Better late than never, we close out the first month of 2011 with the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. Released Monday, the guidelines are an update to those issued in 2005. As before, the guidelines begin with the recommendations of a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, composed of scientists, but end as the federal agencies in charge of them -- USDA in particular -- see fit. This makes the guidelines a hybrid of scientific and political imperatives.
Overall, these Dietary Guidelines are more alike than different from their predecessors. In terms of the content changes, I like the new emphasis on obesity and chronic disease prevention/treatment.
Nutrition guidance is, inescapably, culture-bound: where there is starvation, more calories are good; where there is hyperendemic obesity, more calories are bad. These guidelines place a very clear emphasis on the reality of current U.S. epidemiology, and couch dietary guidance in that context. It makes sense to attempt to fix what's broken.
However, providing different guidelines for different people in the population based on chronic disease presence or risk does add a level of complexity that will likely make it a little harder for the public, and even some health professionals, to translate the guidelines into a personalized plan.
The new guidelines still lump cholesterol together with saturated fat, which I find to be entirely at odds with virtually all recent research on the topic. I don't know whether this was laziness, or inertia, or ... what, but it does not reflect a rigorous review of the science.
The guidelines make passing reference to 'plant based' diets, but repeatedly and explicitly encourage consumption of dairy and various meats. The content is certainly not balanced, and a stronger indication that mostly -- or even completely -- plant based diets can provide optimal nutrition was probably warranted.
The recommendation for seafood is confusing, even to me, given the emphasis on restricting dietary cholesterol. My patients have long been confused by this: do I eat shrimp, or not? The summary here seems very apt to confound this confusion. I agree with the inclusion of seafood, and as noted, disagree with the continued emphasis on fretting over dietary cholesterol.
There are some items in this report that clearly invite mischief. We have already seen, since the '05 guidelines, a proliferation of 'good source of whole grain' claims on food packages. The trouble with such messaging is that it is not holistic: good source of what else beside whole grains? Good source of whole grains compared to what?
These guidelines will propagate such practices. In addition, they specifically recommend foods fortified with vitamin B12. It's not very difficult to anticipate the sudden spate of 'fortified with vitamin B12 as recommended in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines!' messaging that will populate the fronts of boxes and bags.
The new guidelines suggest 'carving out' stearic acid from the saturated fats that should be restricted, and I think this is, if anything, overdue. The science has long shown that stearic acid -- the predominant saturated fatty acid in, for instance, dark chocolate -- is innocuous. I like the stearic acid carve out, but in the summary at least, there is no mention of where it is found, or how to take the general guidance -- 'avoid saturated fat but not stearic acid'-- and turn it into food choices! Good idea, but questionable execution.
There still appears to be the heavy hand of food industry/supply side priorities reflected in the repeated recommendations to include dairy and various meats. There could be -- but is not -- an explicit statement that a diet can exclude dairy and still be optimal, and here's how ... Or, that a diet can exclude meat and still be optimal, and here's how ... Encouragement of all "food groups" is likely a bow to food industry interests.
In fact, it's as if the ghosts of 'food groups past' from vintage dietary guidance are still haunting today's guidance. As if there is a concern about failing to represent any particular sector in the food industry. This, to me, is a clear indication of mission contamination, or conflict of interest -- with the dietary guidelines being mostly about public health, but also a bit about maintaining cordial relations between the government, and the behemoths of the agri-food world.
Closely related to the above, I also still find that the new guidelines, as all prior versions, are more explicit about what to eat than about what not to eat. Advice about what to eat includes foods -- advice about what 'not' to eat is generally limited to categories of foods, or even just nutrients. There is no reason why the guidelines couldn't say: "eat less of foods such as..." and provide a very explicit list. But you don't see that here. That has always been a deficiency in the guidance, and looks to be again -- for fairly obvious reasons.
With all that said, the content here is a slight improvement on prior guidelines, because it is only an incremental change, and the adjustments that do appear make these recommendations more current.
But perhaps the true, key considerations as we assess the utility of the new Dietary Guidelines come courtesy of Albert Einstein, and Gertrude Stein.
Einstein told us the definition of insanity was "doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." I suppose, then, the greatest mind of the modern age may be saying that releasing dietary guidelines every five years that don't tend to affect how Americans actually eat is a little bit ... crazy. There are both simple, freely available programs -- and new, powerful ways to empower people to identify and choose foods that are truly more nutritious -- but the guidelines are pretty much mum on the topic.
Gertrude Stein told us: "a difference, to be a difference, must make a difference." Content 'differences' between the '05 and '10 (well, '11 really!) Dietary Guidelines don't really matter at all if they are not genuinely conducive to some salutary shift in actual eating patterns.
The report calls for a comprehensive array of policies and programs that would provide the 'how to' partner for these 'what to' guidelines. But we have seen such pleas before -- most notably from the IOM (Institute Of Medicine). And thus far, we have a lot more smoke than fire in this area.
Until we do all that is necessary to make truly more nutritious food readily available, identifiable, affordable, palatable, convenient, and ubiquitous -- dietary guidelines may make very little difference. In which case, the differences between this version and the last may not constitute a meaningful difference at all.
Dr. David L. Katz; www.davidkatzmd.com
Follow David Katz, M.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrDavidKatz
Susan Blumenthal, M.D.: 12 Tips for a Healthier You in 2011
Neal Barnard, M.D.: New U.S. Dietary Guidelines Emphasize Plant-Based Foods
Mark Hyman, MD: How Health Is a Human Right That's Been Taken From Us
Riva Greenberg: 5 Diabetes Truths You Must Know
MyPyramid.gov - United States Department of Agriculture - Home
Latest Dietary Guidelines Reinforce Need to Restrict Salt ...
