I have no interest in the guidelines any more. They're politics with little to no science sprinkled in. I appreciate Nina Tiecholz and others who keep trying to move the conversation but I can't participate in it any more even if my participation was never more than thinking about it and getting frustrated or angry. I'm with Adlel Hite. It's time to just get rid of them.

Here' her blog:

http://eathropology.com

And a great Stephen Colbert video she posted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=66G__mozVzE

Jean

So this is really funny--the USA today article is focused on the reducing sugar aspect of the guidelines, which I have to admit is definitely a step in the right direction. But the sugar lobby is not happy!


In what universe is sugar equivalent to eggs! They are right about the science, but for all the wrong reasons.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lines/77151060/

On ABC World News last night I saw the story covering the release of the new guidelines. It was a quick story - hitting the 3 or 4 biggest changes. They pointed out the apparent inconsistencies with the revised salt and dietary cholesterol guidelines - removing the previous limits, but then saying to eat less of it. THEN they got to the red meat... The story went pretty much like this: Limited amounts of lean meat - including red meat - are still in the recommended guidelines due to lobbying from the meat industry. They then brought on expert commentary -- a representative from Center for Science in the Public Interest -- who said that Obama was unable to have the recommendation for red meat removed from the guidelines in spite of scientific evidence that red and processed meats cause cancer. The spokesman laid the blame on congress and the meat producer's lobbies.

My jaw dropped to the floor. Are you kidding me. THAT is how ABC World News covered this story? So the vegetarian lobby is disappointed that the meat lobby won this battle and ABC put them forward as the "experts" for the world on the subject of nutrition. One step forward, two steps back. Yes - I think our government needs to get out of the nutrition advice business before they kill and bankrupt us all. It would be nice to get the bias out of the media, too.

Husband and I had a discussion of the "red meat is bad for you" issue the other night.

I explained that it's just another example of lazy research, because the study that claimed to show that left too many questions unanswered. What kind of red meat? Red meat from grass fed cows, or from feedlot cows fed with GMO corn? What was eaten with the red meat? Lots of grains? Lots of sugar? Could it be that feedlot red meat is dangerous because eating corn, which is not a natural food source for cattle, changes the quality of the muscle in some unexamined way?

I was rattling off all these, and more, and I think he finally understood why I look with such a jaundiced eye on the popular press's reporting of "progress" in research studies.

I don't really think there's much evidence versus grain-fed beef, let alone grass-fed.

Wasn't the red meat causes cancer study a meta-analysis of previous data, mostly from studies that did not distinguish between fresh red meat and processed meats?

I think it was, Deirdra. Yet another reason to distrust it.

But then I'd have to explain meta-analysis to him.

He's a financial analyst, and numbers are more comfortable for him than nutritional data.

Just from my own experience, Teaser, grass fed is tougher than grain fed. Grass fed does not have the fat content which makes the grain-fed beef so tender. I was told by the farmer who raises grass fed that the beef needs to be cooked longer and with less heat. It is best ground, long slow baked or stewed, not pan fried or broiled. I bought grass fed but will not do so again.

I think so. In addition, show me a processed meat NOT eaten with bread?

I also discount it because where are we supposed to get our protein? We evolved large brains on meat. Now it will kill us?

Benay, I love grass fed steaks. The chewiness is lovely to me, and the flavor is outstanding.

But if the chewiness is an issue, Adolf's Meat Tenderizer works well, and it's all natural: made from papain, an enzyme in papaya that breaks down the connections in proteins. It does have salt and sugar, but you use about a teaspoon for an entire steak.

Different strokes, and all that.

Benay, grass-fed is kind of an acquired taste if you've been raised on grain fed. But once you switch over, you will not want to go back! Reminds me of how I was raised on margarine (thought butter tasted funny) and now the thought of eating margarine makes me gag. An easy route is to go with grass-fed hamburger, then move onto meat sliced thin for tacos or whatever, such as a flank steak. Then a good quality steak such as a flat-iron...Pastured chicken is an easy switch--it tastes sooo much better. All those meats have much better fat quality, but they are more expensive, unfortunately.

Zoe Harcombe's take on the guidelines:

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2016/01/...americans-2015/

As usual, Zoe hits it right between the eyes. What a joke this 5-year exercise in futility has become. Unfortunately, there are many who take this seriously, regardless of how vaguely these guidelines are written. It's almost become similar to a political debate where you need the second wave of "experts" to interpret what the candidates (guidelines) really meant . . .

Zoe, if you are listening, YOU ROCK!

The Jeff Volek petition is alive and well. https://www.change.org/p/demand-tha...ines/u/14993598

Just sent this article from the Washington Post:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-arent-so-sure/