U.S Government has went low Carb but on the down low.
Options
walker1world
Posts: 259 Member
Hey did you see that the Government has changed it's guidelines on sugar consumption? They have cut it down to 50 grams a day. That is essentially would be considered a low carb diet.
Every thing in this country has been using those guidelines to set their nutritional goals. My son school for example lets the kids eat so much sugar I stopped letting him eat lunch at school and he has lost 16 pounds since October.
I am glad that the government has finally seen the light but the fact that they are not pushing this to make sure that schools adjust there menus is a shame.
Every thing in this country has been using those guidelines to set their nutritional goals. My son school for example lets the kids eat so much sugar I stopped letting him eat lunch at school and he has lost 16 pounds since October.
I am glad that the government has finally seen the light but the fact that they are not pushing this to make sure that schools adjust there menus is a shame.
0
Replies
-
No body wants to take blame for fear of class action lawsuits! The first agency that admits they were wrong will be the first named.0
-
The recommendations to cut down on sugar went out a few months back. They also scaled back vilification of fat and cholesterol. However, the emphasis on "heart-healthy whole grains", low fat dairy and other junk remains, as well as negative view of meat. A lot of government-connected think tank recommendations are to switch to a grain and fruit heavy vegan diet, because 'climate change', 'sustainability', and massive amounts of money the government pays in farm subsidies.
Anyway, let me get off my conspiracy theory soap box and hang up the tinfoil hat. It's a step in the right direction.0 -
The recommendations to cut down on sugar went out a few months back. They also scaled back vilification of fat and cholesterol. However, the emphasis on "heart-healthy whole grains", low fat dairy and other junk remains, as well as negative view of meat. A lot of government-connected think tank recommendations are to switch to a grain and fruit heavy vegan diet, because 'climate change', 'sustainability', and massive amounts of money the government pays in farm subsidies.
Anyway, let me get off my conspiracy theory soap box and hang up the tinfoil hat. It's a step in the right direction.
A small step. This alone will shift a lot of conversations about health. I hope0 -
-
walker1world wrote: »The recommendations to cut down on sugar went out a few months back. They also scaled back vilification of fat and cholesterol. However, the emphasis on "heart-healthy whole grains", low fat dairy and other junk remains, as well as negative view of meat. A lot of government-connected think tank recommendations are to switch to a grain and fruit heavy vegan diet, because 'climate change', 'sustainability', and massive amounts of money the government pays in farm subsidies.
Anyway, let me get off my conspiracy theory soap box and hang up the tinfoil hat. It's a step in the right direction.
A small step. This alone will shift a lot of conversations about health. I hope
I agree.0 -
My first thought on seeing this yesterday was "Hmmmmm, wonder when Uncle Sam will cut off federal subsidies and price supports for the farmers who grow the stuff?" My guess is half past never.0
-
Glad you posted this. I find there's a lot of interesting points about these guidelines and the political motivations behind these.
I like the discussion about 'lean meats' vs. red fatty meats being addressed in a footnote. (I particularly like the first commenters point in the below link about, Wait, wait, FAT IS GOOD in this article.)
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/24/393859592/why-theres-a-big-battle-brewing-over-the-lean-meat-in-your-diet
Also interesting is the guideline to reduce salt intake.
Can't wait to see what the next 5 years brings!0 -
slimzandra wrote: »Glad you posted this. I find there's a lot of interesting points about these guidelines and the political motivations behind these.
I like the discussion about 'lean meats' vs. red fatty meats being addressed in a footnote. (I particularly like the first commenters point in the below link about, Wait, wait, FAT IS GOOD in this article.)
http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/03/24/393859592/why-theres-a-big-battle-brewing-over-the-lean-meat-in-your-diet
Also interesting is the guideline to reduce salt intake.
Can't wait to see what the next 5 years brings!
The comments in that are a 180º from what I'm used to seeing in comments about dietary health! Wow!0 -
walker1world wrote: »Hey did you see that the Government has changed it's guidelines on sugar consumption? They have cut it down to 50 grams a day. That is essentially would be considered a low carb diet.
Every thing in this country has been using those guidelines to set their nutritional goals. My son school for example lets the kids eat so much sugar I stopped letting him eat lunch at school and he has lost 16 pounds since October.
I am glad that the government has finally seen the light but the fact that they are not pushing this to make sure that schools adjust there menus is a shame.
Not a all a low carb diet, just low-ish sugar. You can have a high carb diet without having a lot of sugar, since starch is not counted separately. When you can pry more concrete numbers out of them, they still recommend 45%+ of calories from carbohydrates, primarily grains.0 -
The government knows that fat and cholesterol vilifying is a bunch of crap and it's been carbs the whole time. But they can't completely reverse their views because of above mentioned subsidies and ticking off a whole lot of scientists with blinders for their own hypothesis. @Lillith32 pass the tinfoil hat, I'm with you.0
-
I don't think they include grains in the "sugar" category. And even if the scientists do mean sugar=carbs/carbs=sugar, the general public will not understand it that way.
50 grams of sugar max (the white stuff) plus grains in all forms and fruit will be a very high carb diet. Better than the same amount of carbs from junk food, but not by much. "Healthy whole grains, bla-bla-bla" that's what I was eating when I was diabetic and 315 lbs.
Bread and orange juice may have a higher glycemic index than table sugar (for all intents both ARE sugar from our bodies perspective) but that is still presented as a "healthy breakfast" and I don't see them saying "skip the bread and OJ, eat eggs and coffee with CO instead".
They just mean "eat less of the white stuff", as in "please control the amount of candy you eat".
