Be warned: this is long and not an easy read, but GaryT makes some interesting points around stuff we know a bit about in the keto community. If you have time and interest, it’s worth spending 15-20 minutes to consume.
Another interesting article from Gary Taubes plus a NinaT guidelines update
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#2
And NinaT updates us on the 2025 Dietary Guidelines… why am I not surprised by Nina’s update. I hope the whole thing is just scrapped by RFK, and he starts again from scratch…
robintemplin
(Robin)
#3
Thanks. I’m much more apt to read than watch a video. I’ll get to these today.
Shinita
#4
It only let me to read the beginning but it was enough… I quickly tried to find the Hungarian guidelines, only found an older detailed one but it’s sure we aren’t at the plant-based era yet (and no one would care anyway). Our 2001 guideline have a pretty serious animal based food recommendation (it’s not like that in the pyramid/house/plate but there were details with grams), for meat (red meat is fine there, they are into low-fat only), for fish, for dairy… They didn’t like eggs either but allowed some (I ate 14 times as much back then. only 8-10 times as much now, I eat very few eggs nowadays, just 1-2 here and there when totally necessary).
And the supermarkets still don’t keep much super low or non-fat dairy and why would they…? It’s insane. I know people who want low-fat dairy (1.5% milk, 12% sour cream. I wouldn’t touch those myself unless in emergency) but a little is needed for flavor and everything, it’s not dairy without it…
jpmenezes
(Pascal Menezes)
#5
Yes, the article is long but it was Gary Taubes and worth reading it!!
kib1
(KM)
#6
I can read Taubes, Teichholz is unfortunately behind the substack paywall. At this point I’m wondering if there isn’t a rather obvious and depressing connection. The diet information being pushed and promoted to doctors to disseminate to their clients is being intentionally skewed toward plants perhaps not only for reasons of ego, politics and religion, or the nefarious profit goal of keeping everyone sick enough to need and feed “the system”, but because it’s a cheaper and more feasible short-sighted plan for feeding the population something rather than facing global starvation. Of course this means greater population growth, and in the end we are in danger of completely screwing the pooch by over-running our test tube, but when has anyone in a position of public recognition and power ever worried about that.
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#7
Here is a copy of Nina’s piece for those that can’t see it… sorry, all these paywalls are kinda confusing!
Science review methods fall to new lows at USDA
As a new Trump era dawns on America, some of my friends are celebrating while many others are devastated. For the latter, I hope you can find a slim silver lining in the possibility that we might finally see real progress in reversing our epidemics of chronic disease. This kind of revolution would have been near impossible under Harris, since her party has fully embraced the government’s status quo diet. (The historic White House Conference on Hunger, Nutrition & Health in 2022, for instance, did not invite a single expert versed in the established science of reversing type 2 diabetes.) By contrast, the super-fueled “Make America Healthy Again” campaign has catapulted chronic disease into the spotlight, and we can now, for the first time in 40 years, glimpse an opening fortransformational change.
The immediate issue is the U.S. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the single-most influential policy determining what we consider to be a healthy diet. I realize I sound like a broken record on this topic, but there’s a good reason. Given that these guidelines drive all federal food-related programs, from school lunches to military mess halls, and are downloaded as the ‘gold standard’ by nearly all health professionals, we can’t emphasize their importance too often or too strongly. These guidelines are an important reason we’ve failed to meet recruitment targets for the military for several years now, and why childhood disease rates, especially for obesity and pre-diabetes, are now seen at unprecedented rates.
Less meat, less poultry, less eggs
Just weeks ago, we learned from a meeting of the experts reviewing the science, called the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee (DGAC), that they recommended reducing red and processed meats for all Americans.Further, they propose cutting all animal foods–meat, poultry, and eggs–by 3 ½ - 4 ounce-equivalents per week for people eating 2,200 calories and over, as part of a “flexible” dietary pattern.” This new versatility would allow schools to serve less of these foods to children.
A bias against animal foods has been baked into the guidelines for a long time. In 2015, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) introduced a “Vegetarian Dietary Pattern” for all Americans, even though its own systematic reviews found only “limited evidence” that this diet could prevent chronic diseases "(“Limited” is two notches below the “Strong” evidence needed to codify a recommendation).1 In this current cycle, the USDA went further by exploring a vegan option, because it was “supported by the public interest,” according to one committee member.2 This inquiry hit a wall with the predictable finding that shifting from a vegetarian to a vegan diet would cause many nutrient deficiencies, including:
- Protein, vitamins A, D, E, several B vitamins, choline, iron and zinc.
- Calcium and vitamin B12 across all life stages and calorie ranges.
- Several of these nutrients and nutrients of concern for certain life stages, for example protein and vitamin B12 for older adults, and calcium for adolescent girls.
