Federal Dietary Guidelines

The Uproar Over New Federal Dietary Guidelines Is a Lot of Hot Air

Refusing to recommend policy based on bad science isn't unscientific.

|

This week the federal government published its new dietary guidelines for Americans, inspiring another round of debate over the government's role in choosing which expert nutrition and health options to signal-boost to the nation at large.  

Published jointly every five years by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Human Services, the guidelines are based on the recommendations of a Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC). The committee, made up of a rotating host of expert appointees, recommends new guidelines in the form of a report. USDA and HHS leadership review the report and decide, ultimately, whether or not to adopt its various recommendations. Just as the release of the last iteration of the guidelines did five years ago, the agencies' decision about which advice to adopt (and not) is generating criticism. 

"The Trump administration has rejected an external scientific advisory committee's recommendations that men should cut back on alcohol and that all individuals should further limit their intake of added sugars," Politico reported this week, while noting also that the dietary guidelines "have long been the subject of political fights and intense lobbying."

"Rejecting the advice of its scientific advisers, the federal government has released new dietary recommendations that… dismiss[] experts' specific recommendations to set new low targets for consumption of sugar and alcoholic beverages," The New York Times reported in a lede this week.

Marion Nestle, a veteran food policy researcher and a former DGAC member, told the Times she was "stunned" by the recommendations, arguing the Trump administration was ignoring the science on alcohol and sugar.

While I'm not a nutritionist and don't have any dietary advice to offer you (and certainly have none you should take), I think it's the critics here who are mostly wrong. In fact, I think the outgoing Trump administration deserves some credit for following the science on diet and nutrition. And I think that what some critics are really saying is that the federal government didn't get out ahead of the science.

Take alcohol. Indeed, this year's DGAC report recommended that adult men should halve their alcohol consumption—from no more than two drinks a day to no more than one drink per day. Why?

"The report argues in favor of 'reducing consumption [of alcohol]… that increase[s] the risk of harms,'" I wrote in a September column. "That sounds eminently reasonable, until you learn the DGAC decided, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that drinking 'in ways that increase the risk of harms' means enjoying a second Bud Light."

To its great credit, USDA and HHS officials didn't buy the anti-scientific, prohibitionist message the committee was selling.

"The Guidelines reaffirm the definition of moderate drinking for adults of legal drinking age as up to one drink per day for women and two drinks per day for men, which is underpinned by science and has been a cornerstone of the alcohol guideline for three decades," said Sam Zakhari, a Distilled Spirits Council advisor who's researched alcohol for more than four decades, including during more than 25 years at the National Institutes of Health, in an email to me this week.

As I've noted, these sorts of controversies aren't new. The DGAC has long been criticized—by me and others—for its various gambols and excesses. In a 2015 column, for example, I called out the recommendations of that year's DGAC, which included suspect recommendations that governments should adopt new food taxes and restrict food marketing, that Americans eat less meat, and that local governments even ban some foods.

Another critic of the 2015 committee's work, journalist and author Nina Teicholz, told me then that the conclusions the committee had reached "willfully ignored evidence that might contradict [its] conclusions."

As I also reported in another 2015 column, critics have detailed how the very data that undergirds the dietary guidelines are inherently unscientific. Edward Archer, Ph.D., who'd authored a study spelling out these flaws, explained in an interview that the dietary guidelines are based on notoriously unreliable, anecdotal (rather than scientific) evidence.

Those same flaws still exist, says Archer, chief science officer with EvolvingFX and a former research fellow at NIH's Nutrition Obesity Research Center, in an email to me this week.

"The cycle of unscientific and unachievable recommendations will continue in 2025 and beyond unless the nutrition research and policy communities confront the ignorance and scientific incompetence of what too many pass off as evidence," Archer warns.

The new guidelines, while better than they might have been, are still deeply flawed—for all these and other reasons. For example, as Politico notes, people who practice vegan or low-carb diets, along with those who believe sustainability to be an important dietary factor—along with many others—will continue to disagree with at least some facets of the 2020 committee's recommendations and the new federal guidelines.

