«Health Food» vs. Healthy Food — How to read labels
headveg asked:
Do you know how to read food labels? Maybe you THOUGHT you did. Truth is, you probably don't. But Jeff Novick, MS, RD — of the McDougall program — does. And in his full talk he shows the 3 easy steps you MUST know if you ever buy foods at any supermarket or «health» food store. In this online excerpt, Novick — who used to be a food service manager at Kraft Foods — exposes one of the dirty secrets major food corporations use to deceive consumers. It's no accident labels are so confusing ...
Do you know how to read food labels? Maybe you THOUGHT you did. Truth is, you probably don't. But Jeff Novick, MS, RD — of the McDougall program — does. And in his full talk he shows the 3 easy steps you MUST know if you ever buy foods at any supermarket or «health» food store. In this online excerpt, Novick — who used to be a food service manager at Kraft Foods — exposes one of the dirty secrets major food corporations use to deceive consumers. It's no accident labels are so confusing ...
Criminals!!!!!
Every American should be educated in this manner at a young age.
@independent1971
Ever heard of Carl Lewis?
@harold333100 ok well you eat all the healthy food you want and i will go eat a bacon biscuit and we will go run and see who passes out first, then we will see whos in better condition
@independent1971 Dr. Esselstyn reversed heart disease and cured his patients but did not use any exercise as a condition of the experiements. His science is clear: it is 10% or less of fat and 10% of protein or less that is the critical item to remain healthy, not exercise. Athletes drop dead of having clogged arteries.
yea but you can just eat healthy and expect to be healthy, thats the point im getting at. someone who eats healthier than someone else could be in worse condition because they dont exercise properly.
@independent1971
1) «Clogged» arteries aren't the issue. Eating high-fat, high-cholesterol, and low-fiber foods build up plaques on the arterial wall. These eventually burst, and that is what causes heart attacks. No amount of exercise has any effect on this.
2) You are right about cutting our carbs, it is a very bad idea.
3) Exercise is very important. But, using it as an excuse for unhealthy eating, is like saying you can smoke as long as you run enough to strengthen your lungs!
i wouldnt say more significant, physical activity is probably much more important. you can eat mcdonalds every other day and as long as you exercise enough to keep the crud from clogging your arteries then you will be fine. yea a healthy diet is important but its not like you have to eat strictly fat free foods or by cutting out carbs (which is a very bad idea by the way) and you can still stay healthy.
@independent1971
«Normal food»? What's that?
Diet is a much more significant factor in body fat, as well as overall health, than physical activity.
why not just eat normal food and actually go to the gym? you cant expect to stay in shape by sitting on the couch and eating fat free potato chips... lol
Wow, how misleading. I'm going to read packaging more closely now. If you eat mostly raw foods however, you don't have to worry about misleading packaging, because there is none!
I lost 10lbs. in 2 weeks by eating raw foods mostly.
@zahmac01
Would it be more convincing, if it was more complex? When it comes to the macronutrients (protein, carbohydrate, and fat), it typically does boil down to number/percent of calories provided by each. The kind of fat or carb may sometimes come into play as well, but it does often boil down to numbers.
This approach is supported in the scientific literature.
Yes, this might be driven by the health professionals, BUT, what do those health professionals EAT?
There aren't secret super foods out there accessible only by the rich that are like $100/serving that make you live forever. So far, everyone still ages and everyone still dies. Those who don't take care of their body are the ones who have higher risk of health complications. It's the same as it's always been.
dinkolino2 is right on this. people are taking this too far. Not to mention, all of this is driven by the market not the health professionals. Wake up! go see a real health expert and stop buying into such radical ideas
Since when does the healthiness of a food depend on where the calories come from. I thought it was more complex than this. Like the reactions between the molecules and stuff. Stuff you would do in Biochemistry, not Algebra.
thewealthsecret . org
Make £100 per hour from home
100% Free
You will start earning within 7 minutes from this point if you visit thewealthsecret . org now
See how to do it 100% free! Works from any county
to it has at least 40% calories coming from fat. this would be considered unhealthy by these standards ofcourse. I am sure that this particular product is junk, but its not because of the evil fat.
I would assume that health conscious people also eat pasta, vegetables and fruit, drink milk and so on. this calorie hunt is just a food related induced schizophrenia. these particular statements are misleading at best. You could have a product easily match 70% carbohydrates by adding sugar to it. it doesnt mean its healthy. Ofcourse, you dont want to eat too much fat, but this is a quite flexible and individual requirement. This guy is playing on peoples ignorance. Any soup with any taste
the info IS accurate. if u see, which is stated on the label, that there is not a whole lot of carbohydrates and proteins in a product (which is the case in this particular calorie distribution), it is easy to put that into perspective with the amount of fat in it (it is both measured in mass) and get all the info you need. and there is nothing wrong with a lot of your calories coming from fat, especially not if it is one product.
«the rest of the product doesn't contain much calories»...
Thats the point. We eat to get calories (and micronutrients, etc). If we need a certain number of calories to live, and we dont want a high percentage of those to come from fat, then we need accurate information on our labels.
Settle down, dinkolino2, I'm pretty sure he's making the point that every health recommendation (from every health authority in the world) refers to fat as a percentage of total calories. So, for a company to call something 99% fat free, when in fact most of its calories are from fat is misleading to those who are trying to be health conscious.
Again, the health conscious person, trying to reduce the number of calories from fat, would be misled by this label. I'm sure that's all he's saying.
if this lecture shows anything it is not that there is to much fat in a product, rather that the rest of the product doesnt contain much calories. He is right about that, but then twists it to make a nonpoint... if they put 50% sugar in it then percentage calories from fat would go down rapidly... would that be better?
he is outright lying. if you have 1% fat it naturaly and logicaly means that it applies to mass. Since fat is very caloric ofcourse more than 1% of total calories come from fat. 67% calories from fat just means that the rest of ingredients have almost no nutritional value. if u had a bucket of water and a spoon of sugar in it, 100% calories would come from sugar. This ofcourse doesnt mean that the bucket of water is 100% sugar. The public listening to this fraud are morons
fat is not bad for you. there are many different fats anyway, its like saying carbohydrates are bad for you. or proteins... some poisons are proteins...
I know this seems like a joke, but I was really asking: What about organic poison berries?
If we concede that nature is capable of producing food that is unequivocally BAD for us, then that admission must apply across the board. Meat may be simply BAD for us; it has little to do with how it is processed.