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
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Nov-01-11, 13:14
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 22,042
 
Plan: LCHF/IF
Stats: 217/192/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 44%
Location: UK
Default Those tedious dietary guidelines: Two nutrition profs sound off

Quote:
From The LA Times
October 31, 2011

Those tedious dietary guidelines: Two nutrition profs sound off

October 31, 2011, 3:26 p.m.
Halloween's one thing: What about how we eat the rest of the year? Hands up, anyone out there who actually pays attention to the government’s dietary guidelines and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s snazzy new food plate.

('Allo? Anyone?)

Harvard Nutrition researcher Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. David Ludwig of Children’s Hospital Boston think the 2010 guidelines and plate are a vast improvement over the 2005 guidelines and confusing family of stripy pyramids the plate replaced. But as they explain in the current New England Journal of Medicine, they're not very impressed with the latest guidelines, which they say “represent a mix of progress and lost opportunities.”

Here’s what the two nutrition experts see as progress:

-- More emphasis on eating vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains and nuts.

-- More focus on plant-based diets.

-- A suggestion that you substitute fish for some of the red meat and poultry.

-- The move away from a low-fat diet (toward stressing one containing fewer calories), which they say “was never based on clear evidence” and may have played a part in making the nation fatter.

Here’s what Willett and Ludwig don’t like:

-- The guidelines still talk about limiting fat to 35% of calories or fewer, based on unclear science.

-- Three daily dairy servings are recommended. Willett and Ludwig say there’s no evidence that dairy helps protect against fractures, and they cite a possible link between dairy and heightened risk of prostate and ovarian cancers;

-- Half of our grains can still be refined, and Willett and Ludwig don’t see how that’s useful because they add calories and may have contributed to the climbing rates of diabetes in this country.

The pair also express irritation with a term the guidelines use to talk about solid fats and sugars -- SOFAS -- as if it were all that hard to say "solid fats and sugars" -- or, for that matter, name specific food items.

"A clearer message would have been that Americans must reduce consumption of red meat, cheese, butter, and sugar, but that message would have offended powerful industries,” Willett and Ludwig write.

And yes: Even though most Americans blithely ignore the guidelines and food plate, development of the guidelines is keenly watched by the food industry, which lobbies hard about the language so it doesn’t imply that people should eat LESS of their products.

So how can the government do better? The pair suggest (among other things) removing responsibility for the guidelines entirely away from the USDA, which has a role to promote U.S. agriculture, and having the guidelines “explicitly state which foods should be consumed less by Americans.”

For a look at the political scuffling behind the guidelines and pyramid (and now plate), check out the kind of lobbying that went on in the run-up to the 2010 guidelines; even more of that lobbying; a book, "Food Politics," by NYU's Marion Nestle, that discusses the history of the process.

It’s not quite clear why Willett and Ludwig chose to run their commentary now, some months after the guidelines were released, but since the document is revamped every five years, and officials are probably trying to pick the next advisory committee already, it's probably never too soon to start planning for the next ones.
http://www.latimes.com/health/boost...0,6839835.story
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Nov-01-11, 15:14
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,452
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
Half of our grains can still be refined, and Willett and Ludwig don’t see how that’s useful because they add calories and may have contributed to the climbing rates of diabetes in this country.

Humans can't digest fiber so grains must be refined for us to digest whatever they contain. Maybe they mean whole vs just the starchy flour? That makes not one bit of difference to our health.

Quote:
The move away from a low-fat diet (toward stressing one containing fewer calories)

?!? But the whole point of low fat is to cut calories!
Quote:
Here’s what Willett and Ludwig don’t like:

-- The guidelines still talk about limiting fat to 35% of calories or fewer, based on unclear science.

But you just said...
Quote:
The pair also express irritation with...

