Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Article addressing how guidelines are created

Options
«1

Replies

  • crzycatlady1
    crzycatlady1 Posts: 1,930 Member
    Options
    Says 'Page Not Found' Do you have a different link?
  • kommodevaran
    kommodevaran Posts: 17,890 Member
    Options
    You have to copy/paste the entire link, not just click on it.
  • stevencloser
    stevencloser Posts: 8,911 Member
    Options
    One of the authors is Richard Feinman, a known low carb proponent. Not surprised he complains about recommendations for less sat fats and diets based on high vegetable content.
  • goldthistime
    goldthistime Posts: 3,214 Member
    Options
    They disagree with "calorie in and calorie out" thinking, arguing that macronutrients (high fat low carb) matter, and reference two studies supporting this view. I'm not sure if it's because this article was written in 2010 and more studies have been published since that time that came to different conclusions or whether the authors own biases caused them to ignore conflicting studies, but I'm far more in agreement with DGAC's statement which is:

    "There is strong and consistent evidence that when calorie intake is controlled, macronutrient proportion of the diet is not related to losing weight"
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    stevencloser wrote: »
    One of the authors is Richard Feinman, a known low carb proponent. Not surprised he complains about recommendations for less sat fats and diets based on high vegetable content.

    Hmm. Indeed.

    I've read plenty from others that would disagree, so I'll just say don't focus on this one source. I don't think the problem with the US diet is too little sat fat and too many vegetables. The studies we have are mostly correlation ones, which is limited but the nature of nutrition, but that plus blue zones I find reasonably compelling evidence that (for the most part, I think in the context of an overall healthy diet some other foods are fine) focusing on vegetables and other whole food plant sources of food and not overdoing the animal products is probably good sense.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    Listening to government guidelines for "healthy" eating contributed to my health problems. Since I began ignoring it, my health has improved. Questioning the thinking behind it all sounds like a smart choice to me. It obviously isn't working well; either the dietary recommendations are too hard to follow or they are contributing to increasing obesity and chronic health issues.

    They really don't seem to have a lot of facts on which to base their recommendations.

    "The Report sets forth six dietary goals of the United States.
    These goals are as follows:
    1. Increased carbohydrate consumption to account for 55% to 60% of energy (caloric) intake.
    2. Reduce overall fat consumption from approximately 40% to 30% of energy intake.
    3. Reduce saturated fat consumption to account for about 10% of total energy intake; and balance that with polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which should account for about 10% of energy intake.
    4. Reduce cholesterol consumption to about 300 mg/day.
    5. Reduce sugar consumption by about 40% to account for about 15% total energy intake.
    6. Reduce salt consumption by 50% to 85% to approximately 3 gm/day    "
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    Another article discussing why the Dietary Guidlines for Americans is pretty weak:
    http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h4962

    Some called for BMJ to retract the article but they are standing by it.
    http://foodmed.net/2016/12/04/victory-teicholz-battle-of-butter-bmj/

    http://thebigfatsurprise.com/press-release-bmj-decision-not-retract/
    "Some of the successfully refuted points of contention from the original study include:
    1. Evidence of a “strong” link between saturated fats and heart disease was not clearly supported by the evidence cited by the DGAC.Although advice to cut back on saturated fats has long been a pillar of the DGAs, no expert DGA committee has ever directly reviewed the enormous body of rigorous government-funded evidence, testing more than 25,000 people, on this hypothesis.
    2. The DGAC ignored a large body of scientific literature on low-carbohydrate diets(including several “long term” trials of 2-years duration) demonstrating that these diets are safe and highly effective for combatting obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.
    3. The DGA’s three recommended “Dietary Patterns” are supported by only a “miniscule quantity of rigorous evidence” that they can fight disease. The reviews conducted by the USDA’s Nutrition Evidence Library found only “limited” or “insufficient” evidence that the recommended diets could combat diabetes and only “moderate” evidence that the diets can help people lose weight. And the “vegetarian diet,” introduced by the 2015 DGAC as a new addition to its three “Dietary Patterns” is backed by only “limited” evidence for preventing disease, which is the lowest rank of evidence assigned for available data.
    4. The 2015 DGAC conducted a number of its scientific reviews in ways that were not systematic.This allowed for the potential introduction of bias (e.g., cherry-picking of the evidence) or outside industry influence."
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    From the Big Fat Surprise woman, hardly without bias.

