• FreeTrainers.com Forums
• Specific Diets & Nutrition
• Rebuilding the Food Pyramid . . .

Group: Specific Diets & Nutrition

Rebuilding the Food Pyramid . . .

mackfactor Posts: 766 Joined: 2002/10/17

2003/01/24, 11:25 AM Not a lot of new information here, but it's a interesting little tidbit. The underlying message: Don't listen to the government because they are behind the times. The read between the lines message: Don't trust the government, they're likely looking out for food companies and not your health. After all, it was the FDA that adopted the current bunk food pyramid in the first place, designed not by nutritionists, but by businessmen and lawyers . . . ----------------------------------------------------------- The message that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets aren't ideal for all Americans now resonates from best-seller lists to scientific studies that show eating a moderate amount of polyunsaturated fats may actually be good for you. Yet the Food Guide Pyramid, the most recognizable symbol of government advice for the ideal diet, continues to depict a diet that goes heavy on the breads and pasta, while lumping all fats together as evils to avoid. That may be about to change. The U.S. Department of Agriculture is reassessing the pyramid to bring it in line with current dietary guidelines and the Dietary Reference Intakes issued in September by the national Institute of Medicine. A new model could debut in 2005, the next time that the USDA will revise the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, more detailed advice primarily intended for nutrition professionals. Chances are the underpinnings - a plant-based diet that will supply all necessary nutrients - won't change. Revisions could include recommending regular physical activity, giving better guidance on portion sizes and allowing a higher-fat diet as long as artery-clogging saturated fat is kept to a minimum. Criticism of the pyramid, a constant since before its 1992 debut, has grown as obesity rates in America skyrocketed in the past decade. Much of the early criticism centered around two issues: the USDA's dual role of promoting agricultural products and establishing an ideal diet, a situation that some contend causes a conflict of interest; and the way serving sizes were defined. More recently, the pyramid has been attacked for treating all fats the same (to be eaten sparingly); for grouping red meat, which is higher in saturated fat, with chicken, fish and dried beans; and for not distinguishing between whole-grain and refined breads, cereals, rice and pasta. ``It doesn't talk about quantities in a way that anyone can understand,'' says Marion Nestle, author of ``Food Politics'' and chairwoman of the department of nutrition and food studies at New York University. ``If you eat six to 11 marketplace servings of grain, you're going to be as big as a house. They're meant to be tiny.'' Pyramid not stand-alone Part of the problem, a USDA spokesman says, is that the pyramid was originally designed as a graphic to go in a 32-page booklet explaining the recommendations. But many food labels now carry the pyramid as a stand-alone image. ``People are getting the image without the text,'' says John Webster, of the USDA's Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. ``Our concern is, what kind of message are they taking away?'' The USDA has started consumer focus-group testing on the pyramid, and is seeking members for an advisory committee to draw up the next set of dietary guidelines. That committee will study recent scientific research to see if it warrants changing current recommendations. Based on the new Dietary Reference Intakes, chances are some changes will occur. The Institute of Medicine, which advises the federal government, issued recommendations in September that called for doubling the amount of moderately intense physical activity, to one hour daily; increased the upper limit for dietary fat from 30 to 35 percent; and set the first guidelines for fiber consumption. Previous recommendations called for adults to get 50 percent or more of their calories from carbohydrates; the new Institute of Medicine guidelines recommend 45 to 65 percent. The Institute also suggested consuming 20 to 35 percent of calories from fat, while minimizing saturated fats (found in meats, baked goods and full-fat dairy products) and trans-fatty acids (partially hydrogenated vegetable oils found in many margarines and shortenings, as well as cookies, chips and fast foods). Protein levels stayed the same, at 10 to 35 percent of calories. For now, the USDA will say only that it's likely to add a recommendation for physical activity to the pyramid. ``At this point we don't believe that carbohydrates are the root of obesity,'' Webster says. ``It simply goes back to the guidance we've given for years: If you consume more calories than you burn, they're going to be stored in the form of fat, whether those are calories from carbohydrates or from proteins.'' The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, revised every five years, were changed in 2000 to urge consumption of whole grains rather than simply grain products. Nutritionists are hoping the revised pyramid will send a clearer message to choose whole-wheat bread over white, and brown rice instead of white. ``We're likely to see an emphasis more on whole foods, instead of a diet that's mostly made up of processed or refined foods,'' says Chris Rosenbloom, an associate dean for Georgia State University's College of Health and Human Sciences. Rosenbloom predicts that the revised pyramid will also steer away from recommending moderate alcohol consumption, despite scientific evidence showing some benefit, because some might take it as an excuse to overindulge. The USDA takes a science-based approach when revising dietary guidelines, Webster says, which means the advisory committee will use research to guide its selections. Nestle says that's problematic, opening up room for policies that favor the interests of the food industry over consumers in any areas of scientific uncertainty. She points to Institute of Medicine guidelines that allow up to 25 percent of calories to come from added sugars, commonly found in soft drinks, candy and pastries. Common sense ought to dictate some guidelines, she says. Obesity No. 1 problem ``Maybe the science shows that people aren't harmed by diets that contain 25 percent of their calories from added sugar,'' Nestle says. ``But obesity is the biggest problem in this country from a public health standpoint, and a really good way to lower calories is to eat less fat and sugar, whether the science shows it or not.'' The pyramid is designed to help Americans maintain a healthy weight; it's not a weight-loss regimen. Despite the appetite for diet plans like Sugar Busters and Atkins - ``Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution'' has been a best-seller for more than five years - it's unlikely the pyramid will embrace a low-carbohydrate approach. Some longer-term research into the Atkins diet is beginning, but for now research based on large, multiyear studies points to the healthiest diet as a plant-based one rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables and lean meats - somewhat like the pyramid, but with some modifications. ``What I'm seeing in the nutrition world is, everyone wants to point the finger at one thing,'' Rosenbloom says. ``It's the food pyramid that's causing us to be fat, it's the soft drink industry in schools, it's fast food. I think that's dangerous and simplistic. ``We're quick to blame everybody else for our weight problems without pointing the finger back at ourselves and saying, 'You know, I really didn't need three pieces of pumpkin pie.' '' ----- (The Cox web site is at http://www.coxnews.com ) ---------------------------- "Don't follow leaders and watch your parking meters!" -- Bob Dylan