Food Policy

New Article Blasts Feds' 'Pseudoscientific Methods' For Establishing Dietary Guidelines

A stinging critique of the shabby science that supports federal recommendations

|

USDA

A new article by University of Alabama-Birmingham researcher Edward Archer and colleagues Gregory Pavela and Carl Lavie, published this week in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, argues that the conclusions drawn by the federal government's controversial Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC) rest on fatally flawed assumptions about unusable data. Consequently, the authors conclude that the DGAC's work—and the research used to support that work—is so off base as to be scientifically useless.

The DGAC, for those not familiar with its work, is a rotating group of academics that's been charged by Congress, since the 1990s, with meeting every five years to recommend broad federal dietary policies.

The new article's criticism of the DGAC is just the latest in a long line of critiques of the group's most recent work. I laid down my own harsh criticism of the DGAC's work in a pair of columns last year. For example, in one I noted that the DGAC was considering sending scolding text messages to obese Americans. In the other I expressed outrage that the DGAC had recommended a host of new food taxes, suggested restricting food marketing, and egged on municipal food bans.

Mine were complaints about the DGAC's outcomes. Archer and his colleagues, on the other hand, argue that the DGAC's inputs are crap.

The article has already gotten a good amount of good press, including at Vox, Nature, and Real Clear Science.

I spoke by email this week with Archer. My questions and his responses (edited to move one hyperlink and add another, lest you have to Google "Lysenkoism") are below.

Reason: What is the purpose of your article?

Edward Archer: My coauthors and I wrote this article because for over 50 years, government-funded researchers have been presenting anecdotal evidence as science. Given that these data constitute a majority of the evidence base for the federal nutrition guidelines, we think the greatest problem in nutrition and obesity research is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge created by pseudoscientific methods. These methods have led to the current state of confusion regarding what constitutes a healthy diet.  

Reason: Why is self-reported data on food consumption (what you refer to as "memory-based dietary assessment methods" (M-BMs) unreliable?

EA: My previous work demonstrated that 60-80 percent of the dietary data from the NHANES is physiologically implausible. That is a scientific way of saying that people could not survive on the amount of foods and beverages they report. Nevertheless, the nutrition community ignores that evidence, and the data from that paper is not addressed in the DGAC report. 

Reason: You refer to M-BMs as "pseudoquantitative" data that yield "invalid" results. That's pretty damning. Please explain what you mean.

EA: In our paper, "pseudoquantitative" refers to the data from observational studies in which nothing is actually measured and numbers are assigned by the researchers to whatever the participant thinks (or would like the researcher to think) he or she ate over the past day, week, and in some cases the past decade. It defies scientific and common sense to think that anyone can accurately remember (and will honestly report) the exact amount and specific type of foods and beverages they consumed yesterday (much less last week or last year). Yet this is precisely the evidence the DGAC cite in their "scientific report." Given the pseudoquantitative (i.e., number generating) method, it should come as no surprise that there is over 50 years of unequivocal empirical evidence that data from M-BMs have no valid relationship with actual food and beverage consumption. 

Reason: You claim there's no scientific basis for relying on M-BMs. Please explain why.

EA: We argue that the essence of science is the ability to discern fact from fiction, and we presented evidence from multiple fields to support the position that the data generated by nutrition epidemiologic surveys and questionnaires are not independently observable, quantifiable, measureable, or falsifiable. Without objective corroboration it is impossible to quantify what percentage of the reported foods and beverages are completely false, grossly inaccurate, or somewhat congruent with actual consumption. Stated simply, no one knows the amount of "fact or fiction" in M-BM data. 

Reason: The federal nutrition guidelines developed by the DGAC rely on M-BMs. Consequently, do the guidelines rest on any empirical foundation?