A less biased staff acquainted with the well-known nutritional problems of veganism could have avoided this inquiry altogether. And while reasonable people might conclude that animal foods seem pretty helpful for getting needed nutrients, the staff and committee members continued to refer to these foods as being of “lower nutrient density,” which is part of the agency’s frequent doublespeak (the guidelines also call water “nutrient dense” even though it contains zero nutrients).
More beans, peas, lentils
Following this flawed logic, the committee is pushing ahead with its proposed cuts to animal foods and replacing them instead with beans, peas, and lentils, by ½-1 cup weekly. This advice does not consider that plant-based proteins are not as complete as animal proteins—and therefore, not as digestible to people. Further, plant sources like peas and beans pack a hefty load of carbohydrates and calories for the same amount of protein, making them a far less healthy option.
There’s no doubt that these changes would exacerbate our disease epidemics. In addition to the greater carbohydrate load of more plant proteins, reductions in meat, eggs, and poultry would lead to further shortfalls in fiber, and vitamins D and E, the committee found. (The existing guidelines already fail to meet goals for vitamins D and E, folate, choline, and iron.)3
- For nutrients with an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), less than 10% of simulated diets are inadequate (< EAR) for each nutrient except vitamins D and E
- For nutrients with Adequate Intake (AI), median nutrient content of the distribution of simulated diets is adequate (≥ AI) for alpha linolenic acid, potassium, and vitamin K, but falls short on choline and fiber for select age-sex groups and for linoleic acid for foods consumed in Alaska Native diets
USDA defends refined, processed grains
These shortfalls were deemed acceptable by the DGAC, even though members had earlier in the meeting lamented the problem of the guidelines’
persistent nutrient deficits. For instance, there was serious concern about re-upping the recommendation of three daily servings of refined grains, understanding that these easily digested carbs are clearly bad for health. The rationale for retaining these grains was that only refined
(not whole) grains are enriched and fortified with iron and folate.4 “If we reduced refined grains, there would be nutritional inadequacies,” noted committee Chair Sarah Booth.5 Rather than accepting red meat is a great source of heme iron (the kind people absorb most readily) and a decent source of folate, the DGAC is letting us know that we will continue to see Lucky Charms served to kids K-12.
Food, pharma conflicts are pervasive
Perhaps unsurprisingly, members of the expert committee include Christopher Gardner, a Stanford professorentirely underwritten by the fake-food company Beyond Meat, and Fatima Cody, a Harvard doctor who has taken tens of thousands of dollars from Wegovy and other GLP-1 manufacturers. The latter went on 60 Minutes to emphasize that obesity is a genetic disease.
Pervasive conflicts of interest are nothing new in the guidelines. Ninety-five percent of the committee for the current guidelines had a tie with a food or pharmaceutical company, according to the sole published systematic review of any guidelines committee (for which I was a co-author). These conflicts are not disclosed by the issuing agencies, the USDA and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Science so weak it’s beneath mention
Worse, the justification for reducing poultry, red meat, and eggs was based on data simulations from computer modeling—evidence even weaker than the usual low-quality epidemiological data used to justify the guidelines.
As a refresher, here is the pyramid of evidence used by every internationally recognized methodology for scientific reviews:
Randomized, controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are near the top, with all other forms of evidence falling below. The hypothetical computer modeling used by the USDA does not even appear on the chart for very good reason: it’s considered beneath consideration.
These models lack accuracy. For instance, the USDA simulations make no distinction between a tomato (< 5 grams of carbs per serving) and a sweet potato (27 carbs); Both are part of the “red and yellow vegetables category.”6 The model did not control for portion size and did not include “mixed dishes,” such as lasagna and hamburgers, even though these are a major source of calories for Americans. The model also makes hundreds of questionable assumptions. If one assumes that saturated fats are bad for health, as the USDA does, then the model will downgrade all foods with those fats. The USDA office that conducted the modeling does not appear to provide any information on its methods or assumptions, so the project, which reportedly produced 17,500 simulations, remains a virtual black box.
No less than the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine reviewed the USDA’s overall methodology for reviewing the science and found in a 2017 report that it “lacked scientific rigor” and did not have a “recognizable or verified” process. Congress had mandated and allocated 1 million dollars for this high-level report and another $1 million for a follow-up in 2022. Still, the USDA did not fully adopt even one of the Academies’ 11 recommendations.
Similarly, a 2022 paper in PNAS Nexus that I co-authored with several former DGAC members detailed many problems with the guidelines, including the lack of strong evidence for numerous key recommendations. In a 2015 cover story for the BMJ, I reported that the USDA diets “are supported by a minuscule quantity of rigorous evidence that only marginally supports claims that these diets can promote better health than alternatives.” This year, the USDA-HHS staff responded to our 2022 publication in a paper entitled “Addressing misinformation about the Dietary Guidelines.”
