Dietary contradictions
1st, another instance where the "diet" rhetoric and reality don't match up. McDonald's, ever the target of viligant diet evangelists, has an interesting pair of menu items: The Grilled Caesar Salad with dressing and the french fries. I've heard the fries criticized on the raw calories as well as those who say the calories are OK, but the hidden fat is killing us. Yet, the dressing for that salad (just the dressing) makes for the interesting comparison. The caesar salad dressiong has 190 calories with 170 as fat calories (and most non-reduced-fat similar dressings have similar numbers) and the fries have 230 calories with 100 coming from fat. Now, compare how full you'd feel in comparison, just eating the contents of the dressing packet or the small fries. Just another place to watch out for the real food numbers. Keeping close track has opened my eyes further to these kinds of situations. Especially in the "right" foods.
To me there are 2 "dietary" issues at large, both contributing to societal problems and somewhat related: eating and drinking enough extra calories to gain weight and eating and drinking nutritionally unsound proportions of food groups (poor nutrition). The 2 problems are related, but seem to get caught up in one another in ways that are self defeating. The advice given is often that by solving the nutrition problem, an adherent will lose weight. This is often expressed more along the lines of, "If you just quit eating hamburgers and fries for lunch and ate salads instead, you wouldn't be fat."
As an aside, this is also a symptom of the my-anecdotal-experience-can-be-extrapolated-to-everyone syndrome that seems to affect large numbers of self-righteous people.
Back to my main point, given the fluctuations in what is considered a "good" or "bad" food, combined with easily misinterpreted information, like the accused above starting to eat the taco salad at Taco Johns which has more calories than 2 Big Macs, leads to often disappointed people who say, "If I ate salads and gained weight, I'm a hopeless cause." People are already confused by (and use as an excuse) those fluctuations in good/bad. X food is bad for you, but 3 years later, it turns out that it prevents some kinds of cancer, etc.
However, the approach that Dr. Straughan uses (and countless other scientifically minded doctors and experts) is that calories and only calories are what counts. If you burn more than you take in, your body will take the deficit from your reserves. Period. This is not one person (or even 1000 people) stating anecdotal evidence. This is countless studies and clinical evidence, backed up by solid science.
The irony of the "Only Calories Count" approach is that it often *leads* to better nutrition. I know that I, when faced with 4 ounces of steak or 8 ounces of chicken for about the same number of calories, chose the larger portion to satisfy my hunger on the diet. Similarly, I've started eating peas, beans, rice and carrots in MUCH higher quantities as a way to fill up the plate while still keeping my calorie count for the day under the magic number. Net result? I'm losing weight and eating better.