EA: There is strong empirical evidence on the nutritional status of Americans, but the DGAC ignores it. The DGAC report states that Americans are under-consuming specific nutrients (e.g., vitamins A, D, E, etc..) via M-BM, yet this is directly contradicted by the CDC's objective (biomarkers) evidence that 80 percent of the U.S. population are not at risk for deficiencies in any of those vitamins and minerals (Pfeiffer et al., 2013). The Pfeiffer paper is not cited in the DGAC report; why? This paper suggests that Americans do not have the risks of deficiencies much less the deficiencies or the actual diseases of deficiencies. Fears sell better than facts, but the fears the DGAC causes distract us from the real problems.

Reason: If M-BMs are so unreliable, then why does the federal government craft policy based on that data?

EA: The confluence of self-interest, institutional inertia, and scientific incompetence has led us to where we are today. The federal government has massively increased spending on nutrition and obesity research over the past few decades, and now spends over $2 billion of taxpayer's money per year. Unfortunately, the people that control that funding are the same researchers that use these anecdotal methods, train the next generation of researchers, and control the publication of scientific papers. As such, new methods and innovative research is stifled. The same researchers are getting funded to do the same research year after year after year. This inertia and self-interest are exacerbated by the exorbitant amount of grant funding established researchers receive.  As with many things in life, follow the money.

Reason: Isn't the DGAC simply making good policy based on the best available evidence?

EA: The main thrust of our paper was to point out that the DGAC ignores objective evidence on the nutritional status of the US population and by doing so, induces fear of foods that have been part of a healthy diet for millennia (e.g., meat, milk, eggs, sugar). As we discussed above, the DGAC ignores the best available evidence because it suggest that the American diet is no longer a risk factor for disease. Importantly, the childhood obesity epidemic and risk of type II diabetes are due to nongenetic inheritance and evolution, but the nutrition community ignores this reality because it threatens their livelihood. 

Reason: What are the implications of your article?

EA: The main implication is that federally funded nutrition researchers have demonstrated scientific incompetence over many generations by presenting anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence. As such, there is no scientific foundation to past or current nutrition guidelines. As a result, the public is both confused and (correctly) skeptical of government recommendations because they perceive the guidelines to constitute meaningless political statements. 

Reason: Does the federal government (or, more specifically, the DGAC) know the best diet for all Americans? 

EA: No. There is no one-size-fits-all diet. That said, the evidence over many centuries suggests that given this point in our evolutionary history and the adequacy of our current food supply, the DGAC report could be summed up in one sentence, "eat a varied diet and exercise for more than 30 minutes daily." 

Reason: Who, if anyone, is best served when food policy rests on false assumptions that are based on bad data?

EA: In many ways, what we are experiencing is the evidence of Lysenkoism [link]. The government funded researchers control the field by funding only those researchers that use the same flawed methods; they stifle progress by rejecting contradictory evidence, and immediately impugn the integrity and competence of researcher who disagree. Therefore these government funded researchers are the only beneficiaries of the status quo. Importantly, M-BMs are the perfect vehicle to perpetuate an endless cycle of ambiguous findings leading to the ever-increasing federal funding of nutrition and obesity research. 

Reason: You told me that your research was controversial. Please explain why that is the case.

EA: The individuals that use M-BMs control both government funding and nutrition journals. Therefore, these individuals control the entire field of obesity and nutrition. As such, they stifle dissent and the publication of contrary evidence that may threaten their grants or their book deals. These government funded researchers realize that once the public understands the deceit (presenting anecdotes as scientific data), their 'pay-day' is over. 

Reason: Critics will note, as you disclose in your article, that you've received funding from Coca-Cola. How, if at all, did that funding impact your conclusions?

EA: I always smile at that question. My science speaks for itself, and as such I am irrelevant to the dialog at hand. If I say 2+2 = 4, is it more or less correct because I am currently funded by the federal government? Would it be less correct if I were funded by industry? The validity of scientific findings is independent of the researcher and should be judged on their merit alone. The unsophisticated personal attacks are indicative of individuals that cannot discuss the science.

