karppaus.info

Nutrients that do not meet RDA or AI goals include the following. Iron: The patterns provide less than 90 percent of the RDA for females ages 4-8 years, 19-30 years, 31-50 years, and less than 75 percent for women who are pregnant. Vitamin D: For children younger than 8 years of age, the patterns achieve less than 40 percent of the RDA for vitamin D and approximately 50 percent the RDA for the rest of the population. Vitamin E: The patterns generally provide less than 80 percent of the RDA for Vitamin E, except for children younger than 8 years, where 85 to 98 percent of the RDA is achieved. Choline: The patterns generally provide less than 85 percent of the AI for choline, with higher-calorie patterns achieving between 65 and 74 percent of the AI for men.

• The Dietary Patterns Subcommittee, by imposing new exclusion criteria, effectively excluded at least 52 clinical trials on low-carbohydrate diets, as documented by an advocacy group.

• The Dietary Patterns Subcommittee has decided to exclude “all studies on weight loss.”

Corporate Accountability notes the undue influence of industry on the guidelines. One of its recent reports documents ties of DGAC members to ILSI, an industry front group.

Now they are contradicting themselves and using 7-8% of calories as sat fat. So they've snuck it down lower. And this will be what's used for children in schools, the elderly and other disadvantaged, captive populations--who will be further disadvantaged.

STRIP study was a RCT for only a few years. follow up was epidemiological and thus not the same kind of data (FYI Linda Van Horn). And who's to say that CVD prevention is more importance than complete nutrition in childhood to assure proper health and growth?

Oh, hey folks. We're back to cholesterol caps! "Because humans have no need for dietary cholesterol," even though cholesterol is essential for every single cell in the body and esp. important for hormones.

Going backwards... Who is responsible here? The dark ages.

Recommend continuing 10% cap on sat fats for adults and children. No consideration of other members of the committee saying how it is impossible to meet nutrient targets without more animal foods--but these foods are limited by sat fats. Is no one talking to each other?

The sat fat group also re-examined effect of dietary cholesterol, even though this was not among their assigned Qs. Committee says "more research is needed" As if cholesterol has not been an obsessive study of subject, with billions in NIH $ spent on this subject, since 1950s. sat fat group also re-examined effect of dietary cholesterol, even though this was not among their assigned Qs. Committee says "more research is needed" As if cholesterol has not been an obsessive study of subject, with billions in NIH $ spent on this subject, since 1950s.

The saturated fat group probably needs a label: sponsored by Unilever, Bunge, ADM Monsanto and other vegetable-oil ingredient manufacturers... How else could you suggest highly industrialized seed oils over natural fats?

Conclusions on children: "strong" evidence that children should reduce sat fat AND cholesterol (even tho no finding on cholesterol for adults), based on 2 trials--one on infants in Finland and another on children with abnormally high cholesterol, so not generalizable populations

DietaryGuidelines reviews of dietary fats being presented now. Ironic that the findings against sat fats are being announced just as a new @JACCJournals article by prominent scientists finding caps on sat fats not warranted:

https://www.onlinejacc.org/content/earl ... 020.05.077

Lesson to DGA Committee: Bradford-Hill criterion #1 is magnitude of effect. Magnitude in all the epidemiological studies is <2 RR. Very small. Other criteria hardly matter by comparison, esp. when data from self-reported dietary data is so fundamentally unreliable.

"how do we harmonize" these categories? If some studies define that as fish/poultry and others study lean red meat. Now wo late in the process to be thinking this through. If Committee had a methodology at the start, would not be asking this at the end....

Now revealing that they have not distinguished between "lean meat" and "lean red meat." Oh well, just another sloppy problem...... In non-science land, anything goes!

"This would be excellent to examine" says a committee member re: definitional problems w/ meat, noting that there are other 'definitional problems' with other foods. Hey folks, this is the draft report. Not really the moment to figure out how you're grouping chicken, poultry, etc

Someone else says there are 3 categories of grains and probably better to differentiate between them. "And dairy could have better definitions..." At end of 18 mo. these are Qs that should have been raised at the start of the reviews.

dietaryguidelines committee giving an litany of reasons why low-carb studies virtually all excluded: They didn't provide % for all macronutrients, they were too low in carbs, not consistent enough, not diff. enough from comparator diet etc. Result...

They couldn't find LC studies to show ANY benefit for ANY health outcome. Thereby ignoring virtually 100 trials. A weaker type of evidence showed "associations" w/ better health for status-quo USDA diets, even though this evidence was deemed "moderate/limited" for most conditions

Ignoring rigorous evidence for weaker, associational evidence. This is not science. And Committee could only manage this bc they followed no recognizable methodology. A black box, no explanation of how studies were graded. Not reproducible. In sum, not science.

Well, @bigfatsurprise too elegant to say so, but what an utter shit-show DGAC is.

What have they been doing for past year except rubber-stamping status quo??? (And spending tax $ doing so). Most of them are doctors...what happened to oath of “first, do no harm”?

Conclusions on children: "strong" evidence that children should reduce sat fat AND cholesterol (even tho no finding on cholesterol for adults), based on 2 trials--one on infants in Finland and another on children with abnormally high cholesterol, so not generalizable populations

No mutta ONHAN sille perusteita, ja tulee jatkossakin olemaan. Raha. Muuta ei todellakaan tarvita : )

Reagan Bailey, talking about the need to maintain "energy balance" and need for behavioral support to "better follow the Dietary Guidelines," is a trustee of ILSI, an industry group with members like Mars, PepsiCo, Cargill, Kellogg's etc.