And there are the everyday food choices that make up what we call "diet." Is the "low-fat" label
Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale Prevention Research Center, offers some handy advice for those disillusioned over foods that claim to reduce weight but often do not:
We knew that “cut fat” meant eat more kale; we just pretended it didn’t. We knew that “cut carbs” was not a license to chow down on low-carb brownies, but we pretended otherwise. We know now that we can overeat gluten-free junk, or that America can turn to sugar-free, artificially sweetened donuts and eat three times as many- and get fatter and sicker still. We know that both the quantity and quality of calories matter, and that the importance of one does not obviate the relevance of the other.
We are not confused- we are conflicted. We want a magical formula for weight loss and health, rather than approaching these like any other worthwhile thing in our lives. Like any worthwhile thing that isn’t about one scapegoat or silver bullet; that isn’t about a terrific answer to a fatuous and irrelevant question.
We are not confused about the basic care and feeding of Homo sapiens- unless we choose to be.
Elsewhere in the article, he writes:
I am not out to argue for low-fat eating here. I have written extensively about “best diets,” including in three editions of an extensively referenced medical nutrition textbook and a review paper due out next month in Annual Review of Public Health. We can eat extremely well with low fat intake, or high fat intake. We cannot eat extremely well, however, if our diets are comprised of glow-in-the-dark foods, whether low-fat, or sugar free, or…pick whatever version of lipstick on a pig you like.