The tyranny of a "balanced diet" -- does anyone think this might be harmful to your health?

The tyranny of a "balanced diet" -- does anyone think this might be
harmful to your health?

Let me explain what I mean.

Some people say that all of our meals should be "balanced," with
appropriate amounts of protein, carbs, minerals, etc., etc., and that
if we are trying to lose weight and are eating an "unbalanced diet"
than that's unhealthy.

One problem with this view is that people vary (and have greatly
varied) their food intake from day to day, week to week, etc. And some
people stick with the same basic foods month after month.

An alarmist position is that every meal HAS to be balanced, and
perhaps also that we HAVE to eat THREE OR MORE times a day! And if we
don't do this, we are risking THE POSSIBILITY OF HUGE HARM!

I think that if ongoing "balance" was so important, it would have been
proved well before now. (Even complementary proteins for vegetarians
don't have to be eaten in the same meals.) Also, the human race
probably would have died out eons ago. (And every Boy Scout I know
would have died of "'s Mores" excess.)

Seems to me that the basic problem for most of us is not
undernutrition, or malnutrition (especially with vitamin and mineral
supplements), but simple OVERNUTRITION. If reasoning gets in the way
of our doing something about it, then that reasoning may be preventing
us from reaching our health goals.

Any thoughts about this? And about trying to so exquisitely balance
our meals that we sabotage our dietary efforts (and others have their
efforts balanced as well).


Yours truly,

Caleb

Caleb wrote:
> The tyranny of a "balanced diet" -- does anyone think this might be
> harmful to your health?
>
> Let me explain what I mean.
>
> Some people say that all of our meals should be "balanced," with
> appropriate amounts of protein, carbs, minerals, etc., etc., and that
> if we are trying to lose weight and are eating an "unbalanced diet"
> than that's unhealthy.
>
> One problem with this view is that people vary (and have greatly
> varied) their food intake from day to day, week to week, etc. And some
> people stick with the same basic foods month after month.
>
> An alarmist position is that every meal HAS to be balanced, and
> perhaps also that we HAVE to eat THREE OR MORE times a day! And if we
> don't do this, we are risking THE POSSIBILITY OF HUGE HARM!
>
> I think that if ongoing "balance" was so important, it would have been
> proved well before now. (Even complementary proteins for vegetarians
> don't have to be eaten in the same meals.) Also, the human race
> probably would have died out eons ago. (And every Boy Scout I know
> would have died of "'s Mores" excess.)
>
> Seems to me that the basic problem for most of us is not
> undernutrition, or malnutrition (especially with vitamin and mineral
> supplements), but simple OVERNUTRITION. If reasoning gets in the way
> of our doing something about it, then that reasoning may be preventing
> us from reaching our health goals.
>
> Any thoughts about this? And about trying to so exquisitely balance
> our meals that we sabotage our dietary efforts (and others have their
> efforts balanced as well).
>
>
> Yours truly,
>
> Caleb
>

Where did the concept of definition of a balanced diet come from. A lot
of articles and tv news feeds have dietitians saying that we need equal
proportions of protein, green vegetables, and (choke) starch in our
diets, a so called balanced diet. Where is the proof that this is what
one needs? The so called 'balanced' diet is a modern concept, brought
about during the advent of thee industrial revolution and furthered by
money hungry processed grain producing companies. Perhaps it works, as
in meaning provides for optimal health, for some or even most, but not
necessarily all.

As far as people suffering from OVER NUTRITION, I would have to say that
there is a difference between people suffering being over WEIGHT and
having over NUTRITION. I say this because much of what modern society
consumes (to excess) is empty calories, starches, sugars, trans-fats,
and chemicals, much of which hardly contains any nutrition.

Just in case I wasn't clear on this, I happen to at least more or less
agree with your assessment of the so called need for a "balanced" diet.

