Search results: "dietary guidelines"

I’ve saved this for Weekend Reading because it will take a weekend to get through it.  The report is a blockbuster: 37 authors, 47 pages, 357 references.

The Lancet commissioned this report from the EAT Forum, which brought together international experts on diet and health (most of whom I do not know) to define unifying dietary principles that best promote will promote the health of people and the planet.

Fortunately, the diet that is best for health is the same diet as is best for the planet.  The report defines it on page 5.

To summarize:

This report has many strengths:

• It is researched in depth and is now the reference source for information about needed dietary changes.
• It firmly links dietary health to environmental sustainability.
• Its findings are consistent with many previous reports on diet and health, including that of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee DGAC).
• Its messages are unambiguous.
• The summary report is a big help
• The timing  is excellent; the 2020 Dietary Guidelines advisory committee, if it ever gets appointed, will have to pay close attention to the science reviewed in this report.
• It focuses on food, not nutrients (these meals meet the standards of recommended diets).

Does this report settle the questions?  Hardly.  Remember the fuss over sustainability (the “S-word?”) in the 2015 report of the DGAC?

• The meat industry does not like advice to eat less meat.
• The dairy industry doesn’t like it either.  Its trade associations emphasize its nutritional value and source of livelihood for a billion people.
• The food industry has lots of complaints.

There is lots to read and think about here.  Enjoy!

• The Lancet home page for the report (includes slides, links)
• The Lancet editorial accompanying the report
• The EAT Forum home page for the report (information about EAT, the launch, the commission members, etc)
• The EAT Forum summary report

Here’s Canada’s new food guide:

Doesn’t this look a lot like the USDA’s MyPlate?

Actually, the Canadian guide is better.  Even though it retains the annoying “Protein” section (we don’t eat protein; we eat foods containing protein and lots of other nutrients), it drops the dairy requirement.  Even better, it comes with mostly useful suggestions: [my comments]:

• Be mindful of your eating habits
• Cook more often
• Enjoy your food [Yes!]
• Eat meals with others
• Use food labels
• Limit foods high in sodium, sugars or saturated fat [alas, the usual switch from foods to nutrients when talking about eating less]
• Be aware of food marketing [yes, but lots more on this please]

I can see why this has been greeted with some enthusiasm and less criticism than usual:

• Globe and Mail: “good upgrade, skirts around inequality”
• Yoni Freedhoff’s Weighty Matters: “a giant step forward”and on why the food guide is important even if nobody looks at it
• Bill Jeffrey’s Food for Life Report: still fuzzy about amounts and reflects industry lobbying
• Along with 2 minutes of satire (from the program 22 Minutes)

The documents

• Canada’s new food guide
• Canada’s food guide snapshot
• Revision process
• Canada’s Dietary Guidelines
• History of Canada’s food guide
• Healthy eating recommendations
• Evidence behind Canada’s food guide

I was surprised to read a recent paper in the American Heart Association journal arguing that dietary diversity may not be good for health:

“Eat a variety of foods,” or dietary diversity, is a widely
accepted recommendation to promote a healthy, nutritionally adequate
diet and to reduce the risk of major chronic diseases. However, recent
evidence from observational studies suggests that greater dietary diversity is associated with suboptimal eating patterns, that is, higher intakes of processed foods, refined grains, and sugar-sweetened beverages and lower intakes of minimally processed foods, such as fish, fruits, and vegetables, and may be associated with weight gain and obesity in adult populations.

Obviously, eating a variety of junk food is unlikely to improve health.  But the variety recommendation has never been intended to include junk food.

Here’s a summary of the variety recommendations of the Dietary Guidelines from 1980 to 2015:

These have increasingly specified healthy foods.

Eat your veggies!  Enjoy!

In response to my post last week about a new report on the effects of meat production on climate change and the need to eat less meat, Ridge Shinn, a producer of 100% grass-fed beef reminded me that meat has a place in the diet and raising cattle does not have to harm the planet.

