The "New" USDA Food Guide
Oops they did it again. Well, the USDA has taken a crack at revising their food guide recommendations, as they do every five years, and what has all the latest science provided for in this most recent document? Not much.
Going through the guide, I noticed that much of it was basically the same old advise that we've been hearing for year, but which either haven't worked, or more likely which have only resulted in the U.S. getting even more obese. But let's look on the bright side for the moment - here are the only valuable additions to the recommendations:
- Avoid Trans Fatty Acids: hooray, the USDA has finally come out with a recommendation to avoid these harmful things found in processed baked goods, shortenings, margarines, and some dressings. The problem is that no specific recommendation is made. Instead it is just recommended to consume "as little as possible." But who knows how much is "little"? Of course previous documents have basically said that there is really no safe minimum level, and hopefully the new labeling laws that will require these to be listed on labels will maintain the momentum that is motivating food companies to rid their products of these. The other problem I saw is that Trans Fats were lumped in with saturated fats and cholesterol as items to avoid in order to avoid congestive heart disease. Considering that plant-based saturated fats like coconut oil are now being seen as healthful in many quarters, and the fact that dietary cholesterol has been shown not to be a major factor effecting cholesterol levels in the blood, it's disappointing that Trans Fats were grouped with these other two.
- Increase fruits, vegetables, and whole grain consumption. Most people would agree that vegetables and fruits provide a great source of nutrients. With most vegetables these even come without the added risk of large dense carbohydrate or sugar loads that effect insulin levels and subsequently can cause health problems in some who are sensative. Fruits are a bit more prone to having large amounts of sugar. Grains, of course, are high in carbohydrates, but the recommendation is to increase whole grains, which have much more fiber which is not converted into sugar thus raising insulin levels. However, if you look at the recommendations, they basically suggest increasing whole grains by about 200-300% from the 2000 recommendations, and to keep the refined (they call them "enriched") grains the same. So while you may be getting more fiber, they are actually increasing your total carb load.
And that is one of my big problems with the recommendations. Despite all the recent studies which suggest merit with decreasing carbohydrate levels, at very least refined carb levels, the new food guide recommendations still is basically a low-fat/high-carb diet. Not that I expected anything different. After all, the USDA's main purpose it to support the agriculture of the United States. That agriculture is primarily grain-based, and so there is an obvious interest in promoting grains – and thus a horrible conflict of interest. The USDA's food pyramid is nowhere to be seen within the current recommendations, but apparently it is in the process of being modified to match the new recommendations. But I can't really see how it will change much. The base will still be about grains, the top will still be fats and sugar. Perhaps they will rewrite the portions recommendations so that it doesn't look like you need to eat 11 bowls of pasta per day in order to meet the requirements for grains, but we'll see. The previous pyramid has developed a great deal of criticism except for the old guard nutritionists who basically use whatever the USDA puts out as their bible.
The unfortunate thing is that this will do nothing to educate or help those who know little about what to eat. Their recommendations are a set of basic guidelines (misguidelines if you ask me) which don't really teach people why they should eat a certain way, but just tell them to.
I was pleasantly surprised by this round of changes to the dietary
guidelines, although I agree that there could certainly be more change and
improvement. One of my main criticism's with the guidelines is that they do
so little to educate people on them. No wonder we're in the shape we're in
in this country.
I have a theory that, to me at least, seems to explain why PP works for me
and not for my friend. Yvonne primarily eats fruits and vegetables when
she wants to loose a few pounds and says she feels absolutely great. If I
did this I would faint. I need meat. I need to have some protein with
every meal. I've run across a few other people like Yvonne. And there are
obviously others as the "carb proponents" out there are many and there
books sell very well. Anyhow, my theory is as follows. We all decended
from one of only a few tribes of early (wo)man. If you look here, there is
a better explanation of this here
http://www.oxfordancestors.com/mos_offer.html
Anyhow, long story short, possibly some of these tribes were more agriculturally based alot earlier and therefore are more genetically predisposed to handle this type of a diet. I would say the larger majority would be meat eaters primarily due to the abundance of fatness in the western world that is basing their food intake, at least in part, on the Canada Food Guide or the US equivalent.
Just a thought/theory but it's the only thing I can think of that explains this discrepancy. Comments?
