U.S Government has went low Carb but on the down low.
walker1world
Posts: 259 Member
Hey did you see that the Government has changed it's guidelines on sugar consumption? They have cut it down to 50 grams a day. That is essentially would be considered a low carb diet.
Every thing in this country has been using those guidelines to set their nutritional goals. My son school for example lets the kids eat so much sugar I stopped letting him eat lunch at school and he has lost 16 pounds since October.
I am glad that the government has finally seen the light but the fact that they are not pushing this to make sure that schools adjust there menus is a shame.
Every thing in this country has been using those guidelines to set their nutritional goals. My son school for example lets the kids eat so much sugar I stopped letting him eat lunch at school and he has lost 16 pounds since October.
I am glad that the government has finally seen the light but the fact that they are not pushing this to make sure that schools adjust there menus is a shame.
0
Replies
-
No body wants to take blame for fear of class action lawsuits! The first agency that admits they were wrong will be the first named.0
-
The recommendations to cut down on sugar went out a few months back. They also scaled back vilification of fat and cholesterol. However, the emphasis on "heart-healthy whole grains", low fat dairy and other junk remains, as well as negative view of meat. A lot of government-connected think tank recommendations are to switch to a grain and fruit heavy vegan diet, because 'climate change', 'sustainability', and massive amounts of money the government pays in farm subsidies.
Anyway, let me get off my conspiracy theory soap box and hang up the tinfoil hat. It's a step in the right direction.0 -
The recommendations to cut down on sugar went out a few months back. They also scaled back vilification of fat and cholesterol. However, the emphasis on "heart-healthy whole grains", low fat dairy and other junk remains, as well as negative view of meat. A lot of government-connected think tank recommendations are to switch to a grain and fruit heavy vegan diet, because 'climate change', 'sustainability', and massive amounts of money the government pays in farm subsidies.
Anyway, let me get off my conspiracy theory soap box and hang up the tinfoil hat. It's a step in the right direction.
A small step. This alone will shift a lot of conversations about health. I hope0 -
-
walker1world wrote: »The recommendations to cut down on sugar went out a few months back. They also scaled back vilification of fat and cholesterol. However, the emphasis on "heart-healthy whole grains", low fat dairy and other junk remains, as well as negative view of meat. A lot of government-connected think tank recommendations are to switch to a grain and fruit heavy vegan diet, because 'climate change', 'sustainability', and massive amounts of money the government pays in farm subsidies.
Anyway, let me get off my conspiracy theory soap box and hang up the tinfoil hat. It's a step in the right direction.
A small step. This alone will shift a lot of conversations about health. I hope
I agree.0 -
My first thought on seeing this yesterday was "Hmmmmm, wonder when Uncle Sam will cut off federal subsidies and price supports for the farmers who grow the stuff?" My guess is half past never.0
-
Glad you posted this. I find there's a lot of interesting points about these guidelines and the political motivations behind these.
I like the discussion about 'lean meats' vs. red fatty meats being addressed in a footnote. (I particularly like the first commenters point in the below link about, Wait, wait, FAT IS GOOD in this article.)
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/24/393859592/why-theres-a-big-battle-brewing-over-the-lean-meat-in-your-diet
Also interesting is the guideline to reduce salt intake.
Can't wait to see what the next 5 years brings!0 -
slimzandra wrote: »Glad you posted this. I find there's a lot of interesting points about these guidelines and the political motivations behind these.
I like the discussion about 'lean meats' vs. red fatty meats being addressed in a footnote. (I particularly like the first commenters point in the below link about, Wait, wait, FAT IS GOOD in this article.)
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/24/393859592/why-theres-a-big-battle-brewing-over-the-lean-meat-in-your-diet
Also interesting is the guideline to reduce salt intake.
Can't wait to see what the next 5 years brings!
The comments in that are a 180º from what I'm used to seeing in comments about dietary health! Wow!0 -
walker1world wrote: »Hey did you see that the Government has changed it's guidelines on sugar consumption? They have cut it down to 50 grams a day. That is essentially would be considered a low carb diet.
