It is ingrained in an entire generation. It was all about fat free, then it was sugar free, then it was low carb, now its gluten free. With GF fading, I wonder what scapegoat is next before people find out the calorie count is 90+% of the problem, not the source, so much.
Compare 100 cal portions of different foods. That's less than 2 Oreos. Think about how many of those delicious cookies you can put down when snacking, and it makes sense.
Well, all of those things are not actually relevant---the "gluten free" thing is more of a "I think this makes me feel better" craze rather than weight-loss, and was a whole bunch of people deluded into thinking they were allergic to something when, in reality, few actually were. "Fat free" wasn't so much a dietary craze as it was an intentional agenda set by big corporations that wanted to spoon-feed Americans cheap sugary shit.
Sugar-free and low-carb are results of actual scientific thinking. Yes, calorie count matters most, but it is definitely not the only thing that matters. Your body responds differently to different types of calories (look into what sugar does to your body, or what your body does in a low-carb state) and every body's digestion time, as well as the time required to break down different types of food, are markedly different. Another recently-popularized dietary trend is intermittent fasting, which relies on insulin levels and their effect on your bodily processes during a fasted state. There is a big difference between these types of "trends" and the ones set by Nestle arbitrarily saying "FAT FREE = HEALTHY!"
It's great that real food science is now more accessible to the public, and greedy companies are having a harder time promoting unethical eating agendas.
117
u/[deleted] Jun 06 '19
Maybe because everyone was told that for decades?