Shari
Shari [s.locking@telus.net]
Shari, thanks for the post. I agree that different people have different
sensitivities to higher carb loads. For example Pima Indians seem to be
very suseptible to diabetes, heart disease, etc. when eating the same diet
that doesn't cause nearly the same risk for caucasions of Northern European
dissent. But I suspect that while some of us CAN eat more carbs without
experiencing the extreme risks that some others do, that doesn't mean that
eating a diet containing mostly those things will be OPTIMAL for us. We
may not experience problems like obesity that are outwardly obvious, but
then all of a sudden at age 50 a diagnosis of heart disease or something
like this may be a wakeup call... It's one thing to feel great and "lose a
few lbs" eating only fruits and veggies for a few days, but I don't know if
this says that much about what we should be eating on a regular basis for
optimal health. Our modern metabolisms are generally so screwed up, that I
wouldn't trust anything aside from long-term approaches. Unfortunately
long-term studies haven't really been done. The longest I've heard of were
a year, and I know that many of these have some big flaws. But I write
about all this in much more detail in another entry:
http://twelveblackcodemonkeys.blog-city.com/read/916840.htm
Visit me @ http://twelveblackcodemonkeys.com
You're right about the studies. I think it's time that some non-partisan
studies were done with regard to this. In fact it is probably an emergency
at this point due to the epidemic of overweight children of late. This is
a real serious problem because I think it's an accepted fact that if you
have weight issues as a child you are probably going to have the same
problems your whole life. Something about the formation of fat cells. I
can't remember the exact explanation. I have read at least a couple
articles that suggest this may be as dangerous as smoking and has been
linked to at least as many serious diseases. It's really
sad.
Shari [s.locking@telus.net]
This comment is to Sheri. In reguard to your first posting, involving the
different need of different people, there is a book called "Eat Right for
Your Type". It explains different digestive needs for different people
based mainly on their blood types. I found it an interesting read, and it
gives a pretty good theory on why different people need different things. I
personally know a few dietitians who have used this system and had great
succes with it. You might want to check it
out.
Solomon [wizitchizit@walla.com]
I would greatly appreciate it if anyone could send a list of links to good
online references concerning nutrition to my e-mail. Thank you to any who
may be able to help.
Solomon [wizitchizit@walla.com]
Soloman, what kind of references are you looking for?
Regarding Eat Right For Your Type, we've discussed this book on the Protein Power Bulletin Board somewhat and the experience of members who tried it were mixed. It seems like if you have a type that suggests you eat a primarily low-carb diet, you tend to do well (as many people do), but for those who it was recommended to eat a more carb-based diet, they did not tend to have a good experience, so my thought is that blood type is not a very good indicator of diet type. I haven't read the book and don't know if the author has done any studies, but if he has I'd be interested in seeing them.
Visit me @ http://twelveblackcodemonkeys.com
You poor, poor, misguided people. And you moderators, I don't know if you
were just misled as well or if you know better(if so, shame on you for
exploiting people for your own profit). I am a student in the field of
health promotion at the university of northern Iowa. I a have an emphasis
on nutrition and if there is one thing that I have learned it is that NO
DIET SHOULD EVER DISCLUDE ANY KIND OF FOOD GROUP!!!!! Your body needs
every kind of nutrients in specific amounts. How it works is that you get
energy from Carbs, fats, and proteins. The main sorce is Carbs. However,
in the absence of carbs your body picks up the slack by using more fat and
protein, however, the majority of that protein is not, I repeat, NOT from
protein recently ingested but from lean tissue(aka muscle!!!). So when you
go on a low carb diet all you are doing is forceing your body to use muscle
tissue for energy instead. At the same time, fad diets (like this one)
usually don't encourage water consumption and that is were a large amount
of the weight loss comes from. From water loss and muscle loss. Then,
when someone has gotten down to the weight that they think is apropriate
for themselves they often go back to their old habits and start adding on
muscle. So in affect, they replaced muscle and water with more fat! I
know this message will soon be errased but I can't help it because I know
better. I also realize that alot of you will question me just because I am
still in school(just a second semester junior). Well, I challenge the
moderators to post their credentials. I bet these doctorates that they are
talking about are not so amazing as they would make you think. Oh yeah, by
the way. I can check these out so make sure that you are telling the
truth.
thanks and good luck to all you dieters out there. If you have any
questions just post it on here and I will come and check it later.