Perhaps more importantly, I use data the government collected. Any first-year statistics student can download the data from the web and perform the analyses I have conducted. Ask my government funded critics for their data and you will be met with red-tape and massive bureaucracy. I am 100 percent transparent, while they hide behind their universities and refuse access to anyone outside the government-funded oligarchy.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

82 responses to “New Article Blasts Feds' 'Pseudoscientific Methods' For Establishing Dietary Guidelines

  1. “The main implication is that federally funded nutrition researchers have demonstrated scientific incompetence over many generations by presenting anecdotal evidence as scientific evidence.”

    Sooo. Like climate change Gaianticians?

    “The government funded researchers control the field by funding only those researchers that use the same flawed methods; they stifle progress by rejecting contradictory evidence, and immediately impugn the integrity and competence of researcher who disagree.”

    I hope you have good woodchipper insurance. I seen an ‘accident’ in the not too distant immediate future. And….sooooo….like climate change Gaianticians?

    “Critics will note, as you disclose in your article, that you’ve received funding from Coca-Cola. How, if at all, did that funding impact your conclusions?”

    It’s all good. All Reason commenters get a cheque/check from Koch industries and still receive residuals from Haliburton.

    “The unsophisticated personal attacks are indicative of individuals that cannot discuss the science.”

    Amen.

    But you should still be thrown in prison for hating diet.

    1. Middle of June and last night’s low temperature here at my place was 34 degrees Fahrenheit. I will give the AGW alarmist clowns credit for at least realizing they needed to relabel AGW “Climate Change. Considering the climate here on Earth has never done anything except change it should be far more difficult to be completely off the mark titling their con.

      1. And last night’s temperature in one location is relevant to climate exactly how?

        To trot out such nonsense in a discussion over science is particularly telling.

        1. Yep, specific data points are completely irrelevant to climate unless they support the agw narrative, then they’re solid evidence.

          1. Look, the severe droughts in Texas were ended by torrential rain. If that’s not undeniably indicative of climate change, I don’t know what is!

            /proglodyte

  2. Do other nations’ gov’ts also produce dietary guidelines? It’d be interesting to see the different results produced by such a dupl’n of effort.

    1. Canada does and it’s just as frivolous:

      http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/f…..ex-eng.php

      1. I believe Mexico does too. It looks like the #2’special at every Mexican restaurant in the country.

        Two pounds of beans a day. Two pounds of rice a day. Six ounces of protien a day. And one ear of corn slathered in mayonnaise then sprinkled with chili,powder a day. (Horchata optional depending on lactose tolerance)

        1. HORCHATA IS RICE MILK YOU DOPE

          1. They always added a good dose of evaporated milk to it when I lived in Puerto Rico. And cinnamon.

            It was actually palatable on its own and delicious when mixed in the correct ratio with rum. (2 parts Horchata/1 part rum over ice). I’m assuming the Mexican version is different but I’ve not drunk any in so long I’ve forgotten.

          2. I’ve had it in restaurants and made it from scratch with rice, sugar, and water but the commercial product available in our local market contains added milk, presumably for a creamy consistency.

            Unless you’ve read the label on every package of horchata it may be best not to make assumptions let alone insult people in all caps for your own inexperience.

  3. Considering how practically all half-baked government backed pseudoscience is completely disproved by new half-baked government backed pseudoscience within a matter of years why is anyone ( besides real gems like Tony ) still eagerly gobbling up half-baked government backed pseudoscience?

    This isn’t reflecting well on general society concerning it’s ability to learn.

    1. The way I see it is the general public assumes the government scientific data is solid or else why would they publish or lie about it? In the end, the thinking goes, the government means well, right? So when the government comes out with new studies the public just, again, assumes, they’re hard at work progressively updating and researching hard to keep them safe and healthy. There’s no real interest in critical thinking.This is the mentality you’re up against. Hence, of course everyone should eat a turnip! Who could possibly be against that?

      1. “The way I see it is the general public assumes the government scientific data is solid or else why would they publish or lie about it?

        Like the way people assume anyone arrested by the law must be guilty or why would they have been arrested.

