The U.S. Department of Agriculture is coming out with a new version of dietary guidelines for Americans. These guidelines, which are quite similar to the former ones, recommend decreasing the consumption of meat and increasing intake of vegetables, non-fat dairy products and fruit. It is hoped that if we let these guidelines influence our food choices, Americans will stop eating cheeseburgers, sodas and sweetened fruit juices, fat-filled junk foods like potato chips and chocolate chip cookies, and instead consume fat-free cottage cheese, apples and Swiss chard. We might even decrease our portion sizes when we realize that the 16-ounce steak we were thinking of ordering contains enough protein for our entire family.
The recommendations make good medical sense. If followed, they will increase the intake of whole grains, fiber, vitamins and minerals and decrease the intake of foodstuffs that may be associated with cardiovascular disease, diabetes and even cancer. These are all important health objectives, regardless of whether a person needs to lose weight or not. However, they are not new. Health professionals have been telling us for decades that we have to pay attention to what we are eating not only to meet our body's needs for specific nutrients, but also to decrease the likelihood of developing debilitating or even terminal illnesses.
But who is going to follow these recommendations? Is the Department of Agriculture just preaching to the converted?
Around the time the dietary guideline report was released, there were press releases describing a new wondrous delicacy at this year's Texas State Fair: fried butter. Friends of mine went to the fair and described the area devoted to deep-fried foods with the same amazement as if they had just seen people eating roasted slugs. The deep-fried butter was the main attraction but people were also eating the fried tequila topped with whipped cream, the chicken fried steak, fried chocolate bars, fried ice cream and of course that traditional feature of most state fairs, the deep fried corn dog. In all fairness, it should be stated that the fried butter was actually coated with batter and not unique to the fair. One of the "Food Network's" popular chefs, Paula Dean, has made fried butter. Her recipe, which includes cream cheese in the batter, probably doesn't have more calories than many of the other southern delicacies prepared on her show.
State fair food is, of course, not a staple for any of us, so perhaps we will be motivated to follow the guidelines and improve our food intake. But it is unlikely that as a country we will be shifting to a healthier eating style anytime soon unless the country goes into a sort of food lockdown. As the report describes, most of our meals are eaten away from home and only rarely meet these guidelines.
In 1977 we consumed 18 percent of our daily calories from restaurant foods. In l996, 77 percent of our calories came from food eaten away from home and that number has probably increased by now.
Portion sizes in restaurants and of prepared foods have increased immensely. According to the information in the dietary guidelines report, in 2002 the average serving of steak was 224 percent larger and a chocolate cookie was 700 percent larger than a 1996 USDA food guide serving. We have become so accustomed to these larger sizes that when we see food portions of 30 years ago, they look child-sized to us.
The USDA report confirms that eating away from home increases our intake of calories, fat, sugar and sodium and deceases our consumption of vegetables. Thus, how can a new set of dietary guidelines change this?
In an ideal world, restaurants could alter their menus and portion sizes to meet the dietary guidelines. Some, catering to a specially health conscious customer base, have done so by offering options for vegetarians, vegans and people who want to limit their consumption of saturated fats and sugars. But the trend in fast food restaurant chains is to offer ever more egregiously caloric meals to attract customers who want to get the most calories, fat and salt for their money. And this trend is not limited to fast food restaurants. Watch an advertisement of the typical moderately priced chain restaurant and you will see the same emphasis on oil, butter, cheese, cream and bacon as ingredients or sauces. Will these foods be replaced by brown rice, lentil salad and arugula salad? It seems unlikely.
Perhaps an effective way to shift food consumption patterns is to make the foods we should be eating cost less. This is true in restaurants where a plate of pasta will cost less than a chicken breast or steak tips. But there are few bean, lentil, whole grain pasta or vegetable options, especially in places where people go for lunch, such as food courts or local lunchtime restaurants. And sometimes food that looks healthy, such as the prepared foods sold in warming trays in large supermarkets, really isn't. These foods tend to be very high in fat as the added oil keeps them moist and fresh tasting. They may be cheaper than foods sold in restaurants but often are just as unhealthy because of their fat and salt content.
Another difficulty in getting people to change is the disconnection between what they are eating today and the health problems they may confront years from now. Calcium intake is an example. Women are told to make sure their calcium intake is adequate when they are young adults so they won't develop osteoporosis (fragile bones). When do they actually increase their calcium intake? After their first bone scan.
An epidemiologist/nutritionist who works on the association between diet and cancer told me that it is very common for a patient to seek dietary advice after the diagnosis. She told me that patients always say the same thing: "Now I understand how important it is to eat right."
Despite the obstacles in getting people to change their eating habits, it can be done. Years ago people wouldn't touch skim milk, grimaced when they saw yogurt and were revolted by sashimi. The popularity of these food items in supermarkets indicate that food habits do shift. In part it is because the foods taste better these days. Yogurt is no longer the astringent watery product it was in the early days. Sashimi seems to have overcome the antipathy people have toward raw fish and children think whole milk is now disgusting because it is so creamy.
We just have to think of ways of making lentils, whole grain pasta and kale tasty without deep frying them.
Follow Judith J. Wurtman, PhD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stopmed_wt_gain
Mark Hyman, MD: Do Statins Cause Diabetes and Heart Disease?
Michael F. Jacobson: Big Soda Deserves Taxes, Not Subsidies
U.S. dietary guidelines hard to swallow - Los Angeles Times
USDA's MyPyramid.gov - Dietary Guidelines for Americans
Healthy Fast Food: Tips for Making Healthier Fast Food Choices
"children think whole milk is now disgusting because it is so creamy."