Every thing in this country has been using those guidelines to set their nutritional goals. My son school for example lets the kids eat so much sugar I stopped letting him eat lunch at school and he has lost 16 pounds since October.
I am glad that the government has finally seen the light but the fact that they are not pushing this to make sure that schools adjust there menus is a shame.
Not a all a low carb diet, just low-ish sugar. You can have a high carb diet without having a lot of sugar, since starch is not counted separately. When you can pry more concrete numbers out of them, they still recommend 45%+ of calories from carbohydrates, primarily grains.0 -
The government knows that fat and cholesterol vilifying is a bunch of crap and it's been carbs the whole time. But they can't completely reverse their views because of above mentioned subsidies and ticking off a whole lot of scientists with blinders for their own hypothesis. @Lillith32 pass the tinfoil hat, I'm with you.0
-
I don't think they include grains in the "sugar" category. And even if the scientists do mean sugar=carbs/carbs=sugar, the general public will not understand it that way.
50 grams of sugar max (the white stuff) plus grains in all forms and fruit will be a very high carb diet. Better than the same amount of carbs from junk food, but not by much. "Healthy whole grains, bla-bla-bla" that's what I was eating when I was diabetic and 315 lbs.
Bread and orange juice may have a higher glycemic index than table sugar (for all intents both ARE sugar from our bodies perspective) but that is still presented as a "healthy breakfast" and I don't see them saying "skip the bread and OJ, eat eggs and coffee with CO instead".
They just mean "eat less of the white stuff", as in "please control the amount of candy you eat".
Still, a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction and, most importantly, as several have said, it will, hopefully, make people ask the right kind of question.
0 -
As a child of the 60s-70s. I really love this post about sugars in America. I think the list is really great!
kevin trudell wrote:
.. I grew up in the sixties. In the sixties, children ate sugary cereals made of grain and sugar every morning of their lives. Sugar Pops, Frosted Flakes, Trix, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Cocoa Krispies, Capn' Crunch, Rice Krispies, Frosted Mini-Wheats, etc., etc., etc.
EVERY....DAY...OF...OUR...LIVES!
We ate bland, smushy white bread, in massive quantities,
EVERY...DAY...OF...OUR...LIVES
We ate Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Hostess Cupcakes, Ring Dings(the full sized ones,) Yodels, doughnuts, brownies, pies, pecan swirls, Fudgesicles, Hoodsies, Ice cream sandwiches, Fritos, potato chips, Cheetos, pretzels, Cheese-its, Snickers, Milky Ways, Reeses Cups, Spaghetti, macaroni and cheese, American Chop Suey, biscuits, rolls, buns, Kool-aid, Mountain Dew, Coke, Root beer, Orange Crush, pizza and on and on and on. Any time someone tries to tell you that people thirty or forty years ago ate less sugar or refined grains than they eat today, tell them I said they have no idea what they are talking about.
0 -
slimzandra wrote: »(...)
I grew up in the sixties. In the sixties, children ate sugary cereals made of grain and sugar every morning of their lives.
(...)
Any time someone tries to tell you that people thirty or forty years ago ate less sugar or refined grains than they eat today, tell them I said they have no idea what they are talking about.
A pinch of truth can still be a big lie.
Portions were quite different (I love old movies, in b/w movies what is sometimes shown as a family platter would today be considered by many a single serve).
And, most importantly, fat was fat (mostly animal fat), not some vegetable refined oil from a factory. Sugar was cane sugar, not high fructose corn syrup and who knows what else. Grains were refined but were not the same high yield, GM frankenfood we eat today.
It's like saying "humanity has been eating bread for millennia". It's true, of course. But I wonder how many of us would eat large amounts of what was called "bread" 5000 years ago.0 -
@KetoGirl83 - US guidelines first came out in 1977, so I'm tailoring this to the recent past. I think we are both of the Monkeys/Banana Splits era. LOL.
I'm not convinced that portion sizes are the issue. I inherited my mother's dishes and bowls, so I'm sure that the cereal bowl I used as a kid is the same size my kiddo is using today. (It's the same ones!) I do let him eat that junk cereal, Krave, some mornings, not ALL mornings. (bad mommy (I think mine was Count Chocula cereal (1971). I could probably do a ingredient compare, but mine had tiny marshmallows, until someone at General Mills decided to take them out and rename it to make it sound healthier!