On Feb 23, 5:52 am, Noway2 <no_spam...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> Caleb wrote:
> > The tyranny of a "balanced diet" -- does anyone think this might be
> > harmful to your health?
>
> > Let me explain what I mean.
>
> > Some people say that all of our meals should be "balanced," with
> > appropriate amounts of protein, carbs, minerals, etc., etc., and that
> > if we are trying to lose weight and are eating an "unbalanced diet"
> > than that's unhealthy.
>
> > One problem with this view is that people vary (and have greatly
> > varied) their food intake from day to day, week to week, etc. And some
> > people stick with the same basic foods month after month.
>
> > An alarmist position is that every meal HAS to be balanced, and
> > perhaps also that we HAVE to eat THREE OR MORE times a day! And if we
> > don't do this, we are risking THE POSSIBILITY OF HUGE HARM!
>
> > I think that if ongoing "balance" was so important, it would have been
> > proved well before now. (Even complementary proteins for vegetarians
> > don't have to be eaten in the same meals.) Also, the human race
> > probably would have died out eons ago. (And every Boy Scout I know
> > would have died of "'s Mores" excess.)
>
> > Seems to me that the basic problem for most of us is not
> > undernutrition, or malnutrition (especially with vitamin and mineral
> > supplements), but simple OVERNUTRITION. If reasoning gets in the way
> > of our doing something about it, then that reasoning may be preventing
> > us from reaching our health goals.
>
> > Any thoughts about this? And about trying to so exquisitely balance
> > our meals that we sabotage our dietary efforts (and others have their
> > efforts balanced as well).
>
> > Yours truly,
>
> > Caleb
>
> Where did the concept of definition of a balanced diet come from. A lot
> of articles and tv news feeds have dietitians saying that we need equal
> proportions of protein, green vegetables, and (choke) starch in our
> diets, a so called balanced diet. Where is the proof that this is what
> one needs? The so called 'balanced' diet is a modern concept, brought
> about during the advent of thee industrial revolution and furthered by
> money hungry processed grain producing companies. Perhaps it works, as
> in meaning provides for optimal health, for some or even most, but not
> necessarily all.
>
> As far as people suffering from OVER NUTRITION, I would have to say that
> there is a difference between people suffering being over WEIGHT and
> having over NUTRITION. I say this because much of what modern society
> consumes (to excess) is empty calories, starches, sugars, trans-fats,
> and chemicals, much of which hardly contains any nutrition.
>
> Just in case I wasn't clear on this, I happen to at least more or less
> agree with your assessment of the so called need for a "balanced" diet.


Noway2 -- you came through loud and clear, adding insights I hadn't
considered.

I remember asking my son (when he was in middle school) whether in his
health class anyone had talked about the problems of overweight, and
he said that this was never mentioned in his class. Discussed were
balanced meals, getting enough of this and that, etc., etc. If we were
as fragile as some people (even experts) suggest, the human race would
have died out many years ago.

Yours,

Caleb

Caleb wrote:
(snip)
>
>
> Noway2 -- you came through loud and clear, adding insights I hadn't
> considered.
>
> I remember asking my son (when he was in middle school) whether in his
> health class anyone had talked about the problems of overweight, and
> he said that this was never mentioned in his class. Discussed were
> balanced meals, getting enough of this and that, etc., etc. If we were
> as fragile as some people (even experts) suggest, the human race would
> have died out many years ago.
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb
>
The race doesn't care a whit if you die at 40. The children you had in
your teens and early 20's are grown and independent. So if you live on
a poor diet and die early the race goes on. And the nutrition levels
for minimal survival are known. No protein leads to disease. Kwashi or
something like that. No vitamin C get scurvey. No B vitamins get
beriberi. no D get rickets.

If you want to live with marginal health and chronic disease and die
prematurely, go for it.

Some folks obsess about nutrition. That doesn't mean we should pay no
attention to it.