And, as Edward Archer cautions, these flaws are likely to be baked into the next DGAC report, which is due out in 2025.

NEXT: Trump Wasn't a Dictator, but He Played One on TV

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.

  1. Experts be damned; I continue to follow my grandmother’s advice.

    1. Like my grandmother always said, “Pass that here; there’s always one more hit in the bowl.”

      1. STAY HOME AND STARTING WORK AT HOME EASILY… I am making 70 to 60 dollar par hour at home on laptop ,, This is make happy But now i am Working 4 hour Dailly and make 400 dollar Easily .. This is enough for me to happy my family..how ?? i am making this so u can do it Easily…

        ==========►USA ONLINE JOBS

    2. Meat and potatoes, along with a vegetable, will provide almost all your nutritional needs. Especially if you bake the potatoes and serve them with sour cream and butter.

      1. The starch crystals in potatoes also digest slower than starch crystals in grain based carbohydrates.

    3. My grandma lived on whatever was cheap at the time. Heart, liver, brains, kidney, pigs knuckles, especially bologna, day old sweet rolls and drank a lot of what she called “high balls”. While I would never recommend that diet, as she was grossly overweight, had a five times enlarged heart and excessive high blood pressure, grandma made it to 87, which ain’t bad. Grandpa that also ate her cooking had a stroke at 70 and died.

      1. That reminds me of my grandmother who cooked and ate a large fried breakfast every morning – bacon, ham, or sausage, fried potatoes, fried eggs, orange juice, and coffee. It was easy to eat enough calories for the whole day, and most of those calories came from fat[1]. She was fat but she lived to 87.

        However, my grandfather who ate those breakfasts died of colon cancer at 67. He also grew fat as his job changed from heavy physical labor (in a railroad “steel gang”, carrying rails with tongs), to climbing poles to repair the signals, and finally to sitting in an office and supervising signalmen from Nebraska through Montana, and his diet did not change.

        [1] Not that there is any good evidence that too much fat leads to health problems, as long as the total calories are not excessive. OTOH, fried food is likely to contain carcinogens.

  2. inspiring another round of debate over the government’s role in choosing which expert nutrition and health options to signal-boost to the nation at large.

    It would be so sweet if the debate was about why the federal government feels empowered to inject itself into nutrition and health options in the first place. The rest is just hand waving.

    Rejecting the advice of its scientific advisers, the federal government has released new dietary recommendations that… dismiss[] experts’ specific recommendations

    It would be so sweet if the writers at the New York Times were intellectually curious enough to wonder why the “scientific advice” of what we put in our bodies continues to drastically change when basic human physiology has been static for far longer than the USDA has existed.

    1. The politics of food (it’s absolutely absurd such a thing actually exists) aren’t going to just proliferate by themselves, are they?

      The food ninnies and prohibitionists need some kind of outlet, and since no one willingly listens to those assholes, they weaseled their way in to government. If it’s someone trying to tell you what to do and how to live, you can bet government will capture said person, and use them to tell others what to do and how to live.

    2. Food guidelines have never been about health. It’s been about commerce. Government is interested in commerce because it generates taxes, which generates political power.

      Duh.

      1. Cornahol, hi-fructose corn syrup, etc etc etc

      2. Federal diet advice began during WWII, when many other countries depended on food shipments from the USA at the same time many young farmers were drafted. The food pyramid was not about health, but about the diet that put the minimum strain on our food production without overly weakening the workers. So it was high in directly-consumed starchy high-yield crops like corn, potatoes, and wheat, and low in meat and fat (from feeding those starchy crops to animals), and in the less productive fruit and vegetable crops.

        But after the war, the pseudo-scientists that brought slow starvation to American soldiers fed on K-rations and near-malnutrition to American civilians, doubled down and claimed these were healthy diets. They used a very simplified mental model of how the body used food, ignoring the actual processes of digestion of food to simple sub-units and then building up the molecules needed by the body. E.g., they thought fat goes straight to fat, when it actually is broken down to pass the intestinal lining and be used for calories, and then fat is synthesized from excess calories. In the 1960’s they discovered that heart disease is associated with high cholesterol in the blood and advocated low cholesterol diets, which had no effect on blood cholesterol because blood cholesterol does not come from food but is synthesized as needed, and a high level is probably a symptom rather than a cause.

