Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee - Should Be Held Accountable | Carbohydrates Can Kill

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee Should Be Held Accountable | Carbohydrates Can Kill

Robert K. Su, MD

By taking a quick glance, the proposed Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010 [1] are nothing new but a worse copy of their predecessors. Aside the possible conspiracy that involves politics and favoritism, the guidelines reflect the irresponsibility and naivety of their authors, the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

Based on the decades old concepts that carbohydrates are a darling and fats are an evil, the current and older versions of Dietary Guidelines have helped both the US and global populations become heavier [2] and increasingly suffer from diseases such as diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, arthritis, Alzheimer’s disease, and cancers. [3, 4] At the same time, as a result, the health care cost has steeply risen with no hope of reversal in any time soon. [5]  Having known all the facts, the Advisory Committee has committed gross negligence by continuing to recommend a worse version of the old dietary guidelines even with a reduced fat consumption. The act of the Advisory Committee is irresponsible.

Dietary Guidelines 2010 - Must Do No Harm Or Be Overhauled. | Carbohydrates Can Kill

The Dietary Guidelines 2010 Must Do No Harm Or Be Overhauled. | Carbohydrates Can Kill

Robert K. Su, MD

The report of Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee on the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, has stirred up a national controversy and is facing a wave of fierce objections from the public and many health and nutritional experts outside the US Government and the special interest groups.


The controversy is centered on the soundness of these guidelines, which are mostly a copy of the earlier guidelines since 1980, with emphasis on the more consumption of daily calories from carbohydrates and the less from fats especially the saturated fats. [1]

The reliability of these guidelines are further questioned when both the statistics and the layman’s observation concur that the US population has been rapidly growing heavier to that at least six or seven out of every ten adults are either overweight or obese since 1980. [2] Worst of all, the trends in overweight and obesity have also moved into the younger population including toddlers and infants. [3, 4]

Despite that the previous Dietary Guidelines and Food Pyramids have been well publicized, reports such as this, by JD Wright, et al. “Trends in Intake of Energy and Macronutrients—United States, 1971-2000”, points out that, during the study period, the prevalence of obesity in the US increased from 14.5% to 30.9%, the average daily calorie intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals for men and from 1,543 kcals to 1,877 kcals for women; the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased from 42.4% to 49.0% for men and from 45.4% to 52.6% for women; while the percentage of kcals from total fat “ironically decreased’ from 36.9 to 32.8% for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% for women; and the percentage of kcals from saturated fat also “notably decreased” from 13.5% to 10.9% for men and 13.0% to 11.0% for women.

Only a slight decrease from protein was observed. A USDA food consumption survey for the periods between 1989 and 1991, and between 1994 and 1996, indicates the increase of daily calorie intake was caused by higher carbohydrate consumption. The NHANES data for 1971-2000 concur the USDA data, and point out that an increase of 62.4 grams in carbohydrates for women and 67.77 grams for men, while an increase of 6.5 grams in fat for women and a decrease of 5.3 grams for men. Based on these official data, excess consumption in carbohydrate, not in fat, is responsible for the uptrend in obesity for the decades since 1980. [5]
 

Slammed - the "Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee"

In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee

The AMA concludes:

The Report suggests that the incidence of heart disease, cancer, hypertension, diabetes, obesity and tooth decay could be reduced by making qualitative and quantitative changes in “the American diet.” The goals are laudable; however, the American Medical Association believes that there are insufficient data to recommend such changes in the diet on a nationwide scale.

Laudable as the goals were, the application of those recommendations has constituted a population-wide dietary experiment that should be brought to a halt. Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for the consumer or as the basis of public health policy. We ask whether the Dietary Guidelines for Americans process as it stands should continue or whether there might not be better alternatives.

It is time for public health leaders, scientists, and clinicians to stop blaming Americans for not following the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines for Americans and instead to re-examine the process used to formulate the US dietary guidelines and determine whether or not it is still appropriate for our current needs.

We ask whether it would be preferable to convene an impartial panel of scientists consisting of biochemists, anthropologists, geneticists, physicists, etc., who are not directly tied to nutritional policy. Such a panel would be able to hear all sides in the debate with few preconceived notions.

