American Food Pyramid

Options
2»

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    lemurcat2 wrote: »
    There is, of course, related advice as part of it. It's pretty simplistic.

    I think it's pretty cute when people criticize things like the plate chart as too simplistic or just wrong, but go on to say things that reveal they clearly haven't taken the details on board, if they've even bothered to look at them. There's some good info on the USDA site, IMO, but one has to read it.

    Some of the best info isn't even anywhere near the top in the consumer part of "MyPlate" hierarchy. I've found the "for professionals" fact sheets quite helpful for some things, especially some micronutrient questions I've had. They're compact, clear, pithy, and IMO easy enough for the average intelligent consumer to understand. (I admit I'm a bit of a nerd, though.)
  • vapianogirl2553
    vapianogirl2553 Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    So actually I've been researching this and the standard dietary advice is pretty flawed.Big AG has a lot of say in the US also 2,000 calories is not right for most people. Right now I'm hovering around 1,600 and 2,000 and I don't push myself to eat because the app says so actually by dinner I know I'll catch up. Intuitive eating is actually very important for my body type and so is cutting back on days I do nothing. Been sneaking some vital proteins and soymilk and Greek youghrt into my breakfast and swapped all sweets for Luna bars. If I must eat a sweet I try to make sure it has some protein. Some days I really don't eat as much but I majorly upped my morning and overall protein intake. Loving the changes I am seeing with more protein. Getting the recommended DVs is really stressful and eating so many calories isn't going to always happen for me especially on desk days so I just look more to the macro ratio s that sweating DVs or calorie intake. I'm a small person I don't need as much as the avarage American. Also I sit a lot 😔. The American dietary are insanity and have far to many carbs and grains. There is no safe amount of added sugar imo
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Options
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    So actually I've been researching this and the standard dietary advice is pretty flawed.Big AG has a lot of say in the US also 2,000 calories is not right for most people. Right now I'm hovering around 1,600 and 2,000 and I don't push myself to eat because the app says so actually by dinner I know I'll catch up. Intuitive eating is actually very important for my body type and so is cutting back on days I do nothing. Been sneaking some vital proteins and soymilk and Greek youghrt into my breakfast and swapped all sweets for Luna bars. If I must eat a sweet I try to make sure it has some protein. Some days I really don't eat as much but I majorly upped my morning and overall protein intake. Loving the changes I am seeing with more protein. Getting the recommended DVs is really stressful and eating so many calories isn't going to always happen for me especially on desk days so I just look more to the macro ratio s that sweating DVs or calorie intake. I'm a small person I don't need as much as the avarage American. Also I sit a lot 😔. The American dietary are insanity and have far to many carbs and grains. There is no safe amount of added sugar imo

    Don't even know where to start...there is no difference to your body in terms of added sugars or naturally occurring sugars...your body doesn't differentiate. Also, your Luna Bars have added sugar. One of the reason WHOLE grains are emphasized is that they are a generous source of fiber...far more than you get with just veg or fruit. They're good for heart health. 2,000 calories and 2,500 calories aren't a recommended amount of calories...they're just there as reference for nutritional labels and act as a general guideline for a large population. You may not need 2,000 calories...I need way more than 2,000 calories...more like 3,000+. The DVs provided by health bodies represent the amounts of certain foods that would allow you to get the recommended amount of fiber and other micro-nutrition (vitamins and minerals) as well as minimum proteins and fats for general health and to avoid deficiencies.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited May 2022
    Options
    What Ann said. Among other things, of course the USDA does not claim everyone needs the same number of cals.

    I also tend to think more protein (more in line with the Examine numbers) is optimal, but the US recommendations are pretty much consistent with those in other countries (and Americans on average eat much more protein anyway).

    Personally, I think micronutrients and fiber are more significant than macro ratio, which I find pretty unimportant (I think minimum protein is important, but that's total grams, not ratio, and if you are someone who tends to cut too low on fat, that also could be important to watch). I am at no risk of getting too little protein or fat, personally.