        And federal recommendations that basically said fat bad, sugar less bad, starch good brought us a diabetes II epidemic. Just as bad were the warnings about saturated fat, when they led not to more use of natural unsaturated oils but to massive use of transfats, vegetable oils chemically changed to mimic animal fats.

  3. Military autobiographies written by British naval officers who served in the Napoleonic wars state that sailors coming into a port after months at sea first went for fresh fruits, then drink and whores. Left to our own devices, we get what we need so long as there is a choice. Of course, we want some fats and simple carbohydrates because they spell survival to our genes, but even the great un-organic, non-artisanal, unwashed masses will eat tomatoes with their hamburgers and tacos.
    The whole food group stuff is just more nanny state preaching. Those who might care already watch what they eat, and the rest never pay attention anyway. Outlawing certain foods will go as well as outlawing alcohol did.

  4. Since the government’s guidelines are influenced by lobbyists they should probably do away with them entirely. Also what is good for one person might be bad for another. I am not diabetic or even close to being diabetic and can manage more carbs and sugar in my diet. My partner is already on a diabetic drug and is much more carb/sugar avoidant. I have friends that are vegans. They work very hard to ensure they have balanced nutrition, but I would not recommend ever be vegan, because most people don’t have that kind of disapline. A mediterranean diet is considered healthy, but for most Americans, expensive to follow. Also, if you don’t like fish, it isn’t an option. It would be better if the AMA came about with a list of various diets that are healthy that people can choose from. As health issues, lifestyle, income and taste will affect people’s choices.

    1. In the past there was a dietician on pbs that promoted a circle instead if a pyramid. It included everything but the interesting part if you ate a twinky you could go to the opposite side to see what you needed to balance. But in all case it promoted moderation and balance

      1. I suppose a Devil Dog balances a Twinkie. It works by color, right?

  5. “In fact, I think the outgoing Trump administration deserves some credit for following the science on diet and nutrition.

    Cripes, Baylen wandered off the reservation for a second here.
    There will be no fat check from rich Uncle Charles, if there’s no “To Be Sure I hate Trump” graf included immediately after.

    1. Did Nick Gillespie “wander off the reservation” when he said on the Reason Roundtable podcast that he would have preferred a Trump win?

      Maybe it is you who are seeing a “reservation” where there isn’t one.

      1. Absolutely, and you may want to include the entire context to his statement, you deceitful fuck.

        1. What important context did you want me to provide?

  6. Are u free at home want to do some work at home and earn money then go to this site link its can provide u to work at home and earn money easy without any investment…I also do this work…
    Here is More information.

    1. Does anyone at Reason check these comments for BS ads for how to make ridiculous sums of money working at home? I will cancel my subscription if the powers that be can’t remove this garbage in a timely manner.

      1. The comments section rarely sees any moderation.

        1. You’ve argued for moderation of those you disagree with.

          1. Ah, always the little JesseAz spin on what is actually true. In this case, tacking on “… of those you disagree with.” I have never added that qualifier.

          2. meh, even if he did, the Trump lil bitch crew around here that normally white knight each other all day regularly call for violence against anyone not falling in line behind trump

            so next time you want to clutch some pearls about something like that, kindly get fucked until you clean up your own house

            1. Swallow a bullet bitch

            2. Shorter version: censorship of ideas is great so long as those being censored are ideas I disagree with.

      2. Bye

  7. Making beer 30% of my diet is a lot but I’m confident I can do it.

  8. I can’t believe they advise 30% of your diet to be carb based. Aren’t we constantly being told that American’s have a big problem with obesity and diabetes? Reduce your carbs and you reduce the chance of those two items greatly!

    1. The diet posted here is more than 30% carb-based. That 30% number just applies to bread, cereals, and pasta. Fruits, vegetables, and sugar all contain carbs. If you follow this diet, you’ll probably get closer to 50-65% of your calories coming from carbs. If you’re pre-diabetic or diabetic, you need to ignore this food pyramid, it’s useless.