Still, a step in the right direction is a step in the right direction and, most importantly, as several have said, it will, hopefully, make people ask the right kind of question.
0 -
As a child of the 60s-70s. I really love this post about sugars in America. I think the list is really great!
kevin trudell wrote:
.. I grew up in the sixties. In the sixties, children ate sugary cereals made of grain and sugar every morning of their lives. Sugar Pops, Frosted Flakes, Trix, Lucky Charms, Cocoa Puffs, Cocoa Krispies, Capn' Crunch, Rice Krispies, Frosted Mini-Wheats, etc., etc., etc.
EVERY....DAY...OF...OUR...LIVES!
We ate bland, smushy white bread, in massive quantities,
EVERY...DAY...OF...OUR...LIVES
We ate Devil Dogs, Twinkies, Hostess Cupcakes, Ring Dings(the full sized ones,) Yodels, doughnuts, brownies, pies, pecan swirls, Fudgesicles, Hoodsies, Ice cream sandwiches, Fritos, potato chips, Cheetos, pretzels, Cheese-its, Snickers, Milky Ways, Reeses Cups, Spaghetti, macaroni and cheese, American Chop Suey, biscuits, rolls, buns, Kool-aid, Mountain Dew, Coke, Root beer, Orange Crush, pizza and on and on and on. Any time someone tries to tell you that people thirty or forty years ago ate less sugar or refined grains than they eat today, tell them I said they have no idea what they are talking about.
0 -
slimzandra wrote: »(...)
I grew up in the sixties. In the sixties, children ate sugary cereals made of grain and sugar every morning of their lives.
(...)
Any time someone tries to tell you that people thirty or forty years ago ate less sugar or refined grains than they eat today, tell them I said they have no idea what they are talking about.
A pinch of truth can still be a big lie.
Portions were quite different (I love old movies, in b/w movies what is sometimes shown as a family platter would today be considered by many a single serve).
And, most importantly, fat was fat (mostly animal fat), not some vegetable refined oil from a factory. Sugar was cane sugar, not high fructose corn syrup and who knows what else. Grains were refined but were not the same high yield, GM frankenfood we eat today.
It's like saying "humanity has been eating bread for millennia". It's true, of course. But I wonder how many of us would eat large amounts of what was called "bread" 5000 years ago.0 -
@KetoGirl83 - US guidelines first came out in 1977, so I'm tailoring this to the recent past. I think we are both of the Monkeys/Banana Splits era. LOL.
I'm not convinced that portion sizes are the issue. I inherited my mother's dishes and bowls, so I'm sure that the cereal bowl I used as a kid is the same size my kiddo is using today. (It's the same ones!) I do let him eat that junk cereal, Krave, some mornings, not ALL mornings. (bad mommy (I think mine was Count Chocula cereal (1971). I could probably do a ingredient compare, but mine had tiny marshmallows, until someone at General Mills decided to take them out and rename it to make it sound healthier!
I do agree that it's the frankenfood, that has changed over the past 50 years. The antibiotics, and growth hormones that has been added to foods. We are ingesting whatever chemistry and biology that made that chicken bigger. I would start my sleuthing with that conspiracy theory.
0 -
I wouldn't say the new guidelines are "low carb" per se, but as a whole (whole grains, low added sugars, lean protein etc.) they sure look a lot like the South Beach Diet (with the exception of starchy vegetables).
Reducing the added sugar, and backing off on fat a bit is a step!0 -
They're only talking about "added sugar" with the 10% of calorie limit. And since labels in the US don't separate out added sugar from those naturally occurring, those who are relying heavily on packaged foods are still probably going to get more than the recommended limit. Even if they change the labels to reflect how much of the sugar is "added" vs naturally occurring, 50g of "added sugar" PLUS all the sugars and starches naturally occurring in food (especially since they still recommend an over abundance of grains and fruit, and make no distinction between starchy and non starchy veggies and are still suggesting low fat or fat free dairy (sigh)) it is still going to be high carb.
It is nice to see the limit on cholesterol lifted, as well as the limit on overall fat, but since they are still limiting saturated fat (no more than 10% of daily calories) most people will see the lifting of the fat limit as a license to eat more garbagy oils. I do really believe the tide is turning tho - they just can't do it all at once.... Gotta save face you know
0 -
slimzandra wrote: »
I do agree that it's the frankenfood, that has changed over the past 50 years. The antibiotics, and growth hormones that has been added to foods. We are ingesting whatever chemistry and biology that made that chicken bigger. I would start my sleuthing with that conspiracy theory.
Antibiotic use in poultry for consumption is illegal in the US and the change in size and growth rates is from extremely good record keeping and highly selective breeding based off those records. The chickens are not frankenfood themselves, what they are fed is however. Mostly corn.
0 -
A lot of that franken-corn goes into the human diet in shape of corn syrup and various additives. Not surprising that we are getting as big as those chickens.0
-
There is a video online (used to be on Netflix, not sure if it still is) called Fathead. It is by Tom Naughton. It's a great video and pretty entertaining as well. He talks about the original discussion back in 1977 and that many doctors were against it. It was the government making a decision and one of the major lobbies that was pushing for the nutrition guidelines was the Grain Industry.
I still can't figure out why there were so many servings of grain recommended.
And here's a link on the Health Department's own website that talks about the changes implemented. It's pretty funny that in 1979 they formed a panel to study the relationship between diet and health and by 1980 they had already defined the guidelines. Because one year is enough time to see the impact of diet and health...
http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2005/report/HTML/G5_History.htm0 -
Love love love Fathead! It was my gateway to LC. They have a Facebook group too. Lots of wonderful info there. 0