The USDA staff might say that they’re compelled to rely on weak evidence since data from clinical trials are sparse. Still, when the Academy urged a process upgrade, no one could have imagined that the USDA would stoop lower by using evidence of even weaker quality than before.
It’s true that clinical trials of any meaningful duration are expensive to conduct. Still, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other countries have conducted many large, long-term diet trials—so the real story is that the USDA has consistently ignored this rigorous evidence. For instance, I documented in the BMJ piece that the USDA did not incorporate results from any of the major, NIH-funded trials on the low-fat diet, including the Women’s Health Initiative on some 49,000 women. This trial found that a low-fat diet similar to those now promoted by the USDA did not prevent diabetes, obesity, heart disease, or any type of cancer.
I also found that the USDA has ignored all the RCTs on saturated fats, which literature finds no effect of these fats on cardiovascular or total mortality and little-to-no effect on heart disease.
The problem of overlooking clinical trials came up almost comically during Day One of the DGAC’s September meeting, when Gardner realized that his own three clinical trials had been omitted from the 36,000 papers culled by the USDA staff for an analysis on the health effects of replacing meat with vegetables. “I realized that there is no way that my trials would have come up,”7 given the search terms used in the literature review, he marveled, an admission that elicited nervous laughter around the room. If the USDA can’t even find the RCT data, they are clearly missing the most critical research evidence from the get-go.
The USDA systematic reviews also generally fail to prioritize RCTs over epidemiological data, and as we’ve often noted, this is a departure from every known major methodology. It’s a significant reason why the Academies said that the USDA approach “lacks scientific rigor.”
The USDA also, once again, failed to consider clinical trials on low-carbohydrate diets, although there are now morethan 1,000 papers researching this approach. Suppressing the data on low-carb diets has been going on at the USDA for at least a decade, as I discovered through emails obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. “I was wondering if we should have a separate section on low-carb diets rather than burying it,” Frank Hu, a Harvard professor on the 2015 DGAC, wrote to his fellow committee members and USDA colleagues.
One has to wonder what the rationale would be for burying evidence, but committee members throughout the years have consistently avowed that the high-carbohydrate guideline is a “healthy diet.” If this is your a priori assumption, fundamental questioning is not on the table.
The current DGAC did not ignore low-carbohydrate diets. Yet rather than consult those 1,000 papers on RCTS—actual experiments on real people—the committee instead simulated the diet using the USDA’s computer models. They discovered that when carbohydrates were removed (comprising some 52-54% of the USDA’s recommended calories per day), nutrient adequacy plummeted. But the models didn’t replace those 50+% of calories with any other foods. So, of course, nutrients take a nose dive when caloric intake is halved!
Let’s remember what the guidelines recommend as a healthy diet:
Further, the guidelines allow half of all fruit servings to be consumed as fruit juice, even though juice can impact blood sugar levels as much as sugar-sweetened beverages.
I wrote a whole book on how the Dietary Guidelines came into being and how they grew so entrenched. Resistance to change is endemic in every expert committee.
Further highlights from the September meetings include:
- People who questioned the healthfulness of seed oils were called “conspiracists”;
- Dierdre Tobias, a DGAC member, said, “Butter is not back”;
- Although DGAC members repeatedly talked about their focus on health equity and cultural diversity, many systematic reviews contained only data on middle-class white people.
I have to admit that I’ve been put off watching these meetings. I find them agonizing. The tone in the room is one of treacly, cheerleader congratulations. “A great discussion!” and “Great job!” were often exclaimed, and Booth, the Chair, was perpetually upbeat, despite the grim reality that the guidelines have presided over this scenario.
No one seemed to have any notion that basing population-wide dietary guidance on dubious computer models falls beneath any standard worldwide for clinical guidelines. No health professional association would issue broad advice based on this basement-level quality of evidence. The guidelines process is hard to fathom.
But to return to my post-election optimism, I hope the new administration’s commitment to reversing chronic diseases and using evidence-based science motivates them to turn this situation around. It’s not an understatement to say that the health of our nation depends on it.
Source material:
Meeting #6 of the DGAC, September 24-25: Day 1 of meeting, Day 2 of meeting
Meeting #7 of the DGAC: Presentation of the Final Report by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, Oct 21-22: Day 1 of meeting, Day 2 of meeting<
1 “Limited” evidence for preventing heart disease; “Limited” evidence for preventing type 2 diabetes. The evidence on obesity is not reported, at least in the top-line summary.
2 DGAC meeting, Sept., day 1, hour one.
3 The use of “median nutrient content” implies half the people fell below this level and likely also had deficiencies in potassium and choline.