Government Unveils New Dietary Guidelines - ABC News
USDA and HHS Announce New Dietary Guidelines to Help Americans ...
New Dietary Guidelines - USDA's new dietary guidelines restrict ...
The real missing point in these and in ANY other guidelines is that related to the INDIVIDUAL DAILY TOTALLY ENERGY EXPENDITURE (IDTEE)! This is, as known, the amount calories a given person is able to burn daily based on the own basal metabolic rate and physical activity (job, hobbies, sport and so on...). IDTEE varies very much from person to person!
Any qualitative advice is meaningless, as long a given person is not aware of her/his own IDTEE! And this crucial lack of knowledge is the MAIN reason, while people eat healthy … and dye obese!
We “the experts” should put much more emphasis on the individual quantitative aspect of foods!
Along this line, even your proposal: “There is no reason why the guidelines couldn't say: "eat less of foods such as..." and provide a very explicit list, would be meaningless!.
I will provide you a copy of our book: Eating healthy and dying obese, elucidation of an apparent paradox
Healthy greetings from Switzerland
Leoluca Criscione, Ph.D
(see also my comment in Morgan Spurlock's homepage, supersizeme
http://super-size-me.morganspurlock.com/forum/posts/id_74/Eating-healthy-and-dying-obese/
http://www.angrytrainerfitness.com/2011/01/kids-and-food-the-new-school-rules/
My two favorites are steel cut oats and short grain brown rice. I try to avoid processed starches, including bread, but being a distance runner makes it difficult to live without the oats and rice!
How is this possible? Why do we continue to import unsafe products in to the U.S. for American consumption and use?
On the other hand, telling someone to 'eat lead!' might be be less nasty for them than widely believed.
even in the absence of mischief .
the natural difffernce in discernment between MDs in private practice or at university and those which feel comfortable in government bureaucracy [ committee strictures] also complicates things
politicians ahve not been trained in science of any kind
it might be good if either government makes no recommendations or companies are prohibited from putting snippets on their packages
democracy [compare the knowledge of science at foxnews with that of even a runofthe mill company scientist] cannot survive unless there are degree program for politicians [ sort of pre party candidate courses like premed and similar to MBA]which includes inaddition to nuts and bolts of politics, campaighning , ads, PR, structures of gov, legislative procedures] survey courses in sciences , history of science, history of religion, history of civilization AND history of traditional medicine and traditional knowledge in general [ that is courses about ancient wisdoms [ or cultures] which are immortal knowledge
MDs who chose to study Maharishi Ayur Veda will save themselves the bother of starting from square one in knowledge of nutrition etc
Aren't you thinking of Frist?
Hahaha.
- "Some reasons why exercise may not translate into weight loss"
http://www.drbriffa.com/2010/09/13/study-reveals-that-women-need-to-exercise-for-77-hours-to-lose-a-kg-of-fat-and-why-knowing-this-can-help-maintain-the-motivation-to-exercise/
Walking 5 miles, which "burns" a couple hundred calories, is not going to solve any problems if you're diet is off.
Like you, I also "splurge" a little on the weekend. Breakfast tacos with potato, egg & cheese on two corn tortillas is my favorite!
Anyone can eat anything in moderation unless you're allergic to it or it's poison.
Most people overeat because they're unhappy whether they're aware of it or not....is that why most of the fat in this country is found in the bible belt and the ghettos?
Some of the guidelines are misleading. The first guideline: enjoy your food but eat less.... (less of what?) My experience in meal planning with many of my clients for weight loss, it is not less food. In many cases it is MORE food. It is less low quality food of course. I also don't like the focus on calories in/out. I'm glad they say the quality of the food matters "not all calories are equal". There's also message to balance out eating with exercise and the way it comes out I believe it perpetuates "exercise off" all the "bad" food you ate.
The reality is people don't count calories and they shouldn't have to for the rest of their lives. So I do like their "half plate" fruit/veggie, which is indicative of plant based eating.
One challenge to your arguments, I don't think by saying "variety of foods" they are "bowing" to food industry. I think people eat the same things over and again and risk lack of nutrients. I also think you can eat "plant based" and still have dairy and meat.
Regarding variety, again, we agree. Dietary variety is a good thing- particularly a variety of highly nutritious foods. But a diet may include a wide variety of foods without necessarily including meat, or cheese. A healthful diet may include one, or both, but doesn't have to. The way variety is addressed in the DGs, it's pretty clear there is an attempt to make sure every sector in the food industry gets a shout-out. As I said, I get the sense that the ghosts of food groups past- not to mention lobbyists for every contingent in the food supply- still haunt the guidelines, and attenuate their value.
One can pack a great variety of foods in a green smoothie and salads and soups. In the beginning it can be a challenge but then the creative mind takes over and the variety, including foods you might never have thought of creep into one's diet. I've found several recipes for kale and other greens that I didn't even like and now have weekly. Many just don't want to give up their meat but they could cut back or as Colin Campbell says you can give it a try for 6 weeks and see what you think.
I see the new guidelines, though still lacking in my opinion, as encouraging as there are some changes and glimpses that people are paying attention but how does one satisfy the meat and dairy industry who are sacrosanct in this country.
Looking forward to your next post.
I'm surprised I haven't fanned you before as I always enjoy your articles.
fanned and faved........