Brad
Poor, poor Brad. I will cut you some slack because you sound very youung
and naive. The study of nutrition is one that has some pretty strict
guidelines for what people should and shouldn't question. My big
suggestion to you is this: question everything you are taught. Why should
no diet exclude a food group? Is there hard evidence - double blind
studies - backing such claims up? I'm not sure where you are getting your
claims about muscle loss from low-carb diets? Can you name a study, any
study, so that I can read this? Probably not. Probably it is propaganda
spewed by the nutritionist/dietician authorities who have something against
anything labeled low-carb. Please, prove me wrong. But these same people
have been trying scare tactics like this for 20 or more years, using
rhetoric that isn't based on science, or if it is, it's misleading. For
example, the myth about higher protein being bad for the kidneys. This
isn't born out in any study, it is simply an inference or extrapolation
from the fact that those who have existing kidney disorders have problems
with larger amounts of protein. Question everything you are told. Look
for studies that prove everything. Without such studies, you will simply
be a politician towing the party line, which may indeed be very wrong and
detrimental to those you are trying to help.
I will have to get back to you on studies(finals week), if I remember, I
will look them up over break. As for propoganda from authorities, what in
the world would they possibly have to gain from saying something wont work
if it is proven to be different? Doesn't that go against all the laws of
scientific reasoning? They don't have nearly as much to gain from this as
say, somebody who starts a diet plan, and makes lots of money off people
who don't know any better. These are the same people who are running these
studies! They are educated in the functions of the human body, they didn't
just go around the internet reading random things that they have come
across and taking them for absolute truths when anybody, and I mean anybody
can put something on the internet and make it seem true whether it is or
isn't. I have been running tests on this diet, it is my project that is
part of my semester test. I was trying to figure what all attracted people
to this diet when I came across your website and saw what you were telling
people. Now I am pretty sure that you are doing this without knowing what
kind of consequences can be. Oh, and by the way. You say you have been
doing this for five years, big whoop. That is not a long time, that is not
true long term effects. I will admit that more long term research needs to
be done, but we wont be able to for a few years and so far it isn't looking
to good. By the way, you guys are majorly downplaying the affects of
Ketosis, I have seen what that can do to people and it is not pretty. So,
don't just call me young and naive, because it is obvious that you have a
lot to learn as well about what healthy nutrition is. Don't worry, I do
to. I do question what I have been taught, I did this project and so far it
is proving what I have been taught to be correct.
Brad
I think you phrase it in the wrong way - "something to gain. " I don't
think it has so much to do with gain as opposed to perhaps defending
reputations. Those who invest their careers in certain theories have a
vested interest in those theories being accepted and correct. Scientists,
despite their air of objectivity, are still humans and thus are subject to
the same human foibles as anyone else. While there may be some areas of
agreement when it comes to nutrition, there are many things that scientists
disagree about - be they nutritionists, doctors, etc. There are studies
that purport to prove all kinds of things, which just gives me the idea
that it's very easy to create a study to show almost anything. You can
bend statistics very creatively, and I've seen many studies where the
authors actually decide to discount the actual numbers because they don't
make sense based on their expectations! It's amazing, but scientists,
especially around health and nutrition, come with certain expectations
based on what they've been TAUGHT - like you. So when a study seems to
discount this, instead of looking at the foundations of what they think is
known fact, they discount the evidence.
Yeah high, this is going to be short because I am still studying for finals
so I just going to say a couple quick things. First off, quick trying to
just say that I am ignorant please, because I don't beleive that you know
everything about my background and taking quick shots like that just is
uncalled for and pointless. As for Ketosis, what it does(and no, just
because you are on one of these diets it doesn't mean it is going to
happen, it just means that it is more likely) is builds up in the kidneys
and has gotten to levels in which the kidneys will shut down and will have
to go onto dialises. it also affects your liver in a similar fashion.
Well, that is all that I have time for at the moment(really, I don't even
have the time I took to write this), I will continue this later.
Brad
Brad, your arrogance amazes me. I can't call question your knowledge of
certain things, but you can do that of me? Why are you exempt from
question? Just because you are studying in college? As for Ketosis, if it
did such things to the liver and kidneys, wouldn't we be seeing huge
numbers of people with symptoms or at least blood tests that showed
abnormal kidney or liver function. True, not all diets involve ketosis as
a requirement, such as the one I am on, however, the most popular low-carb
diet does require it, and it's also been around and quite popular for 35
years. Please show me a study that finds in a otherwise healthy person (ie
non-diabetic), that ketosis produces harmful effects? Again, simply
stating these things as fact will not get you anywhere in the real world.
You need to show how studies back you up.
