Major schools of nutritional thought as of 2010

[Elta]

Not fully rounded schools, just ideas I hear people pushing in general: (These are in no order, and they are not mutually exclusive, I just listing the ones that come to mind. I would like it if you all added on and maybe told me of your diets - I am using the prose of the people who speak of these diets, this is not my opinions below)

1. All animal products are bad for humans. Yes breast milk is good, but you are not suppose to have milk after (insert age of child). After that the body can no longer process milk.

2. Meat is bad for you, (eggs are sometime thrown in with meat here). Some humans have though bio cultural evolution adapted themselves to dairy.

3. Meat is not bad for you, but we only need so much. The western (or rather modern-wealthy) diet includes to much of it. You only need 3 to 4 ounces of meat a day. (This is typical of many hunter gatherer groups that are quite healthy and a lot of my Anthropology professors recommended eating that amount of meat in class)

4. Grains are not good for you (not as good), compare the nutrition in a leaf, for example spinach, anyone can see that it would be better for you to eat 400 calories of leafy greens over 400 calories of corn. But American do just that, we eat 400 calories worth of corn every day.

5. Reductionist food scientist. We can look at a food and determine what in is good for you and what isn't. Yes it is complicated, but it can be done.

6. Anti food reductionist. The modern western diet is horrible for us and reductionist food science will not change that. There is more at play than just "what food is it, how much fiber" etc. For example, a white bagel - bad news, it will spike your blood sugar. However if you smear it with a thick coating of peanut butter the way the body processes it will be very different.
Look at basil, there is zero doubt in any culture that it is good for you, but there are well over twenty active ingredients, you can'y just pull one out and put all of the others in a pill to test it out, it is too complicated. One chemical effects another in a tapestry. there are so many millions of combinations to wade through before you can figure out what is in it exactly that is good for you that you could never truly figure it out. The scientific community is finally coming around to the fact that soy is bad for you and fermented soy is food for you. Asian cultures have known this for 1000s of years. How did they figure it out? Well a culture doesn't eat something for 1000s of years if it is making people sick. Western diets clearly do make people sick, as can be seen with the so called "western diseases" In short - just eat traditional diets. It is impossible to reduce down what is good in what and what is not, but we can say without a doubt that traditional diets are better than modern ones.

7. Sugar is horrible! ( I can't do justice to the way I keep hearing this one explained, in short - the lower the glycemic index the better.

8. We need more saturated fat in our diet - Men in particular Cutting out "fatty foods" in our diet is detrimental to testosterone production and general hormone function in both sexes. We need to get back to traditional levels of saturated fats in the diet. It doesn't mean purposely trying to buy more fatty food. Just eat the original - use butter, not margarine, drink milk - real milk, you don't need to buy ultra lean ground beef, Use coconut and olive oil in you cooking etc

9. Transfat is the devil Everyone has heard it by now, no need to describe it.

10. Altering the chemical structure of food is bad Getting sweetener out of corn using a centrifuge can never be healthy for you. It is entirely unnatural. Our bodies are not suited for eating that stuff. etc etc with GMO being unnatural. You need to eat food, real food. If it doesn't rot, it's not food, but a food product.

11. Eat paleo, you are built to do that. Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, the occasional seed. That is what we evolved eating, and it is still what is good for us.

12. The lipid hypothesis is a lie predicated by (insert culprits). Soon the world will know the truth. Fat is not bad for you, heart attacks are caused by being fat - which in and of itself is almost always caused by inactivity, insulin resistance, and lack of portion control.


As you can see, like I said they are not all mutually exclusive. These are just the major things I've heard.

 

[warpus]

11. Eat paleo, you are built to do that. Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, the occasional seed. That is what we evolved eating, and it is still what is good for us.

This is pretty much the Atkins diet, right? My dad tried this for a couple months and lost a lot of weight - said he was feeling a lot better than before. Hasn't gained it back, but he's pretty disciplined about everything he does, so I'm not surprised. (was in the army for 2 years, maybe that's why)

This diet makes sense to me - our stomachs evolved processing meats and berries - not processed grains like breads or starches. It makes sense that our stomachs would have trouble breaking down breads, pastas, etc. and would be far more efficient at processing meat.

 

[GoodGame]

1. All animal products are bad for humans. Yes breast milk is good, but you are not suppose to have milk after (insert age of child). After that the body can no longer process milk.

