2020 Dietary Guidelines requesting our input
 

This was posted on Twitter just now by Nina Teicholz (sp?)
FINALLY!!!! AT LAST!!!!!!
I wonder of they really mean it this time

2020 Dietary Guidelines requests input

Terrific News!
This "public" will most definitely be commenting.

I hope sooooo that you are all correct. I predict "they" see all the "public" comments as addressed towards "fad" dieting, and "they" stick with the same old same old. I HOPE that I am WRONG.

I'm working on my "public" comment right now. I noticed that there is an option to attach a file. I just printed my "1000 Days of Healthy Eating" milestone to a PDF. Hopefully they will accept that as an attachment.

Edited to add... I finished my comment and submitted it. They actually give a significant amount of space to write. Here is what I said...

Ken, that’s an amazing letter! If I have any criticism at all it’s that you’re too kind to the food pyramid.

Very well written, Ken.

Oh, wow. This is great news indeed!

I wonder if they'll take comments from people overseas? I would hope so, considering the extent to which the DGAs influence the guidelines for other countries around the world. Here in NZ, your DGAs are top of our reference list as "evidence" for why ours is the way it is...

Let 'em have it. Give them a piece of your mind. After all, it was the US that led the way... down the road to disaster. You were a victim just as much as I.

From MedPage:

Just woke up and caught the end of Nina Teicholz's presentation at Low Carb Breckenridge. She mentioned a petition for change to the 2020 DGAs at https://forbetterdietaryguidelines.org/ which she encourages everyone to sign.

As long as the guidelines are controlled by the USDA, the guidelines will favor the USDA. Let me illustrate with (probably) a hypothetical analogy. As long as transport regulations, Laws, safety standards, tax credits, research funding, etc, are controlled by petrol-powered car makers, regulations, Laws, safety standards, tax credits, research funding, etc, will favor petrol-powered car makers, as opposed to any other form of transportation like motorcycles, electric vehicles, mass transit, and so forth.

Another way to explain.

How it works now

Producers decide DGA - consumers consume producers' product

How it should work

Consumers decide DGA - producers produce accordingly

The point is producers must have no say on DGA. Instead they must be made to produce according to certain standards for nutrition and health for example. One idea is to impose a quota for certain foods prescribed by DGA, maybe a % of total production. In this example, wheat producers couldn't produce more than, say, 20% of their total production as wheat. Ya, they wouldn't be wheat producers anymore, but that's the point.

Also, since DGA dictates production, this production should then be funded with tax credits and grants accordingly.

It's pretty much unreasonable to expect everybody (the consumers, those who would decide the DGA) to know anything about nutrition and health, but it's also reasonable to expect anybody to desire health and fitness and leanness, rather than sickness and obesity. So, to bypass this problem, it's simple enough to determine what makes us sick and fat, and what makes us healthy and lean and fit, then design the DGA accordingly, and in turn impose quotas and such on producers.

Finally, the DGA cannot be monolithic as they are now, favoring a single group over all others, both from the producers side (wheat vs meat for example) and from the consumers side (low-fat diet vs low-carb diet for example). Instead, the DGA must include all possible diets (whether healthful or not, but if not, then ways to compensate like certain supplements like B12 and fat-solubles for a vegan diet for example) and provide equal support for each, so that consumers have a choice, but also have ample support to maintain that choice. In this way, diabetics type 2 for example would have a wider choice of diets, instead of the single diet prescribed by registered dieticians and nutritionists, which by the way says to eat at least 240g of carbs per day (I've seen it with my own eyes). Indeed, registered dieticians and nutritionists would have no choice but to be taught and learn about all those other diets that do not necessarily say to eat lots of carbs, like the Atkins diet or The Zone or whatever you can think of. Their curriculum would have to be revised to reflect the revised DGA, the supporting experiments that determine adequate nutrition and health, and so forth. RD's could no longer act as simple sales reps for producers - even though they don't see themselves as such, that's how it is now.

OK, so I won't give them this comment or any comment in fact, you guys take what you want from this and do it yourselves.

I prefer the "glass is half full" approach. We can debate the terrible state of nutritional awareness and related conspiracies until the cows come home. Rather, awareness of dietary health issues due to the recommendations since the late 1970s is in a much different place today due to grass roots communications and sharing the baton with an increasing number of scientific, technical, and medical experts who are adopting and promoting a new approach. Food manufacturers will fall in line when the current market for much of the processed carbage starts to dwindle. They have no choice. Yes, we can plan to see the USDA lobby and other global organizations with similar interests like the HPCSA, NHMRC promoting the dietary guidelines for Australia, FAO, and WHO who receive backing and funding from food manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies fight this trend. But they won't win in the free world. Keeping this dynamic in mind should serve to strengthen the movement toward dietary health awareness, and embolden people with the resolve to never give up the focus on achieving health through improved nutritional awareness and corresponding dietary adaptation.