Recommendations issued by this group would be more likely to be moderate, circumspect, and established on a complete and accurate assessment of available science rather than a narrow perspective of accepted nutritional practice. Public health nutritional policies produced from such recommendations may then serve the honorable intentions of those first dietary goals “to maximize the quality of life for all Americans” [5].

 In the face of contradictory evidence: Report of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans Committee

Adele H. Hite, M.A.T.a, Richard David Feinman, Ph.D.b, Gabriel E. Guzman, Ph.D.c, Morton Satin, M.Sc.d, Pamela A. Schoenfeld, R.D.e, Richard J. Wood, Ph.D.f

a Department of Nutrition, Gillings School of Global Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA

b Department of Cell Biology, SUNY Downstate Medical Center, Brooklyn, New York, USA

c Science Department, Triton College, River Grove, Illinois, USA

d Salt Institute, Alexandria, Virginia, USA

e Department of Foods and Nutrition, College of Saint Elizabeth, Morristown, New Jersey, USA

f Exercise Science and Sport Studies Department, Springfield College, Springfield, Massachusetts, USA

Abstract

Concerns that were raised with the first dietary recommendations 30 y ago have yet to be adequately addressed. The initial Dietary Goals for Americans (1977) proposed increases in carbohydrate intake and decreases in fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, and salt consumption that are carried further in the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report. Important aspects of these recommendations remain unproven, yet a dietary shift in this direction has already taken place even as overweight/obesity and diabetes have increased.

Although appealing to an evidence-based methodology, the DGAC Report demonstrates several 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 the limitations or controversies in the science.

An objective assessment of evidence in the DGAC Report does not suggest a conclusive proscription against low-carbohydrate diets. The DGAC Report 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.

Lack of supporting evidence limits the value of the proposed recommendations as guidance for consumers or as the basis for public health policy. It is time to reexamine how US dietary guidelines are created and ask whether the current process is still appropriate for our needs.

Introduction

What is required is less advice and more information.

—Gerald M. Reaven [1]

There is little disagreement that we have a nutritional crisis in the United States. One manifestation is confusion in the mind of the public as to what constitutes sound principles [2], [3]. Recent scientific advances have not led to consensus, but rather to substantial disagreement among experts and further uncertainty for the public. Nutritional health covers a wide range of concerns but foremost in the mind of the public are whether the standing recommendations for lowering fat intake and increasing carbohydrate intake were ever appropriate for the prevention of obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease; whether the regulation of carbohydrates is more important; and what the role of protein, especially from animal sources, should be in the diet. These concerns were raised with the first national dietary recommendations 30 y ago and have yet to be adequately addressed even as the nutritional health of Americans continues to decline.

The 2010 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) Report [4], released on June 15, 2010, was expected to address these issues (sections of the report are indicated as part-section number, e.g., B2; pages in the report are denoted, e.g., B2-3.). The DGAC Report had the opportunity to review and evaluate the emerging science, to distinguish between established principles and ideas that are still areas of research or controversy, and to provide clear, consistent information for Americans. Instead, the 2010 DGAC Report continues to make one-size-fits-all recommendations that are based on evidence that is weak, fragmented, and even contradictory in nature.

2010 Dietary Guidelines Member: admits "No Scientific Basis" for them

2010 Dietary Guidelines Committee Member Joanne Slavin: ‘There Is No Scientific Basis For The U.S. Dietary Guidelines’ « Jimmy Moore's Livin' La Vida Low Carb Blog

Joanne Slavin, PhD, RD, professor of Food Science and Nutrition at the University of Minnesota, was the head of the Carbohydrate Committee and on the Protein sub-committee for the 2010 Dietary Guidelines Scientific Advisory Committee. She was invited to be one of the guest speakers at The 9th Conference on Preventative Nutrition in Tel Aviv, Israel on May 18, 2011. Perhaps Ms. Slavin felt more at liberty to express her true feelings about the final version of the 2010 Dietary Guidelines being overseas and didn’t realize that I’d have eyes and ears listening in to what she had to say. But according to my source who was in attendance to hear her speech, you could tell she had an obvious discontent with the nutritional recommendations that are now being thrust upon Americans.