I do agree that it's the frankenfood, that has changed over the past 50 years. The antibiotics, and growth hormones that has been added to foods. We are ingesting whatever chemistry and biology that made that chicken bigger. I would start my sleuthing with that conspiracy theory.
0 -
I wouldn't say the new guidelines are "low carb" per se, but as a whole (whole grains, low added sugars, lean protein etc.) they sure look a lot like the South Beach Diet (with the exception of starchy vegetables).
Reducing the added sugar, and backing off on fat a bit is a step!0 -
They're only talking about "added sugar" with the 10% of calorie limit. And since labels in the US don't separate out added sugar from those naturally occurring, those who are relying heavily on packaged foods are still probably going to get more than the recommended limit. Even if they change the labels to reflect how much of the sugar is "added" vs naturally occurring, 50g of "added sugar" PLUS all the sugars and starches naturally occurring in food (especially since they still recommend an over abundance of grains and fruit, and make no distinction between starchy and non starchy veggies and are still suggesting low fat or fat free dairy (sigh)) it is still going to be high carb.
It is nice to see the limit on cholesterol lifted, as well as the limit on overall fat, but since they are still limiting saturated fat (no more than 10% of daily calories) most people will see the lifting of the fat limit as a license to eat more garbagy oils. I do really believe the tide is turning tho - they just can't do it all at once.... Gotta save face you know
0 -
slimzandra wrote: »
I do agree that it's the frankenfood, that has changed over the past 50 years. The antibiotics, and growth hormones that has been added to foods. We are ingesting whatever chemistry and biology that made that chicken bigger. I would start my sleuthing with that conspiracy theory.
Antibiotic use in poultry for consumption is illegal in the US and the change in size and growth rates is from extremely good record keeping and highly selective breeding based off those records. The chickens are not frankenfood themselves, what they are fed is however. Mostly corn.
0 -
A lot of that franken-corn goes into the human diet in shape of corn syrup and various additives. Not surprising that we are getting as big as those chickens.0
-
There is a video online (used to be on Netflix, not sure if it still is) called Fathead. It is by Tom Naughton. It's a great video and pretty entertaining as well. He talks about the original discussion back in 1977 and that many doctors were against it. It was the government making a decision and one of the major lobbies that was pushing for the nutrition guidelines was the Grain Industry.
I still can't figure out why there were so many servings of grain recommended.
And here's a link on the Health Department's own website that talks about the changes implemented. It's pretty funny that in 1979 they formed a panel to study the relationship between diet and health and by 1980 they had already defined the guidelines. Because one year is enough time to see the impact of diet and health...
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/G5_History.htm0 -
Love love love Fathead! It was my gateway to LC. They have a Facebook group too. Lots of wonderful info there. 0
-
Fat Head is a great movie! They took it off of Netflix, I hope they bring it back!0
-
tlflag1620 wrote: »They're only talking about "added sugar" with the 10% of calorie limit. And since labels in the US don't separate out added sugar from those naturally occurring, those who are relying heavily on packaged foods are still probably going to get more than the recommended limit. Even if they change the labels to reflect how much of the sugar is "added" vs naturally occurring, 50g of "added sugar" PLUS all the sugars and starches naturally occurring in food (especially since they still recommend an over abundance of grains and fruit, and make no distinction between starchy and non starchy veggies and are still suggesting low fat or fat free dairy (sigh)) it is still going to be high carb.
It is nice to see the limit on cholesterol lifted, as well as the limit on overall fat, but since they are still limiting saturated fat (no more than 10% of daily calories) most people will see the lifting of the fat limit as a license to eat more garbagy oils. I do really believe the tide is turning tho - they just can't do it all at once.... Gotta save face you know
Ok, I go with what you said, I ask you to think about the domino effect that thus starts cause right now we have everything you said plus 150 grams more sugar a day.0 -
slimzandra wrote: »As a child of the 60s-70s. I really love this post about sugars in America. I think the list is really great!
kevin trudell wrote:
.. I grew up in the sixties. In the sixties, children ate sugary cereals made of grain and sugar every morning of their lives. Sugar Pops, Frosted Flakes, Trix, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Cocoa Krispies, Capn' Crunch, Rice Krispies, Frosted Mini-Wheats, etc., etc., etc.