Edited to add: I too have been watching Low Carb Breckenridge 2018 streaming, and the presentations are a tremendous indicator of how far nutritional awareness and practice has come over the past 5 years. This year, many physicians, nutritional scientists, and other health providers are attending. It's this trend that will continue in the coming years and makes me realize that progress is being made, day-by-day, year-by-year.

Unfortunately, the USDA actually controls the producers (farmers), instead of the other way around.

I know this for a fact, because I come from a farming family. Dad bought a farm in the mid-60s, which at the time was all corn production. Dad switched some of the acreage to soybeans, and for a while raised some wheat too, rotating crops from one field to another to improve the soil.

My brother has been farming that acreage since about 2000. My brother has eaten LC for about 20 years, so he's well aware of the problems with a grain heavy diet, just like I am. He would genuinely like to switch to some other kind of farm production, but as he's explained it to me, the USDA has the acreage of that farm designated for grain production, and nothing else can be grown there. Therefore, he is listed as a grain farmer, just as my Dad was when he bought that farm.

[Coincidentally, the reason he can grow soybeans -even though they're not technically a grain - is that the USDA considers soybeans to be a grain crop, even though they're a legume. How can we possibly expect them to get nutrition right, if they can't even get the classification of crops right?]

My point is that unless my brother goes through a tremendous amount of expense and red tape to get his classification and the farm's classification changed to some other type of farm production, he can't raise anything for sale, except what the USDA classifies as grain.

Actually, I guess he could stop growing grain, and raise vegetables, berries, grapes, dairy cattle, chickens, etc - the USDA just wouldn't allow him to sell anything from what he would produce, unless he wants to pay heavy fines on anything he earns (the fines are so stiff they'd be higher than what he'd earn from selling any non-designated farm production).

Basically, the USDA has a choke hold on farm production - the USDA designs the DGA's, and therefore they're the ones who decide what portion of total US farmland is to be devoted to each type of farm production - grains, veggies, fruit, dairy, and meat. Considering that so much of the DGAs is supposed to be grain based, obviously they have a huge amount of farmland in the US designated just for the production of various types of grains, in order to provide enough grains to meet the DGAs of every man, woman, and child in the US, plus enough extra to fulfill any trade agreements with other countries.

Please don't fool yourselves into believing that farmers are the ones who actually decide what to grow, except within the strict parameters of what type of crop production the USDA has designated for their farmland.

It's my understanding that the USDA represents producers, I mean the big producers. Small farms are imposed regulations that benefit those big producers, i.e. competition is eliminated by those regulations, it's a defacto monopoly. In essence, even though a small farm is independent, regulations make it so that it's working for the big guys. Beyond production, it's also my understanding that distribution is tightly controlled, maybe to control prices, likely by the big producers as well.

Regardless, the DGA won't change unless the underlying system changes. Rather, the DGA will change only at the whim of whoever controls them. Requesting our input? Guffaw. All of it will be ignored in the facts, even though it gives the appearance of willingness to change, if not at least to listen. The King listens too, if only to keep his subjects happy with his Kingly decrees.

I fear that the monetary interests involved in maintaining the nutritional status quo along with issues of pride and reputation that compel so many "experts" to stick with what they've always said will derail any serious attempt to overturn the dietary guidelines. Change is going to have to come from below, grassroots, people figuring it out for themselves and acting on their own behalf, "experts" be damned. That doesn't mean I don't think people should add their comments. I just don't believe that there is any reason to expect much coming from above will change any time soon.

Jean

Jean, add to that the fear of liability in the medical community forces the continued following of the standards of care. Physicians are reluctant to go against these recommendations for fear of malpractice litigation. Yes, there are a lot of forces at the top that make it very difficult for change toward nutritional health and the re-education of the population to understand what is a healthy approach for them. Grassroots is the way this is changing, and I'm seeing it start to take hold in some of the organizations that have influence. Teicholz's current mantra and objective is to change the DGA. It is going to be difficult, and it won't occur all at once. Yet, I believe it will over time.

