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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61   ^
Old Wed, Dec-23-15, 07:32
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
The ACA also has a provision that treatments have to show that they create measurable health improvements. Which gives me hope.

All sorts of cardiac options, like stents and bypasses, don't improve matters, for instance. But everyone just thought they did!

I hope you're right, WereBear, and that the "measurable health improvements" will be associated with the correct root cause. As the government establishes more of a presence in this area, I'd like to get some indication that the quality and practice of preventive medicine linked to sound nutrition is not going to be measured against some mythical and out-of-date dietary guidelines published by the very same government.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62   ^
Old Wed, Dec-23-15, 09:40
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,916
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111
I hope you're right, WereBear, and that the "measurable health improvements" will be associated with the correct root cause. As the government establishes more of a presence in this area, I'd like to get some indication that the quality and practice of preventive medicine linked to sound nutrition is not going to be measured against some mythical and out-of-date dietary guidelines published by the very same government.


Previously, one's health care was guided by insurance companies. Given a choice between well meaning government and profit driven corporations, I find the present situation an upgrade.
Reply With Quote
  #63   ^
Old Thu, Dec-31-15, 05:38
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,411
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

An update from Nina on the kurfuffle over her BMJ piece, the review of CSPI retraction request, media articles covering the saga, etc. as of Dec 29, 2015. Many links to explore:

http://thebigfatsurprise.com/overvi...11-allegations/

What I can't find is what is going on at USDA, HHS, Academy of Medicine with the now supposed Jan 2016 guidelines, no press releases, blog posts, etc. Who is doing this review of "the science"?

Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Dec-31-15 at 07:15.
Reply With Quote
  #64   ^
Old Thu, Dec-31-15, 07:24
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,793
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/149.7/135 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

Thanks, Janet. As always, an informative post.

I'm going to add the Tiecholz tome to my stack of books to reread as I restart my LC lifestyle "from scratch" in 2016. I feel healthier already.

Best wishes.
Reply With Quote
  #65   ^
Old Thu, Dec-31-15, 09:33
keith v's Avatar
keith v keith v is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 729
 
Plan: Wheat belly
Stats: 235/220/200 Male 6 feet 2 inches
BF:
Progress: 43%
Location: Minneapolis, MN USA Earth
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
Previously, one's health care was guided by insurance companies. Given a choice between well meaning government and profit driven corporations, I find the present situation an upgrade.


Unfortunately the US government is owned by the corporations, so now it just looks better.
Reply With Quote
  #66   ^
Old Thu, Jan-07-16, 09:35
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,411
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Medpage flash:

New U.S. dietary recommendations have finally dropped. The takeaways: limit added sugar to 10% of daily calories, don't worry about dietary cholesterol, and men and boys need to cut back on meat. (New York Times)

Here they are:

http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/
Reply With Quote
  #67   ^
Old Thu, Jan-07-16, 11:41
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 330
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 202/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

After reading all you links Janet and the discussion, I am disappointed in the wishy washy result in the link you provided. Sigh. At least this time Congress got involved asking for more evidence. Maybe that is a good sign? To date the committee has never had any oversight -- to my knowledge -- they have just been publishing all the old drivel. I was hoping for a loosening up of the low-fat mantra and instead got more meat and eggs for the human male. Sigh.
Reply With Quote
  #68   ^
Old Thu, Jan-07-16, 13:03
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,411
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Executive Summary:
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines...utive-summary/?

Washington Post points out the contradictions and euphemisms:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ple-about-food/

Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Jan-07-16 at 13:17.
Reply With Quote
  #69   ^
Old Thu, Jan-07-16, 15:21
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,248
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

There is nothing in the Dietary Guidelines that will make me change the foods that I eat. I have no fear of red meat and saturated fats and I'm not going to start eating vegetable oils.
Reply With Quote
  #70   ^
Old Fri, Jan-08-16, 05:16
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 330
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 202/179/175 Female 5 feet 5 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Executive Summary:
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines...utive-summary/?

