Should the USDA's 'MyPlate' guidelines remain as is, be modified or be scrapped altogether?

HeidiCooksSupper

Consider the number of folks here on MFP who are still trying to avoid eating vegetables. They don't know about the healthy eating plate and they certainly aren't filling their half their plates with fruits and vegetables. Think about how many folks here on MFP are completely unaware of the importance of whole grains. The Healthy Eating Plate is unknown to many of these people. Life expectancy is going down across a large swath of the American public because they don't know or do these simple things. Most of the information they receive about eating is from advertising. Were you to do a survey, I'm sure you'd find more people know about Hot Pockets than the Healthy Eating Plate.

Yes, we can quibble about the details of the Healthy Eating Plate or the FAO guideline or the state of the research into sodium consumption or saturated fat recommendations but the most important issue to my mind is education -- by that I don't mean K-12 education, although that is certainly important, but lifelong education about healthy eating that is constantly being adjusted to represent the changing nature of our understanding of what healthy eating actually is.

nvmomketo

PrimalForLife wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

I think nutritional guidelines should be based on how people like to eat, not how we "should" eat. It should be balanced more healthily - not restrict fat. Differentiate better between fruit and vegetables, not count juice and dried fruit. Not get hung up in details that are bound to be misinterpreted. It could be rearranged to look more like real meals, and should aim to convey the overall message of variety, balance, home cooked and family meals. I don't know if the current model is viable even with modifications. Brazil's nutritional guidelines are almost perfect and should be the gold standard.

I found these (http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-guidelines/regions/countries/brazil/en/) - is that what you are referring to?

Those make sense.

kbmnurse

It does not matter people.

Lounmoun

Are the guidelines there to address nutrition or weight management?
I thought they were about nutrition mainly. Perhaps finding out how many calories you need should be emphasized more.

I don't think most Americans are looking at myplate guidelines at all.

Packerjohn

nvmomketo wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

They are not based on good science. Scrap'em.

What "good science" can you point to that shows the guidelines are directionally incorrect?

More along the lines of they need to prove their guidelines are based on more than tradition. Why is the departmen of agriculture telling people what to eat? That seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.

I would assume nutritional guidelines would be based on what would be best for the people's health. Proof that those foods will make you the healthiest that a food could. I don't see it for all of their recommendations.

Much of the recommendations seem fine. Lots of colourful veggies - great. Whole fruits - good. Variety of protein foods - good but I would add that you need a moderate amount and include examples, and I don't think nuts and seeds are great protein sources. Limit added sugar to under 10% a day - okay but that is still over 10 teaspoons of sugar (on top of what is in whole foods) a day. That is a fair bit.

I dislike that they say to limit saturate fat to below 10% since there is not good science to support it. The same goes for limiting sodium to under 2300 mg a day - good science says that is too low for most people. I see no science that would explain why fat free or low fat dairy is more nutritious than full fat dairy. If worried about the calories why not state that less should be consumed than no fat? Seems a simple fix. I also think dairy should be written as something thatn can be consumed and not something that should be consumed. We do not need cow milk - it can be part of a healthy diet but many people do better without it.

I dislike that they say grains should be eaten. Why? they are not needed for good health and I doubt they contribute much if people are eating meats, veggies, and fruits. I think grains can be an option for many who are healthy but for the metabolicaly unhealthy, they should probably be limited or avoided until they are metabolically healthy.

I did not find any discussion on CICO either. Is it even in there?

Its not all bad but enough of it is pointless that they should drop a sizeable chunk of it or start over.... Or perhaps the government, and dept. of agriculture, should just back out of giving dietary advice.

So bottom line, it's directionally correct per your own comment "Much of the recommendations seem fine."

As far as CICO, the section linked talks about calorie needs for various individuals.

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/

There is also a link to another site that allows calorie and activity tracking with discussion on balancing CICO and a really nice database that allows side by side comparisons to different foods.
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/

There are also links in the guidelines to sites discussing physical activity.

lemurcat12

HeidiCooksSupper wrote: »

Consider the number of folks here on MFP who are still trying to avoid eating vegetables. They don't know about the healthy eating plate and they certainly aren't filling their half their plates with fruits and vegetables.

IMO, they might well know about the healthy eating plate or MyPlate (kids are probably more likely to know about MyPlate, adults maybe have a vague recollection of whatever was in vogue when they were kids). However, whether they do or not, I am positive they know that they are supposed to eat vegetables and that it's healthier to do so. They choose not to anyway.