    Here's a criticism from another perspective if you want criticisms (and more balance, this time something that likely reflects the overarching view of most nutrition scientists and lines up with the type of advice one sees on places like the Harvard nutrition site): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2015-dietary-guidelines-plate-full-politics-david
    First, I want to make unmistakably clear that my criticism here is of the political adulterations of the excellent work of scientists, and not one iota about the work of those scientists. Second, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report has been subject to unprecedented abuse since the day it was released. Many in the vanguard of those assaults have pretended it was an effort to challenge, and thus improve, the quality of the science. It was not. It was foreplay for this. It was softening up support for the work of true public health scientists so that politicians could stick it to the American people, and line the pockets of their influential friends....
    Where the DGs are good, and there aren't many places in the lengthy document, it's where they preserved key components of the DGAC report. For example, they respected recommendations about key nutrient thresholds, such as limiting saturated fat intake, not limiting total fat intake, and perhaps most importantly, limiting added sugar. They also preserved the idea, if not a sensible representation of it, of healthy dietary patterns, and provided examples to show that these are variations on a theme. I can give this very little bit of credit where so little credit is due.

    Otherwise, as compared to the DGAC Report, the DGs represent a disgraceful replacement of specific guidance with the vaguest possible language. A term that recurs often, clearly intended to sound like something while saying next to nothing, is ‘nutrient dense foods.’ That replaces reference to specific foods that populate the original document. It might mean broccoli, it might mean Total Cereal. I guess it might even mean pepperoni. We can’t tell, and that is clearly by design.

    but
    The 2015 DGAC Report is in the public domain. Our hypocrisy, thank goodness, has not yet advanced to the level of expunging the work of true scientists entirely. So, ignore the DGs, and turn to the DGAC Report for guidance instead. It is accessible to you, and it is about you- not the wealth of Congressional cronies.
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    From the Big Fat Surprise woman, hardly without bias.

    I don't know if it is a bias, per se. More that she discovered something and wrote about it, as a science journalist is wont to do.
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    Here's a criticism from another perspective if you want criticisms (and more balance, this time something that likely reflects the overarching view of most nutrition scientists and lines up with the type of advice one sees on places like the Harvard nutrition site): https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/2015-dietary-guidelines-plate-full-politics-david
    First, I want to make unmistakably clear that my criticism here is of the political adulterations of the excellent work of scientists, and not one iota about the work of those scientists. Second, the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report has been subject to unprecedented abuse since the day it was released. Many in the vanguard of those assaults have pretended it was an effort to challenge, and thus improve, the quality of the science. It was not. It was foreplay for this. It was softening up support for the work of true public health scientists so that politicians could stick it to the American people, and line the pockets of their influential friends....
    Where the DGs are good, and there aren't many places in the lengthy document, it's where they preserved key components of the DGAC report. For example, they respected recommendations about key nutrient thresholds, such as limiting saturated fat intake, not limiting total fat intake, and perhaps most importantly, limiting added sugar. They also preserved the idea, if not a sensible representation of it, of healthy dietary patterns, and provided examples to show that these are variations on a theme. I can give this very little bit of credit where so little credit is due.

    Otherwise, as compared to the DGAC Report, the DGs represent a disgraceful replacement of specific guidance with the vaguest possible language. A term that recurs often, clearly intended to sound like something while saying next to nothing, is ‘nutrient dense foods.’ That replaces reference to specific foods that populate the original document. It might mean broccoli, it might mean Total Cereal. I guess it might even mean pepperoni. We can’t tell, and that is clearly by design.

    but
    The 2015 DGAC Report is in the public domain. Our hypocrisy, thank goodness, has not yet advanced to the level of expunging the work of true scientists entirely. So, ignore the DGs, and turn to the DGAC Report for guidance instead. It is accessible to you, and it is about you- not the wealth of Congressional cronies.

    It appears he is criticizing this from a "forks over knives" sort of perspective. Eat more plants so we can sustain the world's food resources. Not a bad idea but it may not be the best approach for people's health.