      2. Weak humans also have a powerful need to feel secure. Of course, the government is more than happy to grow itself and it’s own powers by playing on that desire to feel safe and secure. It makes people feel protected and secure to know the government has all it’s brightest and most capable pseudo-scientists devoting their energies towards keeping them safe.

        1. ‘Why does government keep changing guidelines?’ is seen as ‘government learns new things all the time and is being responsible.’

          They rarely wonder, as the interview reveals, the perhaps their premises and models are flawed?

          Try and tell someone that linking certain foods to cancer proper is not a scientific fait accompli. They’ll just say ‘well, even if there’s a mild link we should still ban or tax it ‘just in case.’

          The Precautionary Principle runs amok and side by side with these studies and only adds to the fear mongering.

      3. The way I see it is the general public assumes the government scientific data is solid or else why would they publish or lie about it?

        Deference to authority.

        It’s getting and will continue to get worse because the primary effect of education on the overwhelming majority of people is extending their deference to authority. To the point that they will trust a purported expert over their own experience.

      4. Who says the gen’l public pays att’n to it? Unless a gov’t entity has some specific campaign on (like NYC’s bizarre one vs. sugar-sweetened drinks), these gov’t findings get hardly any publicity. It gets a minuscule amount of play vs. the vast amount put out by $-interested operators (such as makers & purveyors of specific foods) & att’n-seeking (financially interested in the att’n) operators giving out diet advice.

        In the long run, you’re just going to follow your appetite (for calories & tastes, although you can sensitize yourself to tastes by depriving yourself of them for a long enough time) or be uncomfortable. Appetite can be modified w surgery or drugs. Right now I’m vaping nicotine to lose appetite (& hence wt.), which started working once I got up to 18 g/L. It’s been 7 wks. & I’m steadily losing a little more than 1 lb./wk.

        1. But then won’t you have chemical dependency on the nicotine?

    2. Have you been to a Golden Corral buffet lately? I’d say Americans are quite good at seeing this “science” for what it is. They may not understand the technical reasons why it’s wrong, but they have a well honed nose for bullshit…

  4. OT: Company in PRIVATE sector discovered China hack at OPM.

    “But four people familiar with the investigation said the breach was actually discovered during a mid-April sales demonstration at OPM by a Virginia company called CyTech Services, which has a networks forensics platform called CyFIR. CyTech, trying to show OPM how its cybersecurity product worked, ran a diagnostics study on OPM’s network and discovered malware was embedded on the network. Investigators believe the hackers had been in the network for a year or more.”

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-…..1433936969

    Oh, and in case this got missed yesterday, the government waited until 2013 to add cyber security at the OPM.

  5. Lost a rather long reply…

    There’s way too many voices for the government to have a monopoly on bad dietary advice and pseudoscience (really hocus pocus crap). But at the same time, those dietary regulations and recommendations will shape the government’s regulations.

    There’s no getting through to people. They are ignorant of how government regulators and politicians produced the current system they loathe so much. Big agriculture is largely a product of government interference – it was exactly what they wanted. The loudest voices here are the ones who think tilting the government deck in the opposite direction towards their favored nutritional and environmental mumbo jumbo policies will solve everything.

    We’ll be in the same position in 10, 20, 30+ years from now if government has its way. Innovation may help obesity issues, but it won’t be the result of anything government does.

  6. That link on lysenkoism is awful. The historical parts ate good but the rest is a mess.

    1. Heh…dietary…”ate good”…heh….

    2. The historical parts ate good but the rest is a mess.

      This is being polite. The historical aspect is adequate. The last paragraph, besides being irrelevant and antithetic, is borderline offensive, to the point of being hostile.

  7. When we were inspected at the daycare, the inspector looked at our (totally rad) menu and questioned whether cheese/yogourt should be seen as a protein. She was just nit picking because the government wants us to classify it for parents; as if parents are retarded. But when we asked for proof of why it’s not a protein (as she maintained) she stumbled and admitted there is no literature she’s aware. So I called Health Canada. Not even the representative could give me an answer, she just said “er, well I’ll send you all these pamphlets!’