Not sure how true this is, but I think any evidence is based on associated toxicity and inability of the immune system to handle it. E.g. don't feed babies honey. I'd take this as vegan propaganda in general, and only accept it on a case-by-case basis with evidence.

2. Meat is bad for you, (eggs are sometime thrown in with meat here). Some humans have though bio cultural evolution adapted themselves to dairy.

.

Probably only for saturated fat content and cholesterol content, and possibly due to hormone levels.

We do need some saturated fat and cholesterol in our diet.

Eggs get maligned additionally I think for biotin blocking amino acid metabolism; I just buy the eggs with the extra omega-3 and eat only a couple a week. I think it's undecided if you should eat them every day.

I think a lot of it is politics. Animal production is expensive, vegans, Americans are overeaters and spoiled with rich diets, etc...

Meat-based Fast-food is generally bad for you though, usually because of salt, fat, and trans-fatty acids used to cook them.

I'll side with meat is not bad for you, and as much hunter-gatherer exists in the population as farmer.

4. Grains are not good for you (not as good), compare the nutrition in a leaf, for example spinach, anyone can see that it would be better for you to eat 400 calories of leafy greens over 400 calories of corn. But American do just that, we eat 400 calories worth of corn every day.

I'll side with people over-eat carbs, and plant-based carbs can contain substances that react with the immune system (allergies, etc..). I've heard there's really no minimum requirement for carbs, though food labels show it. I'd side with Americans really eat carbs for other than nutritional reasons which gives us problems with obesity, diabetes, etc...

Best dieting advice: Don't starve yourself but don't eat to feel full. Get enough carbs to meet your energy needs, but not beyond that.

5. Reductionist food scientist. We can look at a food and determine what in is good for you and what isn't. Yes it is complicated, but it can be done.

Huh? Biochemical analysis? Some kind of Psionic-analysis of food?

6. Anti food reductionist. The modern western diet is horrible for us and reductionist food science will not change that. There is more at play than just "what food is it, how much fiber" etc. For example, a white bagel - bad news, it will spike your blood sugar. However if you smear it with a thick coating of peanut butter the way the body processes it will be very different.
Look at basil, there is zero doubt in any culture that it is good for you, but there are well over twenty active ingredients, you can'y just pull one out and put all of the others in a pill to test it out, it is too complicated. One chemical effects another in a tapestry. there are so many millions of combinations to wade through before you can figure out what is in it exactly that is good for you that you could never truly figure it out. The scientific community is finally coming around to the fact that soy is bad for you and fermented soy is food for you. Asian cultures have known this for 1000s of years. How did they figure it out? Well a culture doesn't eat something for 1000s of years if it is making people sick. Western diets clearly do make people sick, as can be seen with the so called "western diseases" In short - just eat traditional diets. It is impossible to reduce down what is good in what and what is not, but we can say without a doubt that traditional diets are better than modern ones.

The above two schools---I've never heard of. Sounds more like meta-physics, which doesn't particularly belong in a nutritional discussion.

I think it's safe to say that there is a degree of ethnobotany going on in human history. Even if we are one race, there are sub-populations that have co-evolved with their local food sources. Therefore, what is good for one population might not be good for another population. Also accepting a disadvantage might be evolutionary advantage in net (e.g. sickle cell anemia in peoples living in areas with endemic malaria problems).

7. Sugar is horrible! ( I can't do justice to the way I keep hearing this one explained, in short - the lower the glycemic index the better.

I suspect refined sugar is not good, but in general excess sugar is really not nice for pre-diabetics and fat people in general. The blood sugar high is also part of the big problem of obesity, diabetes, poor eating habits, etc..

8. We need more saturated fat in our diet - Men in particular Cutting out "fatty foods" in our diet is detrimental to testosterone production and general hormone function in both sexes. We need to get back to traditional levels of saturated fats in the diet. It doesn't mean purposely trying to buy more fatty food. Just eat the original - use butter, not margarine, drink milk - real milk, you don't need to buy ultra lean ground beef, Use coconut and olive oil in you cooking etc

I doubt there is any evidence for this. You need some but not too much.

9. Transfat is the devil Everyone has heard it by now, no need to describe it.

And there's good evidence to feel that way.