--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

On Feb 23, 5:52 am, Noway2 <no_spam...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
> Where did the concept of definition of a balanced diet come from. A lot
> of articles and tv news feeds have dietitians saying that we need equal
> proportions of protein, green vegetables, and (choke) starch in our
> diets, a so called balanced diet. Where is the proof that this is what
> one needs?

I have a simple approach for sorting through bullshit.

Basically, I do not accept nutrition advice from anyone who doesn't
have better abdominal definition than me.

If what you think you know about diet and exercise is legit, you
should have a body which proves it.

On Feb 23, 10:13 am, "Kaz Kylheku" <kkylh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 5:52 am, Noway2 <no_spam...@triad.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > Where did the concept of definition of a balanced diet come from. A lot
> > of articles and tv news feeds have dietitians saying that we need equal
> > proportions of protein, green vegetables, and (choke) starch in our
> > diets, a so called balanced diet. Where is the proof that this is what
> > one needs?
>
> I have a simple approach for sorting through bullshit.
>
> Basically, I do not accept nutrition advice from anyone who doesn't
> have better abdominal definition than me.
>
> If what you think you know about diet and exercise is legit, you
> should have a body which proves it.


Kaz --

I think that's not a bad way to do it -- I can sure think of worse
ways to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If they are better than you in that department, and are giving
nutritional advice, then they have walked the walk and probably have
some good things to share. They have also avoided a lot of nonsense
themselves.

Yours,

Caleb

On Feb 23, 9:29 am, Del Cecchi <cecchinos...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> Caleb wrote:
>
> (snip)
>
>
>
> > Noway2 -- you came through loud and clear, adding insights I hadn't
> > considered.
>
> > I remember asking my son (when he was in middle school) whether in his
> > health class anyone had talked about the problems of overweight, and
> > he said that this was never mentioned in his class. Discussed were
> > balanced meals, getting enough of this and that, etc., etc. If we were
> > as fragile as some people (even experts) suggest, the human race would
> > have died out many years ago.
>
> > Yours,
>
> > Caleb
>
> The race doesn't care a whit if you die at 40. The children you had in
> your teens and early 20's are grown and independent. So if you live on
> a poor diet and die early the race goes on. And the nutrition levels
> for minimal survival are known. No protein leads to disease. Kwashi or
> something like that. No vitamin C get scurvey. No B vitamins get
> beriberi. no D get rickets.
>
> If you want to live with marginal health and chronic disease and die
> prematurely, go for it.
>
> Some folks obsess about nutrition. That doesn't mean we should pay no
> attention to it.
>
> --
> Del Cecchi
> "This post is my own and doesn't necessarily represent IBM's positions,
> strategies or opinions."



Del -- I think a LOT of people obsess about nutrition and about the
harmful effects of even missing a handful of calories. Certainly
advertisers play upon such fears as do a lot of others. I overhear
people telling their overweight children to continue to eat their huge
portions to be sure they have enough "protein."

I think there are a lot of toxic messages out there -- toxic in the
sense that these messages are hurting others. No one makes money
telling people not to eat their product or not to use their service,
and this has helped turn us into CONSUMERS.

With a daily vitamin/mineral pill and at least some protein and
carbohydrates, I don't think people have too much to worry about in
the short run as they lose weight, as long as their PCPs or others say
go for it. People just aren't that fragile.

I'm reading the seafaring books by Patrick O'Brien (one of his books
was "Master and Commander" and this was turned into a movie). He is a
great, great writer and if you like historical novels, these are ones
you may want to check out. In several of the ones I have read so far,
scurvy rears its head after more than several months. I don't know how
dangerous it is to run the risk of possibly undereating various
substances (and this probably would be unlikely given vitamins,
minimal protein, etc.) but the dangers of overeating include death,
diabetes, etc.