    My point is they know jack shit. It’s all an illusion.

    1. Control freaks gonna control.

      They are both excellent protein sources, especially for kids. Full fat yogurt, though, right?

      1. Of course.

        Kids need fat! They’re so active!

        1. Right on! You would not believe how difficult it is to find full fat yogurt at our NYC grocers; my kids just love the Cabot Creamery brand so we have to check a rotating list of 4 or 5 different food jobbers to locate it, then we buy a lot. IIRC, the vitamin D is soluble in fat, so the more fat the better in dairy products. Anyone know if that is correct?

          1. Fage Total (full fat) is very good. The only store in my area (North Jersey) that carries it regularly is Kings. Costco sells frozen wild blueberries. I mix these together for a delicious treat.

          2. the vitamin D is soluble in fat, so the more fat the better in dairy products. Anyone know if that is correct?

            That’d be correct if solvent were limiting at some point during absorption. In other words, if as material progressed along the digestive tract, absorption of vit D were slow, & fat were absorbed quickly enough so that at some point you no longer had enough fat to dissolve the vit D, then you’d miss a portion of vit D that could’ve been absorbed otherwise. In reality I think a small amount of fat would be enough to get as much vit D absorbed as was ever going to be, & beyond that amount, fat is not limiting.

    2. She was not aware that dairy foods are high in protein, yet her job was inspecting daycare menus? That is just sad.

  8. OT: When in doubt double down

    1. Actually, that was the correct response.

    2. “[she]…rejects the label “African-American.”

      Of course she does, she’s not African-American.

      The question now becomes: What will the National Association for the Advancement of COLORED People going to do about this?

      1. Seems like a clear case of fraud. Meaning they do nothing.

    3. One other thing: does she not sound like a valley girl in those clips?

      1. To be fair, I have known a few black girls who talk like that.

      2. Jive was to hard to master but least she throws in the extraneous mothafucka every now and then.

  9. Just be glad they are only “guidelines”. All of the progressive science books are clear that the next step in evolution after guideline is mandate.

    1. They do have mandates for baby formula, but other than restricting certain terms to foods meeting certain criteria, no other food or beverage mandates I know of (unless you count local ordinances re the cooking of hamburgers or eggs in restaurants). Since they’ve had guidelines for so long w/o instituting mandates, the odds of their being instituted look long.

      1. We went over 200 years without a health insurance mandate. I think you underestimate them. I expect them to go full on totalitarian if they continue to gain ground. Most likely the justification would be that the state has a compelling interest in ensuring a healthy diet since the state pays for your medical care. We already have mandates for the content of school lunches so it is just a matter of the virus mutating to a form that can infect adults too.

        1. This.

          Now that the health of individuals is in the public domain, there will be all kinds of bans on what you can and can’t do with your body. Anytime the government claims to be giving you something for free, you can bet that there are strings attached… Besides the fact that it came from tax dollars in the first place, so it’s not really “free” at all.

          Who knows? Maybe in a decade or so, these top men will force everyone to take up exercise to keep down the costs of “universal” health insurance.

  10. OT: NPR’s Diane Rehm Has A List Of Troublesome Jews She Wants You To Know About

    Liberal commentator used unsourced internet list to ask Bernie Sanders whether or not he has dual citizenship with Israel!

    “Much like the “Israel-firster” attack, assuming that people who support Israel must be in possession of dual citizenship is a longstanding smear used by anti-Semites and other anti-Israel advocates to chill speech and question the allegiance of American Jews.”

    Better than Saturday morning cartoons!

    1. The audio of the actual interview is comedy gold.

      1. Diane Rhem’s voice or the exchange between Rhem and Sanders?

        Because “either” or “both” are correct answers.

        Here’s the audio. Apologies for not including a link earlier. The exchange occurs at the 24 minute mark.

        http://thedianerehmshow.org/au…..376/@00:00

        1. I listened and thought Hyman Roth.

    2. Of course, the flipside of that is that anybody who opposes the US spending vast amounts of money on Israel is labeled “anti-Semitic”, and if they are Jewish, are accused of “internalized anti-Semitism”.

