The federal government has released a new Canada Food Guide — the first update of the bible for good eating in almost 15 years.[...]
It now contains dietary advice tailored to specific groups— children, teens, women, men and the elderly.
And it doesn't just say which foods are good and which are bad, it tells Canadians how much food is enough and how much is too much.
It also addresses new research in the field of good eating, including warning against trans fats, and it contains recommendations for exercise.
The new guide was developed over four years of consultations with more than 7,000 dieticians, nutritionists, scientists, doctors and public health experts.
We at Diversely We Sail like to keep our lifestyle firmly in line with cutting-edged thinking from the health sciences, so we’ve been browsing through the very pretty, online edition of this opus, and are we ever learning a lot. Did you know it is good to eat lots of fruits, vegetables and grains, especially if you mix them up? That fish, meat and dairy are also good in modest amounts? Sugar and fats are not so good, but those wild and crazy dieticians say we can have small portions of them if we exercise regularly and aren’t overweight. Raw celery and carrots are much better snacking choices than a supersized order of fries or a half-dozen Twinkies. Water is very, very good (could you have guessed especially on hot days?) and decaffeinated teas and fruit juices aren’t too far behind. Caffeine is not good for kids, so there goes little Jimmy’s morning double expresso. Soft drinks and alcohol may be “low in nutritional value”. Cakes and ice cream pack a lot of calories and it really is not a terribly good idea to eat too much of anything.
That’s about it.
We wonder how many nutritionists it takes to change a lightbulb.
11 comments:
Yes, it's very common-sense stuff.
Now if only the publics of No. America, Scotland, and Australia, among many others, would follow a diet that was anywhere near the recommended one, instead of one that's slow suicide.
In the U.S., the top vegetables consumed are potatoes, followed by lettuce, carrots, and tomatoes.
Potatoes because that's what french fries and chips are made of, (or chips and crisps, if you will), and lettuce and tomatoes because they often come standard on fast food sandwiches.
Indeed, french fries account for nearly one-fourth of all of the "vegetables" eaten by children and adolescents in America.
Food and nutrition professionals encourage eating five servings of vegetables a day, but a survey by the National Cancer Institute and National Institutes of Health indicates that in the U.S., the average number of vegetable servings eaten per week is a meager 12.
The Australian dietary guidelines are to have five servings of vegetables and two servings of fruit every day.
According to the Chief Health Officer of the Australian state of New South Wales, in NSW only 5% of men and 10% of women are eating the recommended vegetable intake, although 45% of men and 58% of women do eat at least two pieces of fruit daily.
It's truly a pity when it takes 7,000 nutritionists to change a lightbulb, and yet that makes them the smartest people in the room.
Here are some examples of what five servings of vegetables look like.
I'm convinced that one day we're going to discover that the only reason humans have been dying all these millennia is that vegetables are poison. And they cause global warming.
Do you see that as a legitimate role for government.
As long as people insist that the government should pay for medical care, as either a first or last resort, then yes, it's not only legitimate, but as a taxpayer I demand that the government continually point out to the morons among us that smoking and not eating well will cause them to fall ill.
You want to deny him the medical care his vices caused...
No, I want him to get top-notch medical care.
I just don't want to pay for it.
[H]e doesn't want to pay for their fecklessness and selfishness.
I don't want to pay for it either.
As an aside, why do you ascribe the concept of "serial monogamy" to me, and why do you believe that I support it ?
I wasn't the first to mention it in that thread, and I didn't say that I supported it, merely that I believe that that's the way it's going to be.
I further wrote, in that same thread, that I've been married for fourteen years, so my personal life could hardly be described as an example of "serial monogamy".
There are no hard feelings, but we very often seem to miscommunicate, and I would appreciate any insight into why that's so.
[W]ould you agree anyone who needs a hip replacement should be on his/her own if it can be shown he/she jogged after age 40?
If there were some medical reason why that person shouldn't have been jogging, and it could be proven that she knew about it, then yes.
But the implicit assumption that jogging after 40 is in some way intrinsically damaging is simply false.
There are so many ways in which a person can be a free rider that we should all assume that we reap benefits from society that we haven't earned. If anyone attempted to monetize it they would need exclusive access to all the world's supercomputers, and even then it would be a guess. I say don't worry too much that you're getting jipped, you may actually be coming out ahead.
