Article addressing how guidelines are created

geneticexpectations

What do people think about this article?

http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/S0899-9007(10)00289-3/fulltext

crzycatlady1

Says 'Page Not Found' Do you have a different link?

kommodevaran

You have to copy/paste the entire link, not just click on it.

stevencloser

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

lemurcat12

The DGAC Report is based on the best science and a wide variety of respected nutrition scientists. Those calling it out seem to have a very specific axe to grind (i.e., low carb, high sat fat) that is not mainstream at all. If you focus only on certain types of sites (the point of my analogy) you may think everyone else should be dismissed, but I don't think there's reason to decide that except that it's what you want to believe. It's certainly not the current scientific consensus. And you can claim scientific consensus can be wrong, sure, but you can't claim that's supported by "current best science" or is outdated.

The DG (which is different from the DGAC Report, even though for some reason you keep ignoring that) IS more widely criticized, but typically for different (sometimes opposite) reasons than people like the Big Fat Surprise author would have it. People think it's politicized and watered down. I'm not sure I buy that completely (some of the criticisms seem unfair, and I think it's more helpful than it's given credit for, as is MyPlate if you take it seriously, even though I also prefer and tend to link to the Harvard Healthy Plate advice), but there are better arguments for it than for the idea that the DGAC Report is outdated and that we all should be indoctrinated in LCHF dogma, because clearly the problem is that we eat too many carbs (blue zones aside, and if type of carb didn't matter and as if a LOT of the carbs in question didn't come with loads of fat too, from donuts to fast food) and are told too often that vegetables are important.

nvmomketo

lemurcat12 wrote: »

The DGAC Report is based on the best science and a wide variety of respected nutrition scientists. Those calling it out seem to have a very specific axe to grind (i.e., low carb, high sat fat) that is not mainstream at all. If you focus only on certain types of sites (the point of my analogy) you may think everyone else should be dismissed, but I don't think there's reason to decide that except that it's what you want to believe. It's certainly not the current scientific consensus. And you can claim scientific consensus can be wrong, sure, but you can't claim that's supported by "current best science" or is outdated.

I think it sort of makes sense that those calling it out aren't vegetarians, Mediterranean dieters or those who follow the "healthy American diet". Don't you? Why would one of those proponents, like yourself, say it should be re-examined?

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never said, or thought as you wrote, that "everyone else should be dismissed". I said some ideas should be challenged. Is that what you disagree with?

And there is no real scientific consensus on this. If there was, no one would question it. Including some top scientists, or even writers, in nutrition and health.

lemurcat12 wrote: »

The DG (which is different from the DGAC Report, even though for some reason you keep ignoring that) IS more widely criticized, but typically for different (sometimes opposite) reasons than people like the Big Fat Surprise author would have it. People think it's politicized and watered down. I'm not sure I buy that completely (some of the criticisms seem unfair, and I think it's more helpful than it's given credit for, as is MyPlate if you take it seriously, even though I also prefer and tend to link to the Harvard Healthy Plate advice), but there are better arguments for it than for the idea that the DGAC Report is outdated and that we all should be indoctrinated in LCHF dogma, because clearly the problem is that we eat too many carbs (blue zones aside, and if type of carb didn't matter and as if a LOT of the carbs in question didn't come with loads of fat too, from donuts to fast food) and are told too often that vegetables are important.

You keep going on and on about everyone being "indoctrinated" into LCHF "dogma". Don't worry. You won't be held down and forced to eat that way. What is wanted is that LCHF perhaps be re-examined as a possible 4th healthy eating option. People need to be educated in LCHF so they can decide in a smart way if it would work for them. So many people, possibly you included, seem to think that we call all carbs evil. It is like they think that cutting carbs is evil. Someone on a healthy LCHF diet doesn't think that at all. We know which carbs should be avoided and we do. Most low carbers eat a LOT of veggies. Miraculously, our health improves partially because we eat veggies and not sugars and refined carbs as our carb choices.... I believe that suggestion is actually in the DGAC and DG.

Low carbers also don't all sit around chewing on a coconut oil fat bomb, or a slab of tallow, with a side of bacon with melted cheese on top. We aren't pouring butter on our steak in lieu of a side salad.

And yes, maybe carby junk foods that are not anyone's best food choice, like doughnuts, do come loaded with fats. Happily a smart LCHF diet will not include those foods because of the high refined carb content. Another nutritional problem solved.

So yes, for some the problem is that they eat too many carbs. It was my problem. The three possible healthy diets that the DGAC suggests (and the DGs) did not address that. It wouldn't help my insulin resistance much either.

lemurcat12

nvmomketo wrote: »

And there is no real scientific consensus on this.

This is what we disagree on. That some people question aspects of it doesn't change that. The claim that there is absolutely no agreement on what a healthy diet involves is simply not true. Now, is there a wide range of what can be healthy (which is recognized by the DGAC Report)? Of course -- no one is disagreeing with that.