      1. Why do you hate the jooooz, Win Bear?

  11. I’ve mentioned it before, but for those interested in how we got here, Denise Minger does a fantastic job of researching and laying out the clusterfuck that is government dietary recommendations.

    Death by Food Pyramid: How Shoddy Science, Sketchy Politics and Shady Special Interests Have Ruined Our Health

    1. Wasn’t she the one that debunked the bullshit “China Study”?

      1. Yes, she did. She is also a recovered vegetarian, by the way. Interesting woman and very thorough.

        Here is her overview of the China Study.

    2. Gary Taubes wrote one of the first books about this, and still one of the best.

      And here is the background about where the Food Pyarmid came from:

      http://www.todayifoundout.com/…..d-pyramid/

      Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour ? including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats ? at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base. And, in yet one more assault on dietary logic, changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies.

      1. Gah…6-11 “servings”/d of grain foods!? Specifically grain-derived (malt beverages & sugared drinks derived from corn probably not counting), not just starchy. How could…wha?

        Let’s see. If you ate 3 meals/d, I guess you could satisfy the minimum of 6 by having a slice of bread & a danish w every meal. To get to 11, you’d have to be snacking on doughnuts or bagels, adding some cereal to breakfast, getting pasta or rice on the side at some other meal, maybe some corn chips too.

        But then, if the “servings” are as small as on some nutrition labels (to hold down some declared components), maybe not so hard after all. You might be able to get there just on crackers or corn chips alone. OTOH, if a plate of spaghetti is a serving…!

        Unless the small “serving” concept be in play here, how could they expect people to satisfy simultaneously the guidelines regarding minima & the energy maximum?

        1. Darn, I didn’t even notice the criterion that the grains be whole! Expect that to cause constip’n and/or diarrhea, depending on the grains & the person eating them.

  12. the greatest problem in nutrition and obesity research is not ignorance; it is the illusion of knowledge created by pseudoscientific methods

    “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”

    — Mark Twain

    1. I think whatever decent exercise/diet research that is being done is done for college and professional athletic programs. Most of that research is useless for the the general public though given the vast differences in metabolisms, activity levels, ages, etc. between atheletes and the average person.

  13. I’m starting to come of the opinion that the word “should” is the most dangerous word in the modern English vocabulary.

    There’s such an intense focus on what people “should” be doing, and very little discussion on what it is they’re actually going to do.

    You can recommend whatever dietary guidelines you like, the reality is people are going to eat things based on what is affordable, what is convenient, what tastes good and what provides them with the energy to get through the day. And they’re going to prioritize things in that order.

    I’ve lost over 200 pounds prioritizing things the same way (with massive improvements in every single health marker you can think of), so there’s no reason to think those priorities somehow inevitably lead to health problems.

    The public will NEVER eat vegetables in the amounts that have been recommended, so I’m not sure what the point is of harping on whatever the hell these guidelines say. One article on “foods to eat for a flat belly” has 10,000 times the impact as the government’s suggested dietary guidelines.

    1. Heh…yesterday when I told a friend I was losing about 1 lb./wk since I starting vaping 1.8% nicotine, he said I “should” be losing 2-3 lbs./wk. I asked him in what sense he meant “should”. Apparently he thought that because it was possible to sustain wt. loss at that rate, that therefore I was doing something wrong to be losing it more slowly.

  14. I think the hardest thing for any group to do is to admit that they actually don’t know enough to suggest changes in whatever we’re currently doing. Diet, Climate, Economics. It illustrates Hayek’s quote: “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.”

  15. What we need to do is cure the Government of the delusion that a group of bureaucrats are in any position to dictate what 300 million people eat, smoke, or inject. Limit them to making sure that consumers CAN know what they are buying (if they re willing to read a label), and otherwise KYFHO.

    Now, any ideas how to do that?