The whole point of cattle raising is to graze the animals on land that cannot be used to produce food for people and let them turn grass into edible meat.  Raising cattle on grass, sustainably, regenerates the land and reduces carbon emissions.

Shinn summarizes the evidence in comments that he and other sustainable livestock farmers submitted to the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee.

As ranchers and farmers who produce 100% grass-fed beef, we submit that the research on our product is already in. We are already employing techniques that soil scientists have validated since the 1990s. We know that corn is bad for cattle and that corn-fed meat is unhealthy for humans. Therefore we raise our beef on grass and pasture alone. We are managing our pastures and our herds to foster the soil microbes that science has shown to be critical to producing healthy meat, sequestering carbon, restoring soil fertility, and retaining water.

He also sent other useful resources on this issue.

A 2016 scientific paper by WR Teague et al in the Journal of Soil and Water Conservation on the role of ruminant animals in reducing carbon footprints.

Incorporating forages and ruminants into regeneratively managed agroecosystems can elevate soil organic C, improve soil ecological function by minimizing the damage of tillage and inorganic fertilizers and biocides, and enhance biodiversity and wildlife habitat. We conclude that to ensure longterm sustainability and ecological resilience of agroecosystems, agricultural production should be guided by policies and regenerative management protocols that include ruminant grazing.

A 2010 essay by Tara Kelly in Time Magazine based on a book review.

in his new book, Meat: A Benign Extravagance, Simon Fairlie, a British farmer and former editor of the Ecologist magazine, tears apart the theory that being carnivorous is bad for the planet — and says that eating moderate amounts of meat could be greener than going vegan.

A 2010 article by the journalist Lisa Abend, also in Time Magazine.

Environmentalists have been giving cows a bad rap in recent years. Between what bovines eat and what they excrete, cattle production emits a lot of greenhouse gas. But if fed solely grass, cows could play a key role in reversing climate change.

I think the arguments are compelling.  Animals have a place in human diets when they are raised sustainably and as humanely as possible.

Raising animals this way means fewer of them.  We still have to eat less meat—and eat meat of better environmental quality.

We could do this….

In a most unusual action, the New England Journal of Medicine has retracted a 2013 study of Mediterranean diets and published a new version of it at the same time.

The studies asked participants to consume one of three diets: (1) a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil, (2) a Mediterranean diet supplemented with mixed nuts, and (3) a control diet with advice to reduce dietary fat.

The authors describe Mediterranean diets as containing a

high intake of olive oil, fruit, nuts, vegetables, and cereals; a moderate intake of fish and poultry; a low intake of dairy products, red meat, processed meats, and sweets; and wine in moderation, consumed with meals.

The conclusion of the original, widely publicized, but now retracted study:

In this study involving persons at high cardiovascular risk, the incidence of major cardiovascular events was lower among those assigned to a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts than among those assigned to a reduced-fat diet.

The conclusion of the newly analyzed version:

In this study involving persons at high cardiovascular risk, the incidence of major cardiovascular events was lower among those assigned to a Mediterranean diet supplemented with extra-virgin olive oil or nuts than among those assigned to a reduced-fat diet.

Looks the same, no?

The most thorough analysis of the study that I have seen comes from Hilda Bastian at PLoS Blogs.

Even for the full group, there was no statistically significant difference on myocardial infarction or CVD mortality – just for stroke. And in the supplementary information, there wasn’t a difference in the Kaplan Meier analysis for stroke either.

What are we to make of all this?

Diet trials are notoriously difficult to conduct and interpret and the Mediterranean diet—largely vegetarian with olive oil as the principal fat—was associated with great health and longevity based on studies of people who lived on the island of Crete immediately after the Second World War; they did not have much food to eat and were highly physically active.

And then there’s the matter of who paid for the study.  The retracted study and its revision were funded independently.  But a study published on June 13 concludes:

Adults who are overweight or moderately obese may improve multiple cardiometabolic disease risk factors by adopting a Mediterranean-style eating pattern with or without reductions in red meat intake when red meats are lean and unprocessed.

