New paper owns the DGAC

[Torka]

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.

It's long as hell but a great read.

Link

In particular, they found that the "science is inaccurately represented" for low carb diets and the "conclusions do not reflect quantity and/or quality of relevant science." They go over salt, saturated fat, glycemic load/index, fiber, salt, etc.

It is of interest to consider the opinion of the American Medical Association (AMA) with respect to the first implementation of dietary guidelines. In an editorial, it was stated:

“We believe that it would be inappropriate at this time to adopt proposed national dietary goals as set forth in the Report on Dietary Goals for the United States. The evidence for assuming that benefits to be derived from the adoption of such universal dietary goals as set forth in the Report is not conclusive and there is potential for harmful effects from a radical long-term dietary change as would occur through adoption of the proposed national goals.”

In the three decades since, carbohydrate consumption has increased; overall fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol consumption have decreased to near or below targeted levels; caloric intake remains within recommended levels; and leisure-time physical activity has increased slightly (pp. D1-1, D3-10, B2-3). At the same time, scientific evidence in favor of these recommendations remains inconclusive, and we must consider the possibility that the “potential for harmful effects” has in fact been realized."

Much of this won't be news to D&S regulars but it's always nice to have scientifically credible information to give out to interested people.

 

[XTrainer]

I've only read the abstract so far, but I'm very interested. Thanks for posting. Hope I have time to read more soon.

 

[oyaji poi]

I like the opening quote.

"We need more information, not advice".

 

[10thpjj]

Great post, thanks TS

 

[largemansmay***]

"caloric intake remains within recommended levels"...BS!!!!!

Where did they get that info??? Seriously, if that was true, there wouldn't be an obesity epidemic. Its not like eating 2,000 calories of low carb is going to make someone skinny and 2,000 calories of high carb will make them fat. They probably got all that info from the quote in the first post about people's levels of calories and fat from surveys that people sent out, and fat people notoriously underestimate their calories and level of fat in those things.

Just start googling the authors of the study. I googled the first three names and all of them are low carb advocates. This is the same sort of thing as a bunch of vegetarians doing a study saying meat is bad for you.

 

[immovablestone]

I love this:

"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” "

Yeah, like any of that is in the interests of the AMA/FDA/etc.