    Yeah. Me neither.

  16. As with so much pseudo-science today, the researchers decide on their desired conclusion (such as getting rid of fat in the diet), then look for any evidence they can find to support it (and ignore any contrary evidence).

  17. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  18. We need a market-based approach for dietary recommendations. If it’s a pie chart, I recommend that the government auction off pieces of pie. 6 pieces max – and whoever the 6 biggest bidders are get a slice that approximates their relative bids. So the daily recommendation chart would look something like:

    27% Coca-Cola
    19% Twinkies
    18% Papa John’s Pizza
    16% McDonalds Chicken Burger w Large Fries
    15% 7/11 Big Gulp Super Grape Slurpee
    12% Apple iPad

  19. For decades the DGAC propagated the dietary cholesterol myth advocating low fat and low cholesterol diets. Americans largely complied. The result has been an explosion in so-called fat and cholesterol related diseases such as heart attack, stroke, and arteriosclerosis. The results of this large scale social experiment with Americans used as the guinea pigs suggests the opposite is true.

    The argument they are using junk science and have no idea what’s true, particularly for an individual has great merit. The idea laws should be passed and taxes levied upon people based upon guesses is ridiculous.

  20. I’m sure the estimated up to 20% of Americans who are lactose intolerant will benefit greatly from the bloating, gas, projectile diarrhea, and abdominal pain caused by the recommended daily servings of dairy on their plate. Just the fact they’re recommending a product which to many people is effectively a toxin discredits them. Perhaps dairy industry lobbyists paid for their spot next to the plate.

    1. Perhaps dairy industry lobbyists paid for their spot next to the plate.

      Yes, they likely did:

      For example, you may notice that in the earliest 1992 version in America, dairy gets its own section, whereas in the Swedish version it is simply bundled along with the other staple foods. This isn’t an accident and subconsciously this suggests that dairy is an essential part of one’s diet, which is obviously not true since many cultures throughout history got along perfectly fine without non-human milk, as do vegans and others today. If you are guessing that entities within the dairy industry lobbied hard for this modification, it’s generally thought that you’re correct.

      http://www.todayifoundout.com/…..d-pyramid/

  21. What makes you think it’s “pseudo-scientific”? The politicians and administrators responsible for the dietary guidelines are experts at polling, career planning, investment, and public relations; they have figured out precisely how to maximize their own personal well being by manipulating the public and “dietary recommendations”.

  22. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.

    This is wha- I do……,,,,,,,,,,, http://www.Wage-Report.com

  23. This is a true story and I lived it. A few years back, HHS commissioned a study of a new program designed to help struggling families. Instead of hiring an objective outside evaluator, they hired the same people who designed the program to evaluate it. When data showed the program struggling, the “evaluator” insisted on changes so drastic that the program was no longer recognizable. Then they engaged in extensive “data cleaning,” which is supposed to involve the removal of anomalous or suspect data, but in this case amounted to mass deletion of data showing that the program was having no effect. The program designer-evaluator was being paid hundreds hundreds of millions in taxpayer money. Five years later, the “evaluator” quietly issued a report showing virtually no difference between the program group who got the services, and the control group, who did not. Bottom line? Government will do ANYTHING to fake success, and will NEVER admit failure. And there are plenty of companies and universities out there who are glad to help them do it. NEVER believe ANYTHING the government says is validated by their research. Global warming? Gun control? If the government paid for the research, the conclusion was established, bought and paid for before the first data sample was gathered. I’ve been there. I know.

  24. My last pay check was $9500 working 12 hours a week online. My neighbour’s sister has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    =============================
    try this site ????? http://www.workweb40.com
    =============================

  25. But, Coca-Cola kills people! http://killercoke.org/

    How can we possibly trust anything funded by Coke?
    /sarc

    1. You don’t unless (a) it’s independently verified, or (b) Coke has nothing conceivable to gain my predisposing the outcome. Why would you want to trust a company that knowingly peddles poison and only tells the whole truth about its full ingredients under pain of legal penalty? What was it P. T. Barnum said?

