For those wondering what was behind some of that changed emphasis…
5 Likes
It use to be blatant conflict of interests were not only discouraged but outlawed and hammered. Now it seems encoded. How sad.
1 Like
I took another hard look at these new guidelines, and despite the hew and cry, a lot of what is in there isn’t all that revolutionary, or different from past guidelines. More importantly, it is not a reflection of RFK"s own personal beliefs (right or wrong).
- SEED OILS. No mention of seed oils anywhere in these guidelines (either in the inverted pyramid or the written guidelines themselves)
- RAW MILK. No mention of raw milk anywhere
- SATURATED FAT CUTOFF AT 10%. Despite the love affair by RFK with saturated fats, the same cutoff of 10% that has been in place for decades in past guidelines remains the same in these new guidelines
- SODICUM CUTOFF OF 2300 MG. Just like with saturated fat cutoff of 10%, the sodium limit of 2300 mg is the same as it has always been the same from previous guidelines (since at least 2020).
One thing that becomes clear if one reads the guidelines themselves (yes, the actual written guidelines), they actually hew pretty closely to established scientific consensus whereas the wonky inverted pyramid graphic does not reflect the guidance in the written guidelines, but more of RFK"s own rhetoric (right or wrong).
2 Likes
Well, whatever the pyramid says, and whatever the written guidelines say, I’m sticking with minimal meat (and that mostly chicken), some fish, and a lot of legumes, soy granules and nuggets, and tofu. 1) Based on the science I’ve read, this seems healthier. 2) Based on environmental concerns, this seems more eco-friendly. 3) Based on ethical concerns, this is more ethical. It’s not perfect in any regard, but I’m working on it.
4 Likes
And based on budget concerns more wallet friendly
2 Likes
The inconsistency aspect you picked up on is a big thing. My hypothesis (as a person who worked on teams that create and publish content) is that somebody was in a hurry to publish that pyramid, so the work of making sure information is consistent simply was not done.
1 Like
or it could be an intentional misdirection, knowing more folks are just gonna look at the picture rather than read the actual words of the guideline.
3 Likes
Agree with you.
Usually the decision-makers who rush to push content out (in my experience) figure that few folks will take time to read the supporting detail.
More opinions
anyone notice the absence of any definitive information/data/facts that might actually ‘help’ a body follow ‘the old/new/last/next’ rules?’
like, dude, here’s the first:
“limit saturated fats to (pick a number…) 10% of daily calories”
read a label. it gives total/saturated fats in grams per the ‘mystical/non-reality based’
serving size.
virtually no people, other than math majors, can calculate the given “% of” to the "(non-indicated) calories per day . . . to one’s total consumption.
. . . . typical governmental garbage data/non-information.
if you are consuming 2,000 calories per day, and saturated fat should be <=10% of calories - that’s easy to see, , , just eat less than 200 calories of saturated fat.
so . . . how much is 200 calories of saturated fat?
following a 2017 ‘cardiac’ event, I have been tracking total fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, carbs and calories - by the gram, every day, as reported by national database records + ‘locally added’ information from product labels.
data from 24 week blood test dates, I’m averaging 10-16 grams of saturated fat per day.
my last blood work, as of Jan 7, showed a calculated LDL of 41.5
the recent numbers simply do not work - my grams of saturated fat exceeds the 10% “limit” but my LDL is a happy thing to my primary care doc…
I am very hard pressed to name any ‘highly processed’ foods we consume.
I am a scratch cook - the ‘biggest’ that come to mind are boxed breakfast cereals - altho I tend to muesli types . . . and those are, for me, a 1-2x per week breakfast.
basically, the government strikes again - with heaps and piles of useless information/guidelines . . . wait an admin, the utter truth food pyramid will change, again . . .
1 Like
no, it does not according to the number you gave. 10-16 grams of saturated fat = 90-144 calories, which is well below the 200 calorie saturated fat limit for a 2000 calorie per day diet.
200/9 = 22.22 grams of saturated fat
if you have an authoritative source, would love to hear about it.
but grams to calories seems to be an ‘anything goes’ opinion, depends on who is opining . . . .
the math has been done for this. regardless of saturated or unsaturated there are 9 calories per gram of fat. what sources do you have that are saying otherwise?
who did that math? source . . .
I’d very much like to have an authoritative source - stuff I’ve turned up to date only offers g fat = calories as an aside comment.
I seem to recall it is determined by how much heat is generated when it’s burned. There are a few methods, the original one seems to have been “bomb calorimetry”, but I’m not claiming I can explain it.
Maybe you have already seen something like this.
The other frequently mentioned one is named after Atwater.
That’s something you can read in many sources - 1 g of fat has 9 cal (independently which fat) whereas carbohydrates and proteins provide 4 cal per gram.
It’s measured by a bomb calorimeter
2 Likes
And alcohol is 7/gtam
1 Like
I can’t even believe this is up for debate.
Up next, is water really wet? Source please.
1 Like
Is it really wet ?
1 Like
