The journal Nutrition just published a paper titled In The Face Of Contradictory Evidence: Report Of The Dietary Guidelines For Americans Committee. The authors are Adele Hite, MAT; Richard Feinman, PhD; Gabriel Guzman, PhD; Morton Satin, MSc; Pamela Schoenfeld, RD; and Richard Wood, PhD.
Sure, a lot of bloggers ripped the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for spouting the same old nonsense, but we’re bloggers, not academic researchers, so we’re easy to ignore.
It’s not so easy to dismiss this group, especially when their paper is published in a respected journal. This paragraph from the abstract pretty much sums it up:
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.In fact, the topic headings in the paper read like a list of charges. Here are few sample headings:
Macronutrients: Research questions are formulated in a way that prevents a thorough investigation of the literature
Macronutrients and weight loss: Science is inaccurately summarized
Low-carbohydrate diets: Science is inaccurately represented
Low-carbohydrate diets: Conclusions do not reflect quantity and/or quality of relevant science
Effects of saturated fat: Answers based on an incomplete body of relevant science
Effects of saturated fat: Science is inaccurately represented or summarized
Diabetes and fat: Science is inaccurately represented or summarized
Dietary fiber and whole grains: Conclusions do not reflect the quantity and/or quality of science
Salt: Recommendations do not reflect limitations and uncertainties of the science
You get the idea. Within each topic, the authors point out the many flaws in the scientific “evidence” cited to support the 2010 Dietary Guidelines … the cherry-picking, the incorrect conclusions, and the contradictions. If you’re interested in the details, you can read the full paper.