    The USDA has a pretty wide range for macro percentages, but I personally think one can eat outside of them (say, on a low carb diet) and eat a healthful diet if you make sensible food choices.
  • vapianogirl2553
    vapianogirl2553 Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    To clarify I know added sugar isn't safe so if I must have a sweet it should at least have some protein too. Luna bars have a lot less sugar than a large KitKat (my favorite) so it's not perfect but a safer option. I agree about the American protein guidelines being far to low. 2,000 calories is too high for most Americans and a reckless starting point IMO. I find getting protein super hard. I'm about 1,600 calories on a non workout day and all the high protein sources are actually quite low per serving. A Greek yogurt, soymilk and 2 scoops of vital proteins is only like 40 grams but if I get 40 at breakfast it's at least a good start.
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,876 Member
    Options
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    To clarify I know added sugar isn't safe so if I must have a sweet it should at least have some protein too. Luna bars have a lot less sugar than a large KitKat (my favorite) so it's not perfect but a safer option. I agree about the American protein guidelines being far to low. 2,000 calories is too high for most Americans and a reckless starting point IMO. I find getting protein super hard. I'm about 1,600 calories on a non workout day and all the high protein sources are actually quite low per serving. A Greek yogurt, soymilk and 2 scoops of vital proteins is only like 40 grams but if I get 40 at breakfast it's at least a good start.

    There is nothing unsafe about sugar in moderation. 2,000 calories isn't too high for most Americans. Pretty much every male in the US needs more than 2,000 calories per day. The average BMR of a male is around 1800-1900 calories...that's just BMR...the calories burned merely existing and nothing else. Most of the women I know, including my wife are at minimum moderately active and exercise regularly and pretty easily need 2000+ calories per day. Most men I know need 3,000+, including myself...and I also have a desk job.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    To clarify I know added sugar isn't safe so if I must have a sweet it should at least have some protein too. Luna bars have a lot less sugar than a large KitKat (my favorite) so it's not perfect but a safer option. I agree about the American protein guidelines being far to low. 2,000 calories is too high for most Americans and a reckless starting point IMO. I find getting protein super hard. I'm about 1,600 calories on a non workout day and all the high protein sources are actually quite low per serving. A Greek yogurt, soymilk and 2 scoops of vital proteins is only like 40 grams but if I get 40 at breakfast it's at least a good start.

    2000 is weight loss calories for very few women, sure. It's not super unusual for women to have maintenance calories over 2000. (Mine are over 2000, as a woman, age 66, 5'5", 120s pounds, when doing my Winter workout schedule, which is around half an hour daily, otherwise sedentary. There are quite a few women here eating over 2000 calories to maintain, I'm not that strange a unicorn.)

    Why would the USDA use a reference value (for product labeling, i.e., an assumed "generic person") that would reflect the calorie needs of a woman on a diet (possibly an extreme one)? That would be absurd!

    The US government is not across the board telling women to eat 2000 calories in order to lose weight, or even to maintain their weight. 2000 for a man isn't all that low, potentially even for weight loss, as Wolfman points out.

    The US government offers many sites that help people figure out their individual personalized calorie needs for weight loss or maintenance, and they use the same research-based formulas on those sites as do other calorie needs calculators. Sure, for some few women, those calculators will suggest eating 2000 calories (or more) to lose weight: Generically those women would be some combination of tall, active, heavy, and/or young. . . because it would be a reasonable estimate for those people specifically.

    How much protein are you trying to get?

    I don't find it particularly hard to get 100g protein minimum (often it's more like 120g) on my maintenance calories, as an ovo-lacto vegetarian, without eating faux meat, protein bars, or protein powder. (I don't think there's anything wrong with those foods, I just don't personally find them tasty or satisfying.) While losing weight, at 1400-1600 calories plus exercise, it was a little lower, typically high 80s to 100g, which I think is adequate especially with attention to protein quality.

