The Dietary Guidelines are jointly issued and updated every 5 years by the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS). They provide authoritative advice for people two years and older about how good dietary habits can promote health and reduce risk for major chronic diseases. (1)
The guidelines form the basis of Federal food, nutrition education, and information programs. Public Law 101-445, Section 3, requires publication of the Dietary Guidelines at least every five years . This legislation also requires review by the Secretaries of USDA and HHS of all Federal dietary guidance-related publications for the general public. (2)
"we Senators don’t have the luxury that a research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in."
~ Senator McGovern
The Guidelines were based on the most up-to-date information available at the time and were directed to healthy Americans. These Guidelines generated considerable discussion by nutrition scientists, consumer groups, the food industry and others. (2)
A Federal Advisory Committee of nine nutrition scientists selected from outside the Federal Government was convened to review and make recommendations to HHS and USDA about the first edition of the Dietary Guidelines (2)
Language in Conference Report of the House Committee on Appropriations indicated that USDA, in conjunction with HHS, "shall reestablish a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Group on a periodic basis. This Advisory Group will review the scientific data relevant to nutritional guidance and make recommendations on appropriate changes to the Secretaries of the Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services." (2)
which requires publication of Dietary Guidelines every 5 years . This legislation also requires review by the Secretaries of USDA and HHS of all Federal publications containing dietary advice for the general public. (2)
USDA and HHS jointly released the fourth edition of the Dietary Guidelines. This edition continued to support the concepts from earlier editions. New information included the Food Guide Pyramid, Nutrition Facts Labels, and boxes highlighting good food sources of key nutrients. The weight table was replaced with a chart that illustrated three weight ranges. Additional changes were intended to clarify and emphasize key points.(2)
The Committee members initially posed 40 specific research questions that were put through an extensive evidence-based search and review of the scientific literature. Issues relating diet and physical activity to health promotion and chronic disease prevention were examined. Other major sources of evidence used were the Dietary Reference Intake (DRI) reports prepared by expert committees convened by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) as well as various Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and World Health Organization (WHO) reports. Numerous food intake pattern modeling analyses were completed by USDA, various national data sets were analyzed and advice was sought from invited experts.
After dropping some questions because of incomplete or inconclusive data, the Committee wrote conclusive statements and comprehensive rationales for 34 of the 40 original questions. The evidence-based analysis of the science formed the basis for 9 major Dietary Guidelines messages that resulted in the 41 Key Recommendations, of which 23 were for the general public and 18 were for special population groups.
Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010
Translating and Integrating the Evidence: A Call to Action
Complementing the Total Diet chapter, this chapter describes the four major findings that emerged from the DGAC’s review of the scientific evidence and articulates steps that can be taken to help all Americans adopt health-promoting nutrition and physical activity guidelines:
• Reduce the incidence and prevalence of overweight and obesity of the US population by
reducing overall calorie intake and increasing physical activity.
• Shift food intake patterns to a more plant-based diet that emphasizes vegetables, cooked dry
beans and peas, fruits, whole grains, nuts, and seeds. In addition, increase the intake of
seafood and fat-free and low-fat milk and milk products and consume only moderate
amounts of lean meats, poultry, and eggs.
• Significantly reduce intake of foods containing added sugars and solid fats because these
dietary components contribute excess calories and few, if any, nutrients. In addition, reduce
sodium intake and lower intake of refined grains, especially refined grains that are coupled
with added sugar, solid fat, and sodium.
• Meet the 2008 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans.
Dietary guidelines, especially those designed to prevent the diseases of dietary excess, area relatively new phenomenon in the United States. National dietary guidelines have been promulgated based on scientific reasoning and indirect evidence. In general, weak evidentiary support has been accepted as adequate justification for these guidelines. This low standard of evidence is based on several misconceptions, most importantly the belief that such guidelines could not cause harm. Using guidelines against dietary fat as a case in point, an analysis is provided that suggests that harm indeed may have been caused by the widespread dissemination of and adherence to these guidelines, through their contribution to the current epidemic of obesity and overweight in the U.S. An explanation is provided of what may have gone wrong in the development of dietary guidelines, and an alternative and more rigorous standard is proposed for evidentiary support, including the recommendation that when adequate evidence is not available, the best option may be to issue no guideline.
1.Research questions are formulated in a way that precludes a thorough investigation of the scientific and medical literature.
2.Answers to research questions are based on an incomplete body of relevant science; relevant science is frequently excluded due to the nature of the question.
3.Science is inaccurately represented, interpreted, and/or summarized.
4.Conclusions do not reflect the quantity and/or quality of relevant science.
5.Recommendations do not reflect the limitations, controversies, and uncertainties existing in the science.
There's no connection whatsoever between cholesterol in food and cholesterol in the blood, and we've known that all along. Cholesterol in the diet doesn't maatter at all unless you havppen to be a chicken or a rabbit.'
'Ancel Keys, Universtiy of Minnesota 1997
Dietary cholesterol is closely associated with both serum cholesterol concentrations and mortality rates for arteriosclerotic heart disease among both large and small population groups. However, the correlation coefficients are reduced to zero or to very low values when associated variables are taken into account. Therefore, simple correlation coefficients cannot be cited as proof of an independent effect of dietary cholesterol, but only as suggestive evidence of causal relationship.
Among individuals within groups, numerous cross-sectional studies have failed to find a significant independent association of dietary cholesterol with either serum cholesterol concentration or with risk of arteriosclerotic heart disease.
The percentage of energy from dietary fat is widely believed to be an important determinant of body fat, and several mechanisms have been proposed to account for such a relation.
a substantial decline in the percentage of energy from fat consumed during the past two decades has corresponded with a massive increase in obesity. Diets high in fat do not appear to be the primary cause of the high prevalence of excess body fat in our society, and reductions in fat will not be a solution.