      1. The pyramid is also just wrong. To name a few, tomatoes, chilies, and eggplant are fruits, not vegetables. It’s not completely wrong just mostly wrong.

        1. All fruits are vegetables as well. If it’s not animal or mineral, it’s vegetable.

        2. “Fruit” and “vegetable” are not mutually exclusive categories. Any fleshy thing with seeds is a fruit.

        3. Tomatoes, chilies, and eggplant are biological fruit, but culinary vegetables.

          You cook and serve eggplant very similar to a potato or an onion. They are served, cooked, and eaten very different than an orange or a melon. Nutritionally, they also line up closer to their culinary than their biological grouping.

  9. Seeing as Bacon isn’t a seperat food group, this pyramid is completely false

    1. It’s also missing the chocolate food group.

      1. Chocolate is a bean product, so it’s a vegetable alongside coffee.

      2. Did you go to Hollywood Upstairs Medical College too?

  10. Expecting the left to follow actual science instead of their politicized view of it is ludicrous. Instead get them out of positions of power and shut them down on the internet so they can no longer spew their stupidity.

    Trust me they don’t count and allowing them free speech is more damaging than not.

  11. Thankfully I don’t take my nutrition advice from the government, let alone anyone who receives taxes or donations from food companies.

  12. Homemade beer, wine and mead are high in vitamin B and protein from the yeast. Even mass produced had a decent amount, though the filter out some of the yeast and yeast byproducts.
    It is amazing that the same people who tell you not to drink beer, will drink a “nutritional” beverage in which the nutrients that naturally occur in beer have to be added in. Beer is actually fairly decent source of Vitamin B complex, including vitamin B12, which you can only get from eating meat or fungi.

    1. Note only from eating red meat from a ruminant.

    2. Yeah, but beer tastes like shit.

      1. Drink wine or mead then.

      2. Or if you like coffee, try a scotch ale.

      3. Or hard cider.

        1. Or Irish whiskey

          1. The pray filtering may add something to it (and I do like Irish whiskey) but distillation remove most of the yeast byproducts.

            1. Peat filtering

    3. “fungi”
      The next step past veganism, only eating fungi.

    4. Yeast is a fungus.

      1. Duh. Never said it wasn’t dipshit. Which is why homemade beer is high in vitamin B complex, I clueing Vitamin B12. You tried for a gotcha nd made a fucking fool out of yourself. Instead of Sarcasmic you out to change your name to Sophomoric. Because that is what your trope is. Fucking A, I have a MS in ruminant nutrition, you don’t think I fucking know what kingdom yeast belongs too?

        1. Overreact next time. Jeez.

          1. How did I overreact? Calling you a dipshit or using fuck? Oh no a veteran who cusses my. Stop the presses, cuss words are overreacting to Sophomoric.

        2. Never mind. Fuck off. I used to respect you but if you’re going to flip out like that over four words then no more. You’re just another vile worm spreading disease on this site.

          1. Did I hurt your feelings, Sophomoric? You tried a gotcha and got bitch slapped for it. I don’t care if you respected me, because I haven’t respected your sophomoric trope in ages.

        3. He never said you said it was either.

      2. Is reading to hard for you? Because nothing I wrote implies at all that I didn’t know what kingdom yeast belongs to. Like I stated change your name to Sophomoric, because that is more fitting.

      3. In a 2-kingdom taxonomy, fungi are plants.

  13. How about a new tax on stupid. Skip the sugar tax, meat tax, and tax stupid. Stupid defined as government guidelines. . . Pour me another Talisker, please.

  14. You are a cruel, cruel man. How could you have left out that the new nutritional guidelines recommend no candy, no cake, no added sugar for kids under 2? Think of the children! Why do you hate children?

    Oh, and it’s interesting that the entire membership of the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is made up of university professors of health – not a goddamn chef or farmer or grocer or restaurant owner among them. What the hell do they know about trade-offs between what’s good for you and what tastes good? Not a damn thing. I ain’t eating mung beans and cardboard the rest of my life just because it will keep me living longer, if I can’t have the occasional plate of shrimp al fredo, deep-fried Snickers bar, or bag of Cheetos, what the hell’s the point of living? Even if it does cause the sick fucks at the Center for Science in the Public Interest to have a fit of the vapors.