Think about how many folks here on MFP are completely unaware of the importance of whole grains.

Again, I think virtually everyone on MFP (or Americans in general) know very well that whole grains are supposed to be healthier than refined grains (often people think there's a bigger difference than there is). They also know a diet made up of a huge amount of refined grains and sugar is not great. Many people don't care. It's not a lack of knowledge or bad advice; it's that many people do not follow this kind of advice, for whatever reason they don't care or think they can get away with fixing their diet later or who knows.

(I don't actually think that consuming grains is necessary, although I think it can be healthy and that whole grains are generally to be preferred to refined, although I certainly consume some refined grains too.)

I think the question is why don't people eat healthfully even when they have a general sense of what healthful eating is, and how can you help them develop good habits?

And beats me, I don't know. I do think one problem might be that people tend to think in extremes and assume they have to give up everything they like to eat healthfully and aren't willing to do that, so in that sense the focus on developing good habits a bit at a time is a good one. (I also think a bigger problem is that lots of people don't eat healthfully as kids so don't develop their palates to enjoy vegetables or whatever, and also don't have a clue how to cook.)

lemurcat12

kommodevaran wrote: »

I think nutritional guidelines should be based on how people like to eat, not how we "should" eat. It should be balanced more healthily - not restrict fat. Differentiate better between fruit and vegetables, not count juice and dried fruit. Not get hung up in details that are bound to be misinterpreted. It could be rearranged to look more like real meals, and should aim to convey the overall message of variety, balance, home cooked and family meals. I don't know if the current model is viable even with modifications. Brazil's nutritional guidelines are almost perfect and should be the gold standard.

I think Brazil's focus is too much on the various levels of processing, although some of the recommendations are good. But people could easily freak out about terminology or focus on whether something is technically processed vs. nutrient dense or part of a balanced meal, as we see people do here.

I don't find them much more helpful than ours, but then as an American who grew up with an American pattern of eating maybe the food group approach just seems more natural and consistent with how one eats, to me.

Note: by "American pattern of eating" I don't mean SAD, but the idea that meals (especially dinner) are structured around protein (when I was growing up it was usually meat, but need not be), a starchy course (often potatoes or a grain-based food like rice or pasta or bread or beans), and of course vegetables.

Really, I think the MyPlate guidelines are quite simple and that healthy eating is really just a matter of common sense.

Vladaar

PrimalForLife wrote: »

The 'MyPlate' guidelines don't *seem* to be helping Americans solve the growing obesity problem - should the guidelines remain as is, be modified, or be scrapped altogether? Why?

I think they should reduce the grains. I don't think average joe pays much attention to the USDA myplate guidelines though, they just buy what they can find cheap and they like to eat.

nvmomketo

Packerjohn wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

Packerjohn wrote: »

nvmomketo wrote: »

They are not based on good science. Scrap'em.

What "good science" can you point to that shows the guidelines are directionally incorrect?

More along the lines of they need to prove their guidelines are based on more than tradition. Why is the departmen of agriculture telling people what to eat? That seems like a bit of a conflict of interest.

I would assume nutritional guidelines would be based on what would be best for the people's health. Proof that those foods will make you the healthiest that a food could. I don't see it for all of their recommendations.

Much of the recommendations seem fine. Lots of colourful veggies - great. Whole fruits - good. Variety of protein foods - good but I would add that you need a moderate amount and include examples, and I don't think nuts and seeds are great protein sources. Limit added sugar to under 10% a day - okay but that is still over 10 teaspoons of sugar (on top of what is in whole foods) a day. That is a fair bit.

I dislike that they say to limit saturate fat to below 10% since there is not good science to support it. The same goes for limiting sodium to under 2300 mg a day - good science says that is too low for most people. I see no science that would explain why fat free or low fat dairy is more nutritious than full fat dairy. If worried about the calories why not state that less should be consumed than no fat? Seems a simple fix. I also think dairy should be written as something thatn can be consumed and not something that should be consumed. We do not need cow milk - it can be part of a healthy diet but many people do better without it.

I dislike that they say grains should be eaten. Why? they are not needed for good health and I doubt they contribute much if people are eating meats, veggies, and fruits. I think grains can be an option for many who are healthy but for the metabolicaly unhealthy, they should probably be limited or avoided until they are metabolically healthy.

