This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of UCare.
Are proposed dietary guidelines better than past ones? Experts weigh in
Every five years, the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) update their Dietary Guidelines for Americans — their detailed directions for what we should and shouldn’t eat to stay as healthy as possible.
Earlier this month, a committee established by those two government agencies issued its preliminary 2010 guidelines. The recommendations follow the general outline of past ones: Eat more fruits and vegetables and whole grains and less sugar, fat and salt. But the new guidelines take specific recommendations a bit further. For example, the committee recommends we limit calories from saturated fat to 7 percent of our daily calories rather than to 10 percent, as recommended in the 2005 guidelines. And it suggests we take in no more than 1,500 mg of sodium daily rather than the 2,300 mg limit set in the previous guidelines.
But, as Consumer Reports has noted, “what sets this year’s guidelines apart from previous years is how it plans to achieve them. The committee acknowledges the ‘daunting public health challenge’ of promoting healthy eating in the face of ‘powerful influences that currently promote unhealthy consumer choices, behaviors, and lifestyles.’ The committee seems to say that people can’t change the way they eat on their own — they need to have access to healthier choices.”
What the experts say
Are these dietary guidelines an improvement over past ones? In an article appearing in today’s L.A. Times, leading nutrition experts from around the country comment about what they like and don’t like in the updated recommendations. Overall, they seem impressed, particularly because the new guidelines emphasize plant-based foods and are more specific about de-emphasizing such dietary no-nos as added sugar (including in sugary soft drinks), solid fats, sodium (salt) and refined grains.
Read the L.A. Times article for all the experts’ comments. Here are some selections from those comments that I found particularly interesting:
From Marlene Schwartz, deputy director, Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University:
- “My favorite sentence was from the conclusion of the executive summary, where they encourage all stakeholders to help ‘make every choice available to Americans a healthy choice.’ So often, people who sell unhealthy foods say that they are only ‘providing choices,’ as if promoting foods high in sugar, salt and fat is some type of patriotic gesture. Choice does not have to be choosing between apple slices and French fries; it could be choosing among apples, oranges and pears. I would be thrilled if we could get to the point where people realize that an array of healthy, delicious foods still provides choices.”
From Dr. Walter C. Willett, chairman of the nutrition department at the Harvard School of Public Health:
- "[T]he recommendation for three servings of milk per day is not justified and is likely to cause harm to some people. The primary justification is bone health and reduction of fractures. However, prospective studies and randomized trials have consistently shown no relation between milk intake and risk of fractures. On the other hand, many studies have shown a relation between high milk intake and risk of fatal or metastatic prostate cancer, and this can be explained by the fact that milk intake increases blood levels of IGF-1, a growth-promoting hormone. The justification for drinking three glasses of milk per day on the basis of increasing potassium intake is also not valid as the extra calories, even with low-fat milk, would easily counterbalance the benefit of the extra potassium. Also, the recommendation for people of all ages to drink three servings of milk per day is very radical and would double dairy production if adopted; this would have huge environmental impacts that would need to be considered."
From Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Lab at Tufts University School of Medicine:
- "Regardless of diet quality, the most critical issue for Americans is body weight. Even an ideal diet in excess of caloric needs is going to result in weight gain. That is, too much of a good thing can also be bad, and that's a concept that can get lost in translation. We need to talk about what foods should displace other foods, not that you should be adding whole wheat muffins to what you're already eating in the morning."
From Dr. Dean Ornish, president of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, Calif.:
- "Finally, it would have been helpful to discuss more fully that what we include in our diet is as important as what we exclude. There are literally hundreds of thousands of protective substances that are found primarily in fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes and soy products. Instead of thinking about diet primarily in terms of reducing risk of illness and premature death, I find it much more useful to talk about how much better you look and feel when you eat and live more healthfully. Joy of living is much more sustainable than fear of dying."
You can comment on the guidelines yourself here. You have until July 15.
More like this
- The new Dietary Guidelines are coming -- should they even mention nutrients at all?
- Allina takes on challenges of improving its health-care system's food culture
- Parenthood associated with poorer health habits, U of M study finds
- Are Happy Meals doomed? 19 restaurant chains pledge healthier kids' meals
- On saturated fat and LDL cholesterol, messages may well be counterproductive
Recent Stories
Most Commented
-
30 comments
-
26 comments
-
26 comments
-
23 comments
-
21 comments
Comments (5)
The recommended reduction in saturated fat intake is more of the same outdated understanding of lipid science. According to a large meta analysis by Ronald Krauss published in the AJCN last January -- one in which the effects of replacement foods were considered -- dietary intake of saturated fat has no relationship to heart disease. If you haven't heard about he study it is because the cardiology and dietary establishments are unwilling to walk back an erroneous argument now three decades in the making.
The Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee did ignore Dr. Krauss's meta-analysis which showed no association between saturated fat and risk of heart disease. Also, read the transcripts of the six meetings conducted between October 2008 and May 12, 2010. The words "blood sugar" do not appear in the record! How can a scientific committee address obesity and diabetes without discussing blood sugar or insulin levels? Dr. Joanne Slavin, University of Minnesota, headed up the Carbohydrate Committee. She declined to discuss how sugars and grains elevate blood sugar and insulin; she declined to single out high fructose corn syrup as a "bad carbohydrate." Was she mute about these issues because Cargill and General Mills donate large amounts of money to the University Nutrition Department? I wonder who funds her fiber research? The 2010 Dietary Guidelines do not address the obesity and diabetes epidemics because the committee was afraid to step on the toes of the giant U.S. food processing industries!
The guidelines can't help us unless we can buy fresh and wholesome food. Yesterday I chose no apricots when faced with 1) supermarket imports, 2) Trader Joe's "organic", and 3) TJ's imports. How much do you want to bet they all taste like recycled cardboard?
An interesting, informative piece, as usual, Ms. Perry.
As Michael Pollan reminds us, food is political, and poor diet, obesity and their health consequences are but one manifestation of the power of Big Food and its allies in agriculture, business and the professions. As for the blame-the-victim mantra of “choice” between healthy produce and industrially manufactured snacks, I am reminded of Anatole France's line about freedom being the right of the rich as well as the poor to sleep under the bridges of Paris.
Jon Scoll
Edina
As a Registered Dietitian with Midwest Dairy Council, I am licensed to help Americans choose nutrient-rich foods that will improve their overall health. I would like to share comments on recent dairy recommendations. It’s important to note the recommendations were made after thorough and independent review of the scientific evidence. Overall, the 2010 the Dietary Guidelines Technical Report reaffirms that low-fat and fat-free dairy foods are rich sources of essential nutrients that the body can’t make on its own, and that three daily servings of dairy foods (for individuals 9 years and older; 2 cups for children ages 2 to 8) make important health contributions. According to the Committee’s independent panel of experts, Americans are only consuming 60 percent of recommended amounts of milk and milk products, and the panel linked this to increased risk of cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, poor bone health and related diseases. Milk and milk products also supply three of the four nutrients the Committee identified as those Americans need to consume more of: vitamin D, calcium and potassium. (The fourth is fiber.) Milk is the leading food source of not only calcium and potassium but also phosphorous, magnesium, vitamin A, vitamin D and riboflavin. The need to promote increased consumption of dairy foods for children is of particular importance because milk drinking established in youth is more likely to carry forward into adulthood. Low-fat dairy foods offer a nutrient-rich, delicious, convenient and cost-effective way to help Americans improve their overall health.
Carolyn Suerth Hudson, RD, LD
Midwest Dairy Council