"There is no scientific basis for the U.S. Dietary Guidelines."

and see:

• 50kzone: You’ve come a long way, USDA - Dr William Davis
• 50kzone: Food pyramid - USDA changes yet again, now its the "Plate"

Food Industry Lobby - Why Grains (And Soy) Are Gov Endorsed

further to "Food pyramid - USDA changes yet again, now its the "Plate"" ... discussion follows of the financial incentives at work in determining government and industry policy on food:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Food Industry - Why Grains (And Soy) Are Profitable - from the article: You Are A Radical, And So Am I: Paleo Reaches The Ominous “Stage 3″ - GNOLLS.ORG  

There’s one big reason that industrial food manufacturers like Kraft (Nabisco, Snackwells, General Foods, many more), Con-Agra (Chef Boy-Ar-Dee, Healthy Choice, many more), Pepsico (Frito-Lay, Quaker), Kellogg’s (Kashi, Morningstar Farms, Nutrigrain, more) are huge and profitable. 

It’s because grains are cheap, but the “foods” made from them aren’t.

You’ve come a long way, USDA - Dr William Davis

further to "50kzone: Food pyramid - USDA changes yet again, now its the "Plate"", see:

You’ve come a long way, baby by Dr William Davis

It looks to me like the USDA has not only failed to keep up with the evolution of nutritional thought, but has regressed to something close to advising Americans to go out and buy stocks on the eve of the 1929 depression. Most of us discuss issues like the genetic distortions introduced into wheat, corn, and soy; the dangers of fructose; exogenous glycoxidation and lipoxidation products yielded via high-temperature cooking; organic, free-range meats and the dangers of factory farming, etc. None of this, of course, fits the agenda of the USDA.

Representing good health - in advertising

advertising now: 

50kzone: Cholesterol - anti-cholersterol (statin) drugs under attack  (two ads for statin drugs, the most profitable manufactured medical drug in the world)

advertising then:

.....light up for your health:


....."independent testing laboratories"

advertising as it should be:

How to read food labels - and food label scams

Nutrition research paradigm needs to change for nutrigenomics: USDA Expert

video here: Nutrition research paradigm needs to change for nutrigenomics: Expert

Nutrition research paradigm needs to change for nutrigenomics

By Stephen Daniells, 02-Aug-2010

Related topics: Research

Interview with Jim Kaput, PhD
Director, Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine, US Food and Drug Administration

At the recent IFT Annual Meeting and Expo, Stephen Daniells talked to Dr Jim Kaput, director of FDA’s Division of Personalized Nutrition and Medicine about the paradigm shift needed to move personalized nutrition forward.

The current research approach of grouping people together is not in-keeping with personalized nutrition, said Dr Kaput.

“You have to think of a new paradigm: How do you conduct the research in order to get to the individual risk factor or the individual benefit factor for blueberries, or blackberries, or whatever food you are looking at.”

Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong - Newsweek

Newsweek article:  Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong - Newsweek

"Yet even if biomedical research can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.

But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians astray—spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you.  It’s a disturbing view, with huge implications for doctors, policymakers, and health-conscious consumers"

          Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis

New USDA Dietary Guidelines: Total Hogwash, and Here’s Why

The New USDA Dietary Guidelines: Total Hogwash, and Here’s Why « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

04 02 2011
 
A few days ago, the USDA finally unveiled their (fashionably late) 2010 dietary guidelines—the first update they’ve made since 2005. Are you as excited as I am? Can we live without bread yet? Leave the fat on our dairy? Ditch the rancid vegetable oils? Gobble down butter and coconut oil without fearing imminent death? By golly, has the USDA finally pulled its head out of the soybean fields and given us something useful, emerging as a reliable authority instead of a food industry puppet?

Nah.

Eat fat, lose fat - Mary Enig, Ph.D

note first: Scientists now saying carbs, not fat, are to blame for America's ills - latimes.com

Mary Gertrude Enig, PhD co-wrote a book called Eat Fat, Lose Fat

"Enig and Fallon attempt to correct what they see as Americans' false belief that tropical fats and oils (such as coconut and palm) are unhealthy, asserting that those fats (and coconut, especially) are beneficial saturated fats that should be more heavily incorporated into our diets. Enig, a biochemist and nutritionist, along with Fallon, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (a non-profit dedicated to helping people implement healthy approaches to nutrition), say "high-fat, low-carb really works," eschewing the disastrous effects a high-fat diet can have on a person's heart.  Their approach skews  toward traditional diets and away from modern diets (e.g., chose animal fats over vegetable oils; raw or fermented dairy products instead of pasteurized ones)."