I did not find any discussion on CICO either. Is it even in there?

Its not all bad but enough of it is pointless that they should drop a sizeable chunk of it or start over.... Or perhaps the government, and dept. of agriculture, should just back out of giving dietary advice.

So bottom line, it's directionally correct per your own comment "Much of the recommendations seem fine."

As far as CICO, the section linked talks about calorie needs for various individuals.

https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/appendix-2/

There is also a link to another site that allows calorie and activity tracking with discussion on balancing CICO and a really nice database that allows side by side comparisons to different foods.
https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/

There are also links in the guidelines to sites discussing physical activity.

Yeah, it's not all bad. Over half of the info seems right and supported by science... that just doesn't seem to be enough for me.

My mistake. If you go looking, and read the appendix #2, there is information on CICO. They could have done much better with that.

fbchick51

Ehhh... I lost weight and improved all my health test marks (cholesterol, blood pressure, blood sugar count) by following the basic FDA guidelines.

My Plate was designed as a teaching tool for kids, so no surprise CICO isn't in there. But avg daily calorie count is included as part of the FDA recommendations.

jgnatca

I was going to say the problem is that ChooseMyPlate does not have a twitter feed, but it does. The problem is that @ChooseMyPlate has 99K followers. Compared to Kim's 56.5 M.

Edited to add: The @TSA feed has 200K followers, twice that of ChooseMyPlate but then again they post great pictures of guns and nunchucks from attempted onboard luggage.

bmeadows380

lemurcat12 wrote: »

I do think one problem might be that people tend to think in extremes and assume they have to give up everything they like to eat healthfully and aren't willing to do that, so in that sense the focus on developing good habits a bit at a time is a good one.

This is definitely my experience with my family. I started calorie counting in January the second time around, and just like the first time, I was amazed at what an actual serving size of things looked like. Back in the summer, I took a new job and moved back to the area where I grew up, where my parents and my sister still lived. Since I'm in temporary living spaces while working on remodeling my home, I eat dinner at my mother's house, and its led to some tension between myself with my new style of eating, and my family, who resist any change. In many cases, they refuse to compromise at all. My mother will try a few of my things, but she still says "I don't like her way of cooking; I prefer my old fashioned southern cooking". And my dad and sister, but especially my sister, automatically dislike anything that has been "healthified".

My family are all large, and those three are dealing with significant health issues that would be greatly helped if they'd lose weight. And my mom and sister both moan on occasion "I need to lose weight". I've looked at both of them and told them I can tell them how to do it, but that's when the excuses get trotted out. Mom's "I can't afford to buy all the health foods you are eating" to my sister's "I'm not going to starve myself!" meaning she refuses to reduce her portion sizes to something that is considered normal.

counting_kilojoules

lemurcat12 wrote: »

kommodevaran wrote: »

I think nutritional guidelines should be based on how people like to eat, not how we "should" eat. It should be balanced more healthily - not restrict fat. Differentiate better between fruit and vegetables, not count juice and dried fruit. Not get hung up in details that are bound to be misinterpreted. It could be rearranged to look more like real meals, and should aim to convey the overall message of variety, balance, home cooked and family meals. I don't know if the current model is viable even with modifications. Brazil's nutritional guidelines are almost perfect and should be the gold standard.

I think Brazil's focus is too much on the various levels of processing, although some of the recommendations are good. But people could easily freak out about terminology or focus on whether something is technically processed vs. nutrient dense or part of a balanced meal, as we see people do here.

I don't find them much more helpful than ours, but then as an American who grew up with an American pattern of eating maybe the food group approach just seems more natural and consistent with how one eats, to me.

Note: by "American pattern of eating" I don't mean SAD, but the idea that meals (especially dinner) are structured around protein (when I was growing up it was usually meat, but need not be), a starchy course (often potatoes or a grain-based food like rice or pasta or bread or beans), and of course vegetables.

Really, I think the MyPlate guidelines are quite simple and that healthy eating is really just a matter of common sense.

I don't like the focus on how a person is supposed to relate to food. I can eat perfectly healthily without eating mindfully, avoiding snacks, eating with other people, in a quiet place etc. I also don't have to learn to cook (although it's certainly easier if you can) nor do I have to teach others to do so.

The guidelines on what to eat and what not to eat are okay but I'd prefer it if there were a bit more to it. I like knowing approximately how many servings of vegetables I should eat and how many of dairy etc.