It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


U.S. Dietary Guidelines: The History; The Science; The Failure

page: 1
<<   2 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:30 PM

The History

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 [1]. This legislation also requires review by the Secretaries of USDA and HHS of all Federal dietary guidance-related publications for the general public. (2)

Though the first edition of The Dietary Guidelines was published in 1980, The McGovern Report, Dietary Goals for the United States (3), was the document published in 1977 that set the direction in which the United States would head regarding governmental dietary advice. Senator George McGovern, sole chairman of the committee responsible for issuing the aforementioned guidelines, commented that the document was "the first comprehensive statement by any branch of Federal Government on risk factors in the American Diet." (4)



The years leading to this report and the months following were littered with controversy. Researchers were split right down the middle regarding the validity of the data, with many concluding that there simply wasn't enough data to begin advising Americans on dietary choices. However, political figure heads demanded that the people be counseled in any direction so as not to cast doubt upon their leaders' ability to provide consistent advice. Because of this, administrators within the FDA and NIH considered the report to be more of a political document than a scientific one. Regardless, it was agreed that the USDA would draft official dietary guidelines using the McGovern Report as a substrate.

"we Senators don’t have the luxury that a research scientist does of waiting until every last shred of evidence is in."

~ Senator McGovern

So, in February of 1980, the HHS and USDA jointly issued the first edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans, Nutrition and Your Health: Dietary Guidelines for Americans (5).

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)


With the exception of alcohol consumption, the main guidelines are relatively identical to those presented in the McGovern Report. However, we do see a reliance on the phrase "too much" without really defining what "too much" is. Broad strokes tend to be a common theme. There is an avoidance of detail and an emphasis on ambiguity.

In 1983....

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)

The newly appointed advisory committee then released the 1985 edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This second edition received much more public attention despite it being almost identical to the first edition....(6)


In 1987...

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)

Just before the 1990 edition was released, the National Nutrition Monitoring and Related Research Act of 1990 was enacted...

which requires publication of Dietary Guidelines every 5 years [1]. This legislation also requires review by the Secretaries of USDA and HHS of all Federal publications containing dietary advice for the general public. (2)

The 1990 Edition of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans reaffirmed the aforementioned, except this time they made a more quantitative assessment of the dietary fat intake suggestions. There was also a trend of emphasis on food selection so that Americans could apply their newly acquired dietary knowledge to their next trip to the grocery store. All in all, at this point, however, very little has changed in almost 15 years of dietary advice. (7)


And the dietary fat and cholesterol recommendations...


5 years later...we have the 1995 Edition (8)

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)

Overall, the advisory committee felt that the information provided by the Dietary Guidelines in years past were sound and that they need only to provide a few additions.


1995 brought us the Food Pyramid....


...and the Nutrition Facts Label


Maintaining ideal weight through exercise broke through in 1995 and really came to fruition in the 2000 release of the Dietary Guidelines (9). In fact, it was such an emphasis the guidelines broke from the mold and, ignoring its roots of dietary recommendations, began the first section focusing on fitness.


There was also a few other additions in 2000. A focus on whole grain consumption; how to read the nutrition facts labels; a detailed breakdown of the food pyramid; a generally more-detailed approach to each aspect, more so than years past; and food temp/avoiding food borne illness.


Between 2000 and 2005, a new approach was adopted by the advisory committee.

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.

The result of which was the release of the much more aesthetically pleasing, significantly larger, clean-cut 5th edition of the Dietary Guidelines...


The Guidelines took quite the overhaul since 2000, which is evident by the lack of illustrations and a clear intent to focus on the data. Charts, graphs and tables were scattered throughout this enormously articulated release.


Report of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010

Front Cover PDF
Letter to the Secretaries PDF
Table of Contents PDF
Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Membership PDF

PART A Executive Summary PDF

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.

PART B Setting the Stage and Integrating the Evidence PDF

PART C Methodology PDF

PART D Science Base

Section 1: Energy Balance and Weight Management PDF
Section 2: Nutrient Adequacy PDF
Section 3: Fatty Acids and Cholesterol PDF
Section 4: Protein PDF
Section 5: Carbohydrates PDF
Section 6: Sodium, Potassium, and Water PDF
Section 7: Alcohol PDF
Section 8: Food Safety and Technology PDF

PART E Appendices PDF

Devo's Summary of the 2010 Advisory Committee Report

The 2010 DGAC report is hands down the most extensively detailed report to date, to the extent that, as it is currently constructed, it's a little too much for most individuals. Here's my quick summary...