Oh, I'm well-aware of how good I've got it.
The Boomers may have stolen 15% of my income since I started working, but in return, they're going to volunteer to be the guinea pigs for experimental anti-aging treatments that will allow me to live far longer than they will.
But they never intended any such thing, either the theft or the medical experiments. It just worked out that way.
You are of course accountable to your doctor, but he's wrong too.
Given all of the posting that you do about fallible scientists, you must be aware that doctors aren't always right, and also that on many issues, doctors disagree as to the best course of action.
However, are you sure that your doctor didn't tell you that YOU shouldn't jog, not that anyone past 40 ought not do so ?
Oro:
Why aren't all diets 'slow suicide?' Yours is just slower than the average.
People who hang around in an interminable dotage have to be funded too.
Why aren't all diets 'slow suicide?'
Because some can be conclusively shown to be better than others.
When following the best ones, people tend to die of other-than-diet-related issues.
Thus, the mere act of eating isn't suicide, it's what it is that's eaten that matters, followed closely by how it's eaten.
I gather you aren't just playing...
No, I'm playing.
I believe in what I'm saying, but I also accept that I can only achieve moral victories on this issue, by convincing people that I'm right from a philosophical viewpoint.
There is zero chance of anything like what I'm advocating becoming public policy.
That's an argument you usually hear from folks from countries with socialized medicine...
The United States have socialized medicine.
If we didn't, there'd be absolutely no point in what I was writing.
People in other nations often mistake the fact that there's no American gov't-run universal health care system for a lack of socialized medicine, but we just back-door it, by charging people with insurance more than the cost of their treatment, to cover the costs of treating those without insurance. And of course we also have a gov't-run low-income heath care programme.
[I]t will be pointed out quite conclusively to you that the earlier deaths these cause save you a bundle.
No, they don't.
People in ill health die sooner, but they cost a lot more on the way out, in terms of health services used, and loss of productivity.
If one only analyzes the issue only in accounting terms, then sure, the conclusion drawn is that money's saved, but if the issue is subjected to economic analysis, then it's clear that there is an enormous loss of potential.
I note that if we subject the American Social "Security" programme to the same sort of accounting analysis, then everything looks fine! Super!
But the reality is that the U.S. SS programme will be bankrupt in about ten years.
May I suggest it isn't really money that is concerning you.
You may suggest it, but I ask, why do you think that it's fair to subject me to your amateur pop-psych, when you've asked us to stop doing so to you ?
Beyond that, the suggestion is simply wrong.
You have posted frequently and with palpable enthusiasm about how we're soon all going to live greatly extended lives. [...] Is it possible you are having a little difficulty holding down your impatience at people who think that is bunk and appear to be holding us all back?
Well, this is the same dynamic that's at work with arguments over gay marriage.
If two or more gay guys decide to get hitched, it doesn't affect my own marriage one iota.
Similarly, if half of the world decided to eat nothing but 4,000 kcal of sugar per day, and died shortly thereafter, it wouldn't "hold me back" in the slightest.
The lumpen masses' poor diets sadden me, as do their poor financial decisions, but neither really affect me all that much.
But maybe I'm missing something.
Would you please explain in more detail how people who don't think that humans are going to have greatly extended lives, and act on their beliefs, are holding back those who do believe such a thing ?
I mean, they do their thing, and I do mine. Where is the interconnection ?
Or possibly because you are just grossed out by people who don't live like you?
Yes, I want people who don't live like me to be deprived of medical care, becaue they are gross.
Let them suffer and die, so that the future's Ubermen, (of whom I am a leader, but not the leader - but she bids me, "Say no more"), can take the reins of power.
Thus speaks a eugenicist of the coming Seventh Reich.
No, you charged that I was a eugenicist, and I wrote that supposing that I was, then what ?
Don't mistake the words that you put into my mouth for reality.
I'm with the vive la difference bunch now, because it doesn't cost me much.
But I'll be with the state re-educator crowd if those with self-inflicted illnesses start insisting that everyone ought to help pay for fixing their maladies.
If someone insists on behaving like a child, they'll be treated like a child.
Thank you.
Post a Comment