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
  #76   ^
Old Tue, Mar-12-19, 18:47
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,191
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Yes, it's disappointing that the majority of those chosen have been trained and/or worked in epidemiology and many have COI having been funded by or worked for food manufacturers. It's called hedging bets, and big food isn't going to allow a major change in health not being equated with their chemical concoctions. However, the point is that I'm wondering how this is different. Yes, having a balanced committee relying on causation of good health by healthy eating supported by sound science rather than weak correlation would help develop an informed and nutritionally sound eating message for many, but I'm not holding my breath and figure that those of us who have had to make significant changes in our eating practices to achieve good health will continue to do the same. Grass roots will have to suffice to change the complex climate of health related to nutrition, as there is so much misinformation out there today that is widely reported and advertised as gospel, that it appears impractical to expect rapid change at this time.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77   ^
Old Tue, Apr-09-19, 12:41
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,138
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Next Step!

Great letter to Sonny Purdue. Copy, write your own, whatever but let them know we want better guidelines.

I wrote to him a month or so ago, and actually got a response from him last week (well, most likely his office). It wasn't much more than a basic acknowledgement of receipt, but it was at least proof that somebody somewhere read what I had to say.

The next round of public feedback is now being sought. We're past the point of debating the makeup and appointment processes for the committee; now we're on to the main event, dealing with the issues with the guidelines themselves.

Comments can be submitted online at https://www.regulations.gov/documen...-2019-0001-0001. I've already submitted mine.
Reply With Quote
  #78   ^
Old Thu, May-09-19, 04:21
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,291
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Another great Op-Ed by Nina Teicholz in The Washington Post:

https://www.dietdoctor.com/teicholz...0-of-population


Her new talk at LC Denver was about the Dietary Guidelines and what we can do to going forward.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/teicholz...east-do-no-harm

Nutrition Coalition has a list of dates of the DGAC meetings, all are public, some open for public comment.
Most in DC, but one also in Houston.

How to get involved. At the minimum, easy to send an email.

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/n...to-get-involved
Reply With Quote
  #79   ^
Old Fri, Nov-01-19, 12:30
Grav Grav is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,138
 
Plan: Banting
Stats: 302/187/187 Male 175cm
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: New Zealand
Default

Bumping this since the latest round of opportunity for public comments closes next week:

Quote:
The Advisory Committee that will help shape the 2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) needs your input. It is seeking public comment before November 7, and there are three key issues on which the low-carb community can add insight.

1. The Advisory Committee just announced that it plans to define a low-carbohydrate diet as diets where carbs contribute up 45% of energy. As you know, we would define low-carb diets at much lower levels. Less than 25% is a common standard, and of course percentages go much lower for very low-carb or ketogenic options. (100 grams per day is commonly used as the upper-limit for low-carb, which is 25% of energy in a 1,600 kcal diet.) The upper limit of 45% of energy proposed by the Advisory Committee is almost double this “liberal low-carb” standard. Including studies of diets with 45% carbohydrate in the mix will dilute the data and likely mask the efficacy of true low-carb diets.

2. The USDA may choose to eliminate all studies that do not disclose the food and beverages consumed during the experiment. Since many low-carb studies focus on macronutrient percentages rather than precise descriptions of meals, it is likely that this decision would eliminate many high-quality low-carb studies.

3. In addition, we learned some months back that the USDA is unlikely to consider research done on populations with diabetes or other diagnosed diseases, arguing that the guidelines are for “healthy populations” and thus it would be inappropriate to include studies performed on subjects with disease. Unfortunately, this excludes studies that would show the power of low-carb to reverse diabetes, which could shed light on the best way to treat the burgeoning number of “healthy” Americans with prediabetes.

More details at https://www.dietdoctor.com/speak-up...tary-guidelines.
Reply With Quote
  #80   ^
Old Thu, Jan-16-20, 09:54
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is offline
Posts: 3,191
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Strong editorial this week from Dr. Mark Cucuzzella regarding DGA:

https://www.sunjournal.com/2020/01/..._eid=8ce2f807c8

Excerpt:
Quote:
America’s top nutritionists are considering a new diet.

In recent years, researchers have proven that low-carb diets full of healthy fat and protein help people lose weight — plus prevent and even reverse disease. So for the first time ever, the experts who produce the federal “Dietary Guidelines for Americans” — which influence everything from school lunches to military rations — are reviewing the option of including a low-carb diet pattern.

Unfortunately, their supposedly “low-carb” diet will likely derive a whopping 45 percent of its calories from carbohydrates. That’s simply not low-carb. The federal government’s gaslighting isn’t merely dishonest; it could endanger the health of millions of Americans.

For decades, the government has urged people to consume most of their calories from breads, pastas, rice and other carbohydrate-laden foods. Consider the infamous “food pyramid” released by the federal government back in 1992. That diagram recommended 6 to 11 daily servings of grains. While that has since been reduced, the guidelines still recommend getting more than half one’s calories from carbs.
.
.
.
If the committee moves forward with its potential “low-carb” definition in the upcoming 2020 guidelines, it will be a grave misstep. Labeling a diet that derives nearly half its calories from carbohydrates as “low-carb” is not only unscientific, it’s dangerous. Folks who follow this recommendation won’t see any of the benefits of a true low-carb lifestyle. Their health will continue to deteriorate — and they’ll dismiss “low-carb” diets as ineffective.

He makes an excellent point that the distortion of what really constitutes a low carb diet causes "nutrition experts" and others to react negatively with claims that it's ineffective, not sustainable, and plant-based options are preferable. Of course it's not sustainable, as the amount of carbs currently being recommended turn it into SAD with the accompanied cravings to eat and a feeling of lack of willpower riding along. Demoralizing for many who could benefit but lack the correct information to start.
Reply With Quote
  #81   ^
Old Thu, Jan-16-20, 12:10
fred42 fred42 is offline
New Member
Posts: 17
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 260/220/220 Male 6' 4"
BF:
Progress: 100%
Location: Charlotte, NC
Default

Two phrases come to mind:

Regulatory Capture - is a corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulatory agency is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group

Controlled Opposition - “The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.” Vladimir Lenin. So they now own the low carb idea and it is 45% carbs. Similar to that study a while back that had it at 40% and concluded it did not work.

Last edited by fred42 : Thu, Jan-16-20 at 12:16.
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 02:58.


Copyright © 2000-2020 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.