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a's probably a duck.

In other words, it's the same old stuff we've been fed over the past 30 years. Nothing has really changed other than the vast amount of complexities and tautologies. Here's my slightly longer, bullet-point summary:

- Eating a balanced diet of nutrient dense foods is the road to health

- Vegetarian diets are GOLDEN

- We're getting fat because we over consume and live relatively sedentary lives.

- Lower fat intake

- Saturated fat causes heart disease; therefore, we should limit our SFA intake to less than 10%

- Dietary saturated fat should also be avoided/limited

- Grains and fiber are strongly recommended

- Avoid Solid fats (saturated/trans), added sugar and sodium

- Fresh produce (locavore movement) is pressed

- Food safety (how to cook and store food properly) is discussed

- Alcohol in moderation

Contradictory Evidence

Disregarding the political side of things (because it just gets too damn deep and confusing), there have been very clear misrepresentations of facts, dismissals of data and flat out lies throughout the tenure of the Dietary Guidelines. Even the with the vast amount of data compiled into the latest edition there seems to to be a steady, repetitive trend. Since the USDA and HHS won't provide you with both sides....I will.

As I mentioned before, the McGovern report was published despite the apparent lack of consensus among researchers regarding the report's claims. Scientists were unsure and, most of them, would rather have held out until more conclusive data had became available. Dietary Goals for the United States was released and, since then, more conclusive evidence has been gathering dust in the bottom of the USDA basement. The decisions of a few politicians and greedy scientists led to dietary consensus and contradicting evidence was simply shrugged off.

Time to dust off data and show why the Guidelines are deeply flawed.

Published in 2008 was A Call for Higher Standards of Evidence for Dietary Guidelines, which outlines a few problem areas....

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.

The guidelines, according to the authors of the report, focus on strong recommendations with weak and inconclusive evidence.

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.

These are the same questions and uncertainties that were present thirty years ago before the first "dietary goals" was published and, yet, here we are today reading guidelines that are nothing more than a copy/paste from the past, dressed up to look misleadingly pretty and novel.

1977: Increase carbohydrate consumption; reduce fat consumption; reduce saturated fat consumption; reduce cholesterol consumption; reduce sugar consumption; reduce sodium consumption

2010: Increase carbohydrate consumption; reduce fat consumption; reduce saturated fat consumption; reduce cholesterol consumption; reduce sugar consumption; reduce sodium consumption; exercise

In the over 30 years since the dietary goals for the United States were released, Americans have increased carbohydrate consumption, reduced total and saturated fat consumption, increased vegetable fat consumption and reduced cholesterol consumption. We've increased the frequency at which we exercise and, while total caloric consumption has increased, we've kept it within recommended values. Despite adherence, Americans have become fatter, more diabetic and cholesterol lowering, stain drugs are the most prescribed type of drug on the market.

Reduce Total Cholesterol Consumption

The fact that this is still recommended today demonstrates just how muddy the water is. We're advised to decrease dietary cholesterol intake because elevated serum cholesterol is thought to be a risk factor for developing heart disease, increasing risk for a cardiac event. There's just one little problem with that assessment....dietary cholesterol does not affect serum cholesterol levels. Period. The father of the diet-heart hypothesis -- the one that says high fat diets cause heart disease -- Ancel Keys even admitted this fact.

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

Studies have repeatedly shown there is no association between dietary cholesterol consumption and serum cholesterol levels in the long term.

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.

Reduce Total Fat Consumption

Total dietary fat intake never has and never will be associated with obesity, diabetes or heart disease. The three main reasons for the recommendation to decrease fat intake are, A) to decrease total caloric intake and, hopefully, prevent overeating and obesity, B) to prevent heart disease and C) to prevent diabetes.

Observational studies that address total fat intake, either directly or indirectly, show how unreliable total fat intake is as a predictor of obesity. Confounders and misreporting are common, making the results inconclusive.

Is dietary fat a major determinant of body fat?

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.

Considering the different effects that trans fat, saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat and monounsaturated fat have on blood lipids, and even individual fatty acids, labeling total fat consumption as important is unscientific and unsupported by the literature. Total energy from fat will not determine one's risk for developing heart disease, as evidenced by epidemiology and lab studies.

Regarding diabetes....