Human studies have failed to demonstrate a consistent differential effect of dietary fat quality on Insulin Sensitivity
Hu et al.  concluded that “dietary recommendations to prevent Type II diabetes should focus more on the quality of fat and carbohydrate in the diet than quantity alone.” Remaining studies are limited in their value for general application by multiple intervention factors applied simultaneously , , small sample size , , or assessment of subsets of various SFA or other specific fatty acids , , . Similar studies showed mixed or inconclusive results , , .
Conclusions: These data do not support the strong association between intake of saturated fat and risk of coronary heart disease suggested by international comparisons.
In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.
In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.
In conclusion, the hypothesis-generating report of Mozaffarian et al draws attention to the different effects of diet on lipoprotein physiology and cardiovascular disease risk. These effects include the paradox that a high-fat, high–saturated fat diet is associated with diminished coronary artery disease progression in women with the metabolic syndrome, a condition that is epidemic in the United States. This paradox presents a challenge to differentiate the effects of dietary fat on lipoproteins and cardiovascular disease risk in men and women, in the different lipid disorders, and in the metabolic syndrome.
Inclusion decisions were independently duplicated and based on the following criteria: 1) randomisation was adequate; 2) there was a usual or control diet group; 3) the intervention aimed to reduce sodium intake; 4) the intervention was not multifactorial; 5) the participants were not children, acutely ill, pregnant or institutionalised; 6) follow-up was at least 26 weeks; 7) data on any of the outcomes of interest were available.
Intensive interventions, unsuited to primary care or population prevention programmes, provide only minimal reductions in blood pressure during long-term trials. Further evaluations to assess effects on morbidity and mortality outcomes are needed for populations as a whole and for patients with elevated blood pressure
A benefit or harm from a salt-reduced diet in patients with high blood pressure has not yet
been proven with regard to patient-relevant outcomes based on randomized controlled trials.
The results presented here show that a diet restricted in carbohydrate can provide a more comprehensive improvement in the clinical risk factors associated with MetS than a Low Fat Diet at reduced caloric intake.
The section on carbohydrate begins its evaluation of dietary carbohydrates with the question, “What are the health benefits of fiber?,” a question that presumes that health benefits have already been established. In fact, evidence supporting the health benefits of fiber with regard to obesity, diabetes, and bowel health is limited, as acknowledged in the American Dietetics Association (ADA) position paper on which much of the fiber information in the DGAC Report is based
e DGAC Report expresses concern about the influence of industry on studies pertaining to eggs and cholesterol (p. D3-47); no concern is voiced in regard to whole grains or fiber. The study by De Moura et al., ironically, shows that if the Food and Drug Administration definition of whole grain is used, there is insufficient scientific evidence to support a claim that whole grain intake decreases the risk of CVD, in direct contradiction of the DGAC Report’s conclusion (p. D5-11). A fundamental flaw in the DGAC Report’s support of whole grain and fiber intake is that these terms are defined inconsistently, and their definitions appear to be shaped to promote processed carbohydrate foods as “healthy.”
The history of our race, and each individual’s experience, are sown thick with evidence that a truth is not hard to kill and that a lie told well is immortal.
~ Mark Twain
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.
~ Joseph Goebbels
I don't think we were being lied to; and I don't think we're being lied to now. I do, however, believe that ignorance spreads lies.
Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
reply to post by muzzleflash
There won't be much to enjoy with that type of philosophy. Hey, nobody's stopping you from destroying your body...so go right ahead. But the vast majority of people want to grow old enough to see their grandchildren...healthily.
Most people would rather stay away from having their children spend their time and money to simply hang on a string of life.
Many of the studies I've linked above set out to determine the effects of dietary fat on heart disease, diabetes and obesity, yet they consistently show that carbohydrate consumption is positively associated with development of all three diseases.
Low-carbohydrate diets consistently outperform low-fat/high-carb diets in regards to heart disease progression, lipid profiles, sodium retention, fat loss, insulin sensitivity, glucose response and blood glucose levels.
NEW YORK — Some of the nutrition information listed in government-mandated food labels will be repeated on package fronts under a new system that food makers and major grocers are introducing.
The Grocery Manufacturers Association and the Food Marketing Institute on Monday announced the industry's voluntary new "Nutrition Keys," which will list calories, saturated fat, sodium and sugars per serving.
Manufacturers may choose to use only one or two of the figures in small, package-front icons, or all four.
WASHINGTON, Jan. 31, 2011 — Agriculture Secretary TomVilsack and Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Kathleen Sebelius today announced the
release of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the federal government's evidence-based
nutritional guidance to promote health, reduce the risk of chronic diseases, and reduce the
prevalence of overweight and obesity through improved nutrition and physical activity.
Because more than one-third of children and more than two-thirds of adults in the United States
are overweight or obese, the 7th edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans places stronger
emphasis on reducing calorie consumption and increasing physical activity.
“The 2010 Dietary Guidelines are being released at a time when the majority of adults and one in
three children is overweight or obese and this is a crisis that we can no longer ignore,” said
Secretary Vilsack. “These new and improved dietary recommendations give individuals the
information to make thoughtful choices of healthier foods in the right portions and to
complement those choices with physical activity. The bottom line is that most Americans need
to trim our waistlines to reduce the risk of developing diet-related chronic disease. Improving our
eating habits is not only good for every individual and family, but also for our country.”
The new 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans focus on balancing calories with physical
activity, and encourage Americans to consume more healthy foods like vegetables, fruits, whole
grains, fat-free and low-fat dairy products, and seafood, and to consume less sodium, saturated
and trans fats, added sugars, and refined grains.