10. Altering the chemical structure of food is bad Getting sweetener out of corn using a centrifuge can never be healthy for you. It is entirely unnatural. Our bodies are not suited for eating that stuff. etc etc with GMO being unnatural. You need to eat food, real food. If it doesn't rot, it's not food, but a food product.

Chemicals are chemicals, whether they are synthesized or come from an organic source. Structure is everything in a chemical and dictates function. Technically, structural changes are making a brand new chemical, which who knows, might be harmful. It's a lot like making a new drug (drugs are chemicals, see?).

The "real food" argument is hollow though. The only pro for eating 'traditional' is an evolutionary argument.

GMO may be unnatural, but so is the evolution of crops. E.g. Corn as we eat it, even before GMO corn, was the 'unnatural' evolution due to selective breeding by humans. As long as the technology of the GMO doesn't introduce a specific toxin, GMO is not necessarily unnatural by any means.

11. Eat paleo, you are built to do that. Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, the occasional seed. That is what we evolved eating, and it is still what is good for us.

Different strokes for different folks. Don't forget meats too.

12. The lipid hypothesis is a lie predicated by (insert culprits). Soon the world will know the truth. Fat is not bad for you, heart attacks are caused by being fat - which in and of itself is almost always caused by inactivity, insulin resistance, and lack of portion control.

Evidence? Sounds like reactionary delusions, perhaps spread by fat people/people with unusually high metabolism of fat?

It's important to recognize that science is discovering more about human nutrition and metabolism e.g. signaling that involves fat cells, their receptors, and also carbohydrates as signals with specificity. Not all people have the same genetics, so metabolism is likely to differ with the individual. The statistical basis of nutritional studies is then very important




My advice:
I'll go with eat in moderation, don't eat to feel full, just eat for energy, don't starve yourself of any macronutrients (e.g. fat, carb, protein), and take vitamins and eat a variety fruits and vegetables. Always avoid eating fast-food. Drink Coffee, it's good for you.

 

[Lone Wolf]

Snacks are good in moderation.

 

[Ulyaoth]

I eat when I'm hungry, I try not to eat much processed food, that's all.

 

[Zelig]

What's the point of this thread?

 

[innonimatu]

What's the point of this thread?

To show who pathetically contradictory, and often plain nonsensical, the "nutritional advice" we keep getting bombarded with in the media (and, also, medics) is?

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I find it fascinating how intellegent people can have completely different views in a scientific field. Generally I think people think to much. Avoid junk food and eat when you are hungry.

 

[Mathilda]

BBC published findings about a week ago from a study of 400 000 Europeans that concluded that meat makes you fat.

Spoiler :

Cut down on meat to lose weight'

Eating less meat may be the key to keeping a healthy weight, say researchers.

A European study of almost 400,000 adults found that eating meat was linked with weight gain, even in people taking in the same number of calories.

The strongest association was found with processed meat, such as sausages and ham, the Imperial College London team reported.

It suggests that high-protein diets may not help slimmers in the long run.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also support public health messages advocating cutting down on the amount of meat we eat, the researchers said.

The study looked at data from adults taking part in a large project looking at the link between diet and cancer.

Participants from 10 European countries, including the UK, were weighed and measured at the start and then asked to report their weight five years later.

They also filled in a detailed food questionnaire.

Overall, the researchers found that meat consumption was associated with weight gain in both men and women.

More detailed analyses showed that the link was still significant after taking into account overall calorie intake, physical activity and other factors which may have skewed the results.

The team calculated that in people who ate the same number of calories, an extra 250g of meat a day - equal to a small steak - led to an additional weight gain of 2kg (5lbs) over five years.

It counters the theory that diets with high amounts of protein and low amounts of carbohydrate promote weight loss.

Although it is not clear why meat would lead to weight gain in people eating the same number of calories, one theory is that energy-dense foods like meat alter how the body regulates appetite control.

But there could also be another lifestyle or dietary explanation for the link that was not accounted for by the study.

Study leader Dr Anne-Claire Vergnaud said: "I would recommend to people to control their consumption of meat to maintain a healthy weight and good health in general during life."

But she added: "Decreasing the amount of meat alone would not be an adequate weight loss strategy."

Sian Porter, a dietician and spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, said there were caveats in the study, including the fact that at the end-weight was self-reported.

But she said it was an interesting finding.

"We eat more meat than we need.

