rubicon
11-29-2015, 01:04 PM
"The US Dietary Guidelines were first released by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Health and Services in 1980. Edward Ahrens nutritional expert on fat and cholesterol metabolism called the guidelines "a national experiment with the American public as subject treating them like a homogeneous group of Sprague-Dawley rats."
The original goals were to:
1) increase American carbohydrate consumption to 55-60% caloric intake
2) reduce fat consumption to less than 30% from 40% of caloric intake
3) reduce saturated fat to 10% of calories and increase poly and monounsaturated fats to 10% of calories
4) reduce cholesterol intake to less than 300 milligrams a day
5) reduce sugar intake by 40%
6) reduce salt consumption by 50-80%
These six goals could not have been more misdirected. Reducing fat and increasing carbohydrates only led to more weight gain.
In February 2015 the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee declared that eggs and certain fats are no longer the enemy and that cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for over consumption.
Promoting polyunsaturated fats as a safer alternative to saturated fats exposed the population to transfats which are more harmful to the heart
The dietary restriction on sodium have also shown no justification
The World Health Organization recently warned against eating processed and red meats, a finding based principally on observational studies as opposed to properly controlled clinical studies and with the fact that one third of the committee did not agree with the report's findings.
A reasonable argument can be made that the only perspective of the original guidelines that proved correct was that they represented, as Ahrens stated " a nutritional experiment" on the American public. By any reasonable standard of science that experiment failed. "
David A. McCarron , University California-Davis, Department of Nutrition
and Chairman-elect American Society for Nutrition's Medical/Nutrition Council . (WSJ 11-28-29-15)
I personally believe that many consumers are easy swayed because it is human nature for self preservation. And so if a so called expert tells you something is bad for you because of its natural properties or additives many will respond in the affirmative for fear of harming themselves. Its also in my view subjective when people speak of free range grain fed, etc.
Farmers and ranchers have been involved in genetics for a very very long time. The world population is exploding and we need to rely on new technologies to meet those demands.
Those experts peddling confusion do so for political or monetary gain or both.
WHO recent proposal had been tied to their climate change agenda .
Many nations in the United Nations promote this agenda to thwart capitalism
Bon Appetit
The original goals were to:
1) increase American carbohydrate consumption to 55-60% caloric intake
2) reduce fat consumption to less than 30% from 40% of caloric intake
3) reduce saturated fat to 10% of calories and increase poly and monounsaturated fats to 10% of calories
4) reduce cholesterol intake to less than 300 milligrams a day
5) reduce sugar intake by 40%
6) reduce salt consumption by 50-80%
These six goals could not have been more misdirected. Reducing fat and increasing carbohydrates only led to more weight gain.
In February 2015 the Dietary Guideline Advisory Committee declared that eggs and certain fats are no longer the enemy and that cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for over consumption.
Promoting polyunsaturated fats as a safer alternative to saturated fats exposed the population to transfats which are more harmful to the heart
The dietary restriction on sodium have also shown no justification
The World Health Organization recently warned against eating processed and red meats, a finding based principally on observational studies as opposed to properly controlled clinical studies and with the fact that one third of the committee did not agree with the report's findings.
A reasonable argument can be made that the only perspective of the original guidelines that proved correct was that they represented, as Ahrens stated " a nutritional experiment" on the American public. By any reasonable standard of science that experiment failed. "
David A. McCarron , University California-Davis, Department of Nutrition
and Chairman-elect American Society for Nutrition's Medical/Nutrition Council . (WSJ 11-28-29-15)
I personally believe that many consumers are easy swayed because it is human nature for self preservation. And so if a so called expert tells you something is bad for you because of its natural properties or additives many will respond in the affirmative for fear of harming themselves. Its also in my view subjective when people speak of free range grain fed, etc.
Farmers and ranchers have been involved in genetics for a very very long time. The world population is exploding and we need to rely on new technologies to meet those demands.
Those experts peddling confusion do so for political or monetary gain or both.
WHO recent proposal had been tied to their climate change agenda .
Many nations in the United Nations promote this agenda to thwart capitalism
Bon Appetit