Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Aug-30-16, 14:57
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default Adele Hite on the nutritional guidelines

The always factual and entertaining Adele Hite on the 2015 nutritional guidelines:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nKl1xakEmUw

She makes you laugh; she makes you cry.

Jean
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Wed, Aug-31-16, 05:46
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,605
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Awesome. It was a conspiracy!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Wed, Aug-31-16, 06:33
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Unfortunately the panel mandated by Congress to review the guidelines is stacked with the same type of government insiders rather than the objective diversity required by the law. Adele's talk was before this was announced which happened only a few days ago. Her hope for something different has not been realized.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Oct-03-16, 03:24
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Never read PhillyMag before, or know this author, but found this funny, libertarian take on the USDA guidelines.
Quote:
How the USDA Screwed Up the American Diet — and Deprived Me of So Much Delicious Butter
The government doesn’t have any idea what foods are good for us. So why doesn’t it just shut its trap?
BY SANDY HINGSTON | OCTOBER 1, 2016 AT 9:05 PM

Read more at http://www.phillymag.com/news/2016/...3J7KLdXlwgAh.99


She and Adele would get along well

Quote:
If any other entity was as arbitrary, unscientific, inconsistent and just plain wrong as the government is when it comes to food, we’d laugh it out of town. But why shouldn’t the feds keep throwing bad advice our way? There isn’t any downside, and every couple of years some graphic designer gets to dream up a whole new way of sharing all that useless advice with us. The megafarmers stay happy. The schoolkids stay hungry. We average Joes and Joannas beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into obesity. You know what might make the government think twice before issuing its next food fatwa? A bill that takes the $4 million a day that gets tossed in the school-cafeteria trash and uses it to pay damages to those who’ve been burned by the government’s diet advice. I’d settle for, oh, say, a hundred bucks for every year I went without butter.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Oct-03-16, 03:58
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Thanks for the read Janet. It's both very funny and really sad and angering.

"Yet when those nameless, faceless government bureaucrats decree that we should switch out our Frosted Flakes for oatmeal and cut down on salt and eggs, millions of us do. I wouldn’t trust the federal government to water my plants. Why do I feel differently when it’s telling me what to eat?"

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Oct-03-16, 06:42
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,605
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

We know now that the whole point, for so many, wasn't about what are healthy foods. It was fattening the bottom line of the industrial food industries.

There is a place for science: like the programs that feed pregnant women, which is very important. But good science is there. It's not like there's anything wrong with the basic concept.

We have to get corporate out of it, that's all.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Feb-27-17, 06:15
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

No surprise here, but the Review of the dietary guidelines has been hijacked. Update from Adele as of Feb 1st. The review is bumbling along as expected no matter a change in the White House.

http://www.nutrition-coalition.org/...pendent-review/

Conclusion:

Quote:
This biased, unbalanced review by the NAM gives new reasons to be skeptical. It’s a patent waste of $1 million in taxpayer money, and a tragic, missed opportunity to make progress in reversing the tremendous, budget-breaking load of chronic disease in America,” said Sarah Hallberg, medical director of an obesity clinic at Indiana University and executive director of The Nutrition Coalition.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Feb-27-17, 07:33
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

So-called nutritional science, the epitome of alternative facts.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Feb-27-17, 08:11
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,605
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

It is the reluctance to admit they were wrong. Because that means taking responsibility for all the havoc that was wreaked.

That is why change is such a slow process. They deliberately dig in and allow only incremental changes, because that supports their lie that this was a Slowly Dawning Process and they Did the Best They Could.

Imagine if we didn't have the people digging all this up and making it freely available. We'd be told, spoonful by spoonful, that it was okay to use a dab of butter sometimes and they would push whole grains harder and do the Moderation Dance to Flight of the Bumblebee.

And forty years from now, when we are all eating low carb, everyone is encouraged to laugh at the old-fashioned people who didn't know any better.

We've been told scientific advances move that way. We were lied to.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Feb-27-17, 10:21
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,368
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

WearBear, your comments reminded of this Observer article DietDoctor posted this morning.

http://observer.com/2017/02/health-...-sodium-intake/

Health Authorities Continue to Fail Us
We’re told to listen to doctors and qualified professionals—but they’ve been preaching the same advice for 50 years now

Partial quote
Quote:
The worst part is the fact that no one seems to want to admit their advice was wrong. Instead, dietitians and nutritionists now speak in a sort of code that voids any culpability for their mistake. I’ve heard nutritionists and dietitians on numerous TV shows saying things like “research is now showing us” when giving dietary advice, while disregarding the full extent of what the research actually shows. Fats are apparently okay now, but only monounsaturated and polyunsaturated. Saturated fat should still be limited—for what reason is unclear. The National Heart Foundation of Australia, on their own website no less, states that they “maintain there is a clear link between saturated fat, cholesterol and heart disease, despite ABC media reports questioning the vast evidence base.” So despite all credible research and meta analysis—which they admit is “vast”—showing that there is no evidence to suggest that saturated fat is linked with heart disease, the National Heart Foundation has done the equivalent of stick its head in the sand and act as though nothing has changed.

At the same time they have given their tick of approval to McDonalds.

Of course, no one in the USDA, the AHA, the AMA, or other such authority can admit they got it all wrong, can they? The backlash would be enormous—we’d have class action lawsuits and an entire body of professionals would lose their credibility instantly and completely. If that controversy over fat wasn’t bad enough, we’ve also got the continued push by authorities to have us consume less salt, despite the evidence being at best ambiguous as to its effects. The war on salt would appear to be yet another case of the health authorities giving us one size fits all recommendations without hard evidence, but based on a logical progression that if high blood pressure is a risk factor for heart disease, and salt increases blood pressure, then reducing salt intake would reduce the risk of heart disease. Unfortunately, the Cochrane review found actually found an increase in risk when following a low sodium diet such as that recommended by the American Heart Association.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Feb-27-17, 12:07
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,605
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Thanks for the great article, Janet.

Yes, if we are not supposed to drink bleach and lick light sockets, they shouldn't just tell us to do it less.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Tue, Feb-28-17, 12:51
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,758
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

The 'experts' continue with the same nonsense.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/life...m=.f15ff3ef0fab

Quote:
For heart health, liquid vegetable oils (olive, canola, etc.) are better than hard fats such as butter, margarine and coconut oil. But if you’ve read anything lately about the magic of coconut oil, you may be doubting this advice. The panel sifted through the science and concluded that the cardiovascular benefits of coconut oil are unsubstantiated and that its use should be discouraged. They even point to a study that shows that coconut oil raises cholesterol levels, which is not helpful for heart health.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:22.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.