Effect of the dietary fat quality on insulin sensitivity

Human studies have failed to demonstrate a consistent differential effect of dietary fat quality on Insulin Sensitivity

Hu et al. [52] 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 [53], [54], small sample size [55], [56], or assessment of subsets of various SFA or other specific fatty acids [57], [58], [59]. Similar studies showed mixed or inconclusive results [60], [61], [62].

Total fat has little to do with diabetes incidence. Regarding fat, it's quality over quantity.

Reduce Saturated Fat Consumption

We're told to reduce saturated fat consumption to avoid heart disease and diabetes. Right off the bat, I can tell you with absolute confidence that saturated fat consumption, if anything, is beneficial.

Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States

Conclusions: These data do not support the strong association between intake of saturated fat and risk of coronary heart disease suggested by international comparisons.

We, as Americans, have followed the advice given by the USDA and HHS to lower saturated fat consumption. And we had to replace it with something. That something was carbohydrate.

Dietary fats, carbohydrate, and progression of coronary atherosclerosis in postmenopausal women

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.

Over the past 40 years, saturated fat has been shown in the majority of studies to have no independent associations, possitive or negative, with coronary heart disease.

Here is a recent, large meta-analysis .....

Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease

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.

Saturated fat prevents coronary artery disease? An American paradox

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.

Reduce Sodium Consumption

The Cochrane Collaboration submitted a systematic review of the quality literature that supports the notion that reducing sodium consumption lowers blood pressure. Their results....

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

2009 Meta-Review

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.

This isn't to say that sodium doesn't increase hyptertension in certain individuals; however, reducing sodium intake should not be a blanket recommendation for the general public.

Increase Carbohydrate Consumption

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.

Carbohydrate Restriction has a More Favorable Impact on the Metabolic Syndrome than a Low Fat Diet

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.

Nearly every study conducted over the past 10 years has produced similar results, and yet we're still advised to eat a more vegetarian diet with more grains and fiber.

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.”


We've followed the advice of the Dietary Guidelines...


...and we've only increased our daily caloric consumption by 250 calories, well within the recommended range. What could've been the major changes that affected our health for the worse?

The demonization of saturated fat led to a huge increase in vegetable oil consumption...industrial seed oils. The demonization of fat in general led to an increase in carbohydrates like bread, pasta and cereal grains. We stopped eating butter, for fear of heart disease, and began eating industrial oil spreads that were full of polyunsaturated fats...which we now know causes heart disease, diabetes, insulin resistance and obesity. Fructose, because of it's low glycemic score, was an accepted sugar....and now we know just how dangerous fructose really is, especially in combination with sucrose. The avoidance of dietary cholesterol has kept us from eating eggs and bacon, and we've replaced these breakfast foods with bagels, oatmeal and toast....foods that wreak havoc on the metabolic system.

Our health authorities, in an attempt to fix an unhealthy society, have completely missed the point and perpetuated the problem. And now, we're stuck. We've been stuck for the last 30-40 years because once an idea becomes so instilled within the scientific, political and public's nearly impossible to change.

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

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.

If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.

~ Joseph Goebbels

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 05:43 PM

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.

I agree with you. The best diet is one that a person has researched for themselves and certainly not what the government has decided is best for you.

You put it very succinctly here and show that they really don't know what they are talking about and tend to stick to myths and "facts" that have been dis proven.

Excellent thread, and thanks for the researched info.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:11 PM
your blood type makes a difference in what foods you should eat, also people like myself who suffer from ibs should refrain from eating certain foods as it causes extreme discomfort as i can eat as much red meat as i want and be fine but too much pasta, bread or rice and that means a not very nice time on the toilet seat.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:19 PM
Here is a much easier system to follow.

# 1) Eat whatever you want.

1 step program to success!

You're gonna die anyway.

It's called Enjoying Life while it Lasts!

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:29 PM
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 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.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:30 PM
reply to post by lewman

The whole "eat right for your blood type" just doesn't hold any's not backed by real science.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:32 PM

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 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.

That's so hilarious because I am 100% healthy.

I need no medicines. I don't ever visit the doc. I don't ever go to the hospital.

None of these.

I eat what I want. I enjoy life.

So you go and destroy your life, and I will live mine to it's fullest.

My medical chart trumps any "health nuts" charts.

Fact that you just gotta deal with.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:41 PM
Originally posted by muzzleflash

Your personal anecdotes have no merit.