Yours,

Caleb

I think I'd have to agree with you, Caleb. Eating right is important,
but so is not getting bogged down with the details of it. I've known
people who make it a goal to "eat right", then start to obsess over
whatever eating right means to them. They stuck with it for a couple
of weeks, then gradually got tired of it and started eating crap like
fast food regularly again.

Myself, I try to see to it that I get a fairly balanced diet, but I
don't count grams of anything. And I do have the occasional half-pint
of Ben and Jerry's. Not often, mind you, but once in a while. As
long as a person isn't running against a consistent, long ranged
dietary deficiency, I think that no harm will be done.

--
Annie


As of 02-23-07: 258/179.5/140 Standing at 5 foot 4.


78.5 pounds lost. 39.5 left to go. Started February/07/05


Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.
http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html

Annie Benson-Lennaman wrote:
> I think I'd have to agree with you, Caleb. Eating right is important,
> but so is not getting bogged down with the details of it. I've known
> people who make it a goal to "eat right", then start to obsess over
> whatever eating right means to them. They stuck with it for a couple
> of weeks, then gradually got tired of it and started eating crap like
> fast food regularly again.
>
Lack of discipline. It's not hard to realize that you need
carbs/proteins/essential fats. It's not hard to realize what foods you can
get them from. Heck, I don't keep my macronutrient ratios written down, I go
be feel. However, I'm losing fat, gaining energy. The single hardest part is
portion control, not What to eat within the carb/protein/fat group.

> Myself, I try to see to it that I get a fairly balanced diet, but I
> don't count grams of anything. And I do have the occasional half-pint
> of Ben and Jerry's. Not often, mind you, but once in a while. As
> long as a person isn't running against a consistent, long ranged
> dietary deficiency, I think that no harm will be done.

Interesting. I completely dumped ice-cream 2 months ago and haven't care for
it since. Even then I was only eating it on Friday night and only because I
thought I needed to "reward" myself for a hard-weeks work. What I ended up
realizing is that I didn't care for the ice-cream that much, and how great
it would be to chuck those useless calories....

On Feb 24, 8:58 pm, "Annie Benson-Lennaman" <aben...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I think I'd have to agree with you, Caleb. Eating right is important,
> but so is not getting bogged down with the details of it. I've known
> people who make it a goal to "eat right", then start to obsess over
> whatever eating right means to them. They stuck with it for a couple
> of weeks, then gradually got tired of it and started eating crap like
> fast food regularly again.
>
> Myself, I try to see to it that I get a fairly balanced diet, but I
> don't count grams of anything. And I do have the occasional half-pint
> of Ben and Jerry's. Not often, mind you, but once in a while. As
> long as a person isn't running against a consistent, long ranged
> dietary deficiency, I think that no harm will be done.
>
> --
> Annie
>
> As of 02-23-07: 258/179.5/140 Standing at 5 foot 4.
>
> 78.5 pounds lost. 39.5 left to go. Started February/07/05
>
> Come visit my weight-loss web site, Annie Takes Off.http://webpages.charter.net/lenny13/DietFrontPage.html

Annie -- GREAT NUMBERS!!! And I sure agree with what you're saying
about some people obsessing to the point of leaving all good eating
patterns behind. And, after all, Ben and Jerry's is an important
source! or so some people tell me (Warning -- that was humor!)

Yours,

Caleb

Thanks, Celeb. It's good to see you around here again. I'd stopped
lurkering for a while, but I did wonder how you were doing. I just
got a new computer, and now I have to find a decent newsreader!

I wasn't trying to suggest that everyone should try to work some
Ben and Jerry's into their lives. I fully understand that it can be a
trigger food for many, or that other might not find its very high
calorie count to be worth the experience of eating it. I can respect
that. But I do like it, and eating it once every two months or so is
not a terrible thing. When I started my new way of life, one of the
things I told myself is that I wasn't giving up all the bad foods I
loved so much, I was just going to be cutting way, way down. I knew
that if I told myself "Self, no more fried chicken or BBQ'd ribs from
now on!" my new way of life would have lasted about two weeks, if
that.

