Originally Posted by teaser

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70331120352.htm



The red....

35 percent fat is pretty much average consumption of fat. So this limit doesn't really do much. There's some evidence for therapeutic value of a much lower fat diet, or as we know here of a much higher fat diet, not much for the sort of moderate-to-non-existent fat restriction advocated here. And sugar, less than 10 grams, less than 250 calories, that's up to 16 percent sugar, still kind of high. I realize they're trying to ask as little of people as possible, to increase compliance, and that's just exactly the problem. People argue about whether we got fatter while following the guidelines, or while not following the guidelines, but the guidelines are so anemic--whether you fall into the low carb or the low fat paradigm--as to be useless no matter which side is right.
.
.
.
Good luck finding anything showing that a 2500 calorie refined carb diet that includes 15 grams of fiber or so is somehow therapeutic. This is like doing a drug study, finding the effective doses, and then prescribing homeopathic doses that haven't actually been shown to do anything. Almost like our various dietary recommendations were put together by committees of bureaucrats and lobbyists.