      1. Really? Where is the evidence that they “knowingly peddle poison”?

        1. Win Bear – You don’t really think Coke is any way good for the human body, do you? You think we evolved with an eye toward consuming sugar-laden beverages? Studies are unequivocal that diabetes is linked to over-consumption of sugary beverages.

          It’s not that we should ban it, however, it’s that Coke shouldn’t be able to claim health benefits for its bubbly-brown sugar water. So they need to quit sponsoring the American Academy of Pediatrics.
          http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspo…..s-and.html

          It and its partners in the American Beverage Association (ABA) should be treated about the same way as distilled liquors get treated. Sugar is fundamentally a toxin to the human body. Sorry, Win. That’s just the biochemistry of it. You can sneer at it all you like, but the majority of the fat people in the US are drinking sugary beverages and consuming tons of HFCS in their food and it’s making the entire country fat. It has nothing (NOTHING) to do with “low fat” or “high fat.” That is the industry head fake (actually, in fairness, it’s tough to tell if cardiologists are to blame for that, or if they were bought off by the carbohydrate industry. Let’s assume no bad faith). Cardiologists got that wrong; low-fat high-carb diets are slaughtering Americans en masse. And now making kids fat, too.

          http://www.theguardian.com/lif…..gar-poison

          1. Win Bear – You don’t really think Coke is any way good for the human body, do you? … Studies are unequivocal that diabetes is linked to over-consumption of sugary beverages.

            The emphasis being on overconsumption. There is nothing intrinsically bad about Coca Cola if you have it once in a while.

            It and its partners in the American Beverage Association (ABA) should be treated about the same way as distilled liquors get treated. Sugar is fundamentally a toxin to the human body. Sorry, Win. That’s just the biochemistry of it.

            Sugar (glucose, in particular) is the primary means of transporting energy within your body. You have developed taste buds for it and enjoy it because your body wants and needs to consume it. And your body has developed numerous enzymes to turn starches and other food stuffs into glucose before they even reach your intestines, and more proteins to transport it into your bloodstream, because it is so important.

            It’s not that we should ban it, however, it’s that Coke shouldn’t be able to claim health benefits for its bubbly-brown sugar water.

            What they should and shouldn’t do is not what we’re talking about. What we are talking about is your assertion that they “knowingly peddle poison”, and that’s bullshit.

      2. In this case, it’s clearly b), although a) can be independently verified by anyone, according to Edward Archer, the guy in the above interview.

        Even Coca-Cola wouldn’t think that any responsible dietician or scientist is going to recommend soda pop as part of a healthy diet. And if someone did, who would really believe them?

  26. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  27. I practice something I call “subsideating.” I base the proportions of my food on how much in farm subsidies the crop receives.

    It sucks when I get to the cotton course.

  28. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.netcash5.com

  29. The truth is you don’t need a varied diet to be healthy, as evidenced by Eskimos and many traditional peoples who thrived on 100% meat and animal fat diets. No vegetables or fruit, no modern conveniences or supplements. No dentists, no tooth brushes, no cavities.

    The truth is a diet based on grains causes inflammation and a leaky gut, which promotes disease. Grains include oatmeal, bread, pasta, quinoa, corn, canola and soy – and the vegetable oils too. All things we are told are healthy.

    The low fat, vegetarian, high carb diet we are told is healthy is killing us. Cholesterol and saturated fat are essential. Humans need animal fats and protein.

    Thanks to FDA guidelines that whole grains are the foundation of human nutrition cancer, mental illness and autoimmune diseases are epidemic.

    If you or anyone you know is suffering from autoimmune disorder, bi polar disorder, depression, anxiety, chronic fatigue or ANY health problem try eliminating grains and dairy for 3 weeks and see if that helps.

    PLEASE RESEARCH THE LEAKY GUT – BRAIN INFLAMMATION AND AUTOIMMUNE CONNECTION. What has happened to American health and nutrition is not normal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.