"What I say to my patients is to think about variety - so have an egg for breakfast instead of bacon, cheese for lunch instead of ham and fish for the evening meal.

She advised people to eat lots of lentils and pulse, wholegrains, fruit and veg and oily fish as well as meat.

"Portion size is the other thing - a portion of meat should be about the size of a deck of cards."

 

[cardgame]

I eat things that taste good.

 

[Zelig]

BBC published findings about a week ago from a study of 400 000 Europeans that concluded that meat makes you fat.

Spoiler :

Cut down on meat to lose weight'

Eating less meat may be the key to keeping a healthy weight, say researchers.

A European study of almost 400,000 adults found that eating meat was linked with weight gain, even in people taking in the same number of calories.

The strongest association was found with processed meat, such as sausages and ham, the Imperial College London team reported.

It suggests that high-protein diets may not help slimmers in the long run.
The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also support public health messages advocating cutting down on the amount of meat we eat, the researchers said.

The study looked at data from adults taking part in a large project looking at the link between diet and cancer.

Participants from 10 European countries, including the UK, were weighed and measured at the start and then asked to report their weight five years later.

They also filled in a detailed food questionnaire.

Overall, the researchers found that meat consumption was associated with weight gain in both men and women.

More detailed analyses showed that the link was still significant after taking into account overall calorie intake, physical activity and other factors which may have skewed the results.

The team calculated that in people who ate the same number of calories, an extra 250g of meat a day - equal to a small steak - led to an additional weight gain of 2kg (5lbs) over five years.

It counters the theory that diets with high amounts of protein and low amounts of carbohydrate promote weight loss.

Although it is not clear why meat would lead to weight gain in people eating the same number of calories, one theory is that energy-dense foods like meat alter how the body regulates appetite control.

But there could also be another lifestyle or dietary explanation for the link that was not accounted for by the study.

Study leader Dr Anne-Claire Vergnaud said: "I would recommend to people to control their consumption of meat to maintain a healthy weight and good health in general during life."

But she added: "Decreasing the amount of meat alone would not be an adequate weight loss strategy."

Sian Porter, a dietician and spokeswoman for the British Dietetic Association, said there were caveats in the study, including the fact that at the end-weight was self-reported.

But she said it was an interesting finding.

"We eat more meat than we need.

"What I say to my patients is to think about variety - so have an egg for breakfast instead of bacon, cheese for lunch instead of ham and fish for the evening meal.

She advised people to eat lots of lentils and pulse, wholegrains, fruit and veg and oily fish as well as meat.

"Portion size is the other thing - a portion of meat should be about the size of a deck of cards."

At cursory glance, I don't see anything to indicate that the weight gain isn't due to muscle growth.

 

[dirtyparrot]

Just have a well-balanced diet in the correct proportions. And the correct proportion will depend on how active you are and your body. A well-balanced diet will meet your daily requirements of vitamins, essential minerals, amino acids, unsaturated fats, etc. Note (in regards to the OP), your body does not require any amount of saturated fats and your body can synthesize itself the cholesterol that it needs for the membrane of cells, hormones, bile, etc.

 

[GoodGame]

At cursory glance, I don't see anything to indicate that the weight gain isn't due to muscle growth.

Astute! That article doesn't discriminate between "weight gain" and percent body fat. They claim to do some kind of correction, but they still don't mention that.

 

[storealex]

I've studied this and eating healthy is easy. It goes like this:

Veggetables, fruits, roots, berries and seeds are all very good for you. Try to eat as much of these as possible, and as many different kinds as possible. Varity is good for you. You should eat at least six whole veggetables/fruits a day.

White bread and pure wheet products such as pasta is bad for you. Brown bread like the stuff we eat in Scandinavia and Northern Germany is full of fibers and is good. In general, the less white and the more "rough" the bread is, the better.

Meat is good, but avoid fatty meat. Chicken and turkey is alright and fish is very good.

And try to eat a lot of different stuff. It's hard to get too much of something, if you always eat something new.

 

[Elta]

What's the point of this thread?

To show who pathetically contradictory, and often plain nonsensical, the "nutritional advice" we keep getting bombarded with in the media (and, also, medics) is?

Yeah, this and just to have some general discussion, people who agree in one or the other can flesh it out for me etc

Evidence? Sounds like reactionary delusions, perhaps spread by fat people/people with unusually high metabolism of fat?