Dude, what is with the personal attacks. First off, I have three tests this
week, I will be done soon. So when I am done(and find the time because
this is nowhere near the top of the list of things to do) with other things
that I have to take care of. It is not like run a website or something of
that matter, it is not that important to me. As for what you said on
Ketosis, it is a common side affect that it builds up to dangerous levels
even in people who aren't on a low carb diet but are still consuming large
amounts of protein. It doesn't happen to everyone, just like because
someone may consume large amounts of cholesterol doesn't mean that that
person will have a heart attack. I will post my short list of negative
side affects later when I have more time. Well, bye for now, I look
forward to reading your next page long post that you will probably write in
rebutle.
Hey, DUDE, I like it how my one comment about your arrogance becomes a
personal attack, whereas all the previous entries by you are simply
reasonable debate. Look back. Even in your last message there are subtel
digs about "its not like run a website"... "it's not that important to me."
Or your comment about the length of my posts?
Try an eating plan based on your metabolic type, in which there is a
recommended plan for any specific m. type. Dr. Mercola has a book called:
the total health plan, that is an interesting read. Carbs, especially
breads, grains, etc... turn into sugar in the system, & seem therefore to
be something to avoid if you have any blood sugar disorders such as
diabetes. They are also known to hinder losing weight if eaten regularly.
It has been suggested that one should get their carbs from veggies & more
complex sources for a more balanced system.
Madison, while I agree that most grains are not the best choices for most
people, it's probably not for the same reasons. EVERY carb (except for
fiber and varying degrees of sugar alchols), and a varying percentage of
protein converts to sugar in your body. While that in and of itself can
cause a problem if you eat a large quantity, the criticism I'm more
concerned about with certain grains is the theory that they may be
implicated in autoimmune disorers like arthritus, asthma, allergies, etc.
That is the big reason I try to stay away from them, although of course
they also don't normally fit into my low-carb way of eating. Rice is one
of the grains that apparently is not tied to these disorders, so I will
occasionally eat a small amount with sushi, but in general stay away from
grains.
Levi,
At the present I'm not real close to eating the way I should for optimal
health, but am working on improvements. I visit Dr. Mercola's website alot,
among others, & read his research & observations which, I have to say has
helped point me back in the right direction. One thing I've noticed is that
if I munch on toast or cereal in the morning, I feel like sleeping within
an hour or two, & sometimes feel a little dizzy, as oppossed to when I have
protein & veggies, which seems to give me more of a balance of energy &
help lessen my fatique level. I have to wonder if I have a blood sugar
imbalance. (I'm working on that too, just in case). I have noticed less
aches in general when I stay away from grains as well.
As for Brad. He's probably a new student in the subject,(compared to
someone who's done years of research, & has documented proof to back it
up), into the research he done, hyped about it, & because to him, he feels
he's learning so much, he defends it. Many times when some one believes
something to be true, they get a bit emo when some one else contradicts
those beliefs. I think it's just part of the learning proccess, & different
people arrive at truth at different paces. Guess that's what makes the
world keep going 'round. I remember times feeling that I knew so much about
certain things & was so hyped about it, that I had alot of drive (though
I'm not knocking drive) to tell/share what I believed with the people I
love, & now, when I think back, (though I may laugh), sometimes I really
feel embarrassed, even a little ashamed for trying to push my viewpoints on
them. I just didn't know what I thought I knew, & was trying to be good for
them. 10 yrs from now I will have learned more & I'll feel silly for some
of the things I say now. Brad is journeying through life as we all are, &
we are all sort of "in school" so, if he believes those things, then that
is the direction he will travel until he learns something else that affects
him, & it's time for him to move along from where he is at. I can't say
that his taking pot shots is real cool though. It reminds me of little kids
who stick their tongues out at each other & make dirty faces. Seems like
he's real emo.about it. Some times fires, though they might burn brightly,
& others get riled up, burn out real quickly.
There are other possibilities though, one being,(& this might sound
crazy),I've read/heard about people out there assigned to search the web &
cause havac for particular sites if they have to do with anything
contradictory to what the government wants the people to think, or need the
populatuon to believe. (I could go into more detail, but that's a whole
other story). Just look at Kevin Trudeau, Dr.Lorraine Day, & others who try
to get what I would call good onfo. out there. From what I've heard they
purposely try to stir up trouble to raise the stress level of the ones
managing the websites they target, in an effort to get viewers to mistrust
them for one thing, & to bog down their minds with the situation they're
trying to create, so that those who manage these sites can't concentrate
effectively enough at their work, & therefore will have a weak site, or
eventually get so frustrated that they give up altogether & shut down their
site. I for one am glad to see those sites out there & hope people don't
let "the heat" shut them down.