I can eat whatever I want. Just not all at once.

On Feb 26, 7:03 pm, "Annie Benson-Lennaman" <aben...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks, Celeb. It's good to see you around here again. I'd stopped
> lurkering for a while, but I did wonder how you were doing. I just
> got a new computer, and now I have to find a decent newsreader!
>
> I wasn't trying to suggest that everyone should try to work some
> Ben and Jerry's into their lives. I fully understand that it can be a
> trigger food for many, or that other might not find its very high
> calorie count to be worth the experience of eating it. I can respect
> that. But I do like it, and eating it once every two months or so is
> not a terrible thing. When I started my new way of life, one of the
> things I told myself is that I wasn't giving up all the bad foods I
> loved so much, I was just going to be cutting way, way down. I knew
> that if I told myself "Self, no more fried chicken or BBQ'd ribs from
> now on!" my new way of life would have lasted about two weeks, if
> that.
>
> I can eat whatever I want. Just not all at once.

Annie -- couldn't agree with you more! (about people being told that
they have to take the pledge PERMANENTLY to change their lives
henceforth forever, etc., etc.).

That's not how the real world works. Ben and Jerry's now and then sure
makes sense to me (or a smaller portion every day).

But really, it seems as though there are a variety of people who shake
their fingers at others and say, "What you're doing is wrong! Wrong!
WRONG!" And they kind of gain their power by criticizing what others
are doing, even if it's successful for the others.

People are SURE of all kinds of things that just aren't supported by
the real world. Three square meals a day? (Who decided that? Was it
God? What are the data?) 8 glasses of water a day. (Again, where are
the data?) etc., etc.

There's so much variance in the real world that I think that as long
people are on the way to making themselves healthier -- and they good
about themselves -- then that's absolutely terrific!

Some people might say, "Oh, if you lose weight, that's fine! But no
more than 1.5 pounds a week! That's the max!" But who died and made
them God? And if people then lose motivation and get off their dieting
regimen, are these advice givers willing to pay the medical bills?

Sorry -- I am off on a tangent.

Certainly nice to see your name again, and again, YOUR NUMBERS ARE
GREAT!!!! KEEP IT UP!!!!

Yours,

Caleb

On Feb 23, 12:30 am, "Caleb" <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> The tyranny of a "balanced diet" -- does anyone think this might be
> harmful to your health?
>
> Let me explain what I mean.
>
> Some people say that all of our meals should be "balanced," with
> appropriate amounts of protein, carbs, minerals, etc., etc., and that
> if we are trying to lose weight and are eating an "unbalanced diet"
> than that's unhealthy.
>
> One problem with this view is that people vary (and have greatly
> varied) their food intake from day to day, week to week, etc. And some
> people stick with the same basic foods month after month.
I am busy going back to older posts to catch up and share my
experience since I seem to have had a relative measure of success.

I strive for balance but usually end up with a higher percentage of
calories from fat on a daily basis, That is beacsue a gram of fat is
almost double in calories than carbs or protein. I am on a restricted
carbohydrate diet. That does not mean having to have lower percentages
of carbs. It refers to sticking to monosaccharides like fruit,
vegetables, honey, nuts and no bread, pasta, rice, corn, soy potatoes
and some oither starchy root vegetables. The microvilli in the
intestine get flattened out in celiacs when unable to process
disaccharides or polysaccharides. This feeds bad gut bacteria and also
fosters malabsorption of nutrients.

So typically I'll wind up with a ratio like this;

Fat 40-50%
protein-25-30
Carbs 35 %

I juggle it around.
Occasionally when iI cut back on overall fat, like boiling an egg
instead of scrambling, my weight will drop a little, however my
primary concern now is good nutrition and food that will keep the
celiac under control.

Diva
SCD 7 years (Specific Carbohydrate Diet)