    1. The summer before last I tried a deep fried Twinkie at one of the agricultural fairs, joking that I better do it before it’s illegal. Now the fairs are cancelled until who-knows-when.

      1. What was your verdict on the deep-fried Twinkie?

    2. Good luck getting a bread dough to rise in a reasonable time without added sugar.

  15. Marion Nestle, a veteran food policy researcher and a former DGAC member, told the Times she was “stunned” by the recommendations, arguing the Trump administration was ignoring the science on alcohol and sugar.

    You have to love the irony of someone named Nestle having an issue with sugar.

  16. Surely the best dietary advice for Americans is “whatever you eat, don’t eat so much of it.”

    1. I did see an article that I thought was just going to be the usual useless clickbait: ‘what should Americans be eating more of?’ The answer was dietary fiber, hard to go wrong there. Unless of course you are getting your fiber from high carb grains, then you better cut back.

      1. Or if you have diverticulosis or are prone to diarrhea or gas.

    2. Very true, but that runs at cross-purposes with all the bureaucrats who benefit from administering the EBT and WIC programs, not to mention the patrons of these programs as well.

      In my line of work, some days not a moment goes by where the checkouts bave no EBT and WIC users. Usually it is carts-full of junk food, even multiple carts-full, that would take me months or even years to eat theough. One EBTer with a whole cart full of bread, sweet pastries, flour, granulated sugar, and Kool-Aid peg-leg juice actually begged me for $5 so he could buy his Diabetic test strips.

      Please don’t get me started about daily EBT/WIC horror stories. I’m trying to maintain some well-wishes for humanity for the Holidays and the New Year.

  17. They really need to debunk the organic/sustainable food cult. If there is any benefit to organic it certainly isn’t going to be in the factory farmed dreck that’s in the produce sections of supermarkets. Not only is it not better for you, but it takes 20% more farmland to produce ‘organic’, which causes more environmental degradation.

    1. and the periodic e coli infection from improperly sterilized fertilizer.

      1. Yeah, more people die of organic spinach consumption every year than climate change and nuclear power combined this entire century.

    2. What’s really dumb is that organic means carbon. Which is original sin to the climate change religion. They should be all about inorganic food if they were consistent. Live on salt and water, bitches.

      1. And yet you’re happy GND backing Biden won.

        1. Do you still beat your wife?

          1. Is that why yours left you?

      2. I know, right?

        Well, that clarifies how tell if something is Organic. Just use Dr. “Bones” McCoy’s Tri-Corder to see if the life-form you’re about to buy is Carbon-based.

      3. Words have multiple meanings and complex histories. The term “organic food” is short for “food from organic farms”, farming that views “the farm as an organism”.

  18. Cows eat grass
    Grass is salad
    Cows are salad

    1. Cows eat grass
      People smoke grass
      People are smarter than cows.

    2. All meat is just concentrated vegetables and fruit, and all vegetables and fruit are reconstituted animals and by-products.

      And for that matter, Anything man has ever domesticated is “Genetically-Modified,” whether by selective breeding or by recombinant DNA splicing in a Petri Dish.

      And everything we eat is both made of 100% chemicals and everything is 100% Natural at the same time i.e. a part of the Natural Universe.

      Finally, as Carl Sagan, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, and Moby all observe: We are all made of stars.

  19. If anyone is following federal advice after what happened in 2020, they deserve what they get.

    No worries – full blown panic
    Masks don’t work – no mask, no life
    ‘social’ distancing OR ‘cloth face coverings’ – social distancing AND ‘cloth face coverings’
    Mostly affects the elderly – lock down the schools immediately and forever!
    Flatten the curve in two weeks – eternal internment
    We’re all in this together – the elites can dine out etc
    etc – etc and etc

    Welcome to the revolution

    1. Build emergency hospitals to handle the crush of patients in spring 2020,
      lock down the healthy not at risk population during the warm season when viruses rarely spread,
      disassemble the emergency hospitals since they were not staffed and nobody needed them,
      When flu/Covid spreads like wildfire as temperatures drop, rebuild the emergency hospitals again too late,
      Profit!