A recent study released by the University of Gothenburg, Sweden found that eight-year-olds who drink full-fat milk every day have a lower BMI than kids who either don't drink milk or drink med/low fat milk.
According to the CDC, from 1976 to 2008 the rate of obesity in 6-11 year olds has increased from 5% to almost 20% today... Low fat fail.
"Years ago people wouldn't touch skim milk." Interesting... because years ago we were thinner than we are now.
Do people really think the problem with potato chips and chocolate chip cookies is the fat? Besides, they're both cooked in vegetable fat, which the USDA tells us is healthy.
ALL grains are unhealthy. Humans (Genus Homo) have been around for about 2.4 million years but only started eating grains about 10,000 years ago (even barley), and they weren't a major part of our diets for anywhere from a few thousand to zero years (some indigenous cultures still don't eat them) - we simply haven't adapted to them yet. They contain anti-nutrients like Lectin, Phytic acid and Gluten. They may contain some vitamins and minerals, but why get vitamins from a high carbohydrate (aka sugar) food when you can get them from leafy greens that have many other benefits. Whole grains are mostly a branched chain polymer of glucose called Amylopectin... when digested, it's breaks down into glucose. We just don't need that extra sugar in our diets.
They aren't a "necessary" source of fiber... people think they need a lot of fiber to keep them regular, but if you eat real foods (meat, eggs, vegetables, fruit, nuts and seeds) you don't need the "extra" fiber from grains - the digestive system has worked quite well for a long time without grains.
Most of the world does live on grains - now - but most of the world is also getting fatter with increased percentages of diabetes, heart disease, cancer, hypertension and of course, obesity. Notice that Indian vegetarians (from India) have incredibly high rates of heart disease and the Indian diet is pretty high in grains?
http://www.drjaywortman.com/
Here is a direct link to the DGAC post:
http://www.drjaywortman.com/blog/wordpress/2010/10/04/american-dietary-guidelines-reviewed/
I like his translation:
"Translation: “We think that people who stop eating the usual crappy American diet and follow our recommendations can improve their health, however, we are still working on the proof but nobody listens to us anyways. Therefore it is their fault they are fat and sick. Oh, and the environment we live in contributes to the problem, as well.”
"After about 40 years of trying, if this was the correct prescription for our problems with obesity and chronic disease, you would think there would be, by now, irrefutable evidence that it works. After literally billions of dollars being thrown at this problem, we should be way beyond the “evidence is accumulating” stage of figuring out whether it works or not. That failure, along with a classic “blame the victim” and “blame the environment” approach, is what the DGAC report is founded on."
Except-- increased blood sugars from "Healthy" whole grains can lead directly to cardiovascular disease, diabetes and cancer. Better to ignoring the USDA misguidelines.
In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee
http://www.nutritionjrnl.com/article/PIIS0899900710002893/fulltext
ABSTRACT (abbreviated)
Concerns raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be addressed. The 1977 Dietary Goals for Americans proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption carried further in 2010. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place [and] overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased... the DGAC Report demonstrates critical weaknesses, including use of an incomplete body of relevant science; inaccurately representing, interpreting, or summarizing the literature; and drawing conclusions and/or making recommendations that do not reflect limitations or controversies in the science. Objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets... does not provide sufficient evidence to conclude that increases in whole grain and fiber and decreases in dietary saturated fat, salt, and animal protein will lead to positive health outcomes... It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate.
When will the tide finally turn?
The voices of reason need to continue to speak loudly and clearly, because it is a tragedy that so many are doomed to the horrible health effects of these dietary "misguidelines."
I hope to see some blogs/articles by the true expects on nutrition such as Volek, Phinney, Westman, Taubes, and Wortman.
Full disclosure: I am a research scientist, the kind of geek who reads primary journal articles for fun. That said, I am stunned at what passes for 'science' in the field of nutrition, let alone how the research results get spun for popular consumption.
Personally, I eat the diet designed by nature and tested on 100,000 generations of our ancestors over about 2.5 million years. The beauty of this diet, based on organic pastured animal and certain perennial no-till plant foods (no grains, dairy, or soy) is that it does not require the use of artificial fertilizers or pesticides (both derived from fossil fuel); or fuel to run agricultural machinery to plow, cultivate and harvest; or artificial irrigation (fossil fuel powered pumps); or GM seeds. It requires zero acres of tillable soil, zero pounds of grain, zero gallons of imported water, and is nutritionally complete.
It is totally independent of farms and all of the agricultural machinery that destroys topsoil and kills millions of ground-living animals. It eliminates the need for any of the products produced by the pesticide, fertilizer, and GM AgriGiants, or the need for feed-lots, egg-breeders, dairy farms, or processed foods.
The ecological footprint of this diet is estimated to be much smaller than either a vegan, vegetarian, or Standard American Diet. It arguably has the lowest profile of natural toxins, and respects the ethical treatment of both animals and plants - something unavailable in any other diet. An example can be found in "The Original Diet."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
True story: I went to a very healthy diet of high fiber, almost vegetarian, low sugar, lots of legumes and vegetables four months ago. Last month, we had company and I made a pumpkin pie using the normal recipe. When I took a bite of it, I choked on the overwhelming sweetness and apologized for ruining the pie on accident. When the others tasted it - they thought I was crazy. No, my taste buds perceive things differently now.
FYI: a plate of pasta ain't healthier than a chicken breast. If this is what you're preaching, you're part of the problem.