Is it just me or is this "pair" gone completely whacko?
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Nov-01-11, 16:34
Thomas1492's Avatar
Thomas1492 Thomas1492 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,826
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 500/408/300 Male 73 inches
BF:toodamnmuch
Progress: 46%
Location: Oregon
Default

Yea they're talking out both sides of the mouth Martin..The truth is the research and studies don't back up any of the nonsense recommended in the last 40 years,but as scientists they are in a closed environment and do you think either one has ever read or even thought of buying GCBC,The Paleo Solution,Primal Blueprint,Wheat Belly,etc etc..I don't..We also know that every time they test a diet the macronutrients are so wrong there's no way to find the truth...For instance feeding Rats Protein plus sugar,or Fat plus carbs,it feels like they try to not find the truth,and I feel it all comes back to monies provided for studies from commercial interests...
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Nov-01-11, 17:58
rightnow's Avatar
rightnow rightnow is offline
Posts: 19,575
 
Plan: ~VLC/~dirty primal
Stats: 520/361/350 Female 66 inches
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 94%
Location: Ozarks USA
Default

I'm confused about why they say 'limiting' fats was a problem and never based on clear science, but then they say what we really needed was to tell people to eat less meat, cheese and milk. The primary alleged reason for eating less of those is to limit fats. Actually it's like they said opposite things in at least 3 places. Weird.

PJ
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Wed, Nov-02-11, 07:14
renegadiab renegadiab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 475
 
Plan: Schwarzbein/Bernstein
Stats: 355/240/200 Male 69 inches
BF:
Progress: 74%
Default

They got something right, but are still confused overall. Plus, they are looking to the government for solutions. I still maintain that the government should get out of the food and nutrition business and let people decide for themselves.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Wed, Nov-02-11, 10:42
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by renegadiab
They got something right, but are still confused overall. Plus, they are looking to the government for solutions. I still maintain that the government should get out of the food and nutrition business and let people decide for themselves.


I agree with that totally, but how can "health-conscious" people (who get educated by the TV) make informed decisions when they are being told by Harvard Nutrition researcher Dr. Walter Willett and Dr. David Ludwig of Children’s Hospital Boston : elitist east coast Ivy League authoritative muckety-mucks ... who have got it wrong?

I see so many people who don't get it. Three cups of sugar in the low fat carrot cake and "Wow that's a great way to get your kid to eat vegetables!".

Sheesh... and I thought Willett was finally coming around.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Wed, Nov-02-11, 16:34
aj_cohn's Avatar
aj_cohn aj_cohn is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,948
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 213/167/165 Male 65 in.
BF:35%/23%/20%
Progress: 96%
Location: United States
Default

Maybe their getting senile from all the carbs and sugars they've consumed over their lives.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Wed, Nov-02-11, 17:03
Neanderpam's Avatar
Neanderpam Neanderpam is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,388
 
Plan: Ketogenic now
Stats: 277/121/125 Female 61 inches
BF:
Progress: 103%
Location: NE Indiana
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas1492
Yea they're talking out both sides of the mouth Martin..The truth is the research and studies don't back up any of the nonsense recommended in the last 40 years,but as scientists they are in a closed environment and do you think either one has ever read or even thought of buying GCBC,The Paleo Solution,Primal Blueprint,Wheat Belly,etc etc..I don't..We also know that every time they test a diet the macronutrients are so wrong there's no way to find the truth...For instance feeding Rats Protein plus sugar,or Fat plus carbs,it feels like they try to not find the truth,and I feel it all comes back to monies provided for studies from commercial interests...


I say we go to wherever the 'studies' are being done. Yeppers. Instead of 'men's magazine's' in the bathrooms, I'm betting there ARE copies of all the books you've listed...(Wheat Belly might be taped to the underside of the tank toilet lid...).
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Wed, Nov-02-11, 17:41
Thomas1492's Avatar
Thomas1492 Thomas1492 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 5,826
 
Plan: Ketogenic
Stats: 500/408/300 Male 73 inches
BF:toodamnmuch
Progress: 46%
Location: Oregon
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neanderpam
I say we go to wherever the 'studies' are being done. Yeppers. Instead of 'men's magazine's' in the bathrooms, I'm betting there ARE copies of all the books you've listed...(Wheat Belly might be taped to the underside of the tank toilet lid...).

LOL!!! That's hilarious Pam!!! Primal/Paleo books are the new "Playboy/Penthouse" in the Halls of Academia!!!
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Nov-03-11, 10:49
Neanderpam's Avatar
Neanderpam Neanderpam is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,388
 
Plan: Ketogenic now
Stats: 277/121/125 Female 61 inches
BF:
Progress: 103%
Location: NE Indiana
Default

All the housekeepers will strike yanno.
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 15:31.


Copyright © 2000-2018 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.