As a food enthusiast, I can accurately say that it is not the exact food that you eat, but how you cook that food that determines whether or not it is healthy for you.
Grilling your food? Food police are particularly hateful to charcoal. However, you can get great food if you properly select your coal before hand. Natural coal is best because it contains no additional chemicals or fillers that briquettes contain, so that you can maintain a nice even burn over a longer period of time. What chemicals that occur naturally in natural coal burn out before you introduce your food to the grilling surface, so you get a pleasant heat to cook your food. Propane grills have a particular advantage over charcoal because it doesn't smoke, however the heat that is uced by these grills is water vapor, heated to extreme temperatures that you don't see the "smoke."
Deep frying your food is a possible health hazard if you don't know how to do it properly. Yes, a lot of people do get the typical golden brown and delicious result from fried foods correct, however, where fried foods get fatty is that a lot of people don't know how to make a proper draining rig for your foods. A lot of home cooks stack a lot of paper towels on a plate and on top of that went your fried goods. While that may seem good on paper, if you are frying for a lot of people, the resulting oil from the newly fried foods would drip down to the already drained foods. A proper rig should consist of wire racks, turned upside down, in a sheet pan lined with parchment paper. The wire rack would safely drain away oil from the fried item to the parchment, which does a lot better job at absorbing oil than paper towels could.
Hope that helps you.
To a small degree yes but overall, no.
If you cook vegetables in a gallon of water for hours yes, their nutritional value is gone completely.
The whole concept of "healthy food" as a whole is so wrong that it's not worth arguing over smaller issues.
I can eat nothing but mcdonalds for a year and come out of it "healthier" than someone eating nothing but "healthy" foods but at the same time I could eat nothing at all for 2 weeks and watch my vitals improve(other than electrolyte levels and such).
I'm already changing my choices based on the OP article. I'm not buying lean ground beef anymore (full fat for me), and I won't cook with vegetable oil anymore. It's unclear whether olive oil is lumped in with the article, but probably I should cook with butter.
Also, I'll probably choose the fatty version of anything over the "low fat" or "non fat" version.
Folks read that article and then consider this:
This one is also a shocker:
Not sure if serious...
This is the exact reaction that people probably shouldn't be having from the article. Let's eat fats because they're good for us. They play a big role in staying healthy and in hormone regulation but you shouldn't stuff your face full of them.
Having said that, when I ate around 120-130g fats per day, my mood and general outlook were much more positive.
Not so fast, fruits and veggies don't appear to be unscathed in all of this.
The AHA recommendations will have to change as a result of this. Their recommendations are not based real science. I don't blame them for not changing the recommendations in the face of uncertainty - at this point who's to say what's right? But what they've been preaching over the last 50 years is unsubstantiated and actually looks to be counter-productive.
In fact, after reading that article, I think the biggest recommendation I have is that no one should listen to the AHA... probably ever.
We need @
FoolKiller in here.
You're giving this article way too much credibility. WHere are the sources and studies that it's based on? You're so quick to dismiss everything else and put all your faith in WSJ yet they give nothing to back up their claims.
I'm not disagreeing with the WSJ as many of the things they state I've read about years ago but you seem to be jumping to extremes.
As for the fruit, I recently heard of a lady who started eating lots of organic fruit/veggies but had a tendency to stick to the same 2-3 kinds. Well, guess who ended up with cancer a decade down the road? Too much of a "good thing" I guess.
Have a varied diet, know your limits, and you'll be fine.
I didn't realize this was new. My dad was diabetic and we knew that a low-carb diet helped him out. He avoided bread if at all possible. Of course, being old and stubborn like so many other guys he didn't follow the diet for very long.
Bottom line is that if you take in more carbs than you expel you're going to gain weight. Take in less and you'll lose weight. You need to keep that in balance so you don't flood your system with glucose and pack on fat. Also, don't eat a big meal with lots of carbs immediately before bed. Eat a smaller meal or do some activities before you go to bed.
I'm not sure how the whole "metabolism" thing factors in. I've always been thin despite eating like a cow at times. I've noticed some fat gain in the last 5 years but still haven't cracked 150 pounds - I don't work out but that combined with more food is probably the only way I'd gain weight effectively. I mean, I can down two burgers from Five Guys and be hungry 4 hours later every day and not gain a pound by the end of the week.
If you take in more calories than you expel, you'll gain weight.
Metabolism does play a factor. I know tiny guys, 5'7" 140lbs, who lose weight eating 4000 calories daily and sitting at a desk all day. I maintain at 3000 calories with heavy lifting 4x a week and biking 3x a week while being 6'2" 225lbs.
Eating often does not speed up your metabolism just like eating 1 or 2x a day doesn't slow it down. Just think about it. If you eat 2000 calories in one sitting vs eating 2000 over 5 meals, your body still has to process that 2000 calories and in both instances takes just as long.
