I think much of the issue around carbohydrates is that the majority of people, because they have the luxury of not needing to know, don't realise that all carbs are not created equal. Therein lies the problem with most public health nutritional advice.
Actually, I think the governments' messaging around carbs is pretty clear; at least it is when considered in tandem with their advice on fats. The issue(s), in my opinion, is that the guidelines aren't explicit enough when it comes to fat, and they do not offer easy/workable advice when it comes to getting an idea of total intake and output i.e tracking.
Of course, even with such information, the likelihood is that most people don't want to be told that ice-cream should be an occasional treat, or that cake is best left for birthdays and anniversaries. Most people won't care that replacing deep fried chips (Fries, perhaps) with boiled potatoes is a much healthier proposition. And what about the six-pints-of-ale-followed-by-a-kebab nights that'd have to become a thing of the past. Of course, with the appropriate understanding of energy-balance and tracking, along with an understanding similar to the concept of 'if-it-fits-your-macros (IIFYM)' nothing needs to be given up entirely.
Anyway, this isn't just a failing of the lower (not low)-fat, higher-carb paradigm that the governments have promoted for the last few decades. The issues of non-compliance would be just as pronounced (I'd argue much worse) if the government were to start recommending a low-carb approach.
I work in a job that requires a lot of communication to customers and internal staff. One common theme is that people don't do detail. Public health nutritional advice can't win in its current form. Either you over-simplify and just say "carbohydrates" without explanation, or you explain the detail and people don't read it/care.
I think it's wrong to suggest that people "don't do detail". As I mentioned above, people generally just roll along (semi) unaware, or perhaps just without a care, until they are no longer happy with their results. Then they (we) seem to become rather adept at
doing detail. Whether low-fat, or low-carb, people become extremely adept at measuring their chosen 'offending' macro, often to within an inch of its life, while at the same time becoming armchair scientists/nutritionists/toxicologists/psychologists etc. Of course, when speaking of others' diets all that detail, nuance and context flies right out the window
Add in other factors, such as ultra-processed carbohydrates being so much cheaper than healthy carbohydrates...
Where I live, I can get a kilo of potatoes for less money than 150g of off-brand crisps (chips). Pitting those same whole potatoes against brands such as Doritos and Pringles and that divide becomes much higher. And while I've found a supermarket that sells wholemeal pasta cheaper than most other places sell white, it is generally the case that the whole-grain varieties add some measure of 'premium'. But this difference is mere pennies. This might be a distinction for those on the poverty line, but not an argument against those who for convenience will sink however many quid into one-meals-worth of McDonalds.
But I'd question what you mean by "ultra-processed". Are you suggesting white rice is an ultra-processed food? Are potato-chips fried in olive-oil ultra-processed? And why are you just referring to carbs, when it seems very clear that the foods that so many default to are mixes of both high-carb and high-fat (often with fat taking the lion's share of the amount of the caloric energy contained within).
Where do you draw the distinction between processed and ultra-processed?
Fat + sugar + salt is the key combination, often in highly-refined form, and in varying quantities so as to hit a particular 'Bliss-point' is the issue...not plain, steamed white rice. Or do you disagree?
...combined with work/life balance increasingly moving in favour of work, and before long people make bad nutritional decisions out of necessity, regardless of what the advice may or may not say.
I've had my fair share of 7-day-a-week, 80+ hour jobs. I'm not without sympathy/empathy for people who have to work excessive hours. But I feel that priorities are the issue here. If someone has no time to watch Netflix, no time to surf online, no time to play video-games, no time to pursue hobbies, no time to socialise etc., then that's a different matter...and understandable. Just the same, I'm not talking about a single-parent, having to work three jobs.
But if one is motivated towards making healthier choices, it's not that hard, expensive or time-consuming.
If you're someone who goes to McD's out of convenience, it's not too much more of a hit on convenience, time or finances to go to the supermarket next-doo and grab a tabouleh salad, a small bag of prepared greens/mixed-salad, a packet of pre-cooked-and-chopped chicken-breast, an apple and a small bottle of water. Right there is a healthy and eatwel-compliant meal.
Of course, that presumes that their workplace doesn't have a kitchen with a microwave (And I've not been in a work-place since I started working back in the 80's that doesn't). Access to a microwave opens up the the possibilities of meal-prep. This is where huge savings can be made in both time and money, as long as people are appropriately motivated to put the small amount anticipatory work in. For reference, I can meal-prep a vegan version of enough healthy and cheap, eatwell-compliant food to last a week, in less than an hour...on a Sunday.
Most people consider cereal to be a healthy carbohydrate source, providing it's got some fibre in it, or the wholegrain symbol. Fact is though that most cereal isn't healthy, regardless of what it's got in it.
That would depend on what you consider healthy to mean, which specific cereals you are talking about and whether you have sufficient corroborating evidece to show negative health outcomes.
But I am curious to know how you would personally stratify cereals, if at all. Do you see oats as equivalent to Coco Pops? Is there room in a healthy diet for Weetabix?
The reality is that your average person, who has worked a 12 hour day with a commute, gets home and needs to feed a family. Many in this situation open the freezer, or get some ready meals, and cook whatever. Maybe they get takeaway. It might be in proportion to the Eatwell plate, but it's not of the nutritional quality intended - and that's where the problems begin.
Well, it depends on the type of freezer food as to whether it is eatwell-compliant or not. But if finances are an issue, as I believe you mentioned in another post, then that rues out takeaways for the family.
Eatwell, in itself, isn't a bad thing for non-diabetics. However, the reality is that any public nutrition advice isn't capable of improving public health on its own.
I hope my post doesn't come off as combative. I clearly take issue with much of the points you've raised, but it is somewhat refreshing to find someone here who understands why the eatwell plate (aka the guidelines) is not only not 'TeH eViLz!', but that it can be an effective blueprint for health (At least I think that's what you think).
The question as to whether these recommendations are suitable for diabetics is a conversation I've found to no longer be worth having here. Suffice to say, there're a growing number of people using a very similar diet to the betterment of all their health woes, including diabetes.
With better campaigns, better communication, and other measures that make healthy foods cheaper than ultra-processed foods, maybe they can work. Until then though, they're screaming into the void, and it's not helping anyone.
As I've already agreed, better communication (especially regarding the implementation) would be great. And if much of the billions (trillions?) that the world's governments throw at the meat and dairy industry could be used to subsidise fresh-produce that'd also help. Add worldwide legislation to control how 'junky' junk-food can be and how, where, when and to whom it is advertised and sold, would also be of huge benefit.
Unfortunately this is at odds with both capitalism and personal sovereignty...which ultimately will win.