    I can see how it would be difficult to get adequate protein while limiting carbs and simultaneously eating fully plant-based. I'm pretty sure I could get my 100g+ fully plant based (I already eat lots of plant foods), but it would make my eating less congenial to me. I'm pretty sure I couldn't get enough protein fully plant based, maybe not even vegetarian, if I felt like I had to limit carbs. In fact, it's one of the reasons I don't limit carbs: Cuts out too many nutritious foods, many of them decent contributors of better-quality plant protein. (Fortunately, I'm not diabetic or insulin resistant, which might require some limitation, but IMU those limitations may not be as extreme as some low-carb diets of free choice, such as keto.)
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    For the information of those not in the US, the photo below shows the context in which the US government uses the generic "2000 calorie" value, on product labels. (This is a photo of a package currently in my kitchen.)
    wydjm0m7l8lz.jpg
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    I find getting protein super hard. I'm about 1,600 calories on a non workout day and all the high protein sources are actually quite low per serving. A Greek yogurt, soymilk and 2 scoops of vital proteins is only like 40 grams but if I get 40 at breakfast it's at least a good start.

    I will echo Ann's question about how much protein you are aiming for? 40 g seems like a good bit for breakfast, not "only." If you are a vegetarian I can see it being a bit more challenging, but Ann will have great tips for you!

    I usually aim for roughly 30 g/meal but typically get more at dinner and often lunch. When I'm on a deficit on a non workout day (or a yoga/pilates day) I typically eat 1500-1600 at most.
  • vapianogirl2553
    vapianogirl2553 Posts: 20 Member
    Options
    1,600 calories for a women not excersising is not extreme at all. Also I think they should adjust it based on height and weight. And increase protein for everyone and lower grains. Animals fats are good we are learning and so may areas they could improve they dietary guidelines. 2,000 or more would be what I consume when working out my smart watch adjusts my DVs based on how many calories I burn that day so I'm always maintaining or gaining never losing
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    1,600 calories for a women not excersising is not extreme at all. Also I think they should adjust it based on height and weight. And increase protein for everyone and lower grains. Animals fats are good we are learning and so may areas they could improve they dietary guidelines. 2,000 or more would be what I consume when working out my smart watch adjusts my DVs based on how many calories I burn that day so I'm always maintaining or gaining never losing

    Did someone here suggest that 1600 was low for a woman not exercising? I didn't. In fact, I said I ate that (as my base pre-exercise calories), and sometimes less, while losing weight. I wouldn't do that now (even as my base calories), because if I did I'd lose weight at a rate that would be pretty dumb for a 5'5" 120-something pound woman. If someone is trying to maintain their weight, and 1600 calories does that, that's how many calories they should eat.

    BTW: Fitness trackers are not gospel. If I ate what my good brand/model fitness tracker - one that's accurate for others - says it would take to maintain my weight, I'd lose weight like a house afire. It's just another estimate of calorie needs, not a measurement of calorie needs.

    The US government does adjust calorie and nutrition recommendations based on height and weight, if you look at the resources that are aimed at giving advice to individual people. (They're still just estimates!).

    One of my previous posts mentioned one of those:

    https://www.nal.usda.gov/human-nutrition-and-food-safety/dri-calculator

    There are others, such as this one:

    https://www.niddk.nih.gov/bwp

    Even the My Plate plan has an individualized recommendation option:

    https://www.myplate.gov/myplate-plan

    (The My Plate plan is the actual current US government guidance - the food pyramid is long gone. Criticizing it now is fighting a straw man.)

    Yes, there are places on the web where the US government uses 2000 calories as a generic example. To do examples, they need to pick some arbitrary number, and that's a central-ish arbitrary number.

