This may be a new study, but it’s confirming what was known already.
Of course, CNN is trying to dilute the message and claim some magical middle ground:
“The goal shouldn’t be perfection but rather a healthy and sensible dietary pattern that allows room for enjoyment,” Kuhnle said.
From the abstract:
We conservatively estimated that—relative to zero consumption—consuming processed meat (at 0.6–57 g d−1) was associated with at least an 11% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 7% (at 0.78–55 g d−1) increase in colorectal cancer risk. SSB intake (at 1.5–390 g d−1) was associated with at least an 8% average increase in type 2 diabetes risk and a 2% (at 0–365 g d−1) increase in IHD risk. TFA consumption (at 0.25–2.56% of daily energy intake) was associated with at least a 3% average increase in IHD risk.
“The goal shouldn’t be perfection but rather a healthy and sensible dietary pattern that allows room for enjoyment,” Kuhnle said.
Right. Because attempts at perfection typically fail. Especially when it comes to diet. Quick and drastic dietary changes often lead to relapses and rebounds - yo yo dieting is a thing, after all - while gradually changing food habits is more likely to result in long-lasting dietary and health improvements.
It’s not about a “magical middle ground”. It’s about understanding how humans act.
I recently gave up beef, as that is by far the worst meat for climate and pollution. Might work down the list but I think that’s the biggest single step I’ve taken diet wise.
When you start with compromises like that, the failure is guaranteed, there is no “attempt”.
Considering the role of food as pleasure, this fear of big changes can backfire because people are addicted to food. It’s easier to succeed if you do a revolution in your kitchen instead of half-assed tiny changes that maintain “temptations”. It’s also much more satisfying to engage in something new, an adventure, and start to make progress in it (to accomplish things); the big change is its own reward, which helps to keep it going because you feel more agency, more capability.
When you start with compromises like that, the failure is guaranteed, there is no “attempt”.
That’s like saying tapering off a drug addiction is a compromise compared to going cold turkey.
I agree that food is addictive. Habits we develop around food are some of the strongest habits we have. Which is why a lot of people make radical changes in their diet - think New Year’s resolutions - and then give them up entirely because they find their new diet too hard and go back to their old comfortable habits.
If a “revolution in your kitchen” worked for you, good for you! Congratulations!
For other people, changing their dietary habits in a way that lasts a lifetime means building better habits through slow and gradual change.
Especially for people who aren’t cooking and eating alone and have to take other people’s preferences into account - that is, making changes is necessarily a compromise with the other people in their household. And it’s much easier to get your household to agree on smaller, gradual dietary changes then a food revolution.
This may be a new study, but it’s confirming what was known already.
Of course, CNN is trying to dilute the message and claim some magical middle ground:
From the abstract:
emphasis added.
Right. Because attempts at perfection typically fail. Especially when it comes to diet. Quick and drastic dietary changes often lead to relapses and rebounds - yo yo dieting is a thing, after all - while gradually changing food habits is more likely to result in long-lasting dietary and health improvements.
It’s not about a “magical middle ground”. It’s about understanding how humans act.
I recently gave up beef, as that is by far the worst meat for climate and pollution. Might work down the list but I think that’s the biggest single step I’ve taken diet wise.
Congratulations!
When you start with compromises like that, the failure is guaranteed, there is no “attempt”.
Considering the role of food as pleasure, this fear of big changes can backfire because people are addicted to food. It’s easier to succeed if you do a revolution in your kitchen instead of half-assed tiny changes that maintain “temptations”. It’s also much more satisfying to engage in something new, an adventure, and start to make progress in it (to accomplish things); the big change is its own reward, which helps to keep it going because you feel more agency, more capability.
That’s like saying tapering off a drug addiction is a compromise compared to going cold turkey.
I agree that food is addictive. Habits we develop around food are some of the strongest habits we have. Which is why a lot of people make radical changes in their diet - think New Year’s resolutions - and then give them up entirely because they find their new diet too hard and go back to their old comfortable habits.
If a “revolution in your kitchen” worked for you, good for you! Congratulations!
For other people, changing their dietary habits in a way that lasts a lifetime means building better habits through slow and gradual change.
Especially for people who aren’t cooking and eating alone and have to take other people’s preferences into account - that is, making changes is necessarily a compromise with the other people in their household. And it’s much easier to get your household to agree on smaller, gradual dietary changes then a food revolution.
At least google “food addiction”.
Here’s some watching:
https://www.pcrm.org/news/exam-room-podcast/food-addiction-why-we-cant-stop-eating
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25xWdFYtt6w or the podcast page itself https://theproof.com/beating-food-addictions-dr-jud-brewer/