Washington Post points out the contradictions and euphemisms:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ple-about-food/


Thanks for the link to the Washington Post article. I have just tweeted it.

I am so disappointed. I was hoping the committee would read the research literature and base their recommendations on hard evidence. Not to be.
Reply With Quote
  #71   ^
Old Fri, Jan-08-16, 05:56
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,239
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

Quote:
"The minute they start to talk about things to eat less of, they invoke nutrients instead of foods," said Marion Nestle, who is the Paulette Goddard Professor of Nutrition & Food Studies at New York University. "I dare someone to explain saturated fat to me, or to tell me where most sugar or salt comes from in their diet."


I'd like to think that she's saying that she's too dimwitted to understand the explanation. But I think what she means to say is that the average American is too silly to know which foods contain sugar, saturated fat, and salt. I think it's a real problem when somebody who would set themselves up as an educator of the public as to what constitutes a healthful diet has such a dim view of the intelligence of the public.

Besides that--the guidelines do provide charts, showing what foods sugar, salt and saturated fat are coming from in the American diet.

The bit about cholesterol is disheartening;


Quote:
The Key Recommendation from the 2010 Dietary Guidelines to limit consumption of dietary cholesterol to 300 mg per day is not included in the 2015 edition, but this change does not suggest that dietary cholesterol is no longer important to consider when building healthy eating patterns. As recommended by the IOM,individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.
Reply With Quote
  #72   ^
Old Fri, Jan-08-16, 06:43
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,170
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

Nina vs Joan Blake on HuffPost Live Video:



Picture preview courtesy of Dr. Ted Naiman of Burn Fat not Sugar. (lol)
Reply With Quote
  #73   ^
Old Fri, Jan-08-16, 07:19
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,239
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default

One thing Joan Blake said, about the recommendation for boys and men to reduce protein intake, was that the problem was one of displacement--rather than a criticism of protein foods, she was worried that they would displace whole grains and other crud from the diet. The back door of 'plant-based' diets--if you can't prove that meat and dairy are actually harmful, instead emphasize health benefits of plant foods. Which is easier to do--just compare the effects of fruits, whole grains etc. vs refined plant foods.
Reply With Quote
  #74   ^
Old Fri, Jan-08-16, 07:46
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,916
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RawNut
Nina vs Joan Blake on HuffPost Live


THIS made my morning, day, and week.
Reply With Quote
  #75   ^
Old Fri, Jan-08-16, 07:47
bkloots's Avatar
bkloots bkloots is offline
Posts: 8,793
 
Plan: Atkins/LCHF
Stats: 195/149.7/135 Female 63in
BF:
Progress: 76%
Location: Kansas City, MO
Default

The guidelines were reported in my local paper as front page news this morning. In that cursory overview, I was surprised to find so little reference to "healthy whole grains" or any guidance for reducing starches in the diet.

The writer of this article (Melissa Healy, LA Times) described the so-called Mediterranean diet as one "which emphasizes consumption of copious fruits and vegetables, nuts and legumes drenched in such fat sources as olive, nut, soybean, and sunflower oils." Hmmm. "drenched" isn't the word I'd use. It sounds not just unhealthy but icky!

Is there a discussion in the Guidelines about reducing snacks, "junk food" and other popular sources of salt, sugar, and calories? In any case, I'm glad that cholesterol has been demoted as a life-threatening scare in the food we eat.

[Edit: Now I've read the two links posted by Janet above. I see that we're dealing with weasel-y language, not helpful information, in these "guidelines." I guess "Don't eat crap" doesn't sound official enough. ]

Unfortunately, the only "health" group cited in this article is The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which has filed suit against the USDA, Dept. of Health and Human Services--presumably for promoting a killer diet (especially eggs) in the guidelines. But doesn't the title of that group sound noble??

As always, caveat emptor. Buyer beware.

Last edited by bkloots : Fri, Jan-08-16 at 07:55.
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 03:57.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.