Exposing Medical Misinformation - Matthew Lederman MD

an excerpt from the vegetarian-sponsored Healthy Lifestyle Expo presentation on Understanding Medical Misinformation by Matt Lederman MD:



from vegsource.com:

"did you know that pharmaceutical companies actively deceive doctors in the way they finance, control, manipulate -- and bury -- drug research?

Many doctors don't even realize the extent of these duplicitious practices, so you had better learn to protect yourself.

Matt Lederman MD -- whom Dr. McDougall has described as "the doctor of the future" -- gave an eye-opening presentation about what doctors are up against.

In his talk, entitled "Navigating through Health and Medical Misinformation," Dr. Lederman lifts the veil on research practices and manipulations commonly used to convince doctors to push certain drugs on their patients.

If your doctor says you could benefit greatly from a particular drug because it's been shown to be highly effective -- she could be an unwitting dupe of Big Pharma's flimflam.

In his fascinating presentation, Dr. Lederman gives repeated examples of how Big Pharma convinces doctors that certain medicines are life-savers -- but when the truth is teased out, you see that the benefits may in reality be miniscule, while the side effects and expense can be severe."

Former Pharma Rep Blows Whistle: Prescription Drug Industry Scam

unique industry insider’s perspective of the current U.S. healthcare dilemma, and utilizes both her experience and the insight she received in her extensive sales training with Pharma to illuminate marketing trends and illustrate how current greed and conflicts of interest make the system itself the biggest health risk to American consumers.



a fifteen-year-veteran pharmaceutical rep from 1985 – 2000, Gwen Olsen worked for McNeil Pharmaceutical, Syntex Laboratories, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbott Labs and Forest Laboratories. She was a hospital rep and specialist rep for the majority of her career, educating residents in hospital teaching settings and selling prescription drugs to doctors in obstetrics and gynecology, orthopedics, cardiology, neurology, endocrinology and psychiatry.

more information and videos at her website: http://www.gwenolsen.com

Quackwatch & similar websites

further to "Atkins Exposed" , a well organised and resourced blog hostile to the Atkins low carb diet (see 54kzone.......beyond low carb: Carbophobia: The Scary Truth Behind America's Low Carb Craze ) here are more "Quackwatch" and similar themed blogs":

Quackwatch

LOLquacks

Confessions of a Quackbuster

The Australian Council Against Health Fraud Inc

Fighting Spurious Complementary & Alternative Medicine (SCAM)

Cancer Treatment Watch

Scientific Misconduct Blog

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")

Naturowatch

National Council Against Health Fraud Archive

Consumer Health Digest Archive (2002)

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")

wanderingprimate.com

Dental Watch

MLM Watch

The Millenium Project

Pharmwatch Home Page

Acupuncture Watch

The Saul Green Files

The Great DBH Rant

Internet Health Pilot

Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science | The truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist

gimpy’s blog

Allergy Watch

The Green Light - Health Fraud (1-50)

SCIENCE OF THE MANGOSTEEN & ROLE OF INFLAMMATION ON CHRONIC DISEASE

Dave’s Psoriasis Info — Anti-Quackery Articles

Anthony Campbell's Home Page for Acupuncture, Book Reviews, Assassins, Homeopathy, Skeptical Articles and Cycling

Kirsten Emmott, M.D.

Rusko's Planet

Hokum-Balderdash Assay

...and more generally:

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Thinking Is Dangerous

Skeptics 4 Life

"physicians know virtually nothing about human nutrition" - expert testimony to Senate

expert testimony to Californian Senate Business & Professions Committee:

"....physicians know virtually nothing about human nutrition"

"....a doctor and his secretary know about the same about nutrition, unless she happens to be on a diet, in which case she knows more"

Dr. McDougall and Senate Bill 380 John McDougall MD authored a bill in the California State Senate (SB 380) in order to require California doctors to receive continuing education about the relationship between diet and common diseases. The bill, with some modification, passed 7 to 1 in the Senate Business & Professions Committee. Here are the opening statements before that committee given in support of the bill by Dr. McDougall and Dr. Don Forre