It's in a documentary called Fathead. They go through and talk about the history of research grants etc. There is a lot of other stuff in that film that are interesting too, you should download it and give it a look.


Anti-Reductionist better put

Nutritionism is the ideology, not science, that the way to understand food is through its constituents. This reductionist view has severe limitations. Western science is ideally suited to examine one variable at a time - so it does. However, food, diet and culture are extremely complicated processes that can't possibly be isolated into single variables to be studied. Take, for instance, Chinese herbal medicine and a single herb, ginseng. Are the qualities that are desired in the root of ginseng actually only attributable to ginsenosides, or are there a multitude of other phytonutrients that contribute to its effects? Now put the single herb into a formula with several other, equally complex plant, animal or mineral substances and give it to a unique individual with complex behaviors, including digestive idiosyncrasies and emotional and behavioral patterns. Have them take this formula in varying doses over periods of time under multiple conditions, and try to come up with a role that a single constituent would have regarding a particular outcome. Studies on single nutrients are always suspect, because it is impossible to truly isolate a compound's effects.

All compounds act in relationship to what is around them. This is perhaps why studies on beta-carotene find that it actually may be harmful, rather than helpful, in relationship to cancer. Beta-carotene, isolated, is not the same as beta-carotene in the context of the carrot. The carrot is helpful; the isolated beta-carotene is not. "The problem with nutrient-by-nutrient nutrition science is that it takes the nutrient out of the context of food, the food out of the context of diet and the diet out of the context of lifestyle," states NYU nutritionist Marion Nestle.

Foods have simply become the containers of nutrients. "Cholesterol-free" on a label implies this food item is healthy. Hey, gasoline is cholesterol-free as well. The problem is we're focusing on the invisible known molecules and forgetting about the actual food itself. Now, healthy eating is in the realm of the experts in the white coats who inform the public about what to eat. This information comes to us via the media and advertising. Both the food science and media are funded primarily by the food industry. We are told that we can't safely just consume food, the same foods that humans have eaten safely for millennia, without knowing what it was comprised of. This would be irresponsible.

Since the McGovern recommendation, the subtle hypnotic message has been to "eat more nutrients that are good for you" - never simply "eat less." Over the past 30 years, we are eating more and more. We have a culture that creates more cancer, heart disease and obesity than cultures that maintain traditional diets. When people migrate to our country, they become less healthy within a generation. It's not the genetics. It's the diet and lifestyle.

Another point worth noting: We are losing the complexity and variety of the traditional diets in favor of the simple mass-production crops. Nearly two-thirds of total calories consumed in this country come from only four crops: wheat, corn, soy and rice. This is a far cry from the nearly 80,000 known edible species that humans have consumed historically and the approximately 3,000 species that once were in common use.

Also, we have shifted the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 oils drastically from traditional diets, by shifting from traditional foods. We have shifted from relying on our culture and customs around food to relying on expert opinion, which changes with the latest studies. We have lost or are losing the reliable wisdom of many years of trial and error, and the common, collective wisdom of our ancestors.

 

[emzie]

My ancestors going back hundreds of thousands of years never ate as balanced a diet as I eat today. A third of what I eat is processed.

I'm so tired of people being sold fear nutrition. Worrying about the balance of fats you're taking in is such a pointless endeavour. I'm tired of people bashing the food of one culture and hyping the food of another. As so long as you're sensible, you know, not eating bacon for every meal (I'm looking at you, Warpus, I know you've tried to make a bacon milkshake) and actually bothering to eat vegetables, you'll be okay.

 

[Bluemofia]

10. Altering the chemical structure of food is bad Getting sweetener out of corn using a centrifuge can never be healthy for you. It is entirely unnatural. Our bodies are not suited for eating that stuff. etc etc with GMO being unnatural. You need to eat food, real food. If it doesn't rot, it's not food, but a food product.

But... Food that doesn't rot is the best food! I strive to eat as much of it as I can.

I myself ate whatever I wanted for the past 6 or so years (though very high in starch), and I've maintained 110 lbs, +-5 lbs for the 6 years.

Then again, I automatically, and subconsciously adjust my diet based off of how active I am physically and mentally, and I occasionally crave vegetables, so I eat those because I want to.