4 DGAC meeting, Sept., day 2, hour ~1:4
5 DGAC meeting, Sept., day 2, ~hour 1:39
6 DGAC meeting, Sept., day 1, hour one.
7 DGAC meeting, September 25th, minute 4:26
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#8
Plus an op-ed NinaT did recently on the guidelines… I don’t think there’s a paywall… just lots of ads!
Shinita
#9
Whoa, that’s almost nothing! 1/2 cup is 100g, google says (surely it’s some range but good enough for me), 7.5g protein a day is that helpful for people? (And how can anyone eat that little who actually eat legumes…? :D)
What they advice for protein? Gluten? Huge amounts of everything plant? Are they aware we need more than the tiny absolute minimal amount for survival?
Even the low-fat dairy couldn’t help enough. I couldn’t eat it and I can’t be alone. Do people actually like dairy without the tasty fat?
Even with low-fat, the recommended carbs so overpower the protein that they must think people need only the minimum amount for bare survival…? But many of us would be so hungry on a low protein diet that not eating more would be totally unrealistic anyway…
(I didn’t calculate it but I see too carb heavy items, often with very little protein.)
Okay, it should be clear for most people they don’t have much idea about what they talk, at least.
Oh my as I keep reading it just gets worse… Waste of time and I feel sorry for people especially kids who are too young to figure out something must be wrong… And it’s probably won’t be easy even later if they are raised on these horrid items and even so-called experts speak BS.
Kids really eat marshmallow things as BREAKFAST? And it’s allowed in schools? Wow. Humans are really smart in the 21th century when it comes the nutrition that is important for HEALTH. All-important human health, if we don’t figure out that, we are hopeless.
Even just some normal, sane people knowing other people and using common sense wouldn’t make such recommendations or I would think… When I knew nothing about nutrition, I still knew some basics I needed. And didn’t think something is so very bad we should avoid it as much as possible when people ate it in bigger amounts since ages and were okay.
Why I read such things. Now I am mildly upset and it’s 2am.
kib1
(KM)
#10
Oh my sweet lord, seriously? Maybe they assumed all that nutrient dense water would make up the difference. @#&@. Idiocracy, not a primer, folks.
I’m not kidding, who the hell Are these people? I mean really, who let them out, and do their caretakers know they’re missing? I wouldn’t let them feed my gerbil. 
kib1
(KM)
#11
Thank you. Whenever I go to your substack links it just offers to let me follow You. Which feels a little stalker-y and still doesn’t actually let me read what you read.
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#12
This is how we know the current guidelines are bought and paid for. Those recommendations are just ridiculous (and they result in the current epidemics of T2D, obesity, heart disease and cancer).
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#13
This is clearly indicative of people who are looking for a particular result. They are not unbiased, they are totally biassed, which is why they should be nowhere near a committee of this type. But they are not the problem. The problem is the people who picked them: they are the ones who have the power and are being utterly clueless, or worse (which is what I believe) have been bought off. RFK has got a big job on his hands…
kib1
(KM)
#14
I beg to differ. There’s a difference between someone with an a priori assumption that clouds their logic, and overlooking a straight up logic error so huge a smart golden retriever could spot it. Either gross incompetence or gross arrogance to the point of sociopathy.
Not to say the appointers aren’t just as much of a problem as the appointed, of course.
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#15
My point is: to fix the problem, just getting rid of the current committee will not fix the problem. The root cause of the issue is the people who picked the committee members. Until they are changed, all we get is the same biases in the next lot of [vegan] committee members. To solve the problem you have to change the pickers.
Alecmcq
(Alec)
#17
I wouldn’t describe any of them as “scientists”. But the other description: absolutely! These people are responsible for the premature deaths of many 100s of millions of people. That is truly evil.
Pjam
(Peter - Don't Fear the Fat )
#18
Are they struggling to maintain their own protein recommendations? pulses, pulses, pulses, it’s about all they’ve got once they’ve despensed with meat, eggs etc.
Shinita
#19
Protein is one thing but one needs enough lysine to be able to use it… I don’t know other realistic options than legumes if animal food is out (not like I know so much but I googled a bit several times). Lots of legumes. Too carby for me (and have some other problems with the low-carb options), hard to digest for others but may work for some others. Most people have better options. It’s really evil to try to force them into some weird, ineffective diet. Or very ignorant but IDK how one can miss that people have different needs and high-carb just isn’t so great for many of us.
kib1
(KM)
#20
It seems the people making these recommendations have a lot of vested interests and pressures. “It should be a plant-based diet”. “It should allow / focus on the processed foods made from the crops we are already over subsidizing and producing in great quantity.” I’m actually surprised they are recommending all pulses, rather than steering the conversation towards soybeans and other soy products. We’ll see if that comes next, I guess. It may simply be a no-brainer for the people implementing the dietary rules, as soy is much cheaper.