  20. Science is physics (natural law and repeatability of hypothosis)..what you eat and it’s impact on your body is very subjective based on many factors which are not testable but more inferred. Heart Disease is something which were were told for a long time was due to “red meat” and obesity…yet there never was a smoking gun on “fats” eaten and artery plague…now you see studies saying it is carbs specifically sugars not hamburgers that cause plaque. But some folks have it seems higher genetic protection from artery plaque forming in the first place. I’ve known many fellow runners who have had heart disease yet they eat low fat diets and their vitals (BP, pulse and so on are fine). The guidelines should be to eat balanced diets (protein, veggies) and lower your carb intake including processed sugars and leave it at that.

  21. One bad guideline is to limit sodium. The only reason for it is you might have undiagnosed high blood pressure.

    You can buy a blood pressure meter and check your blood pressure and then forget about the sodium guideline and just enjoy the taste of your food. Or check it using the machine at the pharmacy. Way, way easier than reading every label.

  22. Most Americans consume a large variety of healthy foods, better than any humans ever.

    The problem is that most Americans consume far more calories than they burn off, which is why 42% of American adults were obese in 2017/18 (which is likely 50% now) and why 9% of American adults were severely obese in 2017/18 (which is likely 12% now).

    “Comorbidities” is the new code term for “obese”, which (next to old age) is the leading risk factor for covid hospitalizations and death.

    1. The problem is that most Americans consume far more calories than they burn off

      That’s not “the problem”, that’s merely a symptom of an underlying problem. That is, you need to ask why Americans consume far more calories than they burn off.

      1. Because food is cheap. (But that should be a good thing!)

        Because very few of us do physical work for our living, and most of our recreation is passive TV-watching or mentally-active but physically-inert internet and video games.

        Because we separate housing, working, shopping, and recreation by distances that make walking or bicycling impractical, and because we use a car to travel half a block. If you drive to the gym, you may not be getting the concept of exercise.

        Because we’re so rich everyone has multiple electronic devices and most have a car.

        Because we are lazy undisciplined slobs.

  23. Even before I realized I was a libertarian, I wondered ehh in the hell the federal government even issues dietary advice. It seems like a stretch well past any natural jurisdiction—especially when there’s always been plenty of information readily available for those who want to go beyond their grandmother’s or mom’s advice or delve into questions such as “butter or margarine” and so forth.

    And I was still in high school when I read that back in the 1950’s, the grain growers lobby influenced Congress to change breakfast regulations to recommend eating breakfast cereals as much healthier than eggs for breakfast. How “scientific” of the grain growers lobby! As a result, people falsely believed that cereal is superior to eggs for breakfast until just recently. Gee thanks federal guidelines!

    1. Some people crave to be scolds. Others crave to be scolded. Hence, federal food guidelines. And 2020.

    2. I’m sure also that the food pyramid recommendation of 6-9 servings of bread and grains daily back in the Nineties helped drive up cases of Type 2 Diabetes considerably as well.

      1. Yes, but it made agribusinesses a lot of money. Those lobbyists paid off.

  24. I’m not a fan of government telling us what we can and can’t put in our bodies, but if they are going to be in our face about tobacco/vaping, then why not booze and sugar too? Maybe they can put warning labels of a drunk who vomited/shit himself on beer cans and a fat chick in a thong on boxes of Krispy Kreme.

    1. Good ideas no go. Rather than calling the chick fat shaming, it could be promoted as a celebration of phatness.

    2. The fat chick could also go on the warning label for beer, but better on bottles of the harder stuff.

  25. Unlike the writer, I do have a PhD and am a registered dietitian.
    And this article is problematic for so many reasons, I won’t waste time listing them all. But here is one:
    Why would any honest reporter decide to interview a Distilled Spirits Council advisor?
    DISCUS is a trade association. It’s very purpose is to increase sales of alcoholic beverages. Does anyone believe DISCUS would have an adviser who supported drinking less alcohol?
    The writer is wrong, as his expert: for men, the benefits of drinking alcohol max out at one drink per day. There is no health benefit to drinking more.
    This isn’t hocus-pocus. This isn’t the work of food cartels or lobbyists.
    It’s well-established science based on myriad research studies led by credible and qualified researchers.

