Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee

(Troy) #1

Report in the link
Lots of pages!:face_with_monocle:

https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-report

As a reminder, USDA and HHS will consider the Advisory Committee’s Scientific Report, along with public and agency comments, as the Departments develop the 2020-2025 Dietary Guidelines for Americans

The United States Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services thank the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee for its independent scientific review on nutrition and health and for submitting the Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee to the Secretaries of USDA and HHS. The public is encouraged to submit comments to the Departments on the Scientific Report.

The first print of the Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee is being provided to the public online. Use the links below to download the Scientific Report, in full or in part by section or chapter. The report will be formatted for publication and available in hard copy later this year. Online-only supplementary materials for data analysis, food pattern modeling, and NESR systematic reviews are also provided at the bottom of the page.

(charlie3) #2

I’ve just started reading (800+ pages plus appendices)). So far it appears to me they’re not budging from the balanced diet concept that assumes most of the population is “normal” so they should be able to eat the same. They also keep the idea that there are good carbs and bad carbs even though they all enter the blood stream as sugar. There isn’t good and bad sugar, only sugar.

The report I would like to read would be an encyclopedia of diet trends, nutrition research, the current schools of thought, and loaded with links for further learning. The commission should recommend that we all need to learn then make informed choices that government cannot make for us. The conversation about food should be in the population, not the government.

(Bob M) #3

Marion Nestle’s review:

Considering they ignored basically all the newer studies on saturated fat, I have no words for this:

image
image.png778×174 4.72 KB

(Bunny) #4

What the scientist sees?

Sugar from Whole Foods have fiber so gut microbiome is going to absorb most of it and then you have refined sugars which most people eat too much of?

However sugar is not the real problem and your body makes it anyway?

Metabolic problems come from insulin issues; too much (chronically elevated) or not enough, not because of glucose, even if you eat just protein It still enters the blood stream as glucose and glucose does not always engage insulin so your going to burn up all your amino acids including muscle fibers when your just eating lean protein and too little fat or carbohydrates. Just protein all by itself (amino acids) engages insulin, no glucose required? Which is a good thing?

So what is the real problem? Eating too much when sedentary and not enough carbs and fat when trying to build muscle density made the problem worse by eating at a starvation deficit to hold onto body fat and gain no muscle. You can be a fat storing and non-protein sparing fat oxidizing life form or a glucose oxidizing and glycogen storing life form?

I can see why dietary guidelines never change because fat and protein eating carbohydrate restrictors can’t get their science straight?

(Bob M) #5

It’s based on religion, not science. There are multiple people on the board who are vegans or vegan wannabees.

And they did not use the GRADE system, and instead just used whatever studies they needed to “prove” what they wanted to prove.

Same old, same old.

(Bunny) #6

I can understand that to (‘save the animals’ etc.) however they have the science on their side whether we like it or not!

When you are to head strong and biased when one has one up over on the saddle over you, you will never win?

You may win the battle but you won’t win the war!

#7

They don’t have the biochemistry(real science) on their side. Just frankenscience.

Time will tell.

(charlie3) #8

I find strict keto, 20 grams total carbs, too restrictive because of diet fatigue. I do better at 40 net carbs. Nearly all of those come from my daily non starchy vegetable salad. I usually have about 6 days a month eating only animal products which pulls the monthly net carbs to 30 grams. That results in a fasting blood sugar in the mid 80’s and A1C at 5.3. My problem with talking about insulin is I don’t know of a practical way to measure it’s behavior over time. (I’m also not interested in measuring ketones, seems to be an ambiguous signal). I’m more afraid of high blood sugar than elevated cholosteral, and mine sure is elevated. I’m one of the hyper responders and it started with exercise and the low carb diet change.

I’m going to use text to speech to listen to as much of the report as I can bear. (I use an Android app for listening called @voice. Recommended)

(Bunny) #9

This video by Mike Mutzel really brings the 5 different subgroups of diabetes to the forefront:

High Insulin Not the Only Path to Blood Sugar Issues: 5 Diabetes Subgroups

image
F4F48888-857E-4B1E-8348-AC7691ADBEE8.jpeg1086×624 494 KB

See also: Science of Berberine - Rhonda Patrick