Redesigning the Process for Establishing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans
The National Academy of Sciences has published a report requesting that the US Dietary Guidelines be based on strong scientific evidence. Here is their own press release, and the Nutritional Coalition PR below summarizes how important this statement is. In The Big, Fat Surprise, interesting info that it was the Academy of Science under Phillip Handler that fought against the tide of issuing a DGA that cut fat without more solid scientific evidence, titled Toward Healthful Diets. Then there was a Consensus Conference in 1984 when the Academy and Pete Ahrens at Rockefeller were overwhelmed and silenced. 30+ years later they have the chance to turn around guidelines.
Quote:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/hm...-americans.aspx NUTRITION COALITION REACTS TO NATIONAL ACADEMIES OF MEDICINE REPORT ON BROKEN PROCESS BEHIND THE U.S. DIETARY GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS http://www.nutrition-coalition.org/...-for-americans/ Quote:
Edit add: DietDoctor article titled: The Process Behind the Dietary Guidelines Is Broken, Says National Academies of Medicine https://www.dietdoctor.com/process-...demies-medicine |
Maybe offering options would be better. I don't want guidelines against a low fat diet any more than I want guidelines again a low carb diet. If you're going to go with option A, here are the advantages and possible drawbacks, here's the best way to go about it, etc.
Diet by committee needs to stop, anyways. We've got a situation where if the population eats something like 35 percent fat and 10 percent of it saturated, they're told to eat 30 percent fat and 7 percent saturated. Even if I though low fat was the way to go, I can't imagine believing that such a weak intervention would do me any good. |
I agree with teaser's point and I would add that due to the fact that no one person responds to a designed diet in the same way, we need to understand the health implications of consuming types of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates against a backdrop of metabolic tendencies. There are those who can do very well with a low fat approach, however, those that do well also are inclined to have a well-designed WOE based on eliminating nutritional gaps to maintain health. It's the same issue for LCHF as well.
To attempt to achieve a universal dietary guideline for everyone is folly. To understand this fact and implement a varied approach with choices would be the first indication that the DGA recommendations could be of value in the future. In the past, members of the DGA advisory board have had agendas or are named to that role for the purpose of implementing a specific food agenda. This must stop if we are to make any progress in making the DGA process valuable for all. |
Thank for this update, Jey. I just posted a blog post about the fallacies in the DGA system and wish I had seen this report before I posted it. I go along with Volek and Phinney that one diet does not fit all- especially when you factor in insulin sensitive versus the insulin resistant as in the Gardiner follow-up study. Also, if the DGA insists on making recommendations on exercise, remember V&P demonstrated that exercise improves fitness but is not universally useful in weight reduction.
Just in case anyone wants to read what I have said, here is my blog: /https://pamelajbrink.wordpress.com/2017/09/20/reading-and-interpreting-research-reports/ |
Mandate is clear: Flawed dietary guidelines process must be reformed
BY REP. ANDY HARRIS, M.D. (R-MD. Quote:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-b...process-must-be |
Tom Naughton has his praise and then own libertarian take on Rep. Harris's letter in The Hill.
The USDA dietary guidelines gets the spanking it deserves. http://www.fathead-movie.com/index....ng-it-deserves/ |
With the science that has been done on human nutrition, I believe that there is no recommendation for a guideline that could be made. We don't understand the biochemistry of humans enough to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
|
Dr Zoe Harcombe investigates the new dietary guidelines for the Flemish speaking part of Belgium, but her conclusions as to why diet guidelines are so hard to change could apply to most any country. http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2017/10/...ary-guidelines/
|
The process is wrong a priori, can't be fixed by more of the same. In this post http://forum.lowcarber.org/showpost...883&postcount=7 I explain a bit what the idea is. Solution is simple because problem is simple. The problem is that what's called the "Official Dietary Guidelines" is nothing but a menu designed by producers of the foodstuff that make up this menu, basically the same as every other diet book we can buy, except it's a giant industry behind this one. Solution begins by acknowledging that fact. Then, depending on your position, either do some serious science to figure out what's really good (and what's really bad) for us and make guidelines based on that, or allow all diet makers to get their piece of the pie by integrating them all into the official guidelines with corresponding support.
For example consider the Dieticians' profession. It's monolithic, doesn't advise any other diet but the official guidelines, even for diabetics - more carbs cuz that's all the producers make, ya? It's not a genuine profession, it's more of a sales rep job. The instant we let in all other diet makers, suddenly these same "professionals" have to read tons of books, just like we did on this forum. They can no longer advocate a single diet from a professional point of view - the guidelines don't allow this behavior. Or, they can no longer favor the current food industry cuz the science is sure to contradict everything about the current guidelines. Let me put it this way. It doesn't matter how many brilliant scientists we put on a panel - there's no science to back anything they recommend. |
Here's a way to figure out what is good or bad for us. Start with whatever we have been doing since 1970 that resulted in an epidemic of obesity and diabetes (result very bad). Then look at the newly released food availability data and reverse the two that stand out...large increases in processed oils and HFCS.
https://ninateicholz.com/new-us-food-availability-data/ (First time food availability data has been released in a decade) |
Nina Teicholz's website is worth visiting. She is able to clearly and rationally discuss issues pertaining to nutrition, science, and government policy while providing her critics with clear responses to the often personal and nasty attacks directed towards her. She is a brave person.
Jean |
A criticism of the DGA process specifically focused on the use of Memory - Based methods of recall used in food diaries that then were used to drive guidelines.
Quote:
Letters at: https://www.realclearscience.com/ar...ad_science.html |
Look at the trial and error process everyone on this board goes through. Look at the variations in what we wind up with.
There's no one size fits all even in low carb! |
Although the USDA guidelines claim to offer a range of eating patterns, they are mostly a variation on the high grain, low fat theme. Suggesting that carbohydrate sensitive/diabetic people follow the same high carb diet recommended has to have been the most damaging advice of all.
Quote:
The Nutrition Coalition continues their advocacy work to change this situation and reached out for donations last week. Quote:
More on the work they do to change guidelines based on science and portal for donations at: https://www.nutritioncoalition.us |
Delete. Put this under Dr Malhotra, about UK guidelines
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 23:01. |
Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.