    1. Quite the life of the party, aren’t you, “doctor?”

      1. But he’s correct nonetheless.

        1. Are you sure about that?

          “…for men, the benefits of drinking alcohol max out at one drink per day. There is no health benefit to drinking more.”

  26. The bottom of the pyramid still looks like a recipe for Type 2 diabetes.

  27. “And I think that what some critics are really saying is that the federal government didn’t get out ahead of the science.”

    It’s what they are always saying.

  28. We don’t need the federal government to tell us what we should eat. All I see is an argument to cut the FDA’s funding.

  29. I wrote in a September column. “That sounds eminently reasonable, until you learn the DGAC decided, despite ample evidence to the contrary, that drinking ‘in ways that increase the risk of harms’ means enjoying a second Bud Light.”

    The article shows that moderate alcohol consumption correlates with longer life expectancy; it does not show that increasing your alcohol consumption from low to moderate increases your life expectancy. One reason is given here: Estimates of mortality risk from alcohol are significantly altered by study design and characteristics. Meta-analyses adjusting for these factors find that low-volume alcohol consumption has no net mortality benefit compared with lifetime abstention or occasional drinking..

    I oppose government-issued dietary guidelines. Analysis of the scientific literature is a private matter that can be handled in books, journals, and public forums. That works better than government regulations, even if it means that you get scientifically shoddy reporting and analysis like in this article.

    In summary, there are many things wrong with the federal dietary guidelines and the federal government should stay out of this business altogether. However, you picked a particularly stupid hill to die on: reducing your sugar and alcohol intake from whatever it is is likely not harmful and probably beneficial.

  30. I don’t really get the point of this article, safe the author taking the opportunity to self-promote.
    The important thing to consider if we are going to talk about nutrition science should be to assess why leadership has been a failure in a culture mostly lead by women. Women have been at the forefront of dieting and nutrition for more than half a century, in the public as well as the private sphere.
    The effects of a sedentary lifestyle appear to be the biggest misunderstanding concerning that state of health of americans, and the biggest mistake of the Governments approach is not the pyramid itself, but the recommended daily calories. Sedentary people should aimed at 10 to 15% less calories that the recommended levels. Further, a highly carbohydrate diet, as a higher oriented alcohol intake both carry the same problem. Its the putative nature of opioid receptors. Carbs, mostly glucose in the brain, when in excess, bound also to opioid receptors, creating addiction. Alcohol is also addictive in smaller intakes.
    Yet activity at a high enough level consumes digestible carbs and alcohol often quickly enough that they don<t rise to addictive producing levels.

    Otherwise the body may easily adapt to many forms of diets. For example, it was long thought that high performance athletes could not perform well under a ketogenic diets, and the past 10 years have proven otherwise. The period of adaptation is somewhat quite long though, 6 to 9 months.

    Further, micronutrients daily recommendations are often to high.
    So one can take a lifetime figuring out the "perfect" in vitro diet, but it"s futile…one should instead trust physical activity and nutrition adaptability a lot more.

    1. Keep in mind that when sedentary, cereals and their by-product should be the thing to avoid because their micronutients density is the lowest…this is why I refer to them as poison…especially canadian cereals, since canadian lands have been depleted from their natural nutrient sources due to over harvesting, erosion and bad industrial farming techniques…For example, taking away all mineral rocks from farm land prevents good mineral potential in their harvested cereals…low iodine potential is another problem…You are sedentary, favor fruits, vegetables, dairies and fish and meats…

  31. Out of curiosity, are these the same government health experts who told us masks and lockdowns will “stop the spread” (they haven’t), and that a vaccine by the end of the year would be impossible (it wasn’t). Stop listening to these people – they are just bureaucrats with their own agendas. Be an adult and make your own decisions on how to live your life.

  32. Very interesting theory, good content
    though

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.