EVERY....DAY...OF...OUR...LIVES!
We ate bland, smushy white bread, in massive quantities,
EVERY...DAY...OF...OUR...LIVES
We ate Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Hostess Cupcakes, Ring Dings(the full sized ones,) Yodels, doughnuts, brownies, pies, pecan swirls, Fudgesicles, Hoodsies, Ice cream sandwiches, Fritos, potato chips, Cheetos, pretzels, Cheese-its, Snickers, Milky Ways, Reeses Cups, Spaghetti, macaroni and cheese, American Chop Suey, biscuits, rolls, buns, Kool-aid, Mountain Dew, Coke, Root beer, Orange Crush, pizza and on and on and on. Any time someone tries to tell you that people thirty or forty years ago ate less sugar or refined grains than they eat today, tell them I said they have no idea what they are talking about.
This just is not true. We know exactly how much sugar all types were produced every year going all the way back to the 1920. There is alot more produced and consumed today then there ever has been. This antidotal rendering of history only pettifogs the issue.0 -
KetoGirl83 wrote: »I don't think they include grains in the "sugar" category. And even if the scientists do mean sugar=carbs/carbs=sugar, the general public will not understand it that way.
50 grams of sugar max (the white stuff) plus grains in all forms and fruit will be a very high carb diet. Better than the same amount of carbs from junk food, but not by much. "Healthy whole grains, bla-bla-bla" that's what I was eating when I was diabetic and 315 lbs.
Bread and orange juice may have a higher glycemic index than table sugar (for all intents both ARE sugar from our bodies perspective) but that is still presented as a "healthy breakfast" and I don't see them saying "skip the bread and OJ, eat eggs and coffee with CO instead".
They just mean "eat less of the white stuff", as in "please control the amount of candy you eat".
Still, a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction and, most importantly, as several have said, it will, hopefully, make people ask the right kind of question.
It still is a good first step.0 -
mandycat223 wrote: »My first thought on seeing this yesterday was "Hmmmmm, wonder when Uncle Sam will cut off federal subsidies and price supports for the farmers who grow the stuff?" My guess is half past never.
I think this is the first steps down that road. It is following the same pattern the Tobacco conversation went. They first need to disconnect the government from the problem before they can go after it.0 -
Thank you for your information Walker1world. I am sooo glad that most of my grand kids (10 of them) have slim lines (picky eaters), but, one. She is a 9 year old sweet tooth hound. But, its still not sinking into mom and dad's heads, that pre-made waffles with syrup in the morning, pre-made lunch type kit with fruit and a pastry for lunch, and maybe a pizza or homemade pasta dishes for dinner is not helping her. Why.?? Its the convenience for them. Schools start so early "who has time to fix a breakfast and have them out the door before mom or dad leave for work?
Plus the cost of eating right has become outrageous for young family incomes. let alone the rest of us. Then because we are wanting more natural organic foods to keep all the cr** out of our systems, we have to pay more of a premium price. At least that is I see it here in WA state. I want to go back to the early 1950's.0 -
Thank you for your information Walker1world. I am sooo glad that most of my grand kids (10 of them) have slim lines (picky eaters), but, one. She is a 9 year old sweet tooth hound. But, its still not sinking into mom and dad's heads, that pre-made waffles with syrup in the morning, pre-made lunch type kit with fruit and a pastry for lunch, and maybe a pizza or homemade pasta dishes for dinner is not helping her. Why.?? Its the convenience for them. Schools start so early "who has time to fix a breakfast and have them out the door before mom or dad leave for work?
Plus the cost of eating right has become outrageous for young family incomes. let alone the rest of us. Then because we are wanting more natural organic foods to keep all the cr** out of our systems, we have to pay more of a premium price. At least that is I see it here in WA state. I want to go back to the early 1950's.