Gov TV ad - warns against scam cancer cures

examples of the burgeoning quackwatch-type blogs listed below:

Quackwatch

LOLquacks

Confessions of a Quackbuster

The Australian Council Against Health Fraud Inc

Fighting Spurious Complementary & Alternative Medicine (SCAM)

Cancer Treatment Watch

Scientific Misconduct Blog

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")

Naturowatch

National Council Against Health Fraud Archive

Consumer Health Digest Archive (2002)

Respectful Insolence (a.k.a. "Orac Knows")

wanderingprimate.com

Dental Watch

MLM Watch

The Millenium Project

Pharmwatch Home Page

Acupuncture Watch

The Saul Green Files

The Great DBH Rant

Internet Health Pilot

Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science | The truth about Patrick Holford, media nutritionist

gimpy’s blog

Allergy Watch

The Green Light - Health Fraud (1-50)

SCIENCE OF THE MANGOSTEEN & ROLE OF INFLAMMATION ON CHRONIC DISEASE

Dave’s Psoriasis Info — Anti-Quackery Articles

Anthony Campbell's Home Page for Acupuncture, Book Reviews, Assassins, Homeopathy, Skeptical Articles and Cycling

Kirsten Emmott, M.D.

Rusko's Planet

Hokum-Balderdash Assay

...and more generally:

Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit

Thinking Is Dangerous

Skeptics 4 Life

Food Matters - Movie Exposes Drug Industry, Promotes Natural

"Let thy Food be thy Medicine and thy Medicine be thy Food" - Hippocrates. That is the message from the founding father of modern medicine echoed in the controversial new documentary film Food Matters from Producer-Directors James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch.

With nutritionally-depleted foods, chemical additives and our tendency to rely upon pharmaceutical drugs to treat what's wrong with our malnourished bodies, it's no wonder that modern society is getting sicker. Food Matters sets about uncovering the trillion dollar worldwide 'sickness industry' and gives people some scientifically verifiable solutions for overcoming illness naturally.

"With access to better information people invariably
make better choices for their health..."

In what promises to be the most contentious idea put forward, the filmmakers have interviewed several leading experts in nutrition and natural healing who claim that not only are we harming our bodies with improper nutrition, but that the right kind of foods, supplements and detoxification can be used to treat chronic illnesses as fatal as terminally diagnosed cancer.

The focus of the film is in helping us rethink the belief systems fed to us by our modern medical and health care establishments. The interviewees point out that not every problem requires costly, major medical attention and reveal many alternative therapies that can be more effective, more economical, less harmful and less invasive than conventional medical treatments.

The ‘Food Matters' duo have independently funded the film from start to finish in order to remain as unbiased as possible, delivering a clear and concise message to the world. Food Matters." http://www.foodmatters.tv/_webapp/About%20The%20Film

Food pyramid - USDA changes yet again, now its the "Plate"

edit: also see 50kzone - "You’ve come a long way, USDA - Dr William Davis"

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com - R.I.P. food pyramid



the new USDA "Plate" is meant to replace the (twelve version) "My Pyramid" introduced by the USDA in 2005: YouTube - Food Pyramid:

 

My Pyramid was meant to replace the USDA's  original 1990's food pyramid, on the basis "the science no longer supported it".  http://youtu.be/IJnGFacO3Vs

the Harvard School of Public Health thought My Pyramid was no good:

"The problem was that these efforts, while generally well intentioned, have been quite flawed at actually showing people what makes up a healthy diet. Why? Their recommendations have often been based on out-of-date science and influenced by people with business interests in their messages". 

so it  produced its own food pyramid which differed on key aspects (more background here: http://youtu.be/GciZe53R2bg )

 

clear now!



or not sure?

maybe some more food pyramids then?

here is what a progressive vegetarian one looks like - from here






here is what a low carb diet food pyramid looks like -
from here

here is what a paleo diet food pyramid looks like -
from here

 

can you trust institutional organisations like the USDA to get it right? 
here is one view:   The New USDA Dietary Guidelines: Total Hogwash, and Here’s Why « Raw Food SOS: Troubleshooting on the Raw Food Diet

and see: 50kzone: Grains - The Weston A. Price Foundation