Regardless, you're probably young and the there haven't been any physical manifestations of the damage you're doing to your body. Just because you're not getting fat, your blood sugars are stable and your arteries aren't clogged (which is a guess), doesn't mean you aren't doing silent damage that will come back and bite you as you age.

I find it amazing that you think your "medical charts" are flawless and yet you don't see a Doctor?!?!?!

Move along. There's nothing here for you.
edit on 24-1-2011 by DevolutionEvolvd because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 06:41 PM

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.

Yes, sugar is one of the worst culprits for those diseases, and sugar is the one that will raise cholesterol, and triglycerides. Whatever we don't burn off in daily activity, turns to excess fat, the most unhealthy kind, that stores toxins around our inner organs. Simple carbs, such as grains, turn to sugar when they're eaten. If you eat a slice of white bread (which has nothing good in it), you might as well just eat a 1/4 cup of white sugar, that's how it breaks down in the body. The sugar that doesn't turn to fat, and overloads our blood cells, once we become insulin resistant, from too much sugar consumption, has been compared to glass shards, slowly destroying everything they touch.

Sugar also inhibits the hormone that tells us when we're full.

They've demonized natural foods like butter, and replaced it with processed margarine. Canola, thought to be one of the healthier oils, is mostly made from genetically modified grain, taking away the healthy aspects of it. Olive oil is much better, unless you're cooking at a higher temperature, in that case, grape seed oil is very good.

I once knew of a doctor that told someone I knew, to eat zero fat. Not even salad dressing. People need a certain amount of fat (good fats) to process many of the vitamins and minerals from our food. We need certain fats for our brain to function, and for our eyesight. It's sad when a doctor doesn't know this.

We need to get back to basic food. Real unprocessed food.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:22 PM
S&F, OP!
Nicely documented thread.

It's probably no coincidence that many Americans' bodies resemble the food pyramid.

'Such a shame that government-sponsored misinformation and lack of information has caused so many people to struggle with their diets and maintaining a healthy weight over the years. What I'd really like to see -- and it will never happen -- is a guide to foods based on their toxicity to the human body. Aspartame and Gulf shrimp would be high on that pyramid.

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 07:41 PM
reply to post by snowspirit

i have this butter vs marge argument with many of my peers on a regular basis, many find it hard to believ as we dont get butter ads claiming to be beneficial but the trans fats that are in margerine are potentially a killer and way more dangerous than delicious butter

posted on Jan, 24 2011 @ 09:00 PM

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.


Well it looks like they are going to make it a little more "in your face" although I don't think this will help at all as the manufacturers will probably just put the "good" stats on the front of the packages. Seems to me to just be another step to make the people think they care..

In my opinion anyways...

posted on Jan, 25 2011 @ 03:18 PM
reply to post by tribewilder

I still don't understand why they keep trying to push this. It doesn't work. It never has and, until they fix nutritional guidelines, it never will.

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:10 PM

posted on Feb, 1 2011 @ 12:39 PM
January 31, 2011, yesterday, the USDA released the 2010 United States Dietary Guidelines...

You can find the press release here:

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.

And the full report here:

What a shame...

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 02:14 PM
Amazing post OP, thanks for the info, education and anticipation are the only weapons against disinfo and ignorance, things appear to work a certain way, and while its true we can survive by just a thread, it comes down to the value of life one wants, health is priceless, one can survive in many ways, but doing so in the best possible manner instead of just getting by is my choice!

Thanks for all the info OP, you have made a great case in some largely ignored part of our wellbeing...

We all are different its true, but we all have the same machines inside, and it has been proven that a well oiled and calibrated machine works best for longest stretches of time...

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:02 PM
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

Fantastic thread and wonderful, supporting research.

You can sadly tell people that eating the refined foods, both flours and sugars, is what's making people sick and killing them, but when you have the government with their food pyramid in the other ear, guess who they always listen to?

I have stopped, for the most part, trying to tell people, but I did recently have a family member get newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. I got no pleasure out of saying that I had been trying to tell them this all along.

I don't touch pastas, almost no breads, no white rice, no sugars, corn starches, flours. My rule is no "white" foods.

Rarely, I do give in and have something sweet, but I usually regret it and feel ill for a couple days for it. The habit is getting fewer and further between, because I know I will get sick.

It is not until people stop eating these foods and go through a week long detox period that they realize how "white" foods actually fog the brain, weaken the body, and steal your energy.