The funder?  The Beef Checkoff and the National Pork Board.

Overall, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommends Mediterranean dietary patterns for their health benefits, defines what goes into them in Table 1.2 (p. 35), and provides more details in Appendix 4 (starting on p. 83).

Mediterranean diets are delicious.  While the scientists are arguing about exactly how healthy they might be, enjoy!

You have to have some sympathy for egg producers.  Egg consumption has been declining for years.

Egg producers blame the decline on cholesterol concerns; eggs are by far the largest dietary source of cholesterol.

Now Pete and Gerry’s Organic Eggs is petitioning the FDA to forget about cholesterol and update its definition of “healthy” so the company can advertise its eggs as “healthy.”

FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb said in a speech last month that the FDA would be updating the definition.

I, of course, think “healthy” is a slippery slope best avoided, and that Congress never should have allowed health claims on foods in the first place.,

But too late for that.

I don’t envy the FDA’s challenge here.  The petition is based on the dietary guidelines, but what the guidelines say about dietary cholesterol, and therefore eggs, is extremely confusing.

As I explained in a previous post, the guidelines no longer recommend a cap on dietary cholesterol of 300 mg/day (the equivalent of 1.5 eggs), but do say that people should eat as little cholesterol as possible.

Good luck on this one.

The World Health Organization (WHO) is collecting comments until June 4 on its recent “consultation” (committee report) on saturated fat and trans fat.

The consultation recommends:

• Saturated fat: no more than 10% of calories
• Trans fat: no more than 1% of calories

These recommendations are consistent with

• WHO advice from 2002
• The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans
• Other dietary recommendations dating back decades

I wish that dietary recommendations would refer to foods, not nutrients.

We don’t eat specific fatty acids.  We eat foods containing mixtures of saturated, unsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids; some foods have more than one kind than another.

Trans fats appear in highly processed foods.  Therefore, they are a euphemism for snack and other foods containing them.

As for saturated fats: the Dietary Guidelines give their main sources:

The guidelines use two layers of euphemisms.

• Saturated fat is a euphemism for meat and dairy foods; these have higher proportions of saturated fatty acids.
• “Mixed dishes” and “protein foods” are also euphemisms for meat and dairy foods.

But saying so is politically impossible.

Do comment on the WHO guidelines.  It may help clarify the recommendations.

I will never understand the push to increase dairy consumption in China.

Many if not most Asian adults lack the enzyme that digests the lactose in milk.  Undigested lactose tends to pass unscathed to the large intestine where bacteria ferment it, producing gas and diarrhea.

So why dairy products?

More protein to promote growth, is what they say.

An article in DairyReporter quotes Mintel research as saying the Chinese are eating more cheese, yogurt, and added protein.

The rising demand for dairy in China, growing at 6% to 7% rate annually, is teetering on outpacing volume growth of the category (increasing by 3% to 4% every year) as the country shows great interest in dairy products, according to Mintel.

The Chinese Nutrition Society issued updated dietary guidelines for Chinese consumers in 2016, recommending that each adult should consume 300 grams (10.6 ounces) of dairy products per day – current consumption is 100 grams (3.5 ounces).

The dairy industry is thrilled:

There is still opportunity for growth of dairy consumption in China, especially from lower tier markets, as a result of consumers’ growing awareness of nutrition intake, increasing household income levels, and the accelerated urbanization process.

Exporters of dairy products to China are particularly thrilled:

Imported dairy products are still in high demand due to the some food safety concerns surrounding China’s domestic dairy products leading to a consumer perception that international dairy products are of higher quality.

Environmentalists are not so thrilled.

One consequence: the replacement of sheep by cows in New Zealand, which now has heavily polluted waterways.

Another: China’s dairy farms are huge, with herds of 50,000 to 100,000 cows.  Just think of what their waste does to the environment.