While it's a morbid thought, Max Planck's quote is something I keep in mind relative to improving health awareness:

My doctor told me to "just keep doing what I was doing" after witnessing my weight and health improvements in the early months of my WOE. Do you think that is grounds for a malpractice lawsuit? She knew what I was doing and she told me to keep doing it anyway. Not so with my neighbor - an RN specializing in diet and lifestyle support for diabetics. After she noticed that I'd lost 100+ pounds she asked me what I was doing. After hearing about my diet she gave me a free 10 minute lecture on how I should be eating. You know the drill... saturated fat is bad, eat whole grains, fruits, and vegetables and have your sweet treats in moderation. So who did the right thing? My doctor or my RN neighbor? By the book it was my RN neighbor. So my doctor is, in fact, complicit in encouraging my dangerous, unsanctioned LCHF WOE.

Funny thing, though... How many times have your read where one of us LCHF/Keto folks went to the doctor and heard that very same advice that my doctor gave me? "Just keep doing what you are doing" I've seen it dozens of times. Results matter and the doctors see our positive results. But that oft repeated comment from impressed doctors tell me that they are all gun shy when it comes to dietary advice not in keeping with official guidelines.

Our grassroots effort, our results will make a difference. But I fear it will be painfully slow. Nina Teicholz is right. We need change from the top. I too believe that changes to the overall guidelines will be slow in coming. They are not going to just flip the food pyramid upside down in 2020 no matter what forces of change are at play. BUT my hope is that they will bend enough to insert some special guidelines for the metabolically ill - one that at least references low carb WOE as a potential treatment. Even a few such lines inserted into the guidelines could have a dramatic effect. Suddenly it would be OK for doctors to recommend low carb for their patients with metabolic issues. That would be a significant percentage of their regular patients. Results matter and with LC the doctors will get amazing results from their patients who do their best to follow "doctor's orders". When the results start rolling in, others will jump on the bandwagon.

That is my hope, anyway. If a few remarks about potential benefits of low carb manage to slip their way the new 2020 guidelines, that might be just enough of a crack to open the door to real change.

BTW: Have you read any of the comments for the 2020 guidelines that have been posted already? Of the 50 posted so far most are aligned with my beliefs. I half expected vegans, vegetarians, and global warming people to pounce at the opportunity to burry our recommendations for change with 10,000 opposing views. Perhaps I should keep my mouth shut. I don't want to give them any ideas.

Oops. I spoke too soon. The last batch of new comments are well off the mark, including a "no meat requirement" recommendation. What will the policy makers do with such schizophrenic comments? I guess time will tell.

I'm one of those whose doctor said at one time, "just keep doing what you're doing." I give him credit for asking me whether I'd be open to statins even though he knows my stance. On top of that, I have no health test indicators that statins would be beneficial other than my age. But he can truthfully note in my chart that the patient refused the offer of statins. He's safe. Lucky thing!

There are now so many dietary camps weighing in on the DGA, that it will take years to satisfy everyone. And this is what it's coming down to, satisfying different camps as there is little evidence that the DGA authors are willing to cite supporting a sound protocol of healthy eating. What a mess :bash:

Exactly, he has to ask about them. Likewise, my GP brought it up, and said no, done.

I told my doctor that there was no reason for me to have my cholesterol checked since under no circumstances would I take a statin. She has stopped even suggesting that I get the blood testing done. What's the point? She seems to get it. I think it helps that I stay thin and fit, something she doesn't see too often in people my age, especially ones that were formally obese. I imagine she writes all this down so she can say she did her best but I refused.

Jean

I've seen this before, and while it might be true eventually, it's not something that we should assume will solve the issue for us sooner rather than later.

I have a university textbook that I've been picking through these last few months, recommended for second year human nutrition students. It's a recent edition too, revised 2017, yet it still offers the same old arguments: calories are all that matter, if people aren't losing weight then they're not trying hard enough, if they can't try any harder then it's drugs or surgery, lowcarb is a fad, DASH diet is best, ketosis is undesirable, whole grains are healthy, etc...

With the old guard having positioned themselves to ensure that their views perpetuate in this way long after they're gone, you start to realise that for all the bottom-up progress we are making, things still have a long way to go overall.

BRILLIANT! Strong testimony, concisely worded!

Send, send, send, khrussva!!

(And bless you for the time and effort you put into documenting for the USDA the path to healing for those of us with sugar/refined carb issues. Thank you for representing us so well.)

Thank you. I'm just doing my part. The way I see it is that I was a prime (perhaps extreme) example of the problem. While my health, capabilities, and productivity had been on the downward slope for years I was at the cusp of something new. I was at the dividing line where my existence was going to become a financial drain on society at large. That is kind of a cold and harsh way to put it, but it terms of dollars and cents that is the truth of it. Had I done nothing I'm sure that I would be on multiple prescription drugs by now. I may have had a heart attack and related surgery like my brother did. More than likely I'd be have had expensive weight loss surgery done, which is covered by my current insurance. With or without WLS it is very possible that I could be on social security disability by now and I'm not even 55 years old. I was in dire straights and I didn't know what I could do to make things better. Then LCHF as a lifestyle change entered the picture. Problem solved.