I also find it amusing I hold food with contempt because I have to physically go find it, buy it, prepare it, eat it, and then clean stuff associated with it. That's why I like food that doesn't rot. You can just buy it in bulk, do little preparation, and thus little cleaning.

 

[civ_king]

I think an evolutionary analysis of food is a good idea as it breaks down by ethnicity what a person should eat, for example since I'm Southern Indian rice is acceptable (major component of South Indian foods) and corn=bad since it isn't a component of the cuisine and a very foreign substance

 

[GenMarshall]

What's the point of this thread?

Me thinks that its schools starting to become more nannyish

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Not fully rounded schools, just ideas I hear people pushing in general: (These are in no order, and they are not mutually exclusive, I just listing the ones that come to mind. I would like it if you all added on and maybe told me of your diets - I am using the prose of the people who speak of these diets, this is not my opinions below)

1. All animal products are bad for humans. Yes breast milk is good, but you are not suppose to have milk after (insert age of child). After that the body can no longer process milk.

2. Meat is bad for you, (eggs are sometime thrown in with meat here). Some humans have though bio cultural evolution adapted themselves to dairy.

3. Meat is not bad for you, but we only need so much. The western (or rather modern-wealthy) diet includes to much of it. You only need 3 to 4 ounces of meat a day. (This is typical of many hunter gatherer groups that are quite healthy and a lot of my Anthropology professors recommended eating that amount of meat in class)

4. Grains are not good for you (not as good), compare the nutrition in a leaf, for example spinach, anyone can see that it would be better for you to eat 400 calories of leafy greens over 400 calories of corn. But American do just that, we eat 400 calories worth of corn every day.

5. Reductionist food scientist. We can look at a food and determine what in is good for you and what isn't. Yes it is complicated, but it can be done.

6. Anti food reductionist. The modern western diet is horrible for us and reductionist food science will not change that. There is more at play than just "what food is it, how much fiber" etc. For example, a white bagel - bad news, it will spike your blood sugar. However if you smear it with a thick coating of peanut butter the way the body processes it will be very different.
Look at basil, there is zero doubt in any culture that it is good for you, but there are well over twenty active ingredients, you can'y just pull one out and put all of the others in a pill to test it out, it is too complicated. One chemical effects another in a tapestry. there are so many millions of combinations to wade through before you can figure out what is in it exactly that is good for you that you could never truly figure it out. The scientific community is finally coming around to the fact that soy is bad for you and fermented soy is food for you. Asian cultures have known this for 1000s of years. How did they figure it out? Well a culture doesn't eat something for 1000s of years if it is making people sick. Western diets clearly do make people sick, as can be seen with the so called "western diseases" In short - just eat traditional diets. It is impossible to reduce down what is good in what and what is not, but we can say without a doubt that traditional diets are better than modern ones.

7. Sugar is horrible! ( I can't do justice to the way I keep hearing this one explained, in short - the lower the glycemic index the better.

8. We need more saturated fat in our diet - Men in particular Cutting out "fatty foods" in our diet is detrimental to testosterone production and general hormone function in both sexes. We need to get back to traditional levels of saturated fats in the diet. It doesn't mean purposely trying to buy more fatty food. Just eat the original - use butter, not margarine, drink milk - real milk, you don't need to buy ultra lean ground beef, Use coconut and olive oil in you cooking etc

9. Transfat is the devil Everyone has heard it by now, no need to describe it.

10. Altering the chemical structure of food is bad Getting sweetener out of corn using a centrifuge can never be healthy for you. It is entirely unnatural. Our bodies are not suited for eating that stuff. etc etc with GMO being unnatural. You need to eat food, real food. If it doesn't rot, it's not food, but a food product.

11. Eat paleo, you are built to do that. Fruits, Vegetables, Meat, the occasional seed. That is what we evolved eating, and it is still what is good for us.

12. The lipid hypothesis is a lie predicated by (insert culprits). Soon the world will know the truth. Fat is not bad for you, heart attacks are caused by being fat - which in and of itself is almost always caused by inactivity, insulin resistance, and lack of portion control.


As you can see, like I said they are not all mutually exclusive. These are just the major things I've heard.

There isn't much strong evidence for nutrition, so you will find much contention among authorities about the ideal diet. Much evidence comes from experiential and anecdotal evidence that has accumulated over time into guidelines, such as RDA.

However, one thing is certain: all the theories you've posted are all crackpot.