Diets, the new old scam

Most people do not know that a diet can badly affect your body. We are told that to be healthy, we must eat less junk food and more fruits and vegetables. But did you know that most nutritional science is flawed and could be dangerous?

Before we start, we need to understand what food is.

What is food?

Food is any substance consumed for the healthy growth of a body. This is the nutshell version. The more complicated version is that it is a collection of minerals that is broken down into usable elements for our bodies through a process known as digestion.

But people are told a watered-down version that does not accurately describe what is happening.

For example, we are told to avoid carbohydrates. But in the same breath, we are told to eat more fruits and vegetables. This seems logical until you realise that ALL fruits and vegetables are - in fact - carbohydrates. This is because a plant grows from a seed. Once that seed has germinated and rooted in the soil, it absorbs Carbon and water from the ground. It also absorbs carbon dioxide from the air. With sunshine, these Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen molecules are bound with chlorophyll to create a plant. But that bound entity is composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Oxygen. This is the definition of what carbohydrate means - something that is made from Carbon (carbo), Hydrogen and Oxygen (hydrate)

Unfortunately, much of the so-called science is faulty. Here's a good example.

There's a lot of so-called science that makes the claim that red meat can cause cancer. Scientists have looked at everything from char-grilling to the components of meat. Their conclusion is that red meat is full of things that can cause cancer and thus should be avoided. On the surface, this seems reasonable. What is not said is the dataset for much of this information is small, un-scientifically small. This means there is not a proper dataset that provides a correct picture. Many of the studies ignore race, age, gender, environment, and other factors which can skew the results. In the case of red meat causes cancer, it wasn't revealed until later that most of the people in the study were white. What also wasn't mentioned was where the location of the studies was. It turned out that in the area where the study was taken, the people most likely to eat red meat were also most likely to smoke and drink heavily. It seems more likely that the increase in cancer by red meat eaters was because of these two other factors.

Take another example:

Eating ultra-processed meat linked to greater risk of early death (msn.com)

Once again, it seems that the study is clear-cut. 114,000 studied gives a good amount of data-points does it not? Especially when you consider this study was taken over 34 years. When you dig a little deeper you start to realise the flaw:

In the major study, researchers tracked the long-term health of 74,563 female nurses and 39,501 male health professionals between 1984 and 2018.

Female participants were aged between 30 and 55 at the start of the research, while men were between 40 and 75.

Every two years participants provided information on their health and lifestyle habits, with detailed food questionnaires completed every four years.

For starters, food questionnaires were only taken every four years. So over 34 years, only 8.5 questionnaires were ever taken. So our true dataset is less than we thought.

Second, look at the jobs. Nurses and other healthcare professionals have a heavy workload and are under constant stress. This is punishing on the body and will increase sicknesses. Also, there is a large amount of drinking and drug-taking that is performed in this sector. Were these factors taken into account? No mention of it, so we can assume that the answer is no because previous studies have ignored these types of factors.

Also, what is the deal with the older participants? No one in their 20s participated in the study. The females were recorded in a smaller age range. So the data is skewed.

What would this study have looked like if the study was done in my sector? I work as a postie (mail delivery) and I have an active job riding a motorcycle. Other posties around the world walk and some drive. Would our results be similar over the same period? I'm picking the assumption would be that healthcare workers would be healthier but in one place where I once worked our health nurse smoked heavily.

Once again, these studies can't conclusively make the statement that it's the meat that's the problem.

So what about vegetables?

Numerous studies tell a story about how we need to eat more vegetables to be healthy but is this true? Many vegetables have oxalates that interfere with the body's ability to absorb minerals from them. Given this, it seems this advice might not be as safe as we thought.

Take iron for example. Because of these oxalates, we need to consume 2.8kg of spinach to get the same amount of iron that we can readily get from 100g of red meat. That's 28 times more spinach needed than red meat. Are you prepared to eat 2800g of spinach or would you rather 100g of red meat? If you say yes then good luck dying because that's not the only thing you'll need to eat. Replacing dairy milk with almond milk will require you to drink 6 250ml glasses. That's 1500ml compared to 250ml. What's worse is that almonds don't actually have calcium in them, it's added to the product.

Then you have to factor in minerals like Selenium, Magnesium, and Potassium. Sure, these minerals are found in vegetables. But because of the way crops are farmed for the market, many of these minerals are not replaced after harvesting thus the plants can't absorb them. But with cattle, these are often given to them for healthy growth and safer pregnancies. We then eat them if they're not performing and low and behold we get minerals not found in our vegetables.

Fruit is a different story though. For the most part, fruit is something we can get ready access to minerals and fibres from easily. Given that we are designed to "graze" fruit makes a lot more sense. We can just pick and eat

as we need. They provide sugar which we need to keep our bodies working. We can easily break down fruit if we have a high-fibre diet. Also, we're designed to graze - eat small amounts regularly - and fruit allows us to do that.

I'm not saying don't eat vegetables. I'm saying getting rid of a balanced diet in favour of one part of that diet is the dumbest idea ever. I get that some people won't eat meat for belief purposes. I respect that. But to give up on meat because you've listened to a nutritionist who says meat is bad, and vegetables are our saviour is the dumbest idea on the planet - and there are some really dumb ideas.

Given lots of unbiased research, there is little to suggest that diets work. You don't need to give up junk food to lose weight. Just eat less of it. I'm saying that a home-cooked hamburger is better for you because you know what's gone into it. It's super simple to make, and it's made exactly how you like it. Make your own meals, including a mix of vegetables and red meat, because together they unlock the full potential of your meal.

Reduce the portion sizes using trickery. Use a bread plate or a child's dinner plate instead of a full-sized plate. Either will fool your brain into thinking you've filled your plate while reducing your intake.

Eat what you want, but don't sit on the couch and do nothing afterwards. Go for a walk, even if it is just around the block. It'll aid digestion and will start to burn off your meal.

Diets are an exercise in futility. They remove something you enjoy and replace it with something you don't care about. How defeatist can you get? No one is going to accept that sort of behaviour in any other situation. Keep eating what you want, just less of it, and move more. Diets need not be a factor in getting healthier, so don't fall for them.

Most diets are meant to be for a short time and not long-term use. Most diets claiming they are "scientifically proven" use a small data set that ignores numerous other factors that might make the diet work. Above all, look at the money. If the diet worked, why does it need influencers to convince you that it works? Surely the data would speak for itself?

Think of a diet you've been on. Are you still on it? If it actually worked why are you not still on that diet? Check the social media pages of those influencers before and after they started the diet. Were they actually unhealthy to start with? If not then it stands to reason the diet isn't helping them.

Also, have you noticed that ALL diets have a disclaimer that includes the phrase "when done along side an active routine" or words to that effect? Could it be more logical that the diet is doing nothing but the physical activity is? Physical activity that could be done without the diet?

Diets are a scam. They are a multi-billion dollar industry and more people have had lasting harm done to them by these diets.

So I'll just leave this with you to think about. Eat whatever you enjoy because you're going to be motivated when you're happy. Just eat less of what you enjoy. Make your own meals instead of paying McDonalds or whatever to do it for you. Then go for a lovely walk. It'll do more for you than all those self-help books and websites that promote diets where you have to sacrifice your happiness to get a better body.