I represent millions of people who are at varying stages along the same road to premature health problems. I hope that they "get" my message. Of course our lives are valuable in endless ways -- it is not simply about being a burden on our family finances or society at large. But in this world money talks. Even a vegan might forgive me and turn the other way when I eat a steak if they only realized that their health care and insurance costs would be drastically reduced if the sickest among us started getting better. A LCHF way of eating has worked wonders for me and others like me. It is time for the powers that be to recognize that and do something meaningful to address the health crisis that we all face.

BTW: My comment is posted: HERE

I was happy to see that they included all of my attachments. So the details of my story are all part of my comment. I read through the comments submitted so far and there are a couple of other testimonials such as mine in support of the LC WOE. Lets hope that we see more and more of them to drive home the message.

Hey Ken, can you provide a link to where-ever comments are being posted? I've looked and can't find them.

https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=FNS-2018-0005

Looks like a 'plant based' group is now promoting their cause. A cut and paste comment is repeated dozens of times under different names.

Yep, the Vegans have come out in full force...the overwhelming majority of them using a cut and paste statement saying "I'm in favor of more healthy, plant-based whole foods being added to Americans' diets. I want the USDA to recommend more fresh produce and less meat and dairy, which have been shown to have harmful effects on the environment and on human health. I'm calling on the USDA to create guidelines that are designed with Americans' health in mind, and not the interests of corporations and lobbyists."

In fact, out of curiosity, I ran a control F search and fully 74 of the current 215 comments use EXACTLY that language. Amazing the degree of uniformity.

I'd like to THINK that Ken's obviously thoughtful and completely individualized comment would have more impact all by itself than all those dozens of cut-n-paste knee-jerk reactions.

I'd like to THINK so...but unfortunately, I don't. Some low level flunky will be tasked with summarizing the public comments and he/she will simply pass along the information that a HUGE percentage of comments - at this point over 1/3rd! - were in favor of "healthy plant-based" recommendations. And that doesn't even count the ones who took the time to draft their own mild variation on a theme. Eg., "Please make it healthy and plant based."

Ken's comment will likely be ignored as an outlier.

Personally, I think the best we could hope for would be for the USDA to get OUT Of the business of trying to tell us what foods we should/shouldn't eat.

Instead, maybe Health and Human Services could recommend minimum and maximum suggested daily amounts for various nutrients and calories (by age and activity levels) as well as suggested maximums for some of the more problematic anti-nutrients. They could even provide special guidelines for pregnant women, nursing mothers, growing children, type 1 and type 2 diabetics, the aged, etc.

Then the USDA could provide accurate data regarding the nutrients, calories, and anti-nutrients found in various food options and leave it to us to figure out for ourselves which foods to eat to get the nutrients we need while avoiding anti-nutrients as much as possible.

I have no problems with someone else choosing to eat a plant-based diet that is heavy on the grains. Their body, their choice! In fact I had a house guest this past weekend who is vegan and I went out of my way to prepare a vegan mussaman curry for her. BUT, I want the same respect. Unfortunately, it seems that for many vegans, veganism is not simply a food/health choice. It is a "moral choice" and they, quite literally, want to shove their morals down my throat... no matter what it might do to my health.

Jean, I agree. Big Pharma, Big Food and Big Medicine may SAY they want us healthy, but does anybody believe them?

Change, however, is happening. The Coca Cola Company has been forced to diversify because young people have cut back so much on fizzy drinks. The young are smarter and better informed than some of us codgers. There will soon be an alcoholic Coke drink available in Japan, made with locally sourced booze.

We are the proof that our WOE promotes better health. Someday, hopefully soon, the world at large will catch up. We are what the tech world used to call Early Adopters. :lol:

Nothing to worry about:


:D

MAY or MAY NOT. THAT IS THE QUESTION. Washington is so full of people within and external organizations/lobbyists pushing their agendas. I'm sure that some "plant based" advocates will be sitting on the decision panel. If they have their way the vegan mass mailing will not be dismissed. I love this new term "Plant Based" - meant to soften the activist connotation of saying that we should all be vegans.

Because I signed the Noakes petition I received a mass email from Dr. Sarah Hallberg yesterday urging us to participate. She didn't provide a block and copy statement for us to submit, though. I guess that we are supposed to think for ourselves.