    I agree that a higher protein goal would be useful, but I suspect that the bureaucracy will work its way there eventually, but it's likely not a priority: They government's big focus is health, and many of the recommendations are about making sure people hit minimums. It's quite rare for people in the US to be protein deficient, so they're not going to be focused there.

    I do think they've downplayed calorie counting as a weight management practice, because of the sense that it's not a high-success strategy at the population level: They're more focused on things that may work better, in a statistical sense. (Calorie counting can be very successful in an individual sense, of course.) Nonetheless, everywhere you look on the government health sites, looking for individual calorie guidance, that's what you get: Individualized numbers. They take into account height, weight, age, and other factors . . . just like any similar non-government estimating "calculator".

    As far as grains: Why do you think they need to be lower? I'm not seeing sound science suggesting there's a problem. I do see lots of junky pop-science sources in the blogosphere demonizing carbs, so demonizing grains.

    The My Plate plan, for someone eating 1600 calories daily, has this recommendation for grains:
    5 ounces

    1 ounce from the Grains Group counts as:
    - 1 slice bread; or
    - 1 ounce ready-to-eat cereal; or
    - ½ cup cooked rice, pasta, or cereal

    So, if that person eats a cup of oatmeal for breakfast, a sandwich for lunch (2 slices of bread), some whole grain (either as grain or pasta or something) at dinner, they've met the recommendation. In what way is that dangerous or extreme?

    I don't understand why you're criticizing the US government for things they don't actually do (across the board one size fits all calorie or nutrition recommendations). Is your perception of their recommendations filtered through what some other (non-government) source says the government recommends?

    I think there's plenty of room to criticize the US government guidelines as not based on the absolutely most current scientific evidence. (The problems tend IMO to be in areas where most USA-ians are statistically not showing problems - i.e., the government is recommending limiting things the statistically average person tends to overconsume, like animal (saturated) fats; and recommending getting too little of things the statistically average person gets plenty of, like protein.)

    I don't understand criticizing them for things they're actually not doing, though.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Options
    I don't understand criticizing them for things they're actually not doing, though.

    This, and also what gov recommends a higher protein number?
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    So actually I've been researching this and the standard dietary advice is pretty flawed.Big AG has a lot of say in the US also 2,000 calories is not right for most people. Right now I'm hovering around 1,600 and 2,000 and I don't push myself to eat because the app says so actually by dinner I know I'll catch up. Intuitive eating is actually very important for my body type and so is cutting back on days I do nothing. Been sneaking some vital proteins and soymilk and Greek youghrt into my breakfast and swapped all sweets for Luna bars. If I must eat a sweet I try to make sure it has some protein. Some days I really don't eat as much but I majorly upped my morning and overall protein intake. Loving the changes I am seeing with more protein. Getting the recommended DVs is really stressful and eating so many calories isn't going to always happen for me especially on desk days so I just look more to the macro ratio s that sweating DVs or calorie intake. I'm a small person I don't need as much as the avarage American. Also I sit a lot 😔. The American dietary are insanity and have far to many carbs and grains. There is no safe amount of added sugar imo
    vapianogirl2553 wrote: »
    To clarify I know added sugar isn't safe so if I must have a sweet it should at least have some protein too. Luna bars have a lot less sugar than a large KitKat (my favorite) so it's not perfect but a safer option. I agree about the American protein guidelines being far to low. 2,000 calories is too high for most Americans and a reckless starting point IMO. I find getting protein super hard. I'm about 1,600 calories on a non workout day and all the high protein sources are actually quite low per serving. A Greek yogurt, soymilk and 2 scoops of vital proteins is only like 40 grams but if I get 40 at breakfast it's at least a good start.

    From where did you form your opinion that no amount of added sugar is safe?
  • perryc05
    perryc05 Posts: 209 Member
    edited May 2022
    Options
    Love me some food pyramids. They are mainly all riffs on the same thing. Fad diets usually try to chop out a section or invert/play around with the hierarchy.
    1-5pyramid_flyers20192.jpg

Categories