    Here's the DGAC Report he refers to: https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/

    I do agree with him that the DG is not great. https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/
    They still say that 1 cup of 100% fruit juice is is the equivalent of 1 cup of fruit. Yeah... so let your kids drink 2-3 cups of juice per day instead of eating the fruit and it will have the same effect.

    A "healthy" diet should include 6 oz of whole grains per day, such as popcorn, oatmeal and rice? Even for the close to 50% of the population with insulin resistance? I think that is too broad.

    And dairy should be fat-free or low fat or fortified soy beverages?

    It still says that people should limit their dietary cholesterol. <roll eyes>

    Their ideal day is:
    • A bagel with peanut butter and banana, coffee with whole milk and then fat free strawberry yogurt (LOL at whole milk and then fat free yogurt)
    • Tuna salad sandwich with lettuce, celery, 100% whole wheat bread and mayo, 4 baby carrots, raisens (why not grapes?), and 1% milk
    • Spaghetti and meatballs, a salad with mixed greens, cucumber, avocado, garbanzo beans (canned, low sodium), cheddar cheese (reduced fat - Eww and why?), Ranch salad dressing

    That would definitely derail those with insulin resistance. That's got to be around 50% carbs. Fine for the healthy but not ideal for the rest.

    I eat keto, and I eat about the same amount of veggies in a day that they recommend. I just skip the noodles, bread, bagel, fat free yogurt, and high GI fruit.

    So the moral is that very few people like the DGs, and for a variety of reasons.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    From the Big Fat Surprise woman, hardly without bias.

    I don't know if it is a bias, per se. More that she discovered something and wrote about it, as a science journalist is wont to do.

    "Discovered something" isn't really correct.

    Good, even-handed response: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/09/saturated-fats-conflicts-of-interest.html

    More detailed response: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-1/

    Not even-handed but still interesting response with useful information: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/05/book-review-big-fat-surprise-by-nina.html

    Also: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/don-t-be-fooled-by-big-fat-surprises-fat-is-still-bad-for-you-1.2965140
    It appears [Katz] is criticizing this from a "forks over knives" sort of perspective. Eat more plants so we can sustain the world's food resources. Not a bad idea but it may not be the best approach for people's health.

    No, he doesn't recommend a purely plant-based diet. Those who do are a small number. The vast majority of nutrition scientists and experts do recommend a more limit consumption of animal products and sat fat than current in the western pattern diet, however.

    Bigger point is that he dislikes the vagueness of the guidelines, has a largely opposed reason for disliking them than the keto advocates you tend to favor, and believes that the DGAC Report is good and reflects the current best science.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    From the Big Fat Surprise woman, hardly without bias.

    I don't know if it is a bias, per se. More that she discovered something and wrote about it, as a science journalist is wont to do.

    "Discovered something" isn't really correct.

    Good, even-handed response: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/09/saturated-fats-conflicts-of-interest.html

    More detailed response: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-1/

    Not even-handed but still interesting response with useful information: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/05/book-review-big-fat-surprise-by-nina.html

    Also: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/don-t-be-fooled-by-big-fat-surprises-fat-is-still-bad-for-you-1.2965140
    It appears [Katz] is criticizing this from a "forks over knives" sort of perspective. Eat more plants so we can sustain the world's food resources. Not a bad idea but it may not be the best approach for people's health.

    No, he doesn't recommend a purely plant-based diet. Those who do are a small number. The vast majority of nutrition scientists and experts do recommend a more limit consumption of animal products and sat fat than current in the western pattern diet, however.

    Bigger point is that he dislikes the vagueness of the guidelines, has a largely opposed reason for disliking them than the keto advocates you tend to favor, and believes that the DGAC Report is good and reflects the current best science.