You keep going on and on about everyone being "indoctrinated" into LCHF "dogma". Don't worry. You won't be held down and forced to eat that way.

I'm not concerned about that. What I do see is people choosing to consume only sources that already agree with them and tell them what they want to hear and basically dismissing opposing ideas that are more widely accepted as not backed by science or the like. Basically an echo chamber and a refusal to read other sources, recommending to others sources that ignore opposing ideas and views, recommending that everyone get their information solely from closed groups where the information is biased a particular way and people are told that eating only meat is healthier than eating 50% carbs (blue zones must be unhealthy places), stuff like that. It's seems to me (as I said) similar to what goes on politically. (I think it is important to read a variety of sources and do this politically as well as in nutrition -- I read low carb and paleo stuff, still listen to podcasts with such views, have read Taubes' books and a couple of the paleo books, stuff like that.)

Low carbers also don't all sit around chewing on a coconut oil fat bomb, or a slab of tallow, with a side of bacon with melted cheese on top. We aren't pouring butter on our steak in lieu of a side salad.

I know not all of them do, no, but what I hear from you, and from what I've heard about what goes on in the group is that NO carb is a perfectly good choice, sat fat should be eaten with abandon (a HFLC poster used to claim it was the most important fat to eat), vegetables need not be part of a diet, and from looking at a number of LCHF diaries and from knowing some who did it off MFP, I think that eating a healthy diet in ways like including vegetables is not always seen as important and in some cases seen as really unimportant -- I've heard it promoted over and over based on the idea that one can eat enormous amounts of bacon, steak with cream sauce and butter, and cheese from low carbers themselves. Which, fine, I think people should eat foods they like, but that this is part of it shouldn't be denied, and often the very people insisting that eating fewer carbs makes their diets inherently better and healthier than everyone else's are the ones eating basically no vegetables.

Of course, I do believe that one can eat LCHF and have a healthy diet (I've said this over and over, so you know that's my view) -- IMO, this would include by doing many of the things promoted in the DGAC Report, such as including a wide variety of non starchy veg, focusing on healthy fats and limiting sat fat, eating a variety of foods, so on. But I probably do have a "less convinced" POV about some of the correlation studies than the average nutrition expert and I am skeptical of my own view here since they have better knowledge of the evidence.

And yes, maybe carby junk foods that are not anyone's best food choice, like doughnuts, do come loaded with fats. Happily a smart LCHF diet will not include those foods because of the high refined carb content. Another nutritional problem solved.

Right -- my point is that claiming that those foods are "carbs" and that any diet high in carbs must have lots of junk food is highly misleading, yet many people who promote low carb on MFP do this. They say they were always hungry eating "carbs" and it turns out they ate few veg or legumes or whole grains, and tons of fries and chips and donuts -- hardly "carbs" being the main issue. They go on about the US diet being "high carb" due to all the junk food, ignoring that stuff like fast food and junk food that the SAD is criticized for are high fat too and that lots of very healthy diets are high carb.

NOT saying everyone should be high carb (I'm not even high carb under any reasonable definition), and of course I think people like you with celiac should avoid grains and I believe you do better low carb. But the whole "carbs are bad since I used to overeat when I ate lots of donuts and soda and fries and now that I've cut out carbs I eat better" ignores the fact that many carbs can and for most probably should be part of a healthy diet.

So yes, for some the problem is that they eat too many carbs.

No, they ate too many low nutrient, non satiating foods, and the ones they chose happened to be high in carbs AND fat. Had they followed the advice of the DGAC Report, they never would have been eating that way. The DGAC Report (indeed, the DG themselves) do not recommend the so called SAD (or western pattern diet) -- that's obvious.

psuLemon

nvmomketo wrote: »

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"

Most people don't listen tot he government guidelines. Hell, I would argue that most don't even know what they are. Although, I think what you posted are the old ones. In 2015, the removed cholesterol from the discussion (Line 642).

And I thought that your health issues were cause by antibiotics leading to IR? Which IR + carbs do not go well together. Sorry if I am wrong.

Gianfranco_R

psuLemon wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

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"

Most people don't listen tot he government guidelines. Hell, I would argue that most don't even know what they are. Although, I think what you posted are the old ones. In 2015, the removed cholesterol from the discussion (Line 642).

You are right, but that is the scientific report. On the other hand, choosemyplate states (answers page):
"Do I still need to watch my cholesterol intake?

While adequate evidence is not available for a quantitative limit for dietary cholesterol in the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, cholesterol is still important to consider when building a healthy eating style. In fact, the Dietary Guidelines states that people should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible.

In general, foods that are higher in dietary cholesterol, such as fatty meats and high-fat dairy products, are also higher in saturated fats (which should be limited to 10% of total calories per day). The primary healthy eating style described in the Dietary Guidelines is limited in saturated fats, and thus, dietary cholesterol (about 100-300 mg across the various calorie levels)."
https://www.choosemyplate.gov/2015-2020-dietary-guidelines-answers-your-questions