies that had compared a more moderate fat intake as we've suggested, with low-fat diets, have actually consistently shown that people did as well or better controlling their weight on a moderate-fat diet compared to a high-carbohydrate, low-fat diet.

INTERVIEWER: Even good fats are more fattening than good carbs. So they think you're contributing to the obesity epidemic, or there's a risk of that. A tablespoon of olive oil is 14 grams of fat.

WILLETT: There are all kinds of beliefs about the amount of fat in a diet, tremendously strong opinions. What we really need is sound data, and the studies that have been done show that people actually end up controlling their weight at least as well, and usually better, on moderate-fat diets compared to low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets.

INTERVIEWER: Is it okay to get more than 30 percent of your calories from fat?

WILLETT: The evidence is quite clear that it's perfectly fine to get more than 30 percent of your calories from fat, and probably, in fact, it's even better to be getting more than 30 percent of calories from fat, if it's the healthy form of fat. ...

===

EDIT: formatting

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#69
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I like it, too. Pretty much what I've been following for the last 1-2 years. Would like more clarification on the saturated fats front, though (compare coconut oil, butter, palm oil, trans fats).

Avoid oils in general. They're mostly devoid of nutrition (i.e. no fiber, lacking vitamins and minerals compared to the food source) and only contain fat https://youtu.be/LbtwwZP4Yfs

It doesn't make a blind bit of difference. As long as you're a) not obese, b) not eating too much sugar and b) eating reasonable quantities of vegetables, everything else is a rounding error. Read just about any study on nutrition and you'll see negligible effect sizes at the very cusp of statistical significance.

All of the confusion about what we're supposed to eat derives from this simple fact. We've got all sorts of data suggesting that this diet or this food might be good for you, but the effect sizes are too small to care about.

If you obsessively tweak your diet based on every little scrap of data, you might possibly earn yourself three or four months of healthy life expectancy compared to a diet that your great-grandmother would recognise as being sensible. It's just not worth the effort.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#70
post #5

This is great. A no-nonsense, modern take on healthy nutrition. It's simple (no more food groups, portions, etc.), and actually healthy (e.g. not catering to the dairy industry with a daily glass of milk recommendation, pizza is not a vegetable, etc.). Compare it to this: https://www.cnpp.usda.gov/sites/default/files/archived_proje...

They both look the same (except for use of pyramid vs circle). What exactly are the major differences as you see?
Post reply on HN