    Wait, you say Nina Teicholz is "hardly without bias" (which may be true, why not) and then you link "carbsanity"? Is it a a sort of joke?
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    Like I said, not even-handed (which is why it wouldn't be my sole link, unlike the way some link other biased sources without acknowledging they are coming from a particular POV that is disagreed with by most), but she addressed claims with cites and specifics so I think it's worthwhile for that.
  • geneticexpectations
    geneticexpectations Posts: 146 Member
    Options
    Coincidentally, multiple physicians in my country have partnered to try to influence the government to completely change the guidelines to be more in line with evidence (along the same lines as the original post) and more in line with successful results in our clinical practices - we have just submitted a detailed letter to our health minister, all extensively referenced. Talk about exciting! Approximately 300 of us physicians across the country signed the document in support!!! In the past, when this many physicians rallied together, we've made impact at the policy level. This could mean big (and good) changes soon!!!
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    geneticexpectations wrote: »
    Coincidentally, multiple physicians in my country have partnered to try to influence the government to completely change the guidelines to be more in line with evidence (along the same lines as the original post) and more in line with successful results in our clinical practices - we have just submitted a detailed letter to our health minister, all extensively referenced. Talk about exciting! Approximately 300 of us physicians across the country signed the document in support!!! In the past, when this many physicians rallied together, we've made impact at the policy level. This could mean big (and good) changes soon!!!

    Wow. It's about time, IMO. Which country are you in?
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    From the Big Fat Surprise woman, hardly without bias.

    I don't know if it is a bias, per se. More that she discovered something and wrote about it, as a science journalist is wont to do.

    "Discovered something" isn't really correct.

    Good, even-handed response: http://www.weightymatters.ca/2015/09/saturated-fats-conflicts-of-interest.html

    More detailed response: https://thescienceofnutrition.wordpress.com/2014/08/10/the-big-fat-surprise-a-critical-review-part-1/

    Not even-handed but still interesting response with useful information: http://carbsanity.blogspot.com/2014/05/book-review-big-fat-surprise-by-nina.html

    Also: http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/don-t-be-fooled-by-big-fat-surprises-fat-is-still-bad-for-you-1.2965140

    I think discovered works fine. I could have said learned but learning something new is basically a discovery for people. If only she had written the article before her book...

    Your links are not really unbiased.

    Another diet book author, Freedhoff? Not surprising he criticized her since his entire book is based on not following diets.

    The second link is picking apart her book. Not the article critical of the DG.

    I'll skip the carb-sane link.

    The CBC link is based on Freedhoff again. Same thing essentially.
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    From the Big Fat Surprise woman, hardly without bias.

    I don't know if it is a bias, per se. More that she discovered something and wrote about it, as a science journalist is wont to do.
    It appears [Katz] is criticizing this from a "forks over knives" sort of perspective. Eat more plants so we can sustain the world's food resources. Not a bad idea but it may not be the best approach for people's health.

    No, he doesn't recommend a purely plant-based diet. Those who do are a small number. The vast majority of nutrition scientists and experts do recommend a more limit consumption of animal products and sat fat than current in the western pattern diet, however.

    Bigger point is that he dislikes the vagueness of the guidelines, has a largely opposed reason for disliking them than the keto advocates you tend to favor, and believes that the DGAC Report is good and reflects the current best science.

    I never said he recommended a "purely plant based diet". I said he advised eating more plants for sustainability and not necessarily for health.

    My link had nothing to do with keto except to say that keto'ers can eat a lot of veggies. LCHF (not always keto) is a healthy option, just as much as the diets they embrace (healthy US diet - a bit of an oxymoron ;) , mediterranean diet, or a vegetarian diet). I would think LCHF might even appeal to more people than a vegetarian diet would.

    I agree the guidelines can be vague in some areas, but I don't think the DGs are based on the current best science.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I agree the guidelines can be vague in some areas, but I don't think the DGs are based on the current best science.

    And I don't think you have any good basis for believing that [hard to tell, but I think you are slamming the DGAC report, right, not just how it is communicated in the DG] and are ignoring the weight of the evidence and credible opinion to do so. It's rather like someone who dismisses stuff because it's in the WP and NYT and prefers to rely solely on Breitbart for news, IMO.
  • Gianfranco_R
    Gianfranco_R Posts: 1,297 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I agree the guidelines can be vague in some areas, but I don't think the DGs are based on the current best science.

    And I don't think you have any good basis for believing that and are ignoring the weight of the evidence and credible opinion. It's rather like someone who dismisses stuff because it's in the WP and NYT and prefers to rely solely on Breitbart for news, IMO.