I encourage anyone who is even the least bit curious, if you think it is all hype and bluster, try it. One week, I lay that challenge out. When you get to the third, fourth, fifth day that you feel like you have the flu, you know it is almost over. The next day when you wake up, you will feel like a new person, I promise this.

When you actually eat fats and vegetables, you are filled with energy, you eat less because the fat satisfies your hunger, and the dietary fat is used for energy, not stored in your body. Only when it is combined with the "white" foods does it cause issues, because the "white" foods give you "empty" energy. A burst of energy that soon wanes, leaving you feeling down, tired, and like you need a nap.

Why do you think these 5 hour energy drinks are so hot right now? The perfect addition to a carb laden diet, to keep you from even feeling the inevitable crash anymore. The crash is a symptom that something in your diet is wrong, a warning bell that the public is being taught to ignore with "energy drinks".

Instead, a salad with fresh veggies, and full fat dressing, and some lean meat will refresh your energy naturally, make you feel satisfied, and guess what? NO crash, and you will have energy enough to make it through the day.

"White foods", all the refined foods, are poison in your system. By the fifth day, the body cravings for carbs and sugars are usually gone, for some it may take a few more days, but anything after that is purely psychological.

Recognizing this is the first step in adherence, because a low carb diet does alter your metabolism from a carb/empty calorie burning system into a fat burning system. Adherence is necessary and healthy, which is why I stray only rarely, because it takes a few days to get that sugar or whatever you decided to treat yourself with, out of your system.

Now, I admit, I, like anyone, love a fresh baked loaf of bread cooling on the counter, the warm smell of bread wafting through the house on a cold morning. However, keep in mind the "bread" you eat from stores? Not real bread.

The so-called "whole-grain" breads? Nothing more than refined flour with some artificial coloring and a sprinkling of some type of seeds to make you think it's "healthy". If you want bread, bake it yourself, so you *know* what is in it. In fact, grind the flour yourself. Not only is is much better tasting, it is much better for you!

One day, I went to get a diet Coke from a machine at work (which I no longer even drink diet sodas) and after it dropped into the opening, I opened the bottle and took a big drink.

By the time I went back up the elevator and walked to my desk, my legs ached, my jaw hurt, I got a pounding headache, and my heart rate shot up in the low 100's. I got nauseated, felt ill and unsettled. I sat down wondering what the heck just happened to me?!

It was then I reached for the bottle of Diet Coke and seeing the label, realized they had put a Coke with the sugar in the wrong slot in the machine.

It was then I realized what sugar can really do to your body. Don't believe me? Try it. The worst that can happen is you feel icky for a few days while detoxing and then you go right back to the same old same old, the best that can happen is it opens your eyes to the *real* drugging of America. Sadly though, most people are so addicted to sugar, they can't go more than a day or two at the most.

The one thing that will surprise you the most is, you will taste things that sugars have dulled. Tomatoes taste like fruits (which they are, not a veggie), strawberries and other berries become absolute decadence. The first time I tasted a strawberry after I detoxed, I was amazed, like a child having something new for the first time. It was incredible.

It is not by coincidence that the first heart attack in the US happened after we began producing refined sugar and flour. Prior to that, there was no heart disease or diabetes.

I do have some refined foods in food storage for hard times, but this is in case of emergency only, and not foods we consume on a daily basis. Once I have reached some of my goals, I fully intend to do away with the refined foods altogether, and use only whole grains I grind myself, and vegetables I grow myself.

ETA: Sadly, eating carb laden foods and suagry foods is *much* cheaper, faster, and easier, and most people are too lazy to garden, or cook fresh vegetables and meats and want everything fast and now.

edit on 15-4-2011 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)
edit on 15-4-2011 by Libertygal because: added link

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 04:27 PM
reply to post by Libertygal

I´ve also left out whites and anything refined, its true one is addicted to the stuff, I sometimes crave bread, and only allow myself barley bread, same with white sugar, very hard to let go.
Empty foods, that is a great way of putting it because that is what they are, they are deader than dead, and provide just the minimum in order for us to function...

Control comes from many sides, alas we always have options.

posted on May, 22 2011 @ 10:45 PM
At the rate the FDA is going suprised they havnt included naked women and flesh eating zombies at the top of the food chain, and moved us thiniers and wanna be workers to the bottom of it

posted on Feb, 18 2012 @ 06:15 PM
Nekid women?

I'm ok with that.

top topics

<<   2 >>

log in