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
  #16   ^
Old Thu, Jul-16-20, 03:40
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 11,584
 
Plan: LC/DrWestman/P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/175/168 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/30%/25%
Progress: 88%
Location: NC
Default

L-CAN Objects to Science Excluded from Report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

Quote:
The Low-Carb Action Network (L-CAN) today voiced strong objections to the final report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), which excludes all low-carbohydrate studies, all trials on weight-loss, and failed to address numerous process and methodological concerns.

The DGAC report stated that there was “limited” evidence to show that a low-carb diet could help prevent heart disease and not enough evidence (“Grade Not Assignable”) to show that the diet could prevent obesity or type-2 diabetes. These grades mean that a low-carb diet will almost certainly not be included as an option in 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines.

These conclusions stand in stark contrast to those by other expert groups. For example, the American Diabetes Association, Diabetes Canada, and the European Association for the Study of Diabetes have all reviewed the scientific literature on low-carb diets and concluded that they are a safe and highly effective option for the prevention and management of type 2 diabetes.

Moreover, there are some 100 systematic reviews of low-carb and ketogenic diets in the scientific literature
Continues at link with links to studies

https://lowcarbaction.org/science-e...TobgF1DZiCNC9x4



And from The Nutrition Coalition:

Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report is out and once again, only addressing healthy Americans, despite fact that 60% of Americans now live with one or more diet-related, chronic disease. Our press release:

https://www.nutritioncoalition.us/n...on-weak-science

Quote excerpt:

Quote:
The Nutrition Coalition is concerned about numerous issues in the current process including:

The fact that the Dietary Guidelines addresses only healthy Americans, despite the fact that 60% of Americans now live with one or more diet-related, chronic disease, that Congress mandated the Guidelines to be for the “general public,” and that the Guidelines recommendations are administered, via school lunch programs, feeding programs for the elderly, etc., to the sick and well alike.  

The exclusion, by the DGAC, of virtually all clinical trials on weight loss. 

The exclusion of the last decade of science on saturated fats, which cumulatively shows that these fats do not have any effect on cardiovascular or total mortality.  

The exclusion of all the science on low-carbohydrate diets (>65 clinical trials). 

 The continued use of a ‘black box’ methodology that is not transparent about how data is evaluated or graded and is therefore not reproducible—a hallmark of good science.

The fact that USDA-HHS have rejected the majority of recommendations made by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in its report on the DGA process.

This 2017 report was the result of a Congressional mandate and cost taxpayers $1M. It was also the first-ever outside peer review of the DGA process.

The lack of transparency about major conflicts of interest on the DGAC, which include multiple ties to the food industry and the fact that more than half of the committee has ties to ILSI, a group dominated by multinational food and pharma interests.

Last edited by JEY100 : Thu, Jul-16-20 at 05:09.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Thu, Jul-16-20, 06:43
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 721
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/179/165 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

Thanks for these responses Janet.I will share to my followers on Twitter - limited - and Facebook - even more limited. But if we all share these responses, we might help someone else who needs to know the standards are faulty
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Thu, Jul-16-20, 07:41
Benay's Avatar
Benay Benay is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 721
 
Plan: Protein Power/Atkins
Stats: 250/179/165 Female 5 feet 6 inches
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: Prescott, Arizona, USA
Default

I posted the Nutrition Coalition article on FB but lo and behold! the link was broken

Suppression?
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Sat, Aug-22-20, 01:58
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 23,201
 
Plan: Low Carb
Stats: 217/180/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 65%
Location: UK
Default

Committee misses the mark on saturated fats

https://hoards.com/article-28555-co...rated-fats.html

Quote:
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) completed its final report on July 15 and sent it to Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue and Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar. The final report has far reaching implications, as it makes recommendations for the dietary guidelines for 2020 through 2025. Although these dietary recommendations are not statutory, they set the standard for federal school and elderly nutrition programs, hospitals, other institutions, and military commissaries.

The guidelines will go into effect later this fall. Many nutrition experts have publicly expressed concern that the DGAC was remiss in rolling forward the limit on saturated fat to 10% of dietary caloric intake. These experts, who include former DGAC members, state that the current 2020 DGAC failed to consider the importance of foods containing these fats and the contribution of these foods to healthy eating habits. This oversight has left a significant gap in the findings of the final report and needs to be addressed.
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 09:20.


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