    Well, aside from the SFA controversy, also at Harvard they don't like so much USDA's guidelines. The layman version of the guidelines, which is "choosemyplate" "doesn’t offer the most complete picture when it comes to basic nutrition advice"
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate-vs-usda-myplate/
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    Gianfranco_R wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I agree the guidelines can be vague in some areas, but I don't think the DGs are based on the current best science.

    And I don't think you have any good basis for believing that and are ignoring the weight of the evidence and credible opinion. It's rather like someone who dismisses stuff because it's in the WP and NYT and prefers to rely solely on Breitbart for news, IMO.

    Well, aside from the SFA controversy, also at Harvard they don't like so much USDA's guidelines. The layman version of the guidelines, which is "choosemyplate" "doesn’t offer the most complete picture when it comes to basic nutrition advice"
    https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate-vs-usda-myplate/

    The current discussion is about the DGAC Report, which is different from MyPlate (which was pre the updated guidelines so they are not subject to the same criticism anyway), but the DGAC Report is itself different from the DG, which is what links I posted above were talking about.

    My point was that much of the criticism of the DG (from those who support the DGAC) are from a quite different direction that that which was being presented here as the primary criticism. Ironically, those same people have very similar views to those presented at the Harvard site (which certainly does not agree with some others (non credible, IMO) that the main problem with the US diet is inadequate sat fat and too much emphasis on vegetables and whole grains and legumes).
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited December 2016
    Options
    To elaborate on that (and making it quite interesting that the Harvard site was presented as support for the LCHF/sat fat doesn't matter and vegetables are unimportant POV), these are the criticisms in the link Gianfranco gave:

    (1) MyPlate didn't focus enough on whole grains vs. refined (the link gave MyPlate credit for having fixed this, however, and the DG certainly do make this distinction.)

    (2) MyPlate focused on protein without warning against excessive consumption of red meat or processed meat or encouraging the consumption of fish, poultry, beans, or nuts to meet protein goals -- i.e., not differentiating between sources of protein. [The DG seem to have done so, however, even if they still did not focus as much on fish and non animal proteins as the Harvard folks would seem to prefer. Weird criticism to provide to defend the sat fat is harmless and high fat diets are the BEST!!! pov, though.]

    (3) MyPlate didn't distinguish between potatoes and other vegetables or adequately encourage eating a variety of vegetables (seems to me the DG at least do).

    (4) MyPlate doesn't adequately encourage consumption of healthy fats or explain what they are. [Note, the Harvard site maintains that type of fat matters, just like type of carb matters, and does not agree that sat fat do not need to be limited, let alone that they are the healthiest of all fats. The DG also discuss this.]

    (5) MyPlate recommends dairy which is unnecessary. [Yes, the DG continue to do this.]

    (6) MyPlate doesn't encourage activity.

    Now, I don't think these are all fair criticisms of MyPlate from what I've seen of the site (it certainly encourages consumption of a variety of vegetables and seems to me to encourage activity and educate about fats), but the overall message is certainly not inconsistent with the DGAC Report at all. Are you claiming that it is, Gianfranco? Indeed, even the watered down DG seem pretty consistent with the Harvard recommendations in the Healthy Eating Plate (the section on Healthy US Style Diet, which other posters seem to claim as an oxymoron, ugh, specifically discusses many of the same things in the list that you linked and that I discussed above). Interesting, hmm?
  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    nvmomketo wrote: »
    I agree the guidelines can be vague in some areas, but I don't think the DGs are based on the current best science.

    And I don't think you have any good basis for believing that [hard to tell, but I think you are slamming the DGAC report, right, not just how it is communicated in the DG] and are ignoring the weight of the evidence and credible opinion to do so. It's rather like someone who dismisses stuff because it's in the WP and NYT and prefers to rely solely on Breitbart for news, IMO.

    ....But you are a far better judge of what is the current best science?

    IMO, the DG are based on some outdated ideas. I have read widely. I have some knowledge to back up my opinion. I read journals and nutritional texts. I don't appreciate your insinuations that I don't have a wide enough knowledge base to form a strong opinion upon...

    And Breitbart? I hadn't even heard of that until now. I had to google it.

    The DGs are not all bad. There are some gems in there but some of their ideas should be challenged since there doesn't appear to be much factual information backing them up. More than a few people have been calling them out on that. There could be something to it.

Categories