I read your note and I see my son. I think you are right convenience is the first factor. Once children get hooked on sugar it's hard to break the addiction. I am a sugar addict. I have to fight off the urge for sugar. I can't have it in the house. I will eat it. Even when I eat a good breakfast of real food I find my self craving sugar.
I say it starts at a very young age, you might think 1 or 2. No I am talking the first day that the baby is given formula rather than breast milk. Have you ever noticed that formula is sweet breast milk is not. It's a sad state that children are sent down the road of sugar addiction before they can hold a bottle.
I hope as we cut the daily sugar intake the goverment recommends to 10 percent and companies start printing labels thay show a bottle of serving of baby formula has 50% of the daily recommended allowance of sugar people will start asking the questions that will lead them to low carb.0 -
Hey we are all different what worked for me may not apply to others but within 2 weeks after I went off grains and sugars cold turkey Oct 2014 my cravings for sugar and all carbs started to fade. Within 4 weeks I was no longer hungry between meals or craved sweets, bread and other carbs. I was a carb addict I would say and was 63 at the time. Today my health seems better than in the past 20 years and blood lab work has moved in the right direction.0
-
walker1world wrote: »Thank you for your information Walker1world. I am sooo glad that most of my grand kids (10 of them) have slim lines (picky eaters), but, one. She is a 9 year old sweet tooth hound. But, its still not sinking into mom and dad's heads, that pre-made waffles with syrup in the morning, pre-made lunch type kit with fruit and a pastry for lunch, and maybe a pizza or homemade pasta dishes for dinner is not helping her. Why.?? Its the convenience for them. Schools start so early "who has time to fix a breakfast and have them out the door before mom or dad leave for work?
Plus the cost of eating right has become outrageous for young family incomes. let alone the rest of us. Then because we are wanting more natural organic foods to keep all the cr** out of our systems, we have to pay more of a premium price. At least that is I see it here in WA state. I want to go back to the early 1950's.
I read your note and I see my son. I think you are right convenience is the first factor. Once children get hooked on sugar it's hard to break the addiction. I am a sugar addict. I have to fight off the urge for sugar. I can't have it in the house. I will eat it. Even when I eat a good breakfast of real food I find my self craving sugar.
I say it starts at a very young age, you might think 1 or 2. No I am talking the first day that the baby is given formula rather than breast milk. Have you ever noticed that formula is sweet breast milk is not. It's a sad state that children are sent down the road of sugar addiction before they can hold a bottle.
I hope as we cut the daily sugar intake the goverment recommends to 10 percent and companies start printing labels thay show a bottle of serving of baby formula has 50% of the daily recommended allowance of sugar people will start asking the questions that will lead them to low carb.
You've clearly never tried breast milk. It's actually rather sweet.
The difference is the type of sugars used, as well as the type of protein used. Formula uses corn syrup (lots of fructose), while breast milk is lactose (no fructose).
You are right, though, in that it does start at the very young age. Thankfully, they seem to have stopped pushing the cereal -> fruit -> veggies -> meat food introduction pattern and now encourage going straight to things like veggies and meat (pureed, of course) when introducing food to infants.There is a video online (used to be on Netflix, not sure if it still is) called Fathead. It is by Tom Naughton. It's a great video and pretty entertaining as well. He talks about the original discussion back in 1977 and that many doctors were against it. It was the government making a decision and one of the major lobbies that was pushing for the nutrition guidelines was the Grain Industry.
I still can't figure out why there were so many servings of grain recommended.
And here's a link on the Health Department's own website that talks about the changes implemented. It's pretty funny that in 1979 they formed a panel to study the relationship between diet and health and by 1980 they had already defined the guidelines. Because one year is enough time to see the impact of diet and health...
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/G5_History.htm
I think Fathead's available on Youtube, now, actually.
Dr. Peter Attia's talk The Limits of Scientific Evidence and Ethics of Dietary Guidelines also goes into detail about how the food pyramid was almost entirely politically motivated, though arguably not as amusing a watch as Fathead (to be fair, not totally dry, either, at least in my opinion). One of the big quotes I recall that he points out is along the lines of Congress basically saying "ain't nobody got time for reading scientific studies" before passing the laws/guidelines regarding